Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Electoral Commission

Advertisements up

From the to-do list, checked that the WLN popped, and I added a note at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#2022_Arbitration_Committee_Elections_-_Electoral_Commission_feedback_requested. As I'm a candidate this year, if anyone thinks that VPM statement isn't appropriate feel free to delete it or revise it. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:11, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Seem absolutely fine, xaosflux. Thanks for volunteering and good luck! Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 02:30, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Note for withdrawn or non-selected volunteers

Hi everyone, if you are not selected for the commission, but would still like to help out or stay active in the election (especially if you are new to this and want to learn), feel free to list yourself at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022/Coordination#Coordinators. There are usually many clerking tasks to do. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Ping: @Compassionate727: — xaosflux ^Talk 12:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: Can I join? But I didn't run for EC and I ain't an admin either. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

@CX Zoom it is open to anyone that would like to help. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:37, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 17:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Goldilocks problem

When I canvassed all of the people who were on the ECs from the last 3 years, it was because at the time only 2-3 people - all with no previous experience on the EC - had nominated themselves, and I thought it was vital that we have some institutional memory on the EC. The problem is, I also think it's vital to get an injection of new blood, so we can expand the number of people who can provide institutional memory in the future. I hope/assume it's obvious I completely trust and appreciate the experienced EC members on the project page, and I hope/assume they won't think it's rude I personally asked some of them to run and then didn't support them on this page. But I wish there was a way to "force" (joking not joking) several very trusted new EC candidates to run, and "force" several experienced EC candidates to run, and have an "at least 1 trusted new EC and at least 1 previous EC" rule. I'll probably propose such a thing in next year's RFC. But I don't know how to do the "forcing" part of it; any suggestions appreciated. In any case, it would be impossible to go wrong with any combination of the 3 nominees, so I'll support in a way to make a non-disruptive point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps start the "recruiting" earlier? I specifically ran for "reservist" to try to make spots available for others partly for this reason (though I've never actually been on electcom). — xaosflux ^Talk 00:17, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, part of the problem is this particular pool of candidates, which includes no administrators who haven't served on the EC before. Given the sensitivity and importance of the position, realistically, no non-admin will ever be elected to the commission unless there simply aren't enough candidates. Perhaps next year, also solicit administrators who have never served before?

FWIW, while you're free to propose such an amendment, it strikes me as unlikely to pass. Wikipedians loathe rules that restrict their options. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:09, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I suppose I can try to recruit people both with and without previous EC experience earlier, but I'm hoping for a process that doesn't just rely on me. I'm not exactly trying to restrict options; I was thinking more along the lines of electing 2 previous EC members, and 2 people without EC experience, for a total of 4 people. You may very well be right that non-admins aren't going to be accepted (I've never done it, so Vanamonde may have a point). I'll also note that I didn't realize Xaosflux hadn't done this before (he's always everywhere helping with everything, so I guess I just assumed....), so things aren't quite how I described them above. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:46, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

But a 4-member panel is prone to decision-making gridlocks, due to the possibility of being evenly split. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Erm, my ignorance of the process is showing here, but does the EC take formal votes or something that would make an even split a possibility? I had assumed their decisions involved a lot of hidden discussion (and perhaps some compromising) and then they sort of just spat a final decision out. I mean, I guess a four-member panel could be more prone to gridlocking then a three-member one, but I can't really imagine the decision-making process just grinding to a halt. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

What C727 said; it isn't a vote, and I am confident 4 people could figure something out. If nothing else, sometimes when decisions are needed, one EC member may not be available, and the 2 remaining EC members have always managed. Finally, this is just me spitballing; if it was somehow at least one experienced and at least one new, that would work too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Floquenbeam I'm curious why you see this mix of new and old as so important for this role. For me most of the EC is bureaucratic in nature and there experience pays off - it's why we both think of xaosflux as experienced despite no formal EC experience given all that he does to facilitate elections. There is generally a judgement call or two of some import the committee needs to make but I am not sure how the mix of experience level helps there. I see this in marked contrast to the committee itself where I think we do want a mix of old and new. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: Primarily because the pool of active people with EC experience is not unlimited, and some have significantly scaled down their activity here; if 2-3 more do so, we might have an EC with little to no experience in a few years. As I said above, the current year EC will work great with 3 previous EC members, but this is a steady-state process and we should have a way to increase the number of people who have that experience. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:20, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Continuously building capacity makes sense. Given that I'd stick with your 1 experienced, 1 new, 1 either format rather than 2 and 2. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

My concern about the viability of the proposal is that people will make objections along the lines of: "But what if there aren't good candidates who haven't sat on the EC before? We should be able to vote for the best candidates regardless of prior experience." See Proposal 10 from the pre-election RfC; I can't see this proposal going much better. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:00, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I have an idea, but I'm not sure of the implications: keep the current setup of collecting endorsements, but change the way the discussion is closed: all candidates with at least X% of the candidate with the most endorsements are eligible to serve on the EC. Of those eligible candidates, three are selected: the most endorsed one with previous EC experience, the most endorsed one without previous EC experience, and then the next most endorsed one, independent of previous EC experience. Of course, if no candidates without EC experience are eligible, the next most endorsed candidate is selected.

This system basically comes down to: if there's a rookie candidate that has enough endorsements (not in the top 3, but would probably be a reservist), they're selected ahead of the third most endorsed candidate. I'd love to hear all of your input on this idea, and whether or not this should be proposed at the ACERFC2023. --rchard2scout (talk) 09:57, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

This seems to me like a potentially reasonable solution if we can agree on an acceptable threshold. That's no doubt the hard part, and I'm not sure I have any ideas on it. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 01:56, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

I've gone over the numbers from the last few years (2017-2021), and as far as I can tell, in all those years, 2021 was the only year in which there were actually three candidates with previous EC experience. They were all selected. All other years (including this year), there were only one or two candidates with previous experience. (Or none at all, in 2017!) In 2021, the two reservists (John M Wolfson and Ivanvector) reached respectively 70,7% and 82,9% of the number of endorsements that GeneralNotability had, so that year, Ivanvector would probably have been selected instead of Cyberpower678. All in all, I don't think it's necessary to change the system, because we don't usually get three candidates with previous experience. For reference, here's the data I collected, please correct it if I made a mistake.

Last five EC results

Year Candidate Endorsements % of max Previous experience Status 2021 John M Wolfson 29 70,7% No Reserve GeneralNotability 41 100,0% Yes EC Mz7 37 90,2% Yes EC Ivanvector 34 82,9% No Reserve BeenAroundAWhile 6 14,6% No Not selected Cyberpower678 35 85,4% Yes EC 2020 Cyberpower678 19 41,3% Yes Not selected Mz7 46 100,0% No EC Waggie 14 30,4% No Not selected SQL 39 84,8% Yes EC GeneralNotability 42 91,3% No EC Wugapodes 25 54,3% No Reserve 2019 Vanamonde93 76 90,5% No EC Cyberpower678 44 52,4% Yes Reserve TonyBallioni 84 100,0% No EC Primefac 75 89,3% No EC Ivanvector 47 56,0% No Reserve 2018 Ritchie333 42 91,3% Yes EC Cyberpower678 36 78,3% No Reserve KTC 40 87,0% No EC SQL 46 100,0% No EC Sachinthonakkara 0 0,0% No Not selected 2017 Ymblanter 44 84,6% No EC (resigned) Yunshui 40 76,9% No EC Cwmhiraeth 9 17,3% No Not selected A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver 5 9,6% No Not selected Ritchie333 52 100,0% No EC TParis 19 36,5% No Reserve DoRD 30 57,7% No Reserve (called up to EC)

--rchard2scout (talk) 10:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Time for closure

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.

---

Closure seems mostly readily apparent:

Commissioners: Cyberpower678 (25), AmandaNP (37), Mz7 (30)

Reserve #1: Xaosflux (38) (per self-request to defer to reserve if sufficient other candidates)

Reserve #2 ?

Not sure on this one, Dr vulpes has 13 endorsements

Not selected: Dumuzid (3)

• Is the filling of reserve #2 "readily apparent" to anyone else, or should we ask for the 'crat input? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:29, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

@xaosflux at least IMO given that no one objected as far as I can see I would be willing to call that for Dr vulpes, but I could also see the wisdom of consulting a 'crat given the 12 support difference between them and the first selected commissioner. Also would you know how to whack the box to hide the Electoral Commision link for now? Right now it's linking to a empty list -- Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 20:45, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Suppressed it for now here. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:57, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Given that Dr vulpes currently has 36.8% of the number of votes that Xaosflux has, and looking at the past results (see my table in the previous section), I'm really not sure. In 2020, 41.3% was not enough, but in 2017, 36.5% was enough to be selected as reserve commissioner. I have no objections either way. ----rchard2scout (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

• Closure requested at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#WP:ELECTCOM2022_closure. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:07, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

  I've closed the discussion for now, given that the evaluation period has officially been over for >24 hours. I'll let a 'Crat determine consensus. --rchard2scout (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Does this actually need a crat to close? I see a number of admins who've closed this discussion without controversy including JJMC last year. Frankly it's straightforward enough, and because no buttons need be pressed, I see no reason an appropriately qualified NAC couldn't do it. Suggesting it needs a crat closure feels like making more of this than need be. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49 not necessarily, the directions only call for If the consensus is not readily apparent, one or more bureaucrats will help close the discussion. (this has been in the directions for at least 5 years) - so if it is readily apparent to a closer/closer-challenger; it can just be closed. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:05, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Admittedly the top vote getter saying they shouldn't get a seat is a twist on things but since that vote getter has been clear on what they want the outcome to be it still feels like this is a very straightforward close. Ping Swarm and JJMC89 as the two most recent non-Xaos people to close. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, that may have caused "strategic" endorsers to possibly give more support than they otherwise would have. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  We're talking the second reserve here; it isn't that critical. Personally, I'd probably say there's sufficient support to be the second reserve EC member (per rchard2scout's comment, it looks like I was similarly inclined in 2017), but if someone came to exactly the opposite decision, I wouldn't bat an eye. Since a crat is an admin, I certainly don't mind if a crat closes this, but I think any uninvolved admin could close this either way and get very, very little blowback. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

  or, to put it another way: in the extremely unlikely event that we lose two of the EC members, which would be better: Dr vulpes filling in, or having only 2 EC members? Looked at that way, meybe the close is clearer? --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

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.