Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Catnip the Elder (talk | contribs) at 03:31, 24 November 2015 (→Spam: Maybe template:nobots should have that cat added). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

2015 Arbitration Committee Elections

Shortcuts

Status

  • The December 2015 Arbitration Committee Election results have been posted.
  • Please offer your feedback on the election process.


Unnecessary times confusing

The use of superfluous / ambiguous 0:00 makes the times confusing (e.g. Sunday 00:00, 8 November 2015.) Just do it like did last year: has registered an account before 28 October 2014, Sunday 00:01, 9 November NE Ent 10:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And above I see "10:59am" specified—a departure from midnight (why?), and who knows what timezone it is ... Mongolian central? The expressions of time were got right years ago, but the current organisers don't seem to know how to make it simple and unambiguous. Tony (talk) 02:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I've mentioned on my talk page, the departure from last year was to provide an exact cut off time. The reason you are seeing "10:59am" is likely due to your account preferences. The default time displays in UTC. Mike V • Talk 02:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A day starts at midnight and ends at midnight. That's sufficiently exact. NE Ent 02:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not, and is very likely to cause confusion. Tony (talk) 11:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Questions for candidates

Are there any guidelines for posing questions to candidates? One editor is asking for candidates to disclose a lot of personal information about themselves. Of course, the candidate can refuse to answer but it seems like this kind of questioning is invasive, especially since it asks candidates to disclose disabilities they have. Liz Read! Talk! 22:40, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, these sorts of questions seem inappropriate to me, although I don't know if they are specifically restricted..--Pharos (talk) 22:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consensus during the RfC to allow commissioners to remove questions. Also pinging @GrammarFascist: Brustopher (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to see if there is an official response, I'll ping the election commissioners: Mdann52, Mike V and Guy Macon. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it turns out to be considered inappropriate, I apologize in advance if answering it quickly as I did gave it an air of legitimacy or reasonableness. I only gave it an answer because these are things I had already disclosed, but I understand not everybody holds a similar open-book policy and I might've similarly objected to the question if I hadn't already divulged all that it asked about. I don't want the fact that I've answered it to be construed as an implicit endorsement of its suitability. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:38, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, there hasn't been any discussion about the type of questions that are or aren't permitted. If a candidate doesn't wish to answer a question, they have no obligation to do so. Should the candidate decline to answer all or part of this question, the community should be respectful of that decision. Speaking with my election commissioner hat off, I don't think this question will provide much insight, especially since there is no permitted way to verify the answer a candidate may provide. Mike V • Talk 03:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well yes, there should be guidelines for questions, since humungous bloat has been a persistent trend. It's a major burden on candidates, and ends up being ignored by almost all voters. Questions on policy matters that don't involve ArbCom's judicial role, its process, or its consitution, require special justification, in my view. It's not gov-com. Tony (talk) 02:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have raised a particular objection on their talkpage. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the Electoral Commission mandate:

"The mandate of the Electoral Commission is to deal with any unforeseen problems that may arise in the 2015 Arbitration Committee election process, and to adjudicate any disputes during the election. However, members of the Election Commission should intervene only when there is a problem that needs resolving, and either discussion is not working, the rules are unclear, or there isn't time for a lengthy discussion.
In addition, while the Electoral Commission is not responsible for logistics of the election, the Commissioners should also help ensure that preparations for the election—such as setting up the relevant pages, posting notices of the election in the appropriate places, and asking the Office to configure the SecurePoll voting interface—move forward in a timely fashion." --Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission

As I see it, there are two things that we three commissioners (why do I keep thinking of the Batman TV show every time I use that word?) should be doing:

[A] non-controversial clerk-type tasks. A good example of this would be removing a candidate who filed but didn't realize that he does not meet the qualifications. These tasks can be done by any single commissioner (nanananananana...) because if it really is non-controversial, nobody will oppose it.

[B] Dealing with unforeseen problems and adjudicating disputes. If someone call on us to do this we should discuss it amongst ourselves, take a vote and issue a 2:1 or 3:0 ruling. It is my hope that we complete the election without ever having occasion to do this.

Drawing up guidelines for posing questions to candidates does not fit [A] above. It could fit [B] if there was a good-faith dispute about whether to have such guidelines, but in this case Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015#Get rid of the default questions? and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015#Question/answer limits appears to have answered this question. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The very idea to sanitize the set of the questions asked to the candidates during this "Answer to Questions" exercise seems weird. We are not recruiting cyclists to deliver pizzas. We are recruiting the team whose job will be to sanitize the workplace. OUR workplace. The way a candidate answers the questions, especially answers the problematic questions, is a great indication of how she will behave if elected. Not understanding how to behave in face of the GrammarFacist's questions is problematic. In the same vein, not understanding what happens when someone comes to rehash her last case is problematic. For the old crocodiles, this is a non sequitur. For the newbies, let us see their learning curve: will they strike out their initial answer, and tell us what they learned ? Pldx1 (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ACE question

Would it be possible for someone to amend template:ACE Question such that multi-paragraph and bullet-point answers do not break the formatting. If not, would someone please tweak things so that it works on my question page (I'll likely be able to copy the syntax for the future but don't have time to figure it out for myself). Thanks, Thryduulf (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thryduulf, you may have to manually bullet them using <br> and • symbols, such as:
  2. This is a first question
    Here is a line
    •Here is a bulleted entry
    •Here is another bulleted entry.
It may not be pretty, but here. --kelapstick(bainuu) 00:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can also use embedded HTML tags like this:
  1. This is a second question
    This is the answer:
    • First line
    • Second line
Kirill Lokshin (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Show off :) --kelapstick(bainuu) 01:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I have added first in the User:kelapstick's message and second to the Kirill Lokshin's message, with the hope that both users will accept these modifications. Please revert if you don't agree.

(2) And now is what I want to ask. You got two questions. You answered each of them in it's ad hoc frame. Then the author of the first question replies to your answer, outside of the first frame. And now, both questions one and two are numbered '1' (exactly as just above). What is your preferred strategy for the second question remains numbered 2 ? Pldx1 (talk) 13:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the bodged code so that * and # now work. I'll take a look at anything else later on once I'm back. Mdann52 (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mdann52, your change seems to have messed up the ability to number questions, as they are all numbered 1 now. Pldx1, thank you for making the changes above. --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be nice to have the ability to override the automatic numbering. Currently, as mentioned above, if the question–answer blocks are broken up by added comments, it causes the numbering to start again from 1. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 07:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC

An RfC has been opened to discuss if non-administrators appointed to the arbitration committee should be granted the administrator right. All editors are encouraged to provide their input. Mike V • Talk 21:54, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Health & disability

  • I was debating whether to bring the issue up here or simply to let it go, as I suspect bringing it up would damage my candidacy - but ultimately have decided that bringing it up and having it addressed is more significant than what happens to my candidacy one way or another. As I've disclosed in multiple places over the years, I have both chronic health and disability issues (including a connective tissue disorder, and an episode of sepsis ~11 months ago.) I wouldn't be running for a term if I wasn't confident I could fulfill it. I've received at least one question that specifically asked about disability among other things (from @GrammarFascist:) in the interests of getting a more diverse arbcom. Unfortunately, I don't feel that I can give GF an adequate answer given that both several voter guides have brought up my health and disability as an issue, and Giano has done so in my candidacy questions page itself. The WMF has passed a non-discrimination policy that applies to users, Wikipedia:Non-discrimination_policy, which I view as meaning that snarky comments about information I've previously self-disclosed related to my health and disability status as both inappropriate and in explicit contravention of policy that we can't override at a local level. I'd love to be able to give GF a fuller answer, but feel inhibited from doing so when in the same question page, someone is making snarky comments in contravention of Wikipedia:Non-discrimination_policy. Obviously, Giano isn't going to vote for me regardless of the situation, but would a passing admin, if they agree with my interpretation of Wikipedia:Non-discrimination_policy, mind getting rid of Giano's snark about my health on my questions page, as well as removing comments from any other candidates' page that contravene the non-discrimination policy? I view GF's interest in knowing as much as they can with the goal of a diverse arbcom in mind as significantly more important than people's interest in snarking about the health of candidates. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary CU for 2015 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers

For the purpose of scrutineering the 2015 Arbitration Committee elections, stewards Mardetanha, Shanmugamp7, and Einsbor, appointed as scrutineers, are granted temporary local CheckUser permissions effective from the time of the passage of this motion until the certification of the election results.

For the Arbitration Committee; Courcelles (talk) 22:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Temporary CU for 2015 Arbitration Committee election scrutineers

Is it ok to remove a question and answer after the fact?

This answer was helpful and its removal does a disservice to other voters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.50.50 (talk) 22:26, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's time to vote. Shouldn't there be a link on the project page to the voting page? Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering that too... JMHamo (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Working now - pretty sure I voted. Smallbones(smalltalk) 00:11, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. I used the Leisure Suit Larry Principle - clicking on links until I found the right one. Couldn't we have a big VOTE button? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many?

How many people can you vote for in this election? I would think it would be easier to find the answer to this question, but I haven't been able to. I would appreciate it if someone would tell me the answer here. Everymorning (talk) 02:02, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You cast 21 votes choosing between Support, Neutral, or Oppose. Thus you could vote for (i.e. support) all 21 candidates. I'm pretty sure nobody would want to do that - it wouldn't help or hurt anybody - but you could if you wanted to. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
☒N Wrong Do the math. Let p be the support votes for a candidate and q be the oppose votes. Then the impact of an additional support vote will be
The impact will be different for each candidate, depending on how many support or oppose votes they have. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. Possibly among other things, supporting every candidate helps those with fewer total votes. Consider the following series of (S/(S+O))
  • (0/0) undefined %, (1/2), (2/4), (3/6), (4/8) [all 50% except for 0/0]. Adding 1 support to each gives you:
  • (1/1) 100%, (2/3) 67%, (3/5) 60%, (5/9) 55.6%. It's clear that voting for all candidates helps those with the fewest votes.
But at (100/200) ==> (101/201) ~ 50.25%, the effect is pretty small. I'll suggest that with the number of votes we're getting, it won't make much difference at all. But thanks for the correction. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Thanks. Everymorning (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can vote for or against each candidate, or leave them neutral if you are not sure. Candidates need to have 50% support to sit on the committee, so voting oppose or support does actually make a difference for each candidate. WormTT(talk) 09:17, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage notifications

Good move. Tony (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise to anyone who received a double notification - this was due to some lag on my end, where the page saved after I sent the message :/ I'm doing this manually now as opposed to some half-broken script. Mdann52 (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask by what criteria you've selected the recipients? Just wandering since apparently not everybody received it.--TMCk (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have yet to receive any notice on my talk page, not that I need one. I don't believe I opted-out from receiving such notices. Strong early turnout. Over 250 votes, just 15 hours in. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
TMCk I was advised that if I tried sending these all out at once, it might do crazy things like crash the site, so I'm sending them out in batches, based upon what appears to be randomness (I believe it is related to account ID's or something). @Wbm1058: it will come unless you want me to take your name off my list! I'm roughly 1/5 of the way through now FYI. Mdann52 (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 250 votes this soon in to the election is exciting, and suggests we'll have a much bigger turnout than last year. With the sheer number of messages Mdann realistically has to batch them, since doing otherwise would crash the servers. All eligible voters should receive a massmessage way before the voting period is up. Kevin Gorman (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdann52: Appears to be random? So they might be not? Please clarify. Thank you.--TMCk (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TracyMcClark: Essentially, I have no idea how they are ordered, but everyone who didn't opt out before I started the run (or has dropped me a massage since I started) will receive one, hopefully by this time Wednesday all being well. Mdann52 (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying.--TMCk (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevin Gorman:, how can you see the numbers? Usually after I vote I go to the securepoll to make sure my name is on the list and it shows everyone that voted. This year I only see an empty page. Dave Dial (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The massmessaging this year was done in some haste, and I believe only the commissioners actually have the full list currently. Next year if the same thing is done I'd expect us to filter out vanished users, bots, those with active blocks, and a variety of other groups that may not have been filtered this year. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Such as articles? clpo13(talk) 18:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Though I have absolutely no idea how those ended up on Mdann's list, luckily the namespaces you can massmessage are limited so such errors won't do anything. I don't recall if it can post to article talkpages, so @Mdann52: it might be worth running a quick filter to ensure only User talk: is included. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Salvidrim!: The list I am using is purely the list I was handed - it is some 100,000+ users long, so I hope you understand why I haven't been able to probe it too deeply! (although I do remove vanished users as and when I spot them). @Kevin Gorman and Clpo13: Unfortunately, the tool had been changed since I last used it, something I didn't spot until I checked the error log...:P Mdann52 (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, if it's not sensitive, I can quickly filter out some groups if you toss it to me. Vanished users, anything thats not user talk:, etc. Kevin Gorman (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing non user-talk left (already done that), set up a script to remove any vanished users (using vanished in the name, appears there was an old convention not to include "user" as well....) Mdann52 (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin Gorman, as a candidate on the ballot, you should not be volunteering to filter out groups... Wbm1058 (talk) 20:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WBM: the only reason I offered to do was because it was originally my proposal in the first place, and wouldn't want a technical error to prevent the proposal from succeeding. I handed off essentially everything to do with the proposal to Mdann of my own accord as soon as I decided to run. I'm perfectly happy not to provide assistance as long as it's not needed, and I'm guessin it won't be needed. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it would be best if any list editing is left to the election commissioners. (This is after all what we were appointed to do! ) Also, vanished users, provided that they aren't subject to a block or using multiple accounts to vote, are permitted to vote as per the voter requirements. Now whether or not the community/'crats will reverse the vanishing as a result of resuming activity is a whole different matter. Mike V • Talk 00:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I'm more than happy to let other people handle it, but just spoke up because the original pseudo-poll involved me doing it and at least one election commissioner actively not wanting to take a role in sending out the message at the time :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this list, I am seeing some editors' names more than once. I trust the election commissioners will delete the duplicate votes. Liz Read! Talk! 20:39, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you change your vote, the secure poll still lists your other votes but they are greyed out. Also, the Scrutineers comb through the voters to ensure voting integrity. Just in case editors attempt to vote more than once with different accounts. Dave Dial (talk) 20:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what I saw looks like an editor who hit submit twice as they were submitted at the same minute so it's just a glitch that will be corrected. I was wondering though if someone voted today, changed their mind and then voted again before the deadline, if the second vote would be the one considered. Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Commissioners do not strike or remove any votes - there is a consensus that while we can, we should use the scrutineers to do that instead. SecurePoll does automatically discount duplicate votes - they are recorded in the log so we can view and assess the attached metadata if needed (note: This is CU-like data, we can't see who individual voters have voted for! Mdann52 (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Only the latest submitted vote is counted by the software. -- KTC (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Liz, I see an instance where someone's name appears three times in a row, all with the same time stamp. But the first two are greyed out, meaning they will not count, which is as it sshould be. The trick here is that the "grey" type is almost identical to the black type, so if you don't know that you're looking for something just a tiny bit lighter, you may not notice it. 00:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Guides to guides please

These arb com election things were an exciting idea years ago, but as the years wear on it becomes a little more tedious. Guides to guides were, for me, the easiest way to get into it No one would decide their votes on a guide to guides, but the navigation aide is helpful. Why hide them? "Guides to other guides are ineligible". Who made that rule and why? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, Guides to Guides are permitted, they just aren't listed alongside the regular guides. Maybe you should put one together. Liz Read! Talk! 20:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah maybe. A guide to guides is just a table, candidates versus guide writers showing a matrix of recommendations. I've seen them appear in the course of the elections previously, but cannot see why a link to one is prohibited from Template:ACE2015. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think "guides to guides" were typically evaluations of the voter guides. "User:A's recommendations are sound; User:B's recommendations are off-base for XYZ reason; etc." (There was speculation one year about whether someone would do a guide to guide to guides....) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, I can see such things would likely become inappropriate. I guess I am want a "summary of the guides", which would probably be acceptable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some questions related to guides of guides building:
1. Does the Donkey Enforcement Policy applies to guides of guides, requiring a merciless sorting of the candidates' names and the writers' names in order to protect the voters from their irrepressible propensity to Donkey vote ?
2. How to convert indications into numbers ? For my private use, I translate a five levels vote according to strong oppose -> -2, oppose-> -1, neutral ->0 (etc) and a three levels vote according to oppose->-2, neutral ->0, support->+2. Is this a fair representation of the guides (or only my private opinion) ? What to do when a line is a code 4 ?
3. How to summarize the guides ? A simple addition gives someone with -21, someone else with +23. Should we ponder by the number of visits that the different guides have received ? Or ponder otherwise ?
4. And the most important questions: How different are the guides? What is a rightful comment (I like this guide because I wrote it would surely be OK while this other guide reveals that POV would surely be controversial if false and even more controversial if true). And finaly, how are these guides correlated to the results (this last one will be better answered post festum). Pldx1 (talk) 23:14, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I needn't be that hard. By for the hardest thing to summarize the guides is doing the wiki formatting of the table. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were both kinds of "guides to guides": Summaries of other guides, and evaluations of other guides. I seem to recall that one person included one of these (probably the latter) in their own "regular: guide, which made it sort of a hybrid. And I do believe that at one point someone did go so far as to make a guide to guides to guides, just to make a point. I believe the reason the "guides to guides" (etc.) are not linked in the election template anymore is that it was decided that way in an RfC. My guess would be the 2013 RfC, give or take a year. Neutron (talk) 00:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Guides to guides are not permitted on the ACE template as a result of this RfC. Mike V • Talk 01:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-messaging article talk pages

Hi! I don't know how this happened, but I don't think the Talk:TokuMX article is eligible to vote. :)

I have reverted the bot edit for now. -- intgr [talk] 22:48, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting seems to be broken

I was notified that I can vote here.
The link brings me to https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/560
Pressing the submit vote button there brings me to https://vote.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:SecurePoll/vote/560&action=vote
The text there is:
"SecurePoll
< SecurePoll


You must log in to vote in this election

"

I am logged in, though, to English Wikipedia and my global account.

My apologies for putting this on top - but if that is actually broken it should be fixed rather sooner than later. Wefa (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Wefa: The voting needs to originate from the English Wikipedia, while the voter log is viewed from the vote wiki. Please try voting from this link here and let me know if you still have any difficulties. Best, Mike V • Talk 01:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must log in to vote in this election

When I attempted to submit my vote, I received a "You must log in to vote in this election" error. Resubmitting the vote did not fix the problem. The vote was only accepted after I restarted from the landing page and patiently filled in the (randomised) form again. This may be because I took over an hour to review the candidates; if so, this should be fixed, since we should not discourage thoughtful voting. --pmj (talk) 00:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

same here. Either a cookie expired or it didn't survive the midnight hop. Both can and should be fixed! Wefa (talk) 00:37, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pmj: The voting needs to originate from the English Wikipedia, while the voter log is viewed from the vote wiki. Please try voting from this link here and let me know if you still have any difficulties. Also, it's very likely that the cookie expired. We've set it for a limited duration to assist with the integrity of the election. We recommend keeping a copy of your vote selection in case of technical difficulties and/or if you decide to change your vote before the close of the voting period. Best, Mike V • Talk 01:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is the page I started from, and the vote submission did succeed the second time.
Is there a specific attack which timing out the cookie aims to mitigate? None comes to mind other than a user leaving their session unattended. Any time limit chosen will be a compromise, but since multiple people are hitting this issue I suggest that three hours is more reasonable. --pmj (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

My talk page was spammed by a "ArbCom elections are now open!" message despite the nobots template. Leave us alone!

The message was sent as a result of the mass message functionality. If you wish to opt out of all mass messages, please add [[:Category:Opted-out of message delivery]] to your user talk page. Mike V • Talk 01:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe [[:Category:Opted-out of message delivery]] should be added to {{nobots}}? Catnip the Elder (talk) 03:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2015&oldid=692150328"