Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Electoral Commission

During the 2012 Arbitration Committee Election Request for comment, it was decided by consensus that a three-member Electoral Commission would be created to address issues arising during the Arbitration Committee elections. This decision was reaffirmed in subsequent years and the existence of the Commission is now part of the standard procedure for the annual elections. The Electoral Commission is reconstituted each year for purposes of that year's election.

Editors wishing to volunteer as a Commissioner for 2016 should create a section on this RfC. All editors are encouraged to comment on the suitability of the volunteers for this role. Three volunteers with the strongest support, determined by consensus based upon comments posted until one week after the close of nominations, will be chosen as Commissioners. Any remaining applicants who have consensus support but are not in the top three will be designated as reserve Commissioners, to be called upon if one of the Commissioners is unable to serve. If the consensus is not readily apparent, one or more bureaucrats will help close the discussion.

The mandate of the Electoral Commission is to deal with any unforeseen problems that may arise in the 2016 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.

Commissioners and reserve members are not eligible for election to the Arbitration Committee during this year's election. Commissioners must be able and willing to satisfy the requirements of the access to nonpublic information policy.

The timeline for the appointment of the 2016 Electoral Commission is as follows:


 * Nominations: Friday 00:00, 7 October – Friday 23:59, 14 October (7 days)
 * Evaluation period: Saturday 00:00, 15 October – Friday 23:59, 21 October (7 days)
 * Commission selection: completed by Friday 00:00, 28 October

User:Guy Macon
Hello, I am Guy Macon. I served on the commission last year (See Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission) and have met the requirements for access to nonpublic information. I have been an editor for over ten years (over 30,000 edits with a clean block log), and am an active WP:DRN volunteer. I have been actively monitoring and occasionally participating in arbcom cases for over five years, so I know what kind of problems are likely to arise and how similar situations were dealt with in the past. In real life I am a consultant who gets called in as an independent mediator to resolve disputes between engineers or between engineers and management.

A word about the Electoral Commission: As is says above, "the mandate of the Electoral Commission is to deal with any unforeseen problems that may arise in the 2016 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." As I see this ( and as my fellow commissioners saw it last time) this means that first of all we need to do our level best to have no job to do, but if we absolutely have to, we may need to make a decision, at which point there is a 100% chance that multiple participants will insist that we have no mandate to intervene. Anyone volunteering for this commission must be prepared for either the hoped-for lack of any need for us to intervene or for being dead center of a firestorm of controversy. Anyone commenting on commissioner candidates should realize that who you choose might be important, so choose wisely. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Now that we have more than three candidates, I would prefer to be a reserve commissioner, to be called upon if one of the commissioners is unable to serve, but as a second choice would also be happy to serve if there are not three others with sufficient support. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:12, 12 October 2016 (UTC) edited 20:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments about Guy Macon

 * I would normally endorse your candidacy; not doing so in accordance with you wish to remain a reserve commissioner.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Users endorsing Guy Macon

 * 1) Dennis Brown – 2&cent; 19:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) ThePlatypusofDoom  (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) — Jkudlick • t • c • s 04:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4)  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) — Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk) 05:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) — JJBers (talk) 13:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) Mr Ernie (talk) 14:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) —  Music1201  talk  17:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) —  xaosflux  Talk 11:33, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) SST  flyer  13:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) BethNaught (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) Mkdw talk 05:26, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:31, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) – Carrite (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) – DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 20:03, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) Not much thought put into this, previous experience, no hurr-durr issues. -- QEDK  ( T  &#9749;  C ) 06:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Mike V
Hello, I'm Mike V and I'm offering to serve the community as a member of the Electoral Commission. I've previously served the past two elections as a commissioner and as one familiar with the process, I'd be happy to train a new individual or two on how to conduct the process. I'm an active volunteer as a functionary, an OTRS respondent, and a member of the account creations team. As an oversighter and a checkuser, I've already signed the confidentiality agreement but I wish to reaffirm my commitment to safely handling the personal data that we will come across during the process. Thank you for your consideration. Mike V • Talk 15:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments about Mike V

 * I don't think it's my place to endorse anyone, but I will note that Mike V did a fine job on the commission last year. He and Mdannn52 did a good job on the boring, keeping things on track work (I was less involved in that because of health issues) but more importantly, when an unexpected situation came up both of them were "anti-power-hungry", meaning "willing to intervene if absolutely necessary but trying very hard to avoid doing so." --Guy Macon (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Users endorsing Mike V

 * 1) —  xaosflux  Talk 15:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Widr (talk) 15:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) ThePlatypusofDoom  (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) Dennis Brown – 2&cent; 19:19, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5)  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) — Yellow Dingo&#160;(talk)</b> 05:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) — Jkudlick • t • c • s 06:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) Mr Ernie (talk) 16:44, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) —  Music1201  talk  17:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 10) Supporting great candidate.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  19:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 11) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 12) The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 13) NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 14) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 18:10, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 15) --<span style="font-family:'Tahoma',Geneva,sans-serif"> QEDK  ( T  &#9749;  C ) 07:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 16) Dat GuyTalkContribs 09:14, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 17) Mz7 (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 18) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:32, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 19) --Ymblanter (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 20) BethNaught (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 21) Mkdw talk 04:55, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 22) DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 15:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 23) – Carrite (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 24) He replied the questions of an obscure contributor politely last year   4nn1l2 (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Music1201
Hi, I am nominating myself as a member of the Electoral Commission. I am currently a member of the Wikimedia OTRS team and the account creation team, and have satisfied the access to nonpublic information policy. As an OTRS and account creation volunteer, I am able to deal with problems needing to be resolved. Thanks! — Music1201  talk  17:36, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments about Music1201

 * A little too soon, I think. Your account is just under seven months old. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Music1201 was suspended from ACC for improper handling of multiple ACC requests on 2016-10-13. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 14:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The suspension is temporary and lasts for 7 days. It was resulted from declining 3 account requests out of the 50 I've handled. It is no concern for the tasks this role requires. — Music1201  talk  17:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to have a link to the discussion, if there is one. Dennis Brown – 2&cent; 17:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * A little too soon, I think. I really believe this is a position for a user with somewhat more experience. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree with what Kudpung just said. I tried to find the discussion that Dennis Brown asked for, and was unable. However, I see that the suspension was made on October 13, which is quite recent, and only 10 days after the permission was granted . That does suggest a need for a little more experience. I also think that JJMC89's initial posting of this information was a bit sketchy, not giving other editors much to go on. Taking this together, I'm a little uncomfortable with either of them for this position. (That's not to say that any of this is a grave concern, so please do not misunderstand what I am saying as anything more than that we have three better-qualified candidates.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * There is no onwiki discussion since nonpublic information is involved. Any discussion would have been between Music1201 and the ACC admins via email. I cannot give editors any more information than I already posted other than to say that improper handling refers to not following the ACC guide. I posted it since ACC was in Music1201's statement and some are unlikely to look for such information. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 01:40, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Understood, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Music1201 should have said that to my question, but declined to provide any info, which raises concerns about accountability. Dennis Brown – 2&cent; 22:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am the WP:ACC administrator who suspended Music1201 from ACC. I would like to state some factual information for the record without indicating whether or not I support his candidacy for this position:
 * Music1201's suspension from ACC is a minimum of seven days and his unsuspension is contingent on other factors besides time alone, which I have detailed to Music1201 in private with copies sent to all other ACC admins, in accordance with standard procedure for the ACC project (which, as noted above, deals heavily with non-public user information).
 * Users suspended for any reason are not considered to be current members of the ACC project, though users who are suspended for inactivity only (for security, users who haven't used ACC within 45 days are automatically suspended) may request unsuspension at any time
 * Considering not only the sensitive data handled by ACC but also the fact that we are a first-line support system, an error rate of 3 out of 43 closed requests is still considered significant and concerning, hence the suspension. In particular, all three errors involved an apparent misapplication of the Username Policy to requests and incorrectly flagging requests as policy violations when they weren't.  It's also worth noting that these three errors were the ones I noticed, and I have not thoroughly examined all of Music1201's handled requests.
 * Again, I am stating this information simply to provide factual context and background for the suspension, especially since – as noted by JJMC89 – Music1201 is using ACC as a "reference" in his application for this position. I'm afraid that I cannot give more information beyond this.  And, again, I am not providing this information to "choose sides" as it were, but to eliminate any perception of disingenuity on either side and to provide the context requested by others.  Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.  -- FastLizard4  (talk•contribs) 11:11, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Users endorsing Music1201

 * 1) Good candidate, no problem.  Vanjagenije   (talk)  19:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) Candidate already has access to non-public information. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 12:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see any issues. A bit new for the job, but I'll support. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The Wordsmith Talk to me 18:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Dennis Brown – 2&cent; 20:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC) failure to provide reasonable info. Dennis Brown – 2&cent; 14:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) SST  flyer  13:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

JJMC89
Hello, I'm JJMC89, and I am volunteering to serve the community as a member of the electoral commission. I am an active member of the account creation team and satisfy the requirements of the access to nonpublic information policy (verify). I reaffirm my commitment to appropriately handle any nonpublic information encountered while serving on the commission. Thank you for your consideration. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 04:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Users endorsing JJMC89

 * 1) --Ymblanter (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) – DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 20:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Mdann52
Hi all, coming back from inactivity here, as when I drafted this, there were a lack of candidates. I stood on last years commission, overseeing the election. While we made a decision that received mixed reception at the time, I think that overall last years election turned out well. I'm happy to take up the baton this year as well if needs be. I'm identified to handle non-public data if elected, and have done so often in the past. Thanks, Mdann52 (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Comments about Mdann52

 * It's been over one year since Requests for adminship/Mdann52 3. At the time the community seemed fairly strongly opposed to the request and it was closed just after 24 hours. Some of the things brought up were WP:CLUE and carelessness at WP:AFD. There were also concerns about your work at OTRS. One year later you put yourself through WP:ORCP and received a lot of feedback inquiring about "why you want this so bad" with two 3/10 and two 1/10 assessments. I didn't participate but I do share some of the hat collecting concerns. You've applied for a considerable number of special permissions. You're also an ArbCom clerk, on the account creations team, and you also applied at one time to be an SPI clerk. You proposed an RFC to allow non-administrators to be Arbitrators Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC. 14 months is a long time but you've been away for quite a bit of it and the ORCP request, at least to me, indicates that you still have that mindset. If I had any advice give, it would be to say if you're coming back after a break, then it'd be great to see you focus in on one of the areas you already have permissions and do a substantial body of good work there. If you want to do more without burning out then there's nothing wrong with branching out further. Mkdw talk 05:25, 18 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's my place to endorse anyone, but I will note that Mdannn52 did a fine job on the commission last year. He and Mike V did a good job on the boring, keeping things on track work (I was less involved in that because of health issues) but more importantly, when an unexpected situation came up both of them were "anti-power-hungry", meaning "willing to intervene if absolutely necessary but trying very hard to avoid doing so." --Guy Macon (talk) 06:27, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Users endorsing Mdann52

 * 1) Support. Very experienced and trustworthy, with a good understanding of the role. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2) SST  flyer  13:51, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 3) --Ymblanter (talk) 09:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 4) BethNaught (talk) 10:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 5) —  xaosflux  Talk 14:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 6) --Lemongirl942 (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 7) – Carrite (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 8) – The Wordsmith Talk to me 13:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 9) – DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·ʇuoɔ) WER 20:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)