Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Electoral Commission

Closers
When this is up I'll volunteer to close it if it isn't blatantly obvious, possibly with the other initial coordinators: &. — xaosflux  Talk 20:10, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because I voted, I will not be able to be a closer. I have no objections whatsoever to you acting as closer, however. Mz7 (talk) 20:25, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Unless I have something really important to say about a future candidate I won't be voting on this one. — xaosflux  Talk 20:28, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I volunteer to be the third closer.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I'll sign on if you'd like, or if it's needed. But I'm coming to the realization now that the format of this election is probably not ideal. We have a nomination period, and a community voting period. However, voting is open during the nomination period, not for any particular reason, just because that's the de facto way we've always done it. But that means the earlier candidates have an unfair advantage. For example, Vanamonde had nearly 30 supports in the first 24 hours, and over 50 by the time Ivanvector nominated himself. If someone were to nominate themselves on the last day of the nomination period, it would be more difficult at best, impossible at worst, for them to catch up with the early candidates, regardless of merit. We're supposed to pick the three "strongest consensuses", but it's difficult to judge "strength of consensus" in any way other than to rank them according to the number of endorsements (assuming there are no contentious nominations, which there usually aren't). This wouldn't be an issue if there was an even playing field, but there isn't. We should not allow voting during the nomination process in future elections. ~Swarm~  {sting} 20:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Evaluation period: Saturday 00:00, 12 October – Friday 23:59, 18 October (7 days) so perhaps you can throw out all the votes and do it again since the evaluation wasn't supposed to happen until the nomination period was over. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not a supporter of the current format, for exactly these reasons, on the other hand, that used to be like that for years (possibly from the very beginning). Two years ago not a single admin volunteered for a couple of days, and then I volunteered because I wanted to make sure the elections would take place, and then four other admins volunteered after me - and we finished in the order in which we volunteered. (Non-admin nominations, be it good or not, have little chances to succeed, though we must appreciate that people volunteer for the job).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
 * based on the other comments and historical precedent, I'm against throwing out the existing votes - besides we would then need to ping all those people that we changed their vote, ask them to come back, and expect they would respond the same. What we can do is update the watchlist message and cookie when the nomination period is over, that should encourage people to stop by. —  xaosflux  Talk 00:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I understand, and I think there's no right answer in this. Basically in this election those who self-nominated early got a head start. Maybe next year and just spitballing, the nomination is at one page and then the votes is a locked transcluded, page or something similar, or just votes are removed prior to the voting phase. Sir Joseph (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added this to the talk page for next year's RFC's so we won't forget about it. I don't think the "mechanics" are as important as having an agreed process (there are lots of way to 'do it'). —  xaosflux  Talk 01:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , sounds good to me. Sir Joseph (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it's too late to change in-flight right now (guess we are being the de facto commissioner commissioners.....). Perhaps for next year we can enforce "no voting" during the "nominations" period (maybe questions only?). Suppose we should put it in Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020? — xaosflux  Talk 00:25, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Following up on myself, I'm not very worried about "unfair!" on this, as it is only to select people for a one-time limited-run post. If we have lots of highly supported candidates this year, we can also ask if any of them would prefer to be "reservists" - I am glad we have people stepping up though! — xaosflux  Talk 00:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree it is too late to change anything this year, we just have to let it run the course.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a talk page message at the end of nominations to those who have already participated, asking them to review the finalized nominations, would help limit the nomination time advantage a bit? There'd still be an issue of pile-on supports for the early volunteers though. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a one-time MMS to everyone the commented, where their last comment was before the last nominee is entered - just reminding them that there are additional candidates since they last commented. — xaosflux  Talk 13:43, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I know I’m an “early entrant” so a bit biased, but if I don’t get it, I also don’t mind since I’m only offering if the community wants it: I’m not sure what the point of this discussion is. We’ve always done it this way, and historically late entrants have surpassed early entrants (Yunshui and DoRD two years ago, and pretty sure at least SQL and one of the others last year were late.) The role of the election commission is important, but it’s also not really life changing. We have people coming back to vote for new people, and the election process here is already unnecessarily long (“By October 25” makes this longer than the public CU/OS process.) I’ll ping to get their views on this, but my impression is this is worrying over an issue that has never actually been an issue in the past, and where sending a mass message out to over 50 people seems like overkill. I know I’d be annoyed if I got one. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm essentially in agreement. If someone actually threw out the !votes and sent out a mass message, I wouldn't be particularly upset, but I don't see it as being necessary; nor do I see a mass message as being necessary after the nominations period has closed. In the future, it wouldn't hurt to reduce the duration of both, and to open voting after the nominations have closed. The effort we are putting into selecting commissioners is disproportionate to the importance of the role. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't really like the messaging part either, was just throwing up ideas. I think that refreshing the watchlist notice is sufficient for the next phase. —  xaosflux  Talk 16:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, DoRD two years ago is an opposite example: They entered fourth among the admin candidates, and they finished fourth and were appointed a reserve member. When I had to resign, they were added to the Commission (and did an excellent job, as far as I can tell). Yunshui entered second and was elected.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, I misremembered. I think the issue that year was that there really wasn’t anyone volunteering until later? Anyway, the point I was hinting at was what Vanamonde said more directly: were already expending more energy than required on this given what the job is. No real objections if people think it necessary, but I also don’t think it’d have much of an impact. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, two years ago I was the first admin to volunteer several days into the discussion. I also agree that we discuss it too much. We should not forget to discuss this next year, but for now I would just let it run without any additional actions.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with TonyBallioni that the electoral commission is important, but maybe more to the point: the electoral commission is all about ensuring process is followed. I've gone back through the RfCs since 2012 when the commission was established, and I see nothing formal about there being a distinct nomination period separate from a distinct voting period. The most recent proposal regarding the commission election is from 2014 and did not implement a process, just qualifications on nominees. In the 2015 RfC, the commission election was described as having three distinct phases: a 7-day nomination period, a 7-day discussion period, and 7 days of voting. However, it refers to "consensus developed in last year's request for comment", which does not seem to be the case. The consensus proposal refers to "the timeline stipulated above", however that timeline does not mention selection of the commission at all, or it's referring to something else I've been unable to locate. So I have to say that timeline does not appear to have ever gained consensus, and in that case we should go by precedent.
 * The 2015 commission election was the first with a published timeline, and it was not respected at all: nominations did close on schedule, but voting was simultaneous and the selection was completed ahead of schedule. However there were also only three nominees, so the whole process was moot.
 * In 2016, with more candidates than vacancies on the commission, the same thing occurred: nominations and voting occurred simultaneously. That seems to have also been the case in the intervening years and is occurring this year, and this seems to be the first time anyone has brought it up as an issue, so I think we should accept that the established practice of voting while nominations are open has consensus to continue (alternate: there is no consensus to change).
 * I do think it's improper, it gives the appearance of advantage to early nominees, but it's probably more improper to deviate from the expected process in the middle of the election. The question probably should be put to the 2020 RfC, but we shouldn't change the current year's election. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:52, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm completely on board that we should not discard any current participants, any objection to refreshing the watchlist notice next week - simply declaring the name of the phase such as:


 * ? — xaosflux  Talk 17:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I’d support, but use the word “vote” instead of the wiki-euphemism “provide feedback” since that’s what this is... TonyBallioni (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I do not think "vote" correctly describes the current situation. Currently users can "endorse" a candidate, which in usual Wikipedia language means "vote support". If they want to "vote oppose" or "comment", there is a dedicated section for every candidate. I think "provide feedback" describes it better.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:18, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I disagree, but I’m not going to fight over it. This year, like in the past, it is fairly clearly an approval vote where you only vote endorse and the top 3 get on. We aren’t asking people for an in-depth analysis of candidates, though they can provide additional comments if they like, and it’s all but certain to be closed according to “numeric consensus”. My reason for suggesting vote over “provide feedback” is that I’m big on clarity in advertising, but like I said, not a huge deal. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it will most likely get closed along the lines of "approval voting" the "evaluation period" isn't very clearly defined - but it isn't very strongly defined. Having a "call to action" on the WL itself should be sufficient to engage people, regardless of the label. —  xaosflux  Talk 17:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with xaosflux here, "vote" in wikijargon is expected to mean editors have the opportunity to vote "oppose", and the "endorsements" format here does not support that. In various other places, including in the arbcom election itself, an oppose vote is expected to subtract from the net calculation of support. "Oppose" comments are of course welcome, and Tony's right that we'll determine the outcome by counting heads, but "provide feedback" is more appropriate to this scenario. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:35, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly impartial to the idea of tossing votes and starting over when the evaluation period opens. In my particular case it doesn't look like I'll be a commissioner anyways.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 19:59, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I explicitly noted in the ACERFC decisions to date summary that despite what the timeline says, "De facto community evaluation from start of nominations". No one objected during this year RFC, so I would say it can't be changed now. -- KTC (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I was just noting, for the record, the obvious flaws with the practice of opening "endorsements" during a nomination period, when number of endorsements is essentially the only measure of strength of consensus we have. I don't think we need to do anything about it this year. It's definitely not a good system by any reasonable line of thinking, and it should definitely be changed next year, a change so minor and uncontentious that having a month-long RfC about it seems comical. That's not to say it's a big enough deal to disrupt the current process while it is well underway. This is a very low-stakes appointment process, in which all the candidates are equally (over)qualified for a short term position with narrow authority that most people wouldn't ever even want. The notion of tossing the votes is absurd, regardless of whether we "could" do it, and I dare say the mere suggestion is blatantly inappropriate given the context. To oppose a candidate when you have a one-way IBAN from them pending closure at AN/I is bad enough, to additionally suggest tossing all the votes over a minor procedural flaw should not even be humored. ~Swarm~  {sting} 23:15, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Not, what did we decide? I agree with the closing and can co-sign it. The wording has not been discussed, but, otherwise, it is pretty obvious, and I am not sure three closers are needed.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As I think more about it, I believe I should not co-sign the closing. Joint closings must be discussed in advance.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the results were rather clear, we didn't need to go to 'chat' but thank you for being available! :D — xaosflux  Talk 11:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Table
Not sure if it's useful to anyone, but SQLBot is tallying (update every 5 mins) this at: User:SQL/ACE2019_e SQL Query me!  22:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * This could have been done in wikitext using Module:String without a bot. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:45, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Probably could have. SQL Query me!  03:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Implementation thought
It is well-known that RfC sections that are higher up on a page get more attention. Would it be possible to transclude candidate sections from subpages and then randomize the order in which they display? Enterprisey (talk!) 23:59, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone with more technical knowledge than me might correct me, but I'm pretty sure that there's no way to randomize the order of sections or transclusions. SecurePoll randomizes the order of candidates but using SecurePoll for the commissioners election would really be overkill. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:17, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Module:Random seems to work with templates on my sandbox (the order of "Not done" and "Done" is randomized on purge), although a minor drawback is it probably would display in the same order for all users until purged. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:36, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * are you referring to here specifically (the EC endorsements) or for the actual committee election? — xaosflux  Talk 00:55, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The EC endorsements. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * here's the problem I see that will cause - "voter" fatigue. If we make sections and transclude them, voters would be required to edit each individual person they want to endorse, other than being able to do them all at once like this person just did: Special:Diff/920535352. Also the order could change while you are "voting" and you could end up overlooking someone.  All that being said, I've got no objection if uninvolved/impartial people would like to manually "shuffle" the current page a few times a day or so.  I don't think it's going to make that big of a difference in the end though. —  xaosflux  Talk 01:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Similar to the suggestions above. I would say it's a bit late in the day to change how it's done. Maybe note it for next year RFC? -- KTC (talk) 07:15, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , an external tool could be created. A simple OAuth tool where anyone can nominate themselves or endorse nominations.  Wouldn't be difficult to create. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 16:21, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like a lot of work for what is really a process that is usually sparsely attended by nominees. — xaosflux  Talk 16:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Implementing a simple interface with OAuth, SQL, and Bootstrap isn't too much work. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 20:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * not sure how much storage would be needed, wonder if a interface like the commons POTD voter (but that also had room for typing a comment) would be? — xaosflux  Talk 13:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I doubt that anything requiring more than 512 MB would be needed. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 19:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Any candidates wanting to change?
Hello

Barring any exceptional developments in the next few days, all 5 of you are likely to be confirmed; with 3 being selected and the others as reservists. At this time, if you would specifically prefer to be a reserve commissioner please let us know here. Likewise, if you would like to withdraw from consideration for any reason, or specifically if you want to run for an ArbCom seat, please let us know as well. Thank you for volunteering! — xaosflux  Talk 14:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That's funny, I was just typing out a comment about this when I saw the notification flag in preview. Yes, there's a pretty wide gap between the top 3 and the bottom 2, and trends don't point to that changing significantly. I'm fine with withdrawing and sitting in reserve, but I'm also fine with letting the endorsement process play out in case anyone thinks differently. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:02, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , You and I are just not famous enough. ;-) — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 15:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Ivanvector 100% your call here. If you have decided to run for ArbCom itself, you would need to withdraw, else there is no defined maximum number of reservists and it can play out. — xaosflux  Talk 15:23, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * that's probably not a bad thing :) ah I read this wrong. No, I won't be running for Arbcom, and I suppose there's no need to rush the process, so unless the others want to call this early for some other reason let's just let it play out. It's not like we're going to start the committee election early or anything. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , “Breaking news: An unprecedented mass resignation happened earlier today on the English Wikipedia’s Arbitration Committee. Editors are scrambling to fill the seats by accelerating the Election process and filling the seats as soon as the elections conclude.” — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 16:17, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 * If that were to happen, I suspect we'd need all five of us "manning the phones"! Primefac (talk) 17:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Apologies for missing this, y'all. I wouldn't be especially upset to be a reservist, but I did stand with the willingness to be on the committee, and as I'm doing this at least in part out of a feeling that I need to do my fair share of unpleasant work, other things being equal, I'd rather not be a reservist. So instead, I propose that since he's winning the popularity contest, we second to ARBCOM directly, leaving three commission members and one reserve. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Fooled all of you. This was actually a nomination for the leadership of ArbCom.  The top three become automatic ArbCom members and serve as leaders of the committee.  The remaining members become commissioners.  Good luck everyone. :p —  CYBER POWER  ( Trick or Treat) 23:40, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI
FYI, while the current RfC specifically is not granting commissioners CheckUser or other secret access, we did not fully vacate the Appointments to the Commission should be confirmed by the Arbitration Committee per the CheckUser policy guideline (though arguably there is no "per the checkuser policy" to empower it). I've contacted the arbcom list to see if there are any special reasons to disqualify any of the commissioners at this point. I don't expect any, and it will be interesting at best how such an objection may need to be considered. I've added this as a review item for next year at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020. — xaosflux  Talk 00:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ArbCom responded by email, all was fine here. Will revisit the process and timing next year. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That may have been a relic from a time when we didn't have a separate access to nonpublic information policy (if there was such a time; I don't know). But I agree the wording should be edited to match the intent with next year's RfC. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 21:34, 20 October 2019 (UTC)