Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Electoral Commission

Criteria

Is there a criteria on nomination? Tbiw (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Tbiw: there are a few: You can only nominate yourself, but other wise it is open to anyone who is over 18, meets Foundation's Access to nonpublic personal data policy, and is otherwise be eligible to vote. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:07, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

To clarify that's you meet the criteria for the policy - you don't have to already be a signatory. You also can't be intending to run for ARBCOM, for obvious reasons. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Am not up to 18. So can't nominate myself. Thanks for the info Nosbagbear and @U: xoasflux:.Tbiw (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

SecurePoll

I have no desire or intention to run for a spot on the commission, but I have developer rights on the beta cluster and so can test creating the securepoll votes, and can grant rights to the members of the commission if they want to test it out. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

How does that helps? Tbiw (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It allows the coordinates to practice with setting up the secure poll vote for the election without needing to worry about affecting production sites DannyS712 (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@DannyS712: the actual set up on production SecurePoll is normally done by the WMF resource. N.B. SecurePoll is also available on testwiki if anyone needs to review part of the mechanics. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:54, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

DannyS712, and I wrote a program to produce the SecurePoll voter list to our community standards, which will be handed off to Joe Sutherland. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 23:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

ANPDP Status

Check for registrations on meta:Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard:

Updated 17:08, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

•  Done User:Cyberpower678
•  Done User:Mz7
•  Done User:Waggie
•  Done User:SQL
•  Done User:GeneralNotability
•  Done User:Wugapodes

Endorsement Table

ACE2020 Endorsements

User	Endorsements
Cyberpower678	19
Mz7	46
Waggie	14
SQL	39
GeneralNotability	42
Wugapodes	25

Closure

Commissioners:

• Mz7
• GeneralNotability
• SQL

Reserve Commissioner:

• Wugapodes

— xaosflux ^Talk 00:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I believe we had two reservists last year, IIRC. —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 00:40, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: indeed, however in closing, I do not feel the amount of endorsements that the yourself and Waggie received reflected a rough consensus for appointment. As the EC RfC specifically only asks for endorsements, opposition (or lesser preference) can only be inferred through lack of endorsements by using the endorsements of the other candidates as a measuring tool. A review of the last several years shows that 0,1,or 2 reservists have been used. If you don't run for ArbCom yourself - I do hope you will continue on as an election coordinator. If you think this is a bad call, I'll elicit the one or more bureaucrats ...(to)... help close the discussion. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Xaosflux, I’m not calling into question your judgement. I will admit it is a bit depressing seeing myself go from elected EC, to reservist, to completely out though. :-( —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 01:59, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: we know the coordinators do all the "real" work ;) (Just kidding EC team - all the work is important). — xaosflux ^Talk 02:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Xaosflux, indeed. The EC staff just sit in their cushy lounge chairs all day drinking Mimosas. —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 03:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, good grief! I knew there had to be someplace around here to get a mimosa; trust me to come along and discover it just too late! Aggravating day, Lindsay^Hello 09:03, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

ElectCom clerking request

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents § TBAN violation by Fæ

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

---

@GeneralNotability, Mz7, and SQL: I believe this question (probably also posted to other candidate pages) is inappropriate and should be removed from any candidate pages on which it appears. Reasons:

• It is a blatant topic-ban violation. The editor – Fæ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – is indefinitely banned from "from human sexuality, broadly construed ... includ[ing] ... transgender topics and issues" [1][2], and has been recently reminded by Cullen328 that it will be broadly construed. This restriction is still active.
• It contains a many times disproved falsehood, namely that I have an "apparent viewpoint that using of gender neutral pronouns should be seen as intrinsically funny". The editor has been making these false claims for over a year, until their T-ban shut that down. (It is in connection to an essay about self-aggrandizing commercial/political/religious language being used in Wikipedia's own voice; it used a particular pronoun as a framing device, but in a way completely unrelated to transgender usage. I'm actually pretty well-known by now as one of the chief defenders among the MoS regulars of singular-they and of MOS:GENDERID, especially as regards to not mis-gendering bio subjects.)
• This is a repeat of character assassination by this editor that is part of a long-term pattern of abuse against me in particular (and at least one other), for which they have previously narrowly escaped sanctions at both ANI and RFARB, until other same-topic disruption resulted in reinstatement of the topic-ban above. This is part of a pattern of transgender-related disruption dating back over a decade, including a years-long site ban. That ban was lifted on the specific condition that the editor not return to that sort of behavior [3], yet it continues unabated.
• This smearing of me in that post is completely extraneous, and bears no connection to the question the editor finally gets around to asking. It is purely a personal attack.
• The question (even if it came from someone else and did not contain the falsehood) is disingenuous and does not serve a legitimate candidate-assessment purpose. Its clear primary intent is to manufacture drama between various candidates (especially CaptainEek) and me. There is no extant (or historical, that I can recall) conflict between me and these other candidates, so this is just flat-out disruptive. Even the actual question at the end is not ArbCom-related at all, but is just "lobbying" for changes to a policy this editor would like to see happen, disguised as a question.

Further administrative action might be warranted, since it is both a T-ban violation and a transgression of discretionary sanctions that cover this topic (of which the editor is well aware, having been repeatedly subjected to restrictions under them, and having been informed in an ARCA request that gender issues are definitely within the DS scope, even before the extant T-ban),

As a standing candidate I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to pursue AE/ARCA/RFARB at this time, though I think this party must understand by now that further tendentious hostilities of this sort would [normally] lead there. If this had occurred in any other context, I would be filing a case request right now instead of this clerking request. This user has also been warned that further WP:HARASS-style behavior would be referred to WMF T&S, since it has also involved off-site actions by this party against both me, and another editor for whom serious real-life consequences resulted. I don't think that's warranted at this time, since the T-ban breach is likely to result in a non-trivial block at least.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.