Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission

Publicity?

I'm a little concerned by the lack of attention this page has gotten. Has the Electoral Commission selection been publicized adequately? I don't believe choosing the EC should get too much attention—it's obviously secondary to the ArbCom election itself—but in past years it has certainly gotten more input than this year. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted the notice at AN, the arbcom talk page, and on the central discussion template. If you (or anyone else) wish to publicize it elsewhere, please feel free to do so. Currently it's only the nomination period so I'm hoping others will come once the discussion begins. Mike V • Talk 22:41, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it worth putting it in a watchlist notice now? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I am not sure that people who do not have any of the pages it was advertized on their watchlist or who are so irregular on Wikipedia that they have no time processing their watchlist, shout be on the Committee. Once the nomination is completed, adding it to the notice to ensure more people are available to discuss the candidates would make perfect sense.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Watchlist notice is probably overkill for the Electoral Commission although I think it's important for the ArbCom election itself. I suppose as long as we get three solid commissioners we are fine. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

3 people running for 3 positions? That worked out nicely. Legoktm (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest support, determined by consensus?

The instructions say "Three volunteers with the strongest support, determined by consensus, will be chosen as Commissioners." May I assume that this means support during the evaluation period? If you count support during the nominations, then candidates who file early enough get a week to gather support while candidates who file late enough get a day. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As structured, the first week is intended for nominations only. The second week is for comments and endorsements. Following this format, it should have permitted everyone to have the same duration for evaluation. While the positive endorsements for all the candidates are appreciated, it seems they may have gotten too early of a start this year. Mike V • Talk 22:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the page to clarify per the above. Please check that I got it right. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Hey, let's form an Electoral Commission Commission to oversee the support votes for the Electoral Commission! Then, of course we will need an an Electoral Commission Commission Commission to oversee the support votes for the Electoral Commission Commission, and an Electoral Commission Commission Commission Commission to... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but thinking through all the infinite implications of your post has put me out of commission. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Turtles all the way down. David in DC (talk) 18:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we remove the endorsements and start fresh when the evaluation period begins? I suppose that will only be needed if there are more than 3 candidates by that time. Kharkiv07 (T) 02:12, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussion 01

User talk:Kevin Gorman#Enfranchising voters in arbcom elections --Guy Macon (talk) 08:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Selections

I take it there is consensus that the three candidates are selected as the Commissioners? Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the powers vested in me by the fact that no one else did it, I've closed the page and will give the bad news to the three candidates. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was very considerate of them to all get unanimous support. Thanks for doing the difficult closure Floquenbeam and thanks for volunteering Mdann52, Mike V and Guy Macon. Thryduulf (talk) 01:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Editing restrictions

Mdann52, Mike V and Guy Macon. To avoid things potentially coming to a head later, please could you pre-consider and reach some guidance in a controlled manner over the likely interaction of editors subject to with one or more active Wikipedia:Editing restrictions wishing to stand for nomination to the Arbcom elections; and/or the additional interaction of any such situation in the event that there are numerically fewer Arbcom candidates than Arbcom places to be filled. —Sladen (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC) (If there is a more appropriate location to move this thread to, please do so).[reply]

I don't see why we shouldn't discuss it here.

The obvious question is "what sort of editing restriction?" If someone was, say, prohibited from editing anything arbcom related, any one of us could remove him as a candidate (we don't discuss or vote on noncontraversial uncontentious clerk-type actions when we know nobody will disagree). If he was, say, prohibited from editing articles related to black helicopters we could discuss it, but my position in that case would be that such a restriction does not disqualify you (I don't see it listed in the "Eligibility criteria" section at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Candidates) Did you have a particular candidate with a specific editing restriction in mind? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of WP:ACE2015/C "(ii) is in good standing and not subject to…", I am aware of the list of candidates, I am aware of WP:RESTRICTIONS, and I am aware of a potential overlap. I'm hopeful that the members of commission may be able to find a way to consider/document the generic matter, so that it can be documented without needing to be become directly associated with any particular candidate or potential candidate. —Sladen (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good standing does not mean (IMO) no active sanctions - someone may well have an IBAN or TBAN, and still be active in the community. Ultimately, I believe it is not up to the EC to determine who is in good standing with the community - that is the community's job. Mdann52 (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Last year the Electoral Commission was asked to comment on what's considered to be good standing. We came to the conclusion that it consists of the user not being subject to any specific sanctions that would prevent the user from serving on the arbitration committee or holding advanced permissions. Mike V • Talk 23:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about a candidate who is asked a question about something they are topic banned from discussing. Would you remove the question, explain that the candidate is unable to answer or leave it for them to say that? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:43, 12 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

I don't see deciding that a question violates a topic ban and them removing it as being within our mandate. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:04, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]