Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Electoral Commission

Invitations
As there has been low turn out so far, adding pings to prior year nominates to see if they would like to apply this year: (Skipped  as a sitting committee member.) —  xaosflux  Talk 13:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the confidentiality agreement still sticks in my craw a bit, so I can't stand. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  13:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for the note, I thought about that prior hurdle but didn't want to skip you over, happy editing. — xaosflux  Talk 14:00, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd think about it if we're still short at the end of the nominations period, but the one year I served, I came away with the feeling that the position was a little bit more about database skill and less about judgement on tricky issues; and as such I feel even less enthusiastic about it. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for the note, specifically - we certainly do need people with such tech skills to be involved with the election, but they need not be commissioners (it is certainly welcome if they are though). See also the expanded notes on this at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021. Best regards, —  xaosflux  Talk 16:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Like Vanamonde I probably won't make a decision until later in the week. I've been asked to consider running for the committee proper, and I wasn't planning to make a final decision on that until November. Serving on ElectCom would force me to commit sooner which is fine, but I'd rather put off that decision unless there's a serious need for volunteers. I'll keep it in mind. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:39, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I don't have the time right now. -- KTC (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Unfortunately, I'm very busy this month, and I probably would not be able to give the elections the attention that they deserve. Perhaps next year. SQL Query Me!  22:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I certainly wasn't planning on it. I usually never get appointed.  I'll add my name lacking other candidates.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 14:43, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Sign the confidentiality agreement in advance

 * (and any future candidates interested in running for ElectCom who haven't signed the confidentiality agreement): I'll repeat 's advice to me from last year, you should sign the confidentiality agreement in advance since it can take some time for WMF to process it. Directions can be found here. It takes a bit of your time and a bit of the WMF's time, but there's no harm in signing it even if you don't end up selected. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
 * FYI, the process has completed and you are now listed at meta:Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard. — xaosflux  Talk 23:52, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
 * - thank you for volunteering. You may want to start this process right away, it is OK to have done it even if you don't end up requiring it - but should you be selected prior to completion, your empaneling will be delayed.  Best regards, —  xaosflux  Talk 18:05, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Where do I sign? My quill pen is ready. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
 * see meta:Confidentiality_agreement_for_nonpublic_information/How_to_sign. — xaosflux  Talk 18:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Format updates
There is item 1.9 outstanding closure at Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021 which could potentially require a format change here, or closing instructions. Barring any actual closing we have precedent and common sense to fall back on for this format. Perhaps a slight tweak (in the absence of new RfC guidance):

USERNAME
YOUR STATEMENT AND SIGNATURE

Community evaluation for USERNAME

 * The community evaluation phase is not yet open

Editors with reservations about USERNAME


I've specifically avoided using "support / oppose" language here, as this has traditionally been a low-drama area, and I'd love to keep it that way. Problem I'm trying to solve is how to deal with less-endorsed candidates that may or may not belong as reservists. Any thoughts? — xaosflux  Talk 14:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Pings to current coordinators and "candidates": for any feedback.


 * INVOLVED NOTE - I opened the outstanding RfC question (1.9) in response to feedback from my own closing of the 2020 version of this same RfC, to see if better community guidance for the process can be determined. I'd love to think I'm completely fair and impartial in the matter - but my fingerprints are all over this! —  xaosflux  Talk 14:16, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the proposed change, or with any format the community decides to go with. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm impartial. So it's fine with me.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 14:44, 6 October 2021 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I plan to close this RFC proposal today, so there will be RFC guidance. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! — xaosflux  Talk 15:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, Scrap any of that based on the no-consensus at the RfC, possibly will re-visit it next year. Will just use the "comments about" and "users endorsing" sections this year. —  xaosflux  Talk 00:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Opt-for-reserve
Hello candidates! With a about a day and a half of consultation remaining, putting out the same option we've done in the past. If any of you that meet the closing threshold would prefer to be reservists, please indicate below. Keep in mind that even if not empaneled to the commission or reserve you are all more than welcome to continue to assist with the election as volunteer coordinators (those selected are de facto coordinators already). Pings to candidates:. Thank you for volunteering to help in this year's election! — xaosflux  Talk 10:37, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Closing guidance
To whomever closes this, the latest guidance on how this should be closed can be found here: Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021. Thank you, — xaosflux  Talk 18:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

ANPDP Status
Check for registrations on Access to nonpublic personal data policy/Noticeboard:
 * Updated 20:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ User:John M Wolfson
 * ✅ User:GeneralNotability
 * ✅ User:Mz7
 * ✅ User:Ivanvector
 * ❌ User:BeenAroundAWhile
 * ✅ User:Cyberpower678

Results
Commissioners:

Reserve Commissioner(s):




 * Please note: any candidates that were not selected are welcome to continue helping with the election as coordinators. — xaosflux  Talk 00:02, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , Looks like, , and I are EC this year with and  as first and second reservists, respectively. — CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 03:16, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I !voted, so can't close this - that is where I'd set it though. Good to see so an excess of well supported candidates though! —  xaosflux  Talk 09:00, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No one seems interested in closing what I believe to be a trivial close. Involved or not, if you have common sense, I would think we would all come to the same conclusion.  if we agree on the above proposed results, shall we self close?— CYBERPOWER  (Around ) 17:47, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I listed it at ANRFC (Closure_requests) - While I'd agree that if the participants agreed on the ordering that would be no big deal, leaving it to the candidates to self-determine that the rfc was also properly attended and executed, is a bit of a conflict. We did have sort of a tie for 3rd place...  If noone from the community comes to close this and there are no objections though, letting it stand will have to suffice. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:03, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * We are not in a time pressure situation here. The next item on the agenda isn't for several weeks. Because of this, it would be improper for the candidates to self-close. Mz7 (talk) 20:04, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If we're worried that editors will continue to endorse individuals even though the evaluation phase is now over, I wouldn't be opposed to sticking a ivmbox or a archive top notice that merely announces that the evaluation phase is closed, but stopping short of declaring the actual results. As a matter of principle, no matter how trivial we think the results are, I think we should still leave that to someone uninvolved. Mz7 (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like closed it, so all should be well now.  SQL Query Me!  20:53, 16 October 2021 (UTC)