Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Electoral Commission

WL Notice

I added a WL notice for the commission, following the prior year's process. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Access to nonpublic information policy/Noticeboard

Hi all, I see most of the candidates already appear on meta:Access to nonpublic information policy/Noticeboard - if you do not (notably @Ritchie333:), I suggest you start this process now as it may take some time. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: - maybe a mistaken omission? This was a requirement last year too, wasn't it? SQL ^{Query me!} 01:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SQL: yes - so it looks like it was an error last year (in that it wasn't done or there is some serious record keeping issue). In either event, it should be rectified this year and I would think selected commissioners would be on-hold pending this activity. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order

@Swarm: (as RfC closer), @Ritchie333:'s appointment should be contingent on completing the steps to show they are able and willing to satisfy the requirements of the access to nonpublic information policy, specifically acceptance and signing of the meta:Confidentiality agreement for nonpublic information, with a record of such being recorded at meta:Access to nonpublic information policy/Noticeboard. For reasons unknown this was never completed last year. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:17, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux: Yeah I noticed that and we're on the same page. I left Ritchie a message reminding him to sign if he hadn't done so yet. I'm assuming he is 'able and willing' to sign, given that he's volunteering for the position, for which this is a straightforward requirement, and that there will be no issues. I'm not sure if he's not on the list due to an error, or if he simply forgot last year and it flew under the radar, but I agree that his appointment is objectively contingent on satisfying this requirement. I'll go and make a note of this in the closing statement and on the list. Swarm talk 02:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Might be a stupid question...

... but is there any reason 4 users can't serve on the Electoral Commission? They're fairly evenly endorsed. Worm^TT(talk) 14:31, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: A change wasn't specifically asked for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018 - so WP:STATUSQUO?. I suppose an odd number helps prevent a stalemate condition during indecision? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:50, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I don't see any issues with the size of the commission. There was a 4 member commission in 2012 and the 2014 RfC closure didn't include a strict number. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A four-person electoral commission this year would make perfect sense to me, but things have become so rules-bound that I imagine someone would complain vociferously. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know arbcom and related things are super bureaucratic, but .. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:11, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that option myself. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the even spread of support, that sounds good to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm game if everyone else is.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:20, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

certainly a good idea.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't bother me at all. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly wasn’t aware of this discussion until I had already closed the RfC, and am not necessarily confident that the local consensus here would be uncontroversial enough to implement the rules change anyways. However, if someone wants to propose this as a snap rules change at VPP and promote Cyberpower, I would certainly be in support as well. Swarm talk 03:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not responding in an attempt to push myself through the promotion, but I think it would be sufficient as a good amount of experienced users have unanimously supported this, including yourself, making the tally 10 in favor and 0 against. It would have only been for this year though.—CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 11:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support this and the above bit too, so 11-0. Nick (talk) 18:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What about pinging everyone who voted here? Already got a ~1/4 of the people interested in this (i.e voted) in support; and if we get ~2/3 of them in support I'd think a snap rules change would be reasonable Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfect time for the much maligned WP:IAR!--regentspark (comment) 12:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so the "rule change" wasn't really implemented - however there appears to be support here and as this is election related the final arbiters of the matter are......the commissioners! SQL already supported above, so if @Ritchie333: and or @KTC: are in agreement then we can just move Cyberpower678 from standby to normal and close this discussion without further ado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xaosflux (talk • contribs)
Re-pinging because the ping above didn't work. @Ritchie333: @KTC: SQL ^{Query me!} 14:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I have no problem with the proposal at all. -- KTC (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Swarm: any objections to amending the closure based on the 2 commissioner supports above? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since I haven't got round to doing anything about this, and since I only came forward as commissioner because (at the time) nobody else seemed likely to, and it seems unfair to shut out 1 of 3 other people who want to do the job, and can probably do it better than me, that I think it's best if I drop out and just let the other three do the job. It seems to solve all problems. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: would you like to move to reserve or just resign from the commission? — xaosflux ^Talk 11:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can put me in reserve it would be helpful. I still have the ability to generate appropriate usernames who can vote, if that's useful. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ritchie333,

Done. I've moved you and announced it. —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 14:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Does wikipedia need a arbitration committee, what is the purpose of university system?

This is off topic from the associated project page's RfC - which has been closed the entire time. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:34, 28 October 2018 (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.

Knowledge is not to be meant for free it can cause chaos in the society; on the other hand one group of society can not be allowed to enjoy what humans derive out of knowledge, does not mean i am against open source content. Open source content should be restricted to softwares since not everyone have the ability to code (humans have different mental capabilities). Everyone wants to attain the top slot in the society, when not allowed, these are published as open source (won't get a Ph.D. for the work! policies matter, either of the university or the government system in the country). Had to make some comments has i have nominated myself, never like to be an underdog. Sachinthonakkara 02:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sachinthonakkara (talk • contribs)

+1. —Floquenbeam (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, but probably beyond the scope of this RFC, which has closed. SQL ^{Query me!} 03:54, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+2. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell are you guys endorsing? That literally just reads as a bunch of nonsense to me. Swarm talk 05:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the dates are over and being a democratic person i support the verdict of the community. In democracy rigging the elections seems to be a norm.Sachinthonakkara 08:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting to think this user is a troll.—CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 17:21, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My assumption (by the edit summaries of "dude" and "I'm giving one more +1 than Floq") is that the endorsements are humorous rather than serious. Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No comment clearly specifies that i am on wrong foot. 18:22, 28 October 2018 (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.