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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2020 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 17:32 (UTC), Wednesday, 22 May 2024 (Purge)

  • Thank you for participating in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
  • You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.
Shortcut

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 2020 should create a new subsection 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 2020 Arbitration Committee election process, and to adjudicate any disputes during the election.

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.

Per the consensus developed in previous requests for comment, the electoral commission timetable is as follows:

  • Nominations: Saturday 00:00, 03 October 2020 (UTC) – Friday 23:59, 09 October 2020 (UTC) (7 days)
  • Evaluation period: Saturday 00:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC) – Friday 23:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC) (7 days)
  • Commission selection: completed by Friday 00:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Important: Endorsements/comments are not accepted until the evaluation period.

Volunteers to serve on the electoral commission[edit]

Thank you to all of the commission candidates for volunteering for these positions. The commission is limited to three active members per the community RfC. This year's electoral commission will consist of:

Having also recieved sufficient support the following reserve commissioner is apointed and will be automatically promoted to active in the event of a vacancy:

All commissioners and reservists are de facto coordinators, along with other community members that have volunteered to assist. As all have already completed the WMF NDA, this is immediately effective. Best of luck for a smooth election process this year. — xaosflux Talk 00:23, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

User:Cyberpower678[edit]

Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

I'm throwing my hat in the ring again to help assist with the ArbCom Elections. I became an administrator, and global renamer, in 2017 and I've done some heavy clerking/coordinating during the elections for the last 2 years, including automating more of the election process, generating the voter eligibility lists, used in the SecurePoll voting system, and mass message lists for the last 2 elections, setting up the ArbCom election pages, and closing the policy related RfCs for the elections, which makes me very familiar with the policies of the election and the scope of the Electoral Commission. I enjoy helping out and would like to offer my services again as an electoral commissioner. I have served as one in the 2018 elections, and have learned a lot during my time in it, especially from the Fred Bauder incident. Naturally, I have already signed the NDA required for this role, and I am no stranger to handling private/sensitive information.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Cyberpower678[edit]

  • I haven't endorsed Cyberpower, given that endorsements are akin to votes and voting for more candidates than can be elected doesn't make a lot of sense; but I wanted to record my respect for Cyberpower, and my sentiment that he has nothing but the project's best interests at heart. Vanamonde (Talk) 14:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing Cyberpower678[edit]

  1. I worked with CP678 in 2018, he was reasonable, and knowledgeable. Has helped on ElectCom before. SQLQuery me! 00:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse. Trustworthy and has the project's best interests at heart. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse. No question about CP's technical expertise. Mike (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Rschen7754 04:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse, and having a commissioner who has good technical experience always seems wise Nosebagbear (talk) 12:13, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse, has good experience, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Nadzik (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. GirthSummit (blether) 20:40, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Euryalus (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Well qualified. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Endorse. Unknown to me, but going with endorse due to some trusted supporters above. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 07:34, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Endorse. When I looked at all the names, I thought they'd all be fine and endorsing everyone would be pointless. But looking at the situation today, I've decided to endorse all those volunteers who aren't stirring unneeded drama. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Endorse. Has been around and puts in effort and skills demonstrated to me with IABot. I'm as comfortable as I can be endorsing Cyberpower678 for the role. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Endorse. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 11:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Endorse. Asartea Talk | Contribs 12:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Endorse JW 1961 Talk 17:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mz7[edit]

Mz7 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Hi, I'm Mz7. I've been an administrator since 2017 and a checkuser and oversighter since 2019. Although I haven't served on the ElectCom before, I've been helping behind-the-scenes with ArbCom elections in a volunteer role for a few years now, and I've been trying to document some of the more esoteric procedures in my userspace: User:Mz7/Running Arbitration Committee elections. That page is still very much incomplete, and I know that some of our election procedures—such as with handling disputes or coordinating SecurePoll, voter rolls, and mass message lists—aren't all written down and are passed mostly through institutional memory. As a checkuser/oversighter, I have already signed the nonpublic information agreement, and I have no intention of running for ArbCom. My priority would be ensuring that the election is fair and efficient. Mz7 (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Mz7[edit]

Users endorsing Mz7[edit]

  1. Thoughtful experienced user who epitomizes for me the type of editor I want on ElectCom, especially with an expanded remit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:00, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Thoughtful editor. I'm really impressed by User:Mz7/Running Arbitration Committee elections. SQLQuery me! 00:04, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse. Trustworthy and has the project's best interests at heart. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Absolutely. Knows what they're doing, trustworthy, and lots of relevant experience. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I can personally attest to Mz7's wisdom and competence. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Rschen7754 04:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. seem to be very well prepared.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mz7 has demonstrated a recent willingness to stick their head above the parapet to try and resolve issues in the face of major blowback. ECs don't often have issues that require such behaviour, but they do risk it. Endorse. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Endorse Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Enthusiastic endorse. Especially with the expanded remit, this position requires experienced and resourceful editors with excellent judgment. Mz7 fits the bill perfectly. CThomas3 (talk) 16:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. – bradv🍁 18:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. stwalkerster (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I appreciate initiative in running the election. Tamwin (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Endorse, has similar experience, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:48, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I can't help but suspect he's volunteering for this so that he can't be pressured into running for arbcom ;) Natureium (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:55, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Gleeanon 13:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Endorse per experience and trust. Tbiw (talk) 13:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Polite, competent, and experienced. Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Waggie (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Regrettably, as I'd hoped Mz7 would run ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. GirthSummit (blether) 20:06, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Appears to be a motivated and knowledgeable candidate. User:Mz7/Running Arbitration Committee elections is especially encouraging. Aza24 (talk) 23:32, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. No hesitations. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Well qualified. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Endorse. Has common sense and fairness. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 07:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Endorse. Trusted user. —Nnadigoodluck███ 10:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Endorse quite happily. Deb (talk) 13:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Endorse. When I looked at all the names, I thought they'd all be fine and endorsing everyone would be pointless. But looking at the situation today, I've decided to endorse all those volunteers who aren't stirring unneeded drama. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  34. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Mkdw talk 20:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Happy to endorse. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:14, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Very happy to endorse. — Eagleash (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  38. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 23:07, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  39. The short and simple story is very happy to endorse. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Endorse - Trusted, competent and experienced. –Davey2010Talk 10:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Competent person. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:22, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Endorse as a thoughtful and measured volunteer. Grandpallama (talk) 19:35, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  43. —S Marshall T/C 10:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Endorse Asartea Talk | Contribs 12:24, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  45. Endorse. Cabayi (talk) 13:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Endorse JW 1961 Talk 17:22, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Waggie[edit]

Waggie (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

I wish to submit my name as a volunteer for the election commission. While this would be my first time in this role, I feel that I am a good candidate for this. From a technical perspective, while I do not have experience with the election systems on Wikipedia, I do have several years of experience with the Account Creation system and also with our IRC help channels, as a global channel operator for our channels there, and as an IT Professional for over 20 years. I also feel that I am skilled in handling disputes, and working with others that I disagree with. I really enjoy finding solutions to problems.

Comments about Waggie[edit]

  • I commend Waggie for coming forward, and coming forward early when their were few candidates, and can only wish them the best but in a toss between and admin I dont know well (where I can refer the RfA cauldon; albeit historic) and a non-admin I don't know too well I'll likely plump for the admin. Omitting to sign the introduction above caught my eye also.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:52, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Djm-leighpark, thanks for commenting on my candidacy. You make all fair points, I do understand the concerns about my not being an admin and not being that well known. FWIW, we have interacted before, and my impression of you has been positive. Regarding the sig. FTR, I left it out intentionally. I didn't think a sig was necessary or, honestly, even really appropriate as all the requisite links for me are posted directly above my self-nom statement. The only thing useful in a sig might have been a timestamp, but doesn't seem terribly important to me in this context. Something to think about in future, however. The way things are going as of now, it looks like I won't be selected and I'm perfectly OK with that. There's plenty of good candidates now, and that's what matters. Anyway, just wanted to thank you and wish you the best. Waggie (talk) 00:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing Waggie[edit]

  1. Endorse, kind and thoughtful! Heart (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse. He's not an admin, but so what? Fresh blood. Give him a chance! Mike (talk) 03:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorse. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. – bradv🍁 18:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. stwalkerster (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Thoughtful, helpful in my experience. SQLQuery me! 23:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I commend Waggie for their willingness to serve the community. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Endorse. When I looked at all the names, I thought they'd all be fine and endorsing everyone would be pointless. But looking at the situation today, I've decided to endorse all those volunteers who aren't stirring unneeded drama. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. OhKayeSierra (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. --Bison X (talk) 04:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Endorse. – Majavah talk · edits 10:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:SQL[edit]

SQL (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

I'm volunteering again this year to help out as an election commissioner. I was a commissioner in 2018, I've been an admin for over a decade, and a functionary for close to a year now. I have a lot of experience manipulating data, generating targeted lists of users, and with phabricator.

I am officially a clerk for the Arbitration Committee, but I will remain inactive in that role until the election is over. SQLQuery me! 21:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about SQL[edit]

Users endorsing SQL[edit]

  1. Endorse. Trustworthy and has the project's best interests at heart. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Absolutely. SQL is a terrific editor and administrator, and has done a great job as commissioner in the past. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per nom Trusted, competent, relevant experience. Definite endorse from me. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse, very helpful! Heart (talk) 03:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse. I've run across SQL in the past and always struck me as a sensible person. Definitely no doubt about technical abilities. Mike (talk) 03:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse. Experienced editor with strong technical skills. Ticks all the boxes. CThomas3 (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. – bradv🍁 18:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:02, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. stwalkerster (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Well qualified, and it seems like a good idea to have someone who's served before on the commission. Tamwin (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse as has good experience, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:50, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Natureium (talk) 20:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Euryalus (talk) 03:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Exemplary candidate. Glen (talk) 05:25, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Gleeanon 13:16, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Super technical skills. --Pudeo (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Waggie (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Absolutely. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:23, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Well qualified. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Endorse. Quite qualified. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 07:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Endorse. When I looked at all the names, I thought they'd all be fine and endorsing everyone would be pointless. But looking at the situation today, I've decided to endorse all those volunteers who aren't stirring unneeded drama. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:25, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. SELECT qualifiedEditor FROM wikipedia; Acebulf (talk | contribs) 19:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Mkdw talk 20:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Happy to endorse. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  31. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  32. --Bison X (talk) 04:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Endorsing as my knife-edge choice between SQL (experience) and GeneralNotability (freshness and new blood). Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Endorse - Trusted & competent. –Davey2010Talk 13:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  35. ENDORSE. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Qualified, competent, trustworthy. Grandpallama (talk) 19:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Endorse. Well known admin ―Sportzpikachu my talkcontribs 00:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Endorse. – Majavah talk · edits 10:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Endorse. Cabayi (talk) 13:11, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:GeneralNotability[edit]

GeneralNotability (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

Hi all, I'm GeneralNotability. I've been an administrator for about half a year now. I have not served on the Electoral Commission before, but I have a fair amount of experience handling sensitive information both from OTRS and my day-to-day work as an administrator. One of my main interests in serving on the commission would be to help automate the process as much as possible, since Mz7 alluded to a lot of "institutional knowledge" steps. If we can turn a lot of those steps into scripts/bots/something, that will make things easier for future commissions, and my day job is basically "take boring complicated processes and turn them into scripts." I have not signed the access to nonpublic information policy yet, but I am able to do so. At xaosflux's suggestion, I have signed the access to nonpublic information policy. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about GeneralNotability[edit]

  • As with my comment above re: Cyberpower, I have nothing but respect for GeneralNotability, but a marginally higher preference for four other candidates. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing GeneralNotability[edit]

  1. Thoughtful, experienced editor. SQLQuery me! 00:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse. Trustworthy and has the project's best interests at heart. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. GeneralNotability has the experience and competence necessary for this role. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse. Very kind to editors! Heart (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Endorse. Mike (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Endorse. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse, no concerns about their experience. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse, experienced editor who I work with at SPI. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Endorse. Level-headed and competent. — Blablubbs (talk • contribs) 13:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – bradv🍁 18:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. stwalkerster (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Endorse, similar experience, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Generally Competent. Natureium (talk) 20:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:22, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Endorse per SQL. CThomas3 (talk) 20:47, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:53, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Always admired their work at SPI. Trusted admin. Glen (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Gleeanon 13:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Hard-working at SPI recently, that's a good fit. --Pudeo (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:10, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Well qualified. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Endorse. An efficient editor / admin. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 07:22, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Endorse. Looking up the noticeboard logs show that he is a polite, kind and diligent admin. Walwal20 talk ▾ contribs 07:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Endorse. Highly trusted and level headed Admin. Appreciate their work at SPI. —Nnadigoodluck███ 10:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Endorse. I've been very happy with what I've seen. Deb (talk) 13:47, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Endorse. Thanks a lot.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Endorse. When I looked at all the names, I thought they'd all be fine and endorsing everyone would be pointless. But looking at the situation today, I've decided to endorse all those volunteers who aren't stirring unneeded drama. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 15:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Mkdw talk 20:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Happy to endorse. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Trustworthy, level-headed and diligent. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  33. --Bison X (talk) 04:45, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Endorse, They work wonders at SPI!, Clueful, trusted and experienced. –Davey2010Talk 10:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  35. The person's a general of notability, for crying out loud. Uh, and also experienced and can probably do a good job. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Endorse. Active and qualified. Elijahandskip (talk) 18:40, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  37. Particularly thoughtful. Grandpallama (talk) 19:36, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  38. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Endorse per Atlantic306. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Endorse. – Majavah talk · edits 10:20, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  41. Endorse - My preferred slate of commissioners would be 2 experienced + 1 new to widen the pool of experienced candidates next time around. The General would be ideal fresh blood from this batch. Cabayi (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Endorse JW 1961 Talk 17:25, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wugapodes[edit]

Wugapodes (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

I joined Wikipedia in 2015 and became an administrator earlier this year; this is my first time volunteering for the electoral commission. I helped organize WP:ACERFC2020, creating the statement table and system of anchors to make it more navigable--among other refactoring. For my most relevant technical experience, I maintain a user script, a bot, and a MediaWiki extension. I also re-wrote the {{Voting}} navigational sidebar a few months ago, so I've incidentally done a bit of background reading. I'm nominating myself because I believe a diversity of perspectives is important in a commission that makes binding decisions on election procedure, especially with the growing role of ElectCom in enforcing decorum. I won't write an essay here on my dispute resolution philosophy, but feel free to ask me or review some examples on my talk page. In general though, my goals are to listen, de-escalate, and find a productive way forward. In the scope of the election, that means seeking community feedback whenever possible and ensuring a fair process where everyone has the chance to be heard.
Should I be tasked with serving on the commission, I'm willing to help document what I learn at User:Mz7/Running Arbitration Committee elections to ease the transition for future volunteers. I do not plan to run for ArbCom this year. As a sociolinguist, I have training and experience in handling confidential data, and I have signed the access to non-public information policy. 00:30, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments about Wugapodes[edit]

  • I thank Wugapodes for volunteering but I have (rightly or wrongly) endorsed other candidates. However even if not chosen am most pleased to have Wugapodes in reserve in case other candidates drop out.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:09, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing Wugapodes[edit]

  1. Wugapodes is a terrific editor and administrator and I think he would make a great elections commissioner. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 01:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Kevin. Solid commissioner candidate as far as I'm concerned. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I fully trust Wug to fulfill this role. (t · c) buidhe 01:51, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse Wugs. Lugs. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. We have a good selection of candidates, but I just wanted to mention that I have an experience interacting with Wugapodes off-wiki for an RfC close, and it was efficient and unproblematic.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. A general set of positives, but I also feel that having a comparative newcomer (admin-wise) on the team might help give some more viewpoints and also highlight things that need to be noted down for new election commissioners that might be assumed knowledge otherwise. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:18, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse, seen them around and will be good to get a new admin in the commission. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:24, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Endorse per L235 and GeneralNotability above. CThomas3 (talk) 16:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. – bradv🍁 18:33, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. stwalkerster (talk) 19:07, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Again, I appreciate initiative in running the election. Tamwin (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 04:57, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Gleeanon 13:19, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Per my nomination statement at Wugapodes' RFA. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. A good candidate. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Endorse. We cross paths on occasion – good candidate. GenQuest "Talk to Me" 07:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Endorse. —Nnadigoodluck███ 10:32, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Endorse. When I looked at all the names, I thought they'd all be fine and endorsing everyone would be pointless. But looking at the situation today, I've decided to endorse all those volunteers who aren't stirring unneeded drama. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Endorse. Seems they really want to improve Wikipedia, go for it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Natureium (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Per Kevin. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. I've always had positive interactions with Wugapodes and am happy to support. --BDD (talk) 18:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Withdrawn candidacies[edit]

User:Ritchie333[edit]

Extended content

Ritchie333 (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)

I've been an administrator for five years, more recently became a global renamer, and have written about 140 GAs and around 175 DYKs. I am never going to run for Arbcom; I would be a useless candidate who never did anything and would get booted off for inactivity. I've previously served as a returning officer in 2017, and wrote some scripts to help determine the suitable corpus of voters. I also stood and won a position in 2018, but chose to give the position up in favour of another candidate who had never served previously. I am willing to step in and adjudicate disputes; I watched the fallout from the Fred Bauder case from the sidelines and hope that that never happens again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 08:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments about Ritchie333[edit]

  • @Ritchie333: You were elected to the Electoral Commission in 2018, and were reminded both here and here that you would need to sign the WMF confidentiality agreement. You did not acknowledge these messages or sign the confidentiality agreement. You did step down, a week after you were first reminded to sign the agreement, though you did not resign, you wished to serve as a reserve commissioner instead, and this status was marked as "pending", and yet you did not sign the confidentiality agreement for the entirety of the election. Indeed it remains unclear whether you had signed the agreement when you served as a commissioner in 2017. It has been five days since you submitted your candidacy, and you are still not listed as having signed the confidentiality agreement. There is a bit of a delay between signing the agreement and having your name posted on the noticeboard, so please confirm that you have signed the agreement and that your name is pending addition to the list. Otherwise, please sign the agreement without further delay and let us know once you have done so. This is a minor, easily-resolved technicality, however I am bringing it up here due to your past and present elusiveness on this issue. Thanks, ~Swarm~ {sting} 00:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In 2017, there was a different procedure to sign an agreement. We would just provide our names to some WMF officials, and they were added to some page on Meta. Then, in 2018, they have changed the procedure, and all old agreements became invalid overnight. Ritchie333 has signed the agreement in 2017 (or before), but the agreement became invalid in 2018 as the WMF changed the procedure and required a new signature.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a rush? I thought the community here was strongly critical of the WMF and opposed many things about them. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:21, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad to see that Ritchie333 has reservations. Maybe I'm just too naive, but I find that some bits of the agreement are disturbing, and I also find it a bit disturbing that nobody else seems to have reservations, and indeed that large numbers of us are not wisely or foolishly protesting over the matter, and perhaps wisely or foolishly demanding resignations from the WMF, etc. For instance, here's an extract from the document, which is here :
Exceptions to nonpublic personal data. ... or (d) is required by law to be disclosed by you, but you promise to give WMF prompt notice of such legal requirement and comply with any protective order imposed on such disclosure.
...
Protection of nonpublic personal data. You agree to: ... Email check-disclosure(_AT_)wikimedia.org an explanation of the nonpublic personal data you wish to disclose to outside parties such as law enforcement at least 10 days prior to the date of your anticipated disclosure.
Violation. You agree that, in case of a violation of this agreement, including improper access, use, or disclosure of nonpublic personal data: ... The Wikimedia Foundation may pursue available legal remedies, including injunctive relief or, in the case of willful intent, monetary damages.
It seems to me that WMF is placing itself above the law to an astonishing degree: If you are obliged by law to disclose info, such as that, for instance, you have discovered that senior members of WMF appear to be possibly engaged in some kind of criminal conspiracy, you must notify them at least 10 days before going to the authorities, you must "comply with any protective order imposed on such disclosure" by the WMF, and you may be sued financially if you don't. So, as already mentioned, maybe I'm just a bit too naive (In the past I have found WMF far more pleasant and helpful than Arbcom maybe about 7 or 8 years ago on the only occasion I had to deal with either (which is not necessarily saying all that much, as Arbcom were simply dreadful), and, for all I know, perhaps there are valid reasons why the WMF genuinely needs such wording). But I find it a bit disturbing that nobody except Ritchee333 seems to have reservations, and indeed that large numbers of us are not wisely or foolishly protesting over the matter, and perhaps wisely or foolishly demanding resignations from the WMF, etc. Meanwhile this has now given me a good reason to be inclined to support Ritchie333 (tho with the qualifier that I have to admit that I don't yet know anything else about him, including the actual reasons for his above-mentioned reservations). Tlhslobus (talk) 17:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tlhslobus, signing the agreement is currently an explicit requirement for serving as an election commissioner; if a prospective candidate has concerns about that requirement, the time to address them was during the recently closed election RFC, not now. There is of course no requirement for a candidate to have signed the agreement prior to their nomination, and there is no “rush” to sign it during the endorsement period. However, by the time the commission's duties begin, the agreement will not have changed, and it’s a binary decision: either the candidate signs it or they don’t. If they don’t, they aren’t eligible to serve, full stop. From a personal perspective, I see little reason to endorse someone for a position when I don’t have reasonable certainty that they will be able to fulfill its duties. You are obviously welcome to your own opinion on the matter. CThomas3 (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of the way voters in the UK eventually got rid of unreasonable requirements for membership of Parliament by insisting on electing 'ineligible' candidates such as the Roman Catholic Daniel O'Connell and the Atheist Charles Bradlaugh. (As schoolkids Irish people like me were, and probably still are, taught to see O'Connell's election and the resulting Catholic Emancipation as one of the major events in Irish history). So if voters feel the WMF wording is or seems unreasonable or unacceptable (for reasons indicated above, or for any other reasons they may have) and needs to be publicly debated and either publicly justified or else changed, they could try to bring this about by voting for Ritchie333. The fact that they can also vote for any number of other candidates should make this a lot easier than it presumably was for those voting for O'Connell and Bradlaugh in the past. Of course it might help if @Ritchie333: were to publicly spell out in more detail the reasons for his reservations, and what he proposed to do about them. It might also help if some lawyer or lawyers were to add legally informed comments on the issue (such as whether or not, and why, the above WMF wording really is necessary, or unacceptable, etc, and whether we would accept an at least apparently similar requirement if, for instance, the Vatican were to demand that we give them 10 days' notice before informing the authorities about suspected priestly child abuse, and agree to "comply with any protective order imposed on such disclosure" by the Vatican, etc, and doubtless many other seemingly fairly similar whistleblowing examples may brought up). Tlhslobus (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(Ping fix, as template documentation suggests my above ping for @Ritchie333: will not have worked, as it was inserted in a later edit after I signed my comment).Tlhslobus (talk) 14:27, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: I mean, yes, there's a "rush", voting is literally underway and you have still not indicated that you have or are even planning on signing the confidentiality agreement. You did not satisfy the requirements for serving on the EC in 2018 even though you were repeatedly reminded to do so, you ignored messages about the issue or only replied with elusive, esoteric jokes or non-answers, and never even gave any indication that you understand the simple point of order that you are required to sign the confidentiality agreement and intend to abide by it. This isn't some esoteric, controversial issue, it's simply a request for you to let us know that you will not repeat the issue that prevented you from serving in 2018, and yet you're still refusing to give an answer to the simple question of whether you've signed the confidentiality agreement, or even plan to. There's literally no reason for these bizarre messages in lieu of anything remotely addressing the issue. ~Swarm~ {sting} 23:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, I apologize if this is being seen as a "fuss" or a "kerfuffle", and I will be the first to say it shouldn't normally even need to be mentioned here. This started off as a friendly, routine reminder in 2018, when Ritchie was literally elected to the Commission and refused to sign the confidentiality agreement, ignored every message about doing so, and didn't even deign to offer any sort of acknowledgment that the requests were even being made of him. It was strange in 2018, and it's strange in 2020, when he is again refusing to simply confirm that he is even willing to sign the confidentiality agreement. It genuinely baffles me why he will not simply say that he has or will sign the agreement. It's not like he was not given a courtesy message on his talk page first, which he refused to address with anything other than a joke, which is exactly what he did in 2018 when he failed to legitimize his own appointment. So I will say that I like Ritchie, and I am not trying to drag down his EC candidacy with a petty squabble, but I simply that I would refute the notion that this is some sort of "fuss". Given Ritchie's past and present behavior, it's genuinely unclear whether he is willing to sign the confidentiality agreement, which is a requirement for this permission. If there is a simple reason he has not done so yet, he has so far refused to provide one. If there is an explanation as to why he did not do so last year, he never gave one. If he plans on signing it if appointed, he has never said that. If he previously did so and was erroneously removed after his 2017 tenure, he has never even said that. It's not like we're grilling him when he's not around, he continues to edit, and he's again replying with bizarre jokes and non-answers that are in line with behavior surrounding a past incident in which he refused to satisfy the requirement. This isn't some complex issue here, I'm asking for 2 seconds of his time to acknowledge this concern, and instead we have this drawn-out thread in which the only thing he's said is some bizarre quip about how "WMF bad". It's bordering on trolling at this point. ~Swarm~ {sting} 01:42, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per Hanlon's razor, I don't understand the agreement, I don't have time to sit down and digest it (it'll take longer than two minutes), I am concerned it could be used against me (per concerns above) and I have higher priorities at the moment (that pay me actual money, which this doesn't). Signing something you don't understand is extremely foolish. Have a bit of patience. (and since my words have a tendency to be completely misinterpreted, the "stupidity" I refer to here is mine) Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then if you haven't read and agreed with the requirements of the position and you won't have time to acquaint yourself with them to your satisfaction, why are you running? Ritchie, I like you, you were one of the co-noms on my RfA, and you are a good egg, but I can't help seeing this as just a waste of time - if you won't agree to the conditions of the appointment (or don't know yet if you will agree to them), it's not fair to run. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users endorsing Ritchie333[edit]

  1. This is a good candidate, I worked with him in the 2017 commission, and I think it is unfair nobody endorsed him so far--Ymblanter (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have often encountered this editor, and think him sensible, understanding and kind. I think he is an excellent candidate. Tim riley talk 15:05, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm currently giving him a highly qualified endorsement: For reasons indicated by me in the previous section, I find his having reservations about signing the WMF non-disclosure agreement to be seemingly commendable, and thus a reason to think about voting for him, even tho this is qualified by the fact that I currently know nothing else about him, including the actual reasons for his above-mentioned reservations. Tlhslobus (talk) 17:28, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've seen Ritchie around quite a bit, often take a prominent place in difficult or controversial disputes/conversation. From what I've seen he would be a fair, knowledgeable and experienced candidate. Aza24 (talk) 19:17, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Moral-ish endorse. I don't really know Ritchie333 well enough to endorse or not endorse but I really don't see what all this agreement fuss is about so "endorse". As a matter of good sense, no one should sign any agreements (on Wikipedia or in RL) unless they absolutely have to, and that "have to" only happens if they're selected to serve on the committee and, if selected, they accept the position.--RegentsPark (comment) 00:30, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I've worked with Ritchie a fair bit, I've disagreeed with him quite often, I trust his judgement. I was unaware of the kerfuffle about signing the confidentiality agreement. Ritchie, I really think you ought to sign it ASAP, and make it public that you've done so. The WMF can be a PITA, god knows, but undertakings about private information exist for a reason, and I'd be very surprised if you don't have to deal with private information as a commissioner. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:18, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For the love of god, Ritchie, if you don't have the time to do this now, at least undertake to do it before any commissioner duties will be required... Vanamonde (Talk) 15:01, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020/Electoral_Commission&oldid=1073158449"