Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Electoral Commission

Just curious
Has this actually been publicized anywhere? I only found it because I got bored, looked at recent changes, and the title caught my eye. And I'm guessing NE and 28 have my talk page watchlisted. Of course, not publicizing it might be my ticket to an easy election, and the power, fame, glory, and women that go along with it. So nevermind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, as "what links here" shows, it was popularized on a number of boards. I personally saw the link on Administrators Noticeboard.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Just threw it on AN and CENT. Not sure where else it should go.--Tznkai (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Central notice could be an option, but this of course needs to be discussed first.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I guess you did that fairly recently, Tznkai? It wasn't showing up a while ago. Anyway, CENT and AN are probably adequate.  Maybe somewhere on WP:ACE2012 itself if you haven't already. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I followed the link fromWikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2012. 21:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps also post to Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee which may be watched by a fair number of users interested in the arbitration process. If you wish you could also ask an arbitrator (not one up for reelection this year) to post something on the Arbitration Committee noticeboard. I was going to suggest the Signpost as well, but I see there isn't time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, does Jimbo Wales know he's going to be appointing these commissioners and the time frame in which he's asked to do it? I'm sure he'll be willing to make the appointments, but we shouldn't assume he'll necessarily be online and available on a particular date unless someone has checked with him. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If he can't or won't make these appointments in this time frame, I propose that the Appointed Electoral Commissioners decide what to do. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Aren't Newyorkbrad asking what happens if Jimbo doesn't appoint the commissioners in the first place, which mean there wouldn't be any "Appointed Electoral Commissioners" to decide what to do? KTC (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That was a (evidently well-disguised) joke... --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I got it, at least. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, was thinking the same thing... but it looks like (below) Jimbo is aware of this process, at least to some degree. Lord Roem (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On the second day, Jimbo said, and it was good. Nobody Ent 21:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That confirms he's willing to make the appointments, but his attention should be called now to the timing involved. (I'd do it myself but I'm a potential candidate.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Nobody Ent 23:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC) mumbles about frickin' bureaucracy


 * Added a notice about the RFC to the ACE2012 header, though I don't know how much traffic that will get before the nominations start. Monty  845  22:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Commissioners voting during the election
I've noticed several of the candidates discussing in their statements whether or not they can or should vote. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that they can, and they should. It was not my intention in proposing the EC to remove 3+ voices from the election pool. One of the great advantages of the secret ballot is that it obscures the personal preferences of those expected to be impartial. This prevents not only actual unfairness, but the appearance of unfairness, which is often just as important. For what it is worth, last election, all three election admins in fact voted and did not, to my recollection, share who they voted for at any point.--Tznkai (talk) 17:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. There is no reason why they should not vote, since it is a secret ballot.  However, in order to maintain the appearance of impartiality, they should not disclose their preferences or otherwise comment on the candidates.  We should all appreciate them for volunteering to run the election, and that should be their role in the election, other than voting.  Neutron (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As long as they keep their preferences private, so as to avoid the perception of advocating for any candidate, I see no problem with allowing them to vote. Monty  845  19:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. The main property of the individuals we are electing should be that they can abstain from their own preferences when considering difficult situations. Those who can not do this should not be elected. If those who can vote there will be no harm.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course; vote but keep preferences private. Nobody Ent 22:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Concur with all above. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ·cont) Join WER 01:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I also agree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree too. — ΛΧΣ  21™  00:37, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Speaking as one of last year's candidates, I have no issue with the members of the "electoral commission" voting, but I have grave concerns about them publicly identifying their preferred Arbcom candidates. This includes the publishing of voter guides; as a candidate, I was constantly aware that if an "election volunteer" made a decision that went in favour of a candidate he supported, or against a candidate he had opposed, there was always going to be a perception of bias. Thus, I would have liked to have seen a statement that the publication of an election guide was sufficient to exclude a candidacy for the electoral commission.  In fact, I was of the impression that was one of the reasons we were going to all of this trouble in the first place. (As an aside, speaking from my own experience as a secure poll scrutineer, ensuring that at least one person is an experienced checkuser will be very valuable.)  Risker (talk) 04:46, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Risker makes some excellent points. - jc37 04:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * As indicated by my comment above, I agree with Risker's comment, and I note with great concern that one of the editors who has posted a "voter guide" for this election has now also volunteered to be one of the commissioners. (So there is no confusion, it is SvenManguard.) This new position of commissioner has a degree of "official-ness" to it that requires both absolute impartiality and the appearance of absolute impartiality toward the candidates. I am not suggesting that this editor has done anything "wrong", rather I believe the roles of election commissioner, and active commentator on the candidates, are incompatible, and the editor in question has already made his choice.  Neutron (talk) 05:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * When commenting above I was agreeing with the points, I had no idea who specifically she was speaking of. - jc37 05:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

What the concern is – the appearance of impartiality
We should be clear about what we're concerned with. I don't think we're worried about actual partiality - if we had any concerns, it wouldn't matter if they posted a voter's guide or not, we wouldn't support them. Rather, given the stated purpose of the commission, the appearance of partiality is what matters. To this end, I would disqualify, say, myself from the role. I'm still not convinced of the necessity of the commission, but if we're going to do this, let's do it right. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 16:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC due to be closed
I have notified Jimbo and summarized the results.--Tznkai (talk) 04:09, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please double check your summary regarding jc37's comments. ;-) KTC (talk) 08:33, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The comments sections for LR and KTC are identical To say that LR received "no negative feedback" and that "one user opined " with regard to KTC does not accurately portray the situation. NE Ent 15:46, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * First, thank you for taking the time to help out with the notification. These things can be such thankless tasks.
 * And just to clarify: While I am confident that JW can read for himself, I'd like to note that I didn't consider my neutral comment concerning each editor who is not currently entrusted with adminship to be "negative". My apologies for any confusion. - jc37 16:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think a single editor's comment should really make a difference anyway, regardless of how many of the candidates it applies to. It is clear that there is not a widespread belief that all of the commissioners need to be admins.  In this case, at least two of the three commissioners will be admins.  Seems fine to me.  Neutron (talk) 17:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I somehow missed jc37's identical comment in Lord Roem's section, and I will correct clarify in my summary.--Tznkai (talk) 19:01, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Was in Sven's too, though that is obviously moot at this point. - jc37 19:06, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't consider the withdrawn candidacies in my summary, and don't think it is necessary, but I don't object to anyone else doing the same.--Tznkai (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Nod. I was merely being completionist here : ) - jc37 19:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Jimmy's appointments
Jimmy has asked me to let you all know that [ he appoints] the following editors as members of the Electoral Commission:


 * 1) Happy-melon
 * 2) Lord Roem
 * 3) MBisanz
 * 4) Also, Avraham is appointed to support the three primary members

Jimmy is at a conference today and so was unable to make a more formal announcement. I have not updated the main Election page with information on these new appointments, though I will let the candidates know of the decision. AGK [•] 10:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Good to know.--Tznkai (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2012 (UTC)