Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023

2023 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 07:11 (UTC), Wednesday, 18 December 2024 ()

• Thank you for participating in the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
• You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.

---

The purpose of this request for comment is to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2023 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by the existing rules. 13:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Background: In the case of proposals that change existing rules, or that seek to establish new ones, lack of consensus for a change will result in the rules from the 2022 election remaining in force. Some issues are not covered by the existing rules but will need to be decided one way or another for the operation of the election, in those cases it will be up to the closer to figure out a result, even if there is no clear consensus, as they have had to in the past.

Structure: This RfC is divided into portions, each of which contains a discussion point for the community. The standard RfC structure will be used, in which any user may make a general statement that other users may endorse if they so agree. The points will be listed in the table of contents, along with the users who have made statements. Anyone is free to raise any new topics that they feel need to be addressed by filling out the format template below.

Duration: In order to preserve the timeline of the election (see below), we should aim to close this RfC as soon as 30 days have passed, i.e. on or after 23:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC). The results will determine the structure, rules, and procedures for the election.

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

• Nominations: Monday 00:00, 02 October 2023 until Sunday 23:59, 08 October 2023 (UTC)
• Evaluation period: Monday 00:00, 09 October 2023 until Sunday 23:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Commission selection: completed by Monday 00:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Per the consensus developed in previous request for comments, the arbitration committee election timetable is as follows:

• Nominations: Sunday 00:00, 12 November 2023 until Tuesday 23:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• Setup period: Wednesday 00:00, 22 November 2023 to Sunday 23:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
• Voting period: Tuesday 00:00, 28 November 2023 until Monday 23:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Scrutineering: begins Tuesday 00:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Use the following format below; post a new proposal at the BOTTOM of the page.

== Proposal name ==
Neutral description of proposal. ~~~~

=== Support (proposal name) ===
# Additional comments here ~~~~

=== Oppose (proposal name) ===
#

=== Comments (proposal name) ===
*
----

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.

---

"Candidates" bullet point

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.

---

What should the gist of the beginning of the "candidates" bullet point at WP:ACERULES be?

• Option 1: Registered account with 500 mainspace edits, editor in good standing, that is, not under block (as of the time of the nomination) or ban...
• Option 2: Registered account with 500 mainspace edits, editor in good standing and is not under block (as of the time of the nomination) or ban...
• Option 3: Registered account with 500 mainspace edits that is not under block (as of the time of the nomination) or ban...

Differences highlighted for emphasis (read: emphasis not intended to be part of ACERULES). Explicitly the "gist" to allow future copyediting.
HouseBlaster^talk 19:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Notes

Option 1 ("that is")

1. I struggle to see what "good standing" could refer to other than "not blocked/banned". HouseBlaster^talk 19:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

   It means something different in the context of clean starts or resysop requests, but I'm sure the intent wasn't to add another subjective candidate qualification. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

   I like Pppery's idea more. Second choice to option 3. HouseBlaster^talk 19:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

2. Second choice to Option 3. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
3. I think we do need some reference to the status of an editor as opposed to an account. Option 3 only mentions an account with 500 mainspace edits which isn't blocked, so it wouldn't prevent a sitebanned editor with a sockpuppet from running if the sockpuppet had at least 500 mainspace edits. Hut 8.5 17:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

   I think just changing the word account to the word editor suffices in any of these options to clean up the issue, since an editor under a block under another account is the definition of socking. Izno (talk) 20:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

   Well, except for corner cases like dopplegangers, clean starts, or even actual socks who had their main account unblocked. RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

   We already have language for disclosing alternative accounts, which takes care of the first two, and in almost all cases the third. But if we really want to belt and suspenders it, if we want to add "isn't an illegitimate sockpuppet", let's get that on the list. Izno (talk) 21:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 ("and is")

1. Well at least it cuts the stuffy adverbial "that is". But it's not the best option IMO. Martindo (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Good standing ought to be considered a broader category than merely not being blocked. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
3. I'd be okay with this if we had a comma before "and." Kjscotte34 (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 (delete "good standing")

1. On second thought option 1 includes surplusage that has apparently caused confusion, so why don't we just say what we mean directly without guesswork? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
2. per Pppery. HouseBlaster^talk 19:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Avoids redundancy and possible malicious interpretation of "good standing." For example, I've never been blocked or banned but I also haven't written any GAs or FAs so someone could say that means I am not in "good standing." — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Both Pppery and Jkudlick make good points. Correct grammar here should be "who" not "that" when referring to a human. Martindo (talk) 02:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Risker (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
6. "Editor in good standing" is interpreted inconsistently across the project; I can't say I've ever seen the interpretation Jkudlick is implying, but in some contexts it refers to, or is misunderstood as referring to, "editors not currently under sanctions". Given we've at least once had an editor under sanctions be a serious candidate, this is probably not the intended effect. If we want to make it clear this only means "not blocked or banned", we should only say "not blocked or banned". Vaticidalprophet 02:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Vaticidal and Pppery describe my thoughts perfectly. If in this situation "good standing" is seen to mean an editor without sanctions, then this option is preferable to option one due to a lack of ambiguity and wordiness. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 08:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
8. Per above. SN54129 12:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
9. "good standing" has a variety of uses. Just get rid of it, as it doesn't appear to be necessary. Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 13:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
10. The presence of "good standing" does not improve clarity and pretty much means the same thing as "not currently blocked." ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
11. Less ambiguous. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
12. Removes the vague term "good standing". North8000 (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
13. What exactly does it mean to be "in good standing" anyways? The phrase is too ambiguous and can be interpreted different depending on the person, so if we really mean "not under a block or ban" when it comes to eligibility then we should just say that and nothing more. SkyWarrior 16:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
14. Dangerously meaningless term. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
15. Good standing feels like a relic of the time when you were either blocked or not, and that was the only way to tell whether someone's behavior had needed actual remedy. Today, we have many formal or technical ways to indicate that someone shouldn't have all the same privileges as the average 500-edit editor. So yes, removing this phrase seems good to me for those reasons. Izno (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
16. Subjective criteria should be left for the community to discuss rather than baked into the candidate rules. Perhaps change initial verbiage to "Registered account of candidate with..." to address Hut 8.5's concerns. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
17. per Pppery. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
18. "Good standing" shouldn't be a subjective term in this context, and if it's objective there's no reason to use it and then immediately define it. Let's just say what we mean. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
19. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
20. Heart ^(talk) 15:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
21. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
22. Per Pperry. Good standing is a rather nebulous term. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 16:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
23. "Good standing" might be confusing, so we might want to remove it and consider something else. ~~2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 23:39, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
24. Much clearer. Neutrality^talk 01:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
25. "Good standing" can be interpreted many ways. If it just means not banned than stating that clearly instead is ideal. – Aza24 (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
26. No need for good standing since the vote itself can decide if the candidate is in good standing with the community. Terasail^[✉️] 14:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
27. Let the voters vote for whom they would like to vote. If voters wish to overlook "good standing", then that is their decision; allowing voters to make that decision is far more democratic than the alternative. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

    This option provides the most clarity for me. I've always found 'good standing' a vague term. 82.35.44.68 (talk) 01:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC) WP:STRIKESOCK. Izno (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

28. Trim useless blather.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
29. per Terasail. 〜 Askarion ✉ 12:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
30. "good standing" is far too vague for me, if there are reasons other than being blocked to not permit voting they should be spelled out explicitly. Ravensfire (talk) 16:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
31. Per Red-tailed hawk. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
32. The other options are a waste of words. firefly ( t · c ) 12:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
33. We don't know what 'good standing' means, so we shouldn't have a rule about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
34. Sure. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
35. "good standing" is unclear. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
36. Yeah. NotAGenious (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments ("Candidates" bullet point)

• Wordsmithing on the question welcome. If anyone has any "none of the above" options, either add them directly as option 3(+) or raise them here for discussion (your judgement) (or do something else entirely) (this included to make it clear more than these options can be considered). HouseBlaster^talk 19:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• Does "block" mean only a full block, any partial block, or something in between? Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  That hasn't been decided anywhere AFAIK. I brought up the same issue on the talk page. Personally I think that as long as you aren't technically unable to submit your candidacy because of a block you should be able to run, although in practice the chance of a P-blocked candidate winning is probably zero. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  I can see someone p-blocked from a single obscure page standing a chance, someone p-blocked from an entire namespace definitely not. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  I have started #Eligibility of partially blocked/banned users because answering that question seems out of scope for this specific question. HouseBlaster^talk 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC) EDIT: actually at #Blocks and bans which disqualify candidates HouseBlaster^talk 17:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Per my comments on the talk page the language on the candidates page should be updated to match the language agreed here. I don't think that requires a formal vote, but if anyone thinks it does please speak soon and I'll start it. If not it should be highlighted as a note to the closer. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, this RfC is not specific to one page, so all appropriate pages can be updated based on any established consensus. isaacl (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  Note to closer: When implementing the result of this proposal please also update the wording on all the election pages (e.g. the candidates page) to make them consistent. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

• Similar to Thryduulf's question about about what "block" means, what does "ban" mean? Fully banned from the project? Topic ban? Interaction ban? WP:SBAN says Unless otherwise specified, a ban is a site ban and I assume that's the intent here, but if so, be explicit and say "site banned". RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I add my voice to question- what do we mean by block and ban here? Better to be explicit than allow confusion to creep in later. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  RoySmith and SilverTiger12, are your concerns addressed by § Blocks and bans which disqualify candidates? HouseBlaster^talk 17:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  @HouseBlaster Ah, yes, thanks. I assume that's what you meant to link to with #Eligibility of partially blocked/banned users, above? RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  RoySmith Yep! Corrected, and thanks for pointing it out! Why that happened: I left that comment and started the RfC in the same edit; I changed the title of the section multiple times while drafting the RfC (which quite frankly was most of the "drafting" needed for the RfC) but forgot to fix the link. HouseBlaster^talk 17:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• Yes: as noted in my comment (#4) supporting Option 3, we should use "who" instead of "that", please tweak if Option 3 wins. Martindo (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2023 (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.

U4C membership

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.

---

Should members of the U4C be barred from standing for election to ArbCom? HouseBlaster^talk 19:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Support (candidate may not be a U4C member)

1. Support for the same reasons given at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 159#RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators. I will note that members of the U4C may not participate in processing cases they have been directly involved in as a result of their other positions, but even then I do not want Arbs recusing on the grounds that the matter might come before the U4C.
   Additionally, if/when the U4C is dealing with something previously dealt with by the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, there is a good chance it will be during (or the cause of) WP:FRAMGATE 2.0. During such a time, I would want members of the U4C whose home wiki is enwiki to be active on the case, ensuring we are represented and serving as a liaison between the U4C and enwiki. I do not want them to be recused because they previously participated in it as an Arb. HouseBlaster^talk 19:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

   I have been thinking about the "peer" argument. I have nothing but respect for the work that Barkeep has done w.r.t. the UCoC. That being said, I cannot get behind the idea that the U4C is actually a peer body to ArbCom. I would love for that to be true, but it is simply not the case. From the U4C charter (which is admittedly a draft, but I somehow doubt that the relevant portion will change substantively between now and the final version), the U4C will deal with "complaints and appeals in the circumstances as outlined in the Enforcement Guidelines, including but not limited to [...] consistent local decisions that conflict with the UCoC" (emphasis mine). The U4C can and will be able to hear appeals from ArbCom, when anyone claims something in the final decision is indicative of systematic failure to enforce the UCoC (and we have already have evidence parties will try to drag the UCoC into anything and everything).

   I empathize with the oppose voters (I really do!), and I want nothing more than to agree with their conclusion. But the U4C is not, and will never be, a peer body to ArbCom without a fundamental rewrite to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines (which were approved by >75% of the global community). HouseBlaster^talk 22:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

2. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
3. I would write something here, but HouseBlaster sums it up perfectly. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
4. HouseBlaster said it very well; ArbCom and U4C need to be mutually exclusive roles within enwiki. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
5. QUALIFIED support. Agree with Houseblaster, but also with S Marshall (below) Martindo (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
6. I reworded the headings because I had to read this several times to ensure it meant "the candidate cannot be a U4C member". Risker (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
7. I can understand this idea because if a member of the U4C holds multiple positions, then there would be less diversity of opinions and potential issues with checks and balances. --Minoa (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
8. Support per HouseBlaster's second point: if we must have a U4C, let's not throw away our representation on it. Certes (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
9. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
10. Per above. SN54129 12:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
11. Seems sensible for numerous reasons. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
12. SkyWarrior 19:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
13. The reasons raised above are persuasive. This has the potential to create a very serious conflict of interest, and while I very much hope such a situation never happens again, we cannot know that it won't. If that's the case, I would also want ENWP members on the U4C to be able to articulate the community's position, and the ArbCom to be ready to take any necessary steps. But those things should be done by different people. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
14. Support. An organization where there are many people in multiple committees or work groups tend to be thrown into chaos when the interest of both groups collide. Even worse when the groups have similar goal. Separation is better on this case. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
15. We should be taking every chance to minimise possible overlap between the two groups. There is little reason not to keep them independent. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
16. Support per above; and, oddly, per below- if they are meant to be peer bodies then they certainly should not have the same members. They should separate entities, mutually exclusive as much to avoid issues of policy (members having to recuse from cases because of previously being involved thanks to the other committee) as to avoid a concentration of power. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
17. Ivan (talk) 14:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
18. Per above, as U4C seems a bit like an ArbCom for the ArbCom. ~~2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 23:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

    Except the guidelines say that's not supposed to be true. That it's supposed to be a peer body. It could have jurisdiction if there has been a systemic failure to enforce the UCoC, but ArbCom's remit is far broader than that and the U4C's remit for communities that don't have arbcoms is also far broader. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

19. Per above. SQL^{Query Me!} 23:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
20. Support. Separation of powers.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
21. Support. Toadette ^(chat)/_(logs) 11:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
22. Support. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
23. Support. Volunteer Marek 04:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (candidate may be a U4C member)

1. I am not surprised to see this gaining support but I think it's a real mistake. The reasons that apply to Ombuds and Case Review Committee - that is they are somehow appellate bodies of ArbCom - doesn't apply to the U4C. Or if it does apply it means something has gone catagorically wrong on English Wikipedia. By policy the U4C is supposed to be a peer body to ArbCom. This is incredibly important to me, and I know it is to other members of our community that we don't have some global arbcom over us. By passing this I think we absolutely send the wrong message. Instead I think we should consider the U4C more akin to the Stewards. A peer group that ArbCom interacts with, who have certain responsibilities that overlap with ArbCom's (for instance ArbCom needs the stewards to unlock people who file certain appeals, the Stewards need ArbCom to run certain checkuser checks) and we should treat them the same (namely that we don't prohibit a sitting Arb from being a Steward). I think someone would have to be insane to want to sit on both ArbCom and the U4C and I would not support someone who wanted to do both. But I think that's something that should be left up to the electorates rather than banned in this way. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Barkeep. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
3. I certainly don't want sitting arbs to be U4C members, because that's too much influence in too few hands; but the rule should be that people give up their U4C membership if elected. They shouldn't have to give it up just to become candidates.—S Marshall T/C 16:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

   Excellent point. I've qualified my vote for support (see above #5. Martindo (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

4. Support S. Marshall's idea of requiring U4C members relinquishing their membership upon election, but not for candidacy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Allow the community to decide on a case-by-case basis whether they want a candidate to have multiple similar roles, that way the merits of editors with a wealth of experience can be weighed against the risk of granting certain individuals too much authority. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Per Barkeep49 and Pbritti. Frostly (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Per Barkeep. Folly Mox (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
8. No, per Barkeep, S Marshall & Pbritti. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
9. Per Barkeep49. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
10. Let's fix this another way - amend arbpolicy that you can't be a member while also in UC4. Either this discussion, or another one, could be used to request arbcom make that rule for themselves. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
11. Per Barkeep. TBH, I don't see the strong issues that caused the original RFC to go the way it did, but Barkeep presents a decent enough response on why this is different either way. Izno (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
12. As the proposer, I was a srtong supporter of not allowing arbs that are also Ombuds, because of the very distinct possibility of a conflict of interest in reviewing their own work. This simply is not the same thing, at all, and I don't think it would accomplish anything good. I think it is a good thing that we have an duly elected arbitrator representing our project on the U4C. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
13. I think Barkeep49's and Xaosflux's thoughts both cover why I think this is not needed. I'm on the fence about whether it should be allowed but, even if I would support this in principle, I think adding this to the ArbCom procedures is better as an arbitrator could become a part of the U4C during their term and this wouldn't necessarily bar them from doing so. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
14. Per Barkeep — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
15. No. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
16. I'm just against having this discussion during an election RFC (and not being held seperately). Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 159 § RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators was a question of whether arbcom should be encouraged to amend their procedures to reflect a new consensus. Preventing Arb candidates from running if they are members of the U4C (a body which doesn't even exist yet) seems like an inherently clunky way of accomplishing what the previous RFC did.
    Additionally, without a motion from Arbcom like before, this proposal wouldn't even prevent a candidate from getting elected to Arbcom and then joining the U4C. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:30, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
17. Per Pbritti. Thryduulf (talk) 08:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
18. Essentially per Barkeep49, Beeblebrox and Pbritti. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
19. Very important to get English Wikipedians on the U4C and other meta-level governance structures, so that enwiki is properly represented at that level. Making some of our most governance-saavy Wikipedians pick between one or the other doesn't seem like a great idea. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
20. Per xaosflux. If there is a problem with U4C membership, only blocking through elections isn't the best way to fix this. Terasail^[✉️] 14:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
21. I'm not yet sure if people should be allowed to simultaneously sit on arbcom and U4C, but if we want to say they're not, this is the wrong way to go about it. An arbcom candidate could be (with apologies to vermont) a codie and resign their seat on the U4C should they get on arbcom. RoySmith (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
22. Let the voters decide if they're comfortable with someone serving on both bodies. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
23. Having membership overlap could be of considerable value, and I agree with the peer group interpretation of the U4C's role. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
24. Let the voters decide on whether they'd like to elect someone who's on the U4C. If the voters won't have it, then that is their decision, but I think that the voters are smart enough to make that decision on their own at the time of an election. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
25. Per Barkeep49. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 09:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
26. Per Barkeep and S Marshall. Ravensfire (talk) 16:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
27. Per Barkeep and others, who've put this better than I can. JavaHurricane 14:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
28. Per S Marshall, they should be required to step down from U4C if elected, but shouldn't be required to stand down to run. Hobit (talk) 23:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
29. The electorate can decide. (I might support an ArbPol amendment that a sitting arb must resign to be appointed to the U4C, but that would be a change of circumstance that our local electorate would not be consulted on by a sitting arb. Someone running for Arbcom while sitting on U4C would be fully known by our electors.) Courcelles (talk) 13:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
30. Per Barkeep. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
31. I don't think this should apply to candidates, just to serving members. MarioGom (talk) 05:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments (U4C membership)

• See also discussion on the talk page. In particular, I agree with Pppery's comment that we (i.e. this RfC) have jurisdiction over candidates, but ArbCom has jurisdiction over members. HouseBlaster^talk 19:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  As per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 159 § RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators, there is consensus that current arbitrators may not serve simultaneously on either the trust and safety case review committee or the ombuds commission. This is a community consensus that applies to all serving arbitrators. It might be better for this question to be posed as a general RfC regarding all arbitrators, independent of candidate eligibility. isaacl (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

  To those opposing due to the proposal being a restriction on candidates, and not on serving arbitrators: this is why I think following the model of Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 159 § RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators is better. Expressing the community's wishes in terms of actually holding multiple roles is a better fit. isaacl (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• On a side note regarding the issue of an arbitrator on the U4C having to recuse due to being involved in a case, resulting in a gap in representation: this would be a problem with past arbitrators as well. However prohibiting past arbitrators from serving would make a pool of experienced editors unavailable to the U4C. Perhaps some notion of substitute U4C members would be helpful (though that's for a different discussion). isaacl (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• I think the current procedures that prohibit Arbs from sitting on the CRC and Ombuds are not permitted by ArbPol, which grants ArbCom zero authority over its members other than on matters of recusal (and explusion). I'd really prefer these be adopted here instead. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  They were adopted by community consensus at the policy village pump. I don't think it's necessary to have another RfC to reaffirm this. isaacl (talk) 15:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  You're right. I'd forgotten that discussion and think they can already apply in these rules (where they belong). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2023 (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.

Blocks and bans which disqualify candidates

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.

---

How should partial blocks and bans (e.g., page, topic, interaction) affect the eligibility of users to run for ArbCom?

• Option 1: any partial block/ban disqualifies a candidate
• Option 2: partially blocked/banned users are ineligible if the block/ban prevents them from submitting their candidacy
• Option 3: only site-blocked/site-banned users are ineligible (if necessary, candidates may ask another user to submit their candidacy on their behalf)

HouseBlaster^talk 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4: users who are partially blocked/banned as the result of AC/DS enforcement or who are unable to submit their candidacy are ineligible

— Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Option 1 (any block)

1. Anyone who requires blocking from editing anything on this project is not appropriate for this role. I would say that about anyone who is seeking advanced permissions (remember, Arbcom membership comes with CU and OS). Risker (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
2. People with blocks cannot be trusted to be an arb NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
4. ltbdl (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
5. I worry about bad/marginal blocks, but those need to get resolved rather than designing for them. North8000 (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
6. An editor blocked from editing a certain article or banned from editing in a subject area/interacting with another editor should be prohibited from being involved in something as personal as ArbCom. They should seek to appeal their blocks/bans before approaching candidacy. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Per Risker. SkyWarrior 19:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
8. Frostly (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
9. If an editor is currently subject to a block or other sanction, they are not fit to have access to confidential data. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

   Depends on the type of block really. I mean there are all sort of people everywhere, notwithstanding if they are in "good standing" or not. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

10. Agree that anyone who misbehaved to the extent they needed to be blocked is not suitable for the role and should be ineligible for candidacy. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:21, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
11. Per above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
12. Obviously this one because blocking is just a very serious matter. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 20:12, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
13. While I'm sympathetic to the reasoning of #3, I'd prefer to avoid a situation where a pure vote outweighs the results of consensus-based behavior-related processes. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
14. Any editors with topic/interaction bans should not be eligible to prevent ArbCom decisions stemming from unfair biases. Sincerely, Novo Tape (She/Her)^{My Talk Page} 16:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
15. As ArbCom is a very serious role with advanced permissions, it is a bit risky to grant blocked users ArbCom. ~~2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 23:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
16. Someone with an active block/ban is not the person who should be the neutral party in disputes. Terasail^[✉️] 14:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
17. SQL^{Query Me!} 23:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
18. Any ongoing block/ban is reason enough to disqualify. This is the highest-trust position on the system.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
19. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
20. Obviously. JavaHurricane 15:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
21. firefly ( t · c ) 12:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
22. per Risker's point "Arbcom membership comes with CU and OS". It also comes with access to all the ArbCom's prior confidential mail & other info. Also, electing an arbitrator who has a set of topics on which they will need to recuse is like electing a half-an-arbitrator. Cabayi (talk) 10:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
23. NotAGenious (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Option 2 (only blocks that prevent submission)

1. Consistency with suffrage eligibility is a good thing. HouseBlaster^talk 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

   Adding on: I fully understand the rationale behind option 1, and do not begrudge anyone for supporting it. Personally, I cannot see myself supporting any candidate subject to any block/ban. The reason I support this option is because I think it should be up to the enwiki voters to decide qualifications, not us (the people who happen to see this RfC). I might not trust them, but if >50% of the community does, I don't oppose them getting a seat. HouseBlaster^talk 02:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

2. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
3. per HouseBlaster. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
4. A two-way IBAN should not disqualify a candidate, but if you cannot be trusted to edit the nominations page, you cannot be trusted to be an arbitrator. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
5. It's not too lenient. I don't see any mention of a block being under appeal, so it seems moderately strict that this type of block will suffice even if currently under appeal. Martindo (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Ideologically I agree with #3, and I'm amused by the idea of a candidacy needing to be edit-requested because the candidate couldn't make it, but from an "actual real-world practicability" perspective this is the minimum viable one. I'm not inclined to say "any candidate whose restrictions come from arbcom should be ineligible" at all, because there are too many reasons things go to arbcom that aren't the "this is an Unusually Bad thing" that a lot of the community rounds it to (because the most visible arb cases are when something is unusually bad). Vaticidalprophet 02:20, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Mainly per House Blaster. I personally would not support a candidate with a block, but others may support a candidate with a two way I-ban or a P-block from an obscure page. If the community wants these candidates as arbitrators, they will be elected. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 09:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
8. Supporting this, not because "the community might genuinely support someone with a block" (that would be a downside of the community), nor because "RfC viewers might be biased in other directions compared to the community" (those who have the wherewithal to go to this RfC should be entitled to have more of a say on how these elections are run), but rather because I can think of an obscure block or IBAN that does not impugn on a candidate's genuine character; obviously necessary recusals would be in order, and more to the point any block that prevents even submission is a no-go for a similar reason to why we extended-confirmed protect the RfA page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
9. Per above. Izno (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
10. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
11. Heart ^(talk) 15:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
12. I guess this is the least bad. Eligibility should be a very low bar. If an obviously unqualified candidate gets on the ballot, the community has the power to not vote for them. It's not like we've got so many candidates that we need to limit the number to avoid having to print multi-page ballots. RoySmith (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

    Plus editors who have been blocked could influence things to change according to their practices, which for some might be a bad thing, but for others a good thing. Take for example editors who may have been blocked for disruption because they keep on discussing things without accepting what the majority says. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

13. Ivan (talk) 14:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
14. I'd be unlikely to vote for a candiate who had any kind of active block or ban, as we're electing people to sit in ultimate judgment of others who are subject to blocks and bans. And I doubt anyone with a block or ban would actually succeed in the election. But I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, decided by community vote. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
15. First choice. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
16. This makes the most sense to me. casualdejekyll 19:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
17. Second choice to option 3. Seems reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
18. A very common method of disqualifying potential opponents in elections is to arrange that they be thrown in jail. exemplī grātiā -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 10:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
19. I think eligibility should be broad; highly unlikely anyone with a block/ban could be elected but there's no reason to pre-emptively disqualify them. Galobtter (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
20. Seems like the best option. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
21. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
22. I guess I'll land here. Ultimately, I think a site block or entire namespace block should be enough for disqualification, but not a single page block (which option 1 would be). If you're site blocked or blocked from project space... then your candidacy would be futile, anyway, of course, but having the hard rule to point to would prevent any requests to proxy add a candidacy. Courcelles (talk) 13:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
23. Now that we are getting rid of the mumbo-jumbo of 'good standing', if you can't submit your application without help, that may be what should have been meant by good standing. Partial blocks and topic bans should not disqualify, but the community should take partial blocks and topic bans into account. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
24. With option #3 as my second choice. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
25. First choice. This is a good rule to prevent troll candidacies, but other than that, I think there should be enough room for edge cases (e.g. IBAN, single page block) to be judged on a case by case basis by voters. MarioGom (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Option 3 (only site-blocks)

1. If the community trusts someone enough to elect them despite being blocked, then we shouldn't put other barriers in place - although I would be shocked if an editor with an active block of any sort was ever elected. BilledMammal (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Per BilledMammal. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Per BilledMammal. SN54129 12:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Let the voters decide, though anyone who's blocked is unlikely to get my vote. Certes (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Per BilledMammal. The Blue Rider 14:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Per BilledMammal.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Per BilledMammal. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 18:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
8. Per BilledMammal Mach61 (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
9. Makes sense per BilledMammal's explanation. This is the kind of thing that we should trust voters with. – Aza24 (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
10. Second choice to option 2. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
11. Let the voters vote for whom they would like to vote. If there is a partial block, that is a fact that can be accounted for by the voters, who are more than smart enough to account for it at the time of voting. Barring people from candidacy over this seems contra-democratic—rather than barring people from candidacy, we should tend towards allowing them to run (even if they are voted down). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

    An editor with a block is very unlikely to be elected. However, we should move, in my opinion, more towards trusting the voters with who they want and allowing a candidate to run, as improbable as it is they will be elected. 82.35.44.68 (talk) 01:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC) Strike !vote from CU-blocked IP.—S Marshall T/C 16:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

12. Per BilledMammal. Ravensfire (talk) 16:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
13. Sitebanned users are expelled from the Wikipedia community and aren't permitted to participate at all, and siteblocked users aren't supposed to edit at all except to address their block so they can't submit a candidacy nor respond to questions, nor can other editors do those things for them per WP:PROXYING. For partial blocks and other bans (like topic bans) the circumstances matter - not often but sometimes these actions are no-fault sanctions. Per BilledMammal it's not very likely that someone under active sanction is going to do well in an ArbCom election, but if a user is not sitebanned then that decision should be up to the voters. Also just pointing out that this section doesn't address what to do if a candidate is accepted and then is siteblocked before the end of voting. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
14. It should be up to the voters, the other options would be unnecessary rules. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
15. With #2 as second choice. Volunteer Marek 04:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Option 4 (AC/DS enforcement as well as blocks that prevent submission)

1. As Gwennie-nyan noted below, users who are subject to AC/DS enforcement really cannot be trusted to be an arbitrator, because those users ignored the advisements on their talk pages of the AC/DS topics. I think Option 1 is too harsh but Option 2 is too lenient, so this option is intended to act as a middle ground between them. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

   See my vote for Option 2. Not too lenient because it would be in force even if a block were currently being appealed. Martindo (talk) 02:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

2. People who have active CTOP sanctions cannot be trusted to make binding desisions in those areas NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Second choice to option 1.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments (Blocks and bans which disqualify candidates)

• I am bundling bans with this question on pblocks because the language about blocked candidates is just as ambiguous as banned candidates. Additional options welcome (but please try to keep the number of choices reasonable!). HouseBlaster^talk 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
• I think we should also include AC/DS sanction enforcement as well. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• I'm baffled. Arbitrators are granted CU and OS. I can't imagine anyone in this community thinking that it would be okay to have candidates for CU or OS who are the subject of any ban or block of any type. People who are subject to even p-blocks have given the community reason to believe they are problems. I know we don't have as many candidates (particularly non-repeat candidates) as we would all like, but let's not lower the bar that far. Risker (talk) 02:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think the community is going to grant functionary tools to many people with only 500 mainspace edits either, no? I've always interpreted the minimum standards as intentionally far lower than the real minima to account for edge cases. I can picture a lot more edge cases around sanctions than around making fewer mainspace edits than most unbundled rights require. Vaticidalprophet 02:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Certainly many people have deserved blocked and bans. But this makes me think that throughout human history, also dissidents and opponents have been imprisoned and worse by a system. Therefore, I think that at least one arbitration committee position should not have the restriction about having been blocked/banned. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 05:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  We're not infallible. If the community elects someone with a block or ban to ArbCom, it's a strong indication that it was a bad block or ban. – Joe (talk) 06:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Option 4 seems like an expansion of the meaning of "good standing"; perhaps it should be spun out into a separate question? isaacl (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• Is this meant to mean an active block, or someone who has ever been blocked? The latter would seem to be too strict. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, that should be explicitly stated on the proposal, especially since Option 1 seems to indicate the last-mentioned. The Blue Rider 15:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• What about accidental blocks that were then quickly reversed, or ones followed by a 10-second block by another admin to indicate "this user did nothing wrong"? Would option 1 (any block/ban) exclude those users from running? In all the years I've been here, I've seen plenty of those examples... _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that none of these options would change the consensus found at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013#Blocking candidates (that candidates must not be blocked at the time of nomination. In other words, a quickly reversed block would only be prohibitive for the few moments it is in place. HouseBlaster^talk 20:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
• There's a risk of creating a perverse incentive here. "I don't want you on Arbcom so I'm going to find a pretext to pblock you from my user talk page."—S Marshall T/C 13:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Which would be a bad block and likely get the admin dragged before ArbCom ultimately. That aside, that framing of it is solely an issue with item 1. Izno (talk) 15:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Nah. Too easy to hide true intent behind such block. As the man said, “show me a man and I can find you the criminal code paragraph”. Volunteer Marek 04:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think we need a rule here at all. If a user is p-blocked from a topic area, I can't imagine that the community would elect them to the committee. You can't trust someone to resolve disputes if they are the one causing them. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  After thinking about it, I agree wholeheartedly with Beeblebrox. What's the point of an additional rule if users and voters will clearly be able to clearly see whether someone has an active block/ban in an area? It'd be one thing if there were no electoral process whatsoever, but I don't think the community would be so willing en masse to avert their eyes from a candidate's block history in consideration for a role such as arbitrator. This is WP:NOTBURO territory. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• It's very unclear to me whether this means currently blocked or ever blocked. SportingFlyer T·C 16:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  is not under block (as of the time of the nomination) or ban from the current ACERULES. I do not think any of this intends to change that aspect. Izno (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

• What is status quo? Based on the current wording of ACERULES it is option 1 (I think Pppery thinks the same based on the talk page). Is there any other discussion to indicate otherwise? Izno (talk) 02:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  There is no status quo. If this RfC ends up with no consensus for any option then the Election Commissioners will need to make a decision if the issue comes up. Thryduulf (talk) 06:31, 10 September 2023 (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.

Allow "guides of voter guides"

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.

---

Remove the Guides to other guides are ineligible. sentence from templates such as {{ACE2022}}, {{ACE2021}}, etc.. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Support (allow "guides of voter guides")

1. Support as proposer. It makes complete sense, and would be quite useful, to collate the various guides into a sort of "meta-guide" that lists each candidate and the rough percentage of guide makers who support/oppose them. The argument that this would put too much emphasis on the opinions of guide-makers does not hold water for me, as such makers are the political pundits whose opinions already hold disproportionate influence, and rightly so given that they are the ones who care enough about these elections to thoroughly (even if imperfectly; a benefit of collating guides is correcting for individual errors or biases) research the candidates. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
2. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Guides of guides serve the exact same purpose as guides: offering additional information from a different perspective. Additionally, seems to be a bit of a WP:CREEPy rule. HouseBlaster^talk 14:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Placing a restriction here is not necessary. Frostly (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
5. The ban is a solution in search of a problem. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support making things easier for people. SN54129 11:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
7. To the extent they're a negative, I don't see them as any more of a negative than the guides themselves. As long as we're going to showcase anyone's subjective judgments in this central template, why not allow guides that provide context for the other guides? Just not seeing a problem. Otherwise, not opposed to getting rid of the guides section. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:03, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
8. A useful summary for someone who doesn't want to wade through lots of detail across multiple pages. No one has to read or follow them. Certes (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

   As there is no quality control at all with guides, let alone guides to guides, "useful summary", "useless summary" and "actively misleading summary" are equally likely states of affairs. This means that there is a real risk to/from those who do follow them. Thryduulf (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

9. I tend to think we take the whole notion of voter guides too seriously and we don't need to gatekeep what kind of guide someone makes. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
10. As guides are essentially different editors' perspectives, it kind of makes sense for perspectives of perspectives. ~~2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 23:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
11. Have seen no problem with these. Neutrality^talk 01:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
12. Nothing is stopping this being reversed if it turns out not to work, so why not give it a try Terasail^[✉️] 14:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
13. SQL^{Query Me!} 23:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
14. I find meta-guides interesting and they're potentially useful to voters. However, I would say they should be separated off somehow because they are of course not normal guides. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
15. Supporting this because I don't believe it's proper to enjoin editors from relevant internal commentary of whatever form.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
16. Ravensfire (talk) 16:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
17. I would prefer disposing of the guides altogether, but as long as we're allowing users to express their preferences and then advertising them in a prominent place, I don't think we should police what they're putting in "guides" beyond our basic guidelines for editorial conduct and userspace content. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
18. My general philosophy is "trust the voter". In this case, trust the voter to put whatever weight they determine is appropriate to a guide or a meta-guide. ooops, forgot to sign this, so I'll do that now, even if the timestamp will be wrong RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
19. I agree that metaguides would be useful. As a good way to compile lots of data instead of switching between sevreal open tabs. OLIfanofmrtennant
20. I see no reason to prohibit this. If a meta-analysis is bad, voters are smart enough to know that and make their vote accordingly. Opposing meta-guides on the basis merely because they may reflect the writer's bias is an argument for getting rid of all guides, not just meta-guides, and I don't think that we ought go down that path. If the community were to humbly accept that guides be subject to scrutiny, it would be a good and healthy thing for the deliberative democratic process that is this election. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
21. Support freedom of speech. Strobilomyces (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
22. Why not? Always seemed strange and overbearing. Volunteer Marek 04:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (allow "guides of voter guides")

1. I don't see a win here TBH. The most meta guides can offer is to point out where another guide is off the mark, but this can easily be done (and is done) by placing comments on that guide's talk page. That leaves only their purpose as summaries to other guides, which are inevitably going to be noisy and generally low value relative to reading the guides of interest. As for king making, that is an allegation levied at our current guides, and the evidence does not indicate that guides in fact do so in any strong measure. I say these things as someone who puts together such a guide summary table for each year. Izno (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
2. I agree with Izno. I see basically no potential light and a lot of potential heat arising from allowing guides to guides of candidates - we want to be encouraging voters to make their own minds up about candidates based on their answers to questions, not based on two levels of (sometimes pointy) commentary. Thryduulf (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Per Izno and Thryduulf. Mz7 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
4. I fear losing nuance that the guides' authors may deem important, in addition to granting the meta-guides' authors the power to pick and choose which guides to include in their meta-guides. I think it's fair to have voters do a bit more reading. Folly Mox (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Per Izno and Thryduulf. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:02, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
7. per Izno. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 19:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
8. I think the the guides alone put too much influence in their writers' opinions (and I say that as someone who used to write them, but changed my mind). Guides to guides, at worst, would create further undue influence, and at best would only add confusion and create yet another way to argue. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
9. I find the guides each year a useful guide (sorry) of where to look; i can see the value in a meta-guide but nevertheless oppose per Boing! and Izno. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 15:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
10. What about guides of the guides to the guides? I think a midpoint may be the way to go here: don't list all these meta guides on the template, but allow them in a category, list the category on the template. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

    One guide to guide them all ... and in the darkness bind them? ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

    I think the same could be done for the guides themselves. However, one benefit of the current arrangement for guides is that the template lists them in random order, whereas most WP categories list their items in alphabetical order. If this "category" could list the guides, and guides to guides, in random order, then I would support having only a link on the template and having the actual list of guides & guides to guides as its own thing. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 17:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

    Not opposed to just making some page of all the guides, meta guides, etc - and just linking to it. OK if it wants to use some not-really-random control; I've got a pocket full of trout if anyone says it must have some enforced randomness (..but if we made a gadget....). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

11. Speaking as a longtime guide-writer, I think it's best to just let each guide speak for itself. A "guide to guides" usually ends up reflecting the bias of someone who's writing about already biased guides, or else it's a quantitative analysis, which isn't really helpful either. Personally, I wish everyone wrote a guide. Then it would be more like an RfA, where people support and oppose and you know *why* they are doing this, so we get the discussion going and it's not just a flat vote. But as it is, let people who wish to write a serious guide do so, and other than that leave it alone. --Elonka 21:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments (allow "guides of voter guides")

• What exactly is this meant to achieve? Stifle (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  This would allow e.g. User:Izno/ACE meta guide to be placed on the ACE navbox. Izno (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• This rule was instituted by the 2012 RFC. Izno (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  The edit adding the caveat to {{ACE2012}} has the edit summary "update based on expected RFC outcome". However the RfC consensus statement written the next day was Even amongst Risker's supporters, there is dispute on whether summary tables are allowed. I would say there is no consensus to disallow them but some kind of disclaimer suggesting the tables do not by themselves provide a complete assessment of a candidate is preferred (as suggested by one of the supporters). Thus it seems the sentence in question has gone beyond the consensus that was determined. isaacl (talk) 15:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  It has remained more or less as-is since 11 years ago. I think there's probably WP:Silent support for the current statement. Izno (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  For quite a few years now (without looking it up I'd guess circa 2014) the rules for the preceding election have been explicitly determined to be the governing consensus unless and until there is an active consensus to change. Thryduulf (talk) 08:10, 6 September 2023 (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.

Length of voting

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.

---

Change the length of voting from 14 days to 10 days. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Support (Length of voting)

1. Based on recent years, we'd get at least 90% of current voters with this reduced period (and I suspect more given that there is always a spike of voters on the last day). It has always seemed, but especially the years I'm a candidate, that this period just stretches on forever - people already remark how long RfA is and this is twice as long. This would also allow incoming Arbs to get on the lists and such sooner - something which I think has real benefits for those arbs. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
2. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
3. - per Barkeep49. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Per Barkeep49. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Per Barkeep49. The process leading to the actual voting is already tediously long. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Per Barkeep49 & Jkudlick's addendum. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Per Barkeep49, Jkudlick, and my own impatience. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
8. Per Barkeep. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
9. The math in the oppose section is sub-par, and they show no workings. SN54129 11:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
10. Per Barkeep, good idea to shorten the voting period. Toadette ^(chat)/_(logs) 13:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
11. Most logical choice. Should include two weekends. Risker (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

    @Risker given that the election starts on a Tuesday (changing this has not been proposed), 10 days would only include one weekend (Tuesday to the following Friday). Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

    Further note that for a ten-day period to cover two weekends, it would have to start on a Friday or Saturday, when there is likely to be fewer technical support staff on hand. An eleven-day period would allow the voting to start on Thursday and cover two weekends. If the desire is not to extend the fallow period before voting further (it's already one more day than had been specified in 2013), then the start of the nomination period will have to be shifted accordingly (either earlier to keep the nomination period from starting and ending later, or later with a resulting delay to the nomination period). isaacl (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

    It can start at 0001 UTC on a Friday; there are sufficient staff to assist then. I am fully in favour of shifting everything that needs to be shifted. But 10 days is sufficient; I can say honestly as someone who sat on Arbcom for 5 years that four extra days of voting is very unlikely to result in a different outcome. People place far too much importance on this election than is warranted; we aren't electing people to run Wikipedia, only to resolve a dozen or so disputes a year. Risker (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

    If you think the election should start other than on a Tuesday then you will need to explicitly propose that. I don't understand how anyone who isn't a scruitineer can know whether four days would affect the results - we know when people vote but we don't know how they vote. If a significant proportion of people voting in the last few days vote for or against a particular candidate and/or a signifiant proportion of the votes for or against a specific candidate are made at the end then this will absolutely impact the results. How likely this is to happen, we have know way of knowing. Thryduulf (talk) 23:53, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

    The community enshrined starting the vote on the second business day of the week to avoid the issue of staff taking an extra day off after the weekend; to be consistent with this logic, the last business day of the week is also a day to avoid. isaacl (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

    The "second business day of the week" thing was more a timezone issue than a staff holiday issue - 00:01 Monday UTC is 16:01 Sunday Pacific Time (where the majority of the relevant staff are located). 00:01 Friday UTC is 16:01 Thursday so wouldn't have the same issue. Phrasing it as "second business day of the week" rather than "Tuesday" was to account for whatever the US equivalent of bank holidays are called that mean Monday is a non-business day. Thryduulf (talk) 00:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

    Thanks for the correction. In that case, a Friday start time would remain consistent with that rationale. Since the second business day was specified in the earlier RfC rather than any day other than the first business day, for a better or worse, a new consensus would be required for a change. isaacl (talk) 00:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (Length of voting)

1. I think the current length is a good balance in allowing the global community time to reflect and decide, versus not having the voting period be overly long. isaacl (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
2. I think it is a reasonable time already. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Two weeks remains reasonable. I don't see a win to shorten solely because "most" people have voted by 10 days. The perception that it drags on is definitely just a perception, and one I do not share. As for getting arbs on list sooner, I don't think there's a win there either - it's typically about two weeks of overlap even ignoring that it takes some users longer to get their paperwork done, and adding another 4 days to it isn't really all that helpful either. Izno (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Per everyone above. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
5. It's not like RfA. I do not see many drawbacks to the current voting period, and it enables the participation of those who don't edit every day. (t · c) buidhe 19:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
6. I see no good reason to shorten the period, and keeping it longer gives those who don't edit every day or are temporary absent (e.g. because of travel) a better chance to participate. Gawaon (talk) 19:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
7. (edit conflict) This a place where excess friction might serve a legitimate purpose. Individual RfAs are less likely to have sweeping implications for EnWikipedia as a whole, so the limited timeframe reducing broader participation is acceptable. Empowering editors who may not be on-project every week by offering them a wider window of voting that necessarily spans multiple weekends is an on-whole good thing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
8. per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
9. It is important to have the voting period cover more than one weekend. It might not do that if it is only 10 days. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
10. As much as possible, people who want to vote and are eligible to should be able to do it. Obviously, we can't have a ludicrously long voting period, but I think the current two-week period is reasonable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
11. Barkeep49's reasoning seems to suggest that they're happy to exchange a tenth of voters for the convenience of four days for successful candidates. Seems like a bad trade. Also agree with other opposers that there is no equivalency between Arb elections and RfA. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

    That does not correctly summarize the trade off I think we should make. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

12. There's a balance to be struck between the benefits to the candidates of shortening the election period, and the harm done to an ordinary Wikipedian by disenfranchising them if they get sick or take a holiday at the wrong time. To be disenfranchised by missing one RfA is one thing, but to be disenfranchised by missing the Arbcom election is quite another -- it's an entirely different order of magnitude. I don't think there are any good candidates who've declined to stand, but would change their mind if we shortened the election. I do think there are ordinary Wikipedians who'd be disenfranchised. So I land in this column and I land here pretty hard.—S Marshall T/C 13:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
13. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
14. Two week is reasonable. Heart ^(talk) 15:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
15. Per S Marshall. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 17:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
16. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 20:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
17. I don't see any justification for rushing it. Some eligible voters might be on vacation. Others might only login a couple times a week (which is sometimes my frequency). Martindo (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
18. I feel like that we should give more time so that all eligible voters have a chance to vote. ~~2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 23:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
19. It's only 14 days out of a year, and nobody (other than the candidates, who perhaps deserve to have to sweat a bit ;-) needs to pay any more attention to it than they want. And I really don't see any genuine benefit in shortening the period by 4 days. Just vote, then go off and enjoy life, people. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
20. No strong reason presented for change. Stifle (talk) 13:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
21. Reducing the voting period will directly reduce the number of people voting (Even if small) and without a compelling reason for such a change to be made, such a change should not be adopted. Terasail^[✉️] 14:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
22. I don't see the point of a change. SportingFlyer T·C 16:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments (Length of voting)

• I have to say as soomeone who has been thorugh four ACE elections, that fourteen days, followed by sometimes up to two more weeks of "scrutineering" feels like an eternity. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2023 (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.

Electoral Commission experience

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.

---

The closer of the Electoral Commission RFC, in addition to considering level of support, should also consider that it is beneficial to have at least one person who has served on the electoral committee previously, and at least one person who has not served on the EC previously, where possible. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Support (Electoral Commission experience)

1. Support as proposer. I think it's important we have at least one person on the EC who has done it before (for institutional memory), and at least one person on the EC who has not done it before (for new blood, and expanding the supply of people who can help the following year). But I don't think we should require this if it means a candidate with relatively low support is put on the EC just to fill a criterion, or if no such candidate runs in a given year. I was about to propose an if/then/otherwise flowchart, but I don't have the heart to complicate one of the few important processes we have left that works well without such rules (and thus one of the few important processes we have left that gives me some hope for the community's future). I like the idea of continuing to defer to the closer's traditional good judgment, but this gives them a hint on how to break ties (or near-ties). Without forcing a choice they don't think suitable. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
2. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Seems reasonable to try to construct a balanced crew if the numbers allow. Folly Mox (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
4. It seems like it's a good rule of thumb to have, especially if it's not a hard and fast rule. SportingFlyer T·C 16:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (Electoral Commission experience)

1. Too much discretion to the closer (who hasn't even normally been a crat if I recall correctly). Barkeep49 (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

   Also per Xaosflux below. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

2. This should be left to consensus. The Commission can seek advice from past members if they wish but we shouldn't be pre-judging the consensus of the discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:43, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
3. This could lead to a conflict between the level of support received and the people selected. While I agree that a mix of experience is generally desirable, this should not come at the expense of selecting people not appropriate for the position just because nobody else with their level of experience has applied in a particular year. Its more important (imo) to have three good commissioners with the same experience than one or more mediocre or worse candidates. Thryduulf (talk) 11:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
4. I think that it is a desirable outcome, but not at the expense of overriding the consensus process. There is no limit to the number of reserve commissioners. Additionally, there is no limit to the number of election coordinators, I suggest anyone wanting to get started with dealing with elections sign up as a coordinator. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:09, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Frostly (talk) 21:58, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Ivan (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Mostly per Thryduulf. SkyWarrior 19:01, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
8. I might have supported this suggestion if it were specific (and of course, if the specifics were to my liking :), but this is just so wibbly-wobbly-tickey-wiki that I cannot support it. Izno (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
9. It might have a COI (one editor at multiple committees similar to ArbCom doesn't really make sense). ~~2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 23:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
10. Too much of a thumb on the scale. Neutrality^talk 01:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
11. Sounds like a supervote to me. It should be solely based on consensus, and that's all the closer should judge. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
12. I agree with Floquenbeam that it's important to get new blood, but community members are perfectly capable of doing that by endorsing new candidates should they decide that's important to them. RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
13. It always works out. The community has done a phenomenal job for years. SQL^{Query Me!} 23:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
14. No need for explicit guidance. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
15. Terasail^[✉️] 18:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
16. Per xaosflux - my thoughts exactly. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
17. This could create undesirable situations where a candidate getting elected with much less support than another candidate. MarioGom (talk) 06:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
18. Per Thryduulf. NotAGenious (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments (Electoral Commission experience)

---

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.

About WP:ACERULES

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.

---

WP:ACERULES should be made a procedural policy, be reformatted to resemble one (example), and be moved to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Election rules Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Election/Rules. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC) Edited 21:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Support (About WP:ACERULES)

1. It's never made sense to me that the collection of decisions made at WP:ACE RFC was so hidden given how important it is to the functioning of WP:ACE. It's pretty much a procedural policy in all but name, so I'm just suggesting we finally move it to a better spot (which at the moment is a tucked away RFC subpage). I'm not proposing anything be changed about it besides how it's formatted and structured (headings instead of bullet points, etc.). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
2. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Frostly (talk) 21:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
4. SQL^{Query Me!} 23:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
5. For a longer time that I'd like to admit, I could never find the rules until the next RFC cycle because the place where they are located isn't that initiative. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Active rules should not be placed in a place that is only found by those who know about its existence. Terasail^[✉️] 18:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (About WP:ACERULES)

1. I think many aspects of the elections process are getting codified in ways that restrict flexibility in meeting the community's wishes. I don't see any net advantage to marking the rules for the election process as a policy. isaacl (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
2. I don't see any benefit to making this a procedural policy but it could make it harder to interpret with flexibility and add a greater reluctance to make changes. While I have no strong opinions about the location of the page and neither support nor oppose the proposed move, I do oppose codifying that location in the rules themselves - doubly so if they are to become a procedural policy. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Since we have had significant rules changes on a nearly annual basis, I'm more inclined to keep it as is. I do believe it can, and should, be more visible on all of the relevant pages (perhaps even requiring any on-wiki voter guides to include a link to it). I do think if there's a procedural policy, it should be on the rules of the RFC that reviews the ACE rules, rather than on the rules themselves. Risker (talk) 23:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
4. No concerns with moving it to a better page, categorizing it, or putting a banner on it - however I think the current format is sufficient. The proposed format is a more traditional wikitext page that would tend to encourage editing, while this is really more of just an index of decisions made elsewhere. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
5. I don't care much about the page name, but this is something we heavily revise with a flood of RfCs every year, so it just doesn't seem like policy material, and turning it into a policy is like to ossify it further.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments (About WP:ACERULES)

• MJL Can I suggest the address be Arbitration Committee Election/Rules just so we maintain seperation over what ArbCom gets to manage (Arb space) and what the community owns (the elections). Barkeep49 (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49:  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  While I agree with the intent, the parent WP:Arbitration Committee Election exists only as a redirect. Izno (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  The same applies to WP:Arbitration Committee/Elections fyi. It doesn't make a difference to me where it's at specifically as long as it's out of the RFC subpage purgatory it's currently in. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  I used Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023 as the basis of my suggestion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  If the key issue is location, then I think an RfC such as this one is unnecessary overhead. The location can be discussed on its talk page. isaacl (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think it would probably be reasonable to split what's at WP:Elections regarding ACE into its own page, especially if this proposal is successful.

  That said, I kind of have to agree that someone should just do it if they think it's an improvement. (I think it probably is.) Izno (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

  I went ahead and spun out the Arbitration Committee section on the Elections page to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Election. (We can now proceed to argue if it should be pluralized, or lower case.) isaacl (talk) 04:20, 13 September 2023 (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.

Three members selected by lottery

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.

---

Implement a system like in the Athenian Democracy#Ecclesia of Ancient Greece where officials were selected by lottery among citizens. Therefore, three Arbitration Committee members appointed among everyone considered an editor of Wikipedia of age (extended confirmed) with at least 500 edits for the past month. This system is used in other organizations and is currently named sortition. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Support (Three members selected by lottery)

1. Additional comments here Thinker78 (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (Three members selected by lottery)

1. No thank you. Izno (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Randomizing the members of ArbCom is a very bad idea. ArbCom is already one of the most controversial areas of Wikipedia, and we need the members to be qualified. We can't just have some random 600-edit guy deal with some of the most contentious disputes on the site, not to mention giving them CheckUser and Oversight. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
3. For admins, I like the idea of sortition with a heavily restricted pool; if designed properly it would resolve many issues with our current system of admin selection. However, those same issues do not apply to ARBCOM; I cannot see any issues this would solve, and I can see it introducing many more, particularly with how broad the pool is. BilledMammal (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Per the other opposers above, and in spite of my comments here. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
5. I think the idea behind this is valid, but the specific proposal here is unworkable for many reasons. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
6. ArbCom is too important to the encyclopedia to be left to chance like this. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 04:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
7. ArbCom members have to deal with private evidence and cannot effectively monitor the usage of the CheckUser and Oversight tool without these rights. Giving these rights and access to a private wiki with lots of private information (such as people's real names and accounts that may owned by different people in the same household) is an issue. If an idea of just not giving access to private data is discussed, this makes these arbitrators have very little they can actually do.
   Furthermore, to assume that a randomly selected extended confirmed user would actually keep this data private is difficult. We also have several WP:LTAs who regularly create and operate extended confirmed accounts who would therefore be included in this. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
8. Even among the pool of people who meet the current requirements to stand for election, which is much narrower than just extended confirmed, there are a great many people who would make absolutely appalling arbitrators for a variety of reasons. Some cannot be trusted with the private information, some would be unwilling and/or legally unable to sign the necessary access to non-public data policy, some wouldn't understand the principals, some would use it as an opportunity to get back at those they've been in dispute with, some would not have the time, some wouldn't get on with the bureaucracy, some wouldn't have the ability with the English language, some people just really do not want to do the job, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 09:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
9. Obvious no. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
10. This is not a change I'd support this without a major change to the arbcom structure. If arbcom was actually only about dealing with dispute resolution, maybe. But as they are also in charge of all private information investigations, access to which they generally maintain even following their term, the membership should be subject to strict community scrutiny and approval. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

    Additionally, strongest possible oppose at selecting anyone that doesn't want to do this, they will then just not do the work and the committee will become useless. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

11. Only editors who have applied for this role should be asked to carry its burdens.—S Marshall T/C 11:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
12. There is a case for being tried by a jury of one's peers, but it's outweighed by the arguments against outlined above. Few random editors would have the time, skill, experience and dedication required for the role. Is it snowing in here? Certes (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments (Three members selected by lottery)

• I originally hatted this discussion per WP:SNOW, but the original proposer reopened it. @Thinker78: I won't revert the reopening (perhaps I was a little hasty, as this was only at 1–3 when I hatted it), but I have to say, I am surprised that an editor with your tenure thinks that the proposal does not have only a snowball's chance of passing. Your proposal is an interesting thought experiment that might be suitable for the talk page of this RfC, but there is no way that we could ever implement your idea in practice. There are a number of reasons for this, but one big one is that, as of 2023, members of the Arbitration Committee are given access to non-public information (e.g. ArbCom and functionary mailing lists, and access to checkuser and oversight tools), and in the past, the Wikimedia Foundation has refused to grant this level of technical access to users who have not undergone RFA or an RFA-identical process—see Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 116#RFA reform Proposal: Automatic admintools to users with 1 year of registration and 3000 mainspace edits. Mz7 (talk) 02:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for your reply. I believe that discussion regarding this proposal can be fruitful and may lead to other ideas regarding elections. Some editors may like it enough as to support it. There may be reasons that the proposal may or may not be implemented, similarly as there are contrary views for other proposals. Discussion can clarify what these issues may be and whether they are insurmountable or not.

  The system of choosing officials by lottery via sortition is nothing new. In fact it is still used to select jurors in the United States. I point out how a delicate position that of a juror is, someone who determines the fate of fellow citizens in judicial proceedings.

  I read the summary of the discussion you linked. It reads, "WMF already has a stated position that all admins absolutely must have community approval, so if this passed, they wouldn't implement it." We can work on this, for example by selecting by lottery nine editors and from them, directly voting for three by a RFA process. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  While the comparison to a juror may make sense, I would say that a juror is heavily vetted. In the UK:

  • A criminal background check is run
  • Their full names and addresses are known to the court
  • They have a fairly long process of in-person vetting, where a juror could be excluded

  There is no way the Wikimedia Foundation or the community could carry out the same level of vetting given to jurors.

  In the UK it is also contempt of court for a juror to speak about what happened in the court room on social media, even after it has finished. It is also illegal for jurors to speak about what happened in the deliberation room in general.

  There isn't a way that we as the community or the Wikimedia Foundation could prevent the leaking of data in as strong as a way that the jury system has. Maybe in the US the NDAs that are signed could work, but these may not be recognised by a given country where the user lives.

  All of this is to say that just because the process works for jurors doesn't mean it would work for arbitrators on the English Wikipedia. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  The idea of a random selection from a pool in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the process would need to be finely tuned and discussed. Certainly selecting from all extended confirmed users would not work, as these users are likely not aware of how time consuming being an effective arbitrator is and there are too many yet-to-be-discovered WP:LTAs that would meet the proposed requirements. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Given the voluntary nature of being an arb, it would have to be a choice from people who fit the requirements and who want to do it... and they're the ones who stand for election, surely. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2023 (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.

Increase percentage support requirement for a two-year term

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.

---

This proposal would amend the statement "The minimum percentage of support that is required is 60% for a two-year term, and 50% for a one-year term." to "The minimum percentage of support that is required is 70% for a two-year term, and 50% for a one-year term." casualdejekyll 19:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Support (increase support requirement)

1. In the three most recent ACEs, there were multiple candidates who would have qualified for a two-year seat, had there been enough seats for them to recieve one. Notably, in the last ACE, all candidates either failed to meet the 50% threshold or successfully met the 60% threshold. To me, this seems like evidence that there's some sort of community appetite for a more diverse set of arbitrators, and increasing the threshold neccesary to get a two year term would make it so that there are more seats to compete for (in 2024 and onward, since obviously this would not apply retroactively), hopefully reducing the amount of candidates who qualify for a seat yet do not get one. I would also support expanding the committee, but I did not formally propose that because I do not think it has a snowball's chance in hell to pass as a proposal. casualdejekyll 19:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

   TL;DR why do we even have the one-year seat, if nobody ever gets a one-year seat? casualdejekyll 20:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

2. Some variation of this has been proposed every year, I've supported it then, and it's always failed. The same appears to be happening. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (increase support requirement)

1. This would create a revolving door of candidacies, quite unnecessarily. I did not feel comfortable in my role until about 6 months in. That meant I was only most effective at 6 months+. Izno (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Except in marginal cases, I find the two year term to be quite appropriate. I agree with Izno that I did not feel fully useful until at least 6 months in, and think that much of the Committee's most important work happens in the first couple months of each new year, as there is generally a flush of new business and new energy. Having greater numbers of inexperienced candidates, or candidates who are experienced but have just had to run through the grueling election process, saps energy and expertise from the Committee in a critical time. This seems like a solution in search of a problem. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 21:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Idea maybe, values no. If we want to raise something it should be the 50%. These are effectively lifetime checkuser/oversight appointments and that is far under what we expect for admins. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

   But to the point here, I think 60% is enough for the core theory. The ArbCom doesn't have to be perfect, because except for making themselves functionaries their other decisions require the majority of the committee to agree. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

4. As a former 1-year arb, I think we should be decreasing the number of 1-year terms not increasing them. I didn't really feel at all confident in most of the main case-related aspects until around 6-9 months in, and with typically fewer cases being heard these days (in 2015 there were 19 cases, in 2022 there were 7) the necessary experience isn't going be gained quicker than it was. Additionally, arbitrators who are standing in elections have less energy to devote to their arb duties (let alone all the other things they want to do on Wikipedia) than those who aren't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)
5. We needn't create more churn or turnover for a system that works fine as-is. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Not broke, don't "fix" it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Oppose per CaptainEek Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 06:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
8. I think we should get rid of 1-year terms entirely, not make more. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
9. Oppose raising the support requirement, someone has to deal with the intractable problems. It would be too easy to cause institutional crisis if S/S+O > 0.7 were required. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 16:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
10. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
11. Oppose: a 60% minimum for two-year terms is just fine. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
12. There are two kinds of people in the world - those who understand how multi-seat elections work, and those who keep trying to fiddle with arbitrary ArbCom cutoffs every year ;-) (If you put 2 candidates up for a fixed number of seats, or 20 candidates, the percentage scores will be very different even if the candidates are all equally good.) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
13. I feel like that the current limit is enough (from experience in RfA). ~~2NumForIce (^speak|_edits) 22:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
14. Per Xaosflux. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
15. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments (increase support requirement)

• I'm not sure how having many candidates that met the standard of being selected is an indication that the community wants to have a more diverse set of arbitrators, or that more one-year arbitrators are desired. The most recent comments from non-arbirators that I recall on the subject of term length is that people like arbitrators having two years to gain more experience in the role, and that overlap provides continuity. If there were a desire for more rapid turnover, though, then I think directly having a fixed number of 1-year seats would be a better approach, rather than trying to induce this situation with the current rules on term length by changing the threshold values. isaacl (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• As a more general comment than this specific proposal, it's a real pain that people keep throwing spaghetti at the numbers wall each year without actually working with the people most affected (those who go through this election, or would like to go through this election). What we have is really, actually, fine. Izno (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Here's the series of previous discussions: 2022, 2021, 2019 reaffirming 2018's decision for a split percentage election, and 2018 instituting our current regime (which also decreased the size of the committee and then bad things happened). Izno (talk) 01:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that there's an arb learning curve and two years helps make sure the ratio of productive to learning time is well skewed toward productive. That said, I would support more of an option for people to announce they want a 1 year term. I think, for instance, some former arbs might do an additional year but would be hesitant to do 2. Perhaps some firstimers also. But I would think this would need to be declared ahead of time so the community could make an informed decision when voting. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  Along those lines, would you be open to divvying up some seats into "2-year term" seats and "1-year term" seats? A person would choose which seat to run for, and there could be two parallel elections for each (min. thresholds could be kept; something like "there are 5 two-year seats open this year, which require a minimum of 60% approval, and 2 one-year seats open this year, which require a minimum of 50% approval"). — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 01:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  If there were fixed number of 1-year term and 2-year term seats that were contested separately (and thus no more 2-year term seats turning into 1-year term seats), then I think my personal preference would be to have a uniform 60% threshold for both. isaacl (talk) 01:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Arb terms used to be 3 years. We dropped them to 2, due to arb fatigue and resignations. I wouldn't mind if we set it up where when we elect arbs it's for a "term", which is a minimum of 1 year but a maximum of 3. And leave it up to each arb's discretion every year to affirm before the election whether they are staying on or stepping down (or running again, for that matter). - jc37 01:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Well, arbitrators already have the discretion to stop serving at any time (ideally, they'd avoid doing it after voting starts, to allow for their seat to filled during the annual election). I'm not sure if the community would support three-year terms, though. isaacl (talk) 01:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  2 years is fatiguing, having to serve for 3 as the earliest tranches did would be horrible. :) As I noted elsewhere for a different "committee" with similar rules to ours (but a different scope), 2 years is probably about the most you can ask for from volunteers. Less than 1 and you're just dealing with turnover. (I don't get how our sister arbcoms function, many of which are indeed on 1 year or less for terms.) I think our rolling 2 year terms are about as good as you're going to get on the point. Izno (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  (ec) Isaacl - Dunno. Like I said, they used to. And I think this would allow for an arb to stay for that "additional year" mentioned above, to help with transition, but those who aren't interested in staying for 3 years can drop out. - jc37 01:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Sure, but the community has changed, the workload of arbitrators have changed, and... arbitrators didn't want to serve for three years, thus the change to two. I'm skeptical that the community will decide that they should be trying to get more people to serve three year terms, particularly against the experience of past arbitrators. There is plenty of continuity now with two-year terms (even with mid-term resignations). isaacl (talk) 02:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  My point wasn't to make "3-year terms", it was instead to elect for a "term", which has a minimum and maximum length. If no one wants to do 3 years, I think we'd find out soon enough. - jc37 02:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  That's the same thing as electing arbitrators for three-year terms when they can resign at any time. My point is that I don't think the community would support this given what it knows about how arbitrators feel about signing up for three years, and as I feel it prefers to review an arbitrator's tenure earlier than that. isaacl (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  It's not the same. There's a difference in perception and in expectation. If you are elected to a 3-year term, we tend to expect that you will serve a three=year term. If we elect you to a term, that is a minimum of one year and a maximum of three, then that is all we expect of you. And it's quite possible that, by making the term length self-selecting, that we could well see more and better activity from arbs. People tend to be more productive, the more "free" they feel. The term shouldn't ever feel like a burden. Yes, they presumably know what they're signing up for. But, from what little we've been able to see behind-the-scenes over the years, no one really knows exactly what it's like until one sits in that seat. - jc37 02:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  From a standpoint of gaining consensus, a proposal where arbitrators are approved to fill a seat for up to three years requires the community to be willing to live with their selections for the maximum length of the term. Thus it has to consider all arbitrators as if they will serve for three years. isaacl (talk) 03:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'd greatly prefer a system where an arb candidate says if they're running for 1 year or 2 (I appreciate why jc37 suggests 3 but agree with isaac that having 1 or 2 year options would increase the chances of finding consensus). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• I seem to remember, once upon a time, many moons ago, back when JW was the intermediary step between the arbcom election and selection of arbitrators. Due to several people doing decently though not great, a few at the low end received 1 year terms. It was controversial at the time, but it worked, and was the standard for awhile. All that said, if we want an absolute bottom threshhold, agree with Xaosflux. The 50% should probably be raised. RfA tends to have a "fuzzy middle" between 2/3 and 3/4, with 60 pretty much being the bottom. I think that stadard would probably be fine, though obviously our current voting system for Arbcom doesn't allow for "fuzziness"  : ) - jc37 23:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  ACE is not RFA and can't be compared percentage-to-percentage. That's a conversation that's been had before: raising the 50% threshold was tried last year. And the year before that. And I think the year before that. That's the point of my general-oriented comment above: it's a tired "really, again?" thing getting on toward the realm of stickiness barring actual discussion that decides whether a proposal is fit to solve whatever problems it aims to solve. Making it harder to elect ArbCom members for a full term is not a win for the health of the committee itself which I am definitely going to posit is not a win for the health of the community given the matters that ArbCom must handle, and changing these percentages or associated durations are likely to have that outcome.

  Separately, I have to say that the productivity of individual arbs, as at least one measure of goodness of a candidate, has almost 0 correlation to the ending percentage that elects that member. And having been an arb the past two years, I have to say that individual productivity is an important aspect of a candidacy. We have been absent an arb for most of that time and I've felt the drag of less-chronically-absent arbs this year (moreso than last). (There are certainly other factors on which to select one's chosen 7/8 or more come election time.)

  Speaking particularly to this year's version, no actual problem is posited besides "too many people got above 60%" as I read it. I think Barkeep below said exactly what I wanted to earlier: that looks more like evidence to me that people are getting to choose the candidates they think are suitable or at least good-enough for the role. That is the opposite of a problem. Izno (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I understand. And you make some exceptionally valid points.

  But, for me at least, this isn't about arbitrator activity. It's about having the voting sytem more aligned with community trust. And with this merely being a hard numbers choice, without the ability for nuance, then I think 60 is the bottom. And if we're getting more candidates than seats who are achieving 60 at the moment, then there shouldn't be an issue. But I don't think we should be adding people just to fill seats. If an election doesn't produce enough people above 60, then we have follow-up options. If the Wikipedia community knows anything, it knows how to hold a discussion on an issue : ) - jc37 01:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• I think in some ways the ideal length of term for an arbitrator would be initially 2½ years with subsequent terms being the arb's choice of 1 or 2 years, with terms beginning and ending 6 months after an election. The first 6 months would be a probationary arbitrator (for want of a better term) spent learning the role and finding what it is really like. Probationary arbs would not count towards the size of the committee so there was no penalty or stigma for leaving early if it turns out it isn't for you. At the 6 month mark the whole committee (including the probationary arbs as equal participants) would decide by consensus which of the probationary arbitrators would be staying on to become full arbitrators (which could be anywhere from none to all of them). Once that decision was made those arbs whose terms were expiring would step down (after the conclusion of any ongoing business as now) and the incoming arbs would step up to full. This would fit well with Barkeep's comment above and allow the extended onboarding time that the reduced voting period proposal seeks. This is not a fully-formed idea so is not something I'm proposing this year - not only does it require refinement in various places, consideration of things I've not considered, and there are lots of practical issues that would need to decisions to be made (e.g. regarding transitional arrangements for term start/end dates moving from January to July), and this really isn't the place to discuss it in detail so this is just really just seeking first opinions to determine if it's even worth discussing it further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thryduulf (talk • contribs)
  • Just noting that I did not make this unsigned comment. casualdejekyll 23:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
• Irrespective of this specific proposal, do people think "we have more people qualifying for seats than people who get seats" is a problem or not? Judging by the response this proposal has, people do not generally think that it is, but if it IS a problem then we should look for a solution, right? casualdejekyll 23:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  I think it's great that a small number of people each year cross the 60% threshold and don't get elected. It means the community has a genuine choice its making and is not just settling for someone because that's how many seats there are. And I say this as someonw who was 14 votes short of getting elected the first time I ran. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Barkeep49. I think it would be a problem if there were just enough candidates passing the threshold (or not enough), which would indicate that there weren't enough people interested in taking on an arbitrator workload that were also sufficiently trusted by the community. isaacl (talk) 00:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  IIRC I've twice reached the qualifying percentage but not been elected, and while this is frustrating for me personally (and possibly anyone who supported me but not one or more of those finishing higher than me) I agree with Barkeep that more good candidates than seats is a Good Thing. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It might be well to explain, for those unfamiliar with the process, that no arb has had a >60% ratio of supports to total voters in recent memory. In last years election, 55.2% of voters supported the candidate with the highest tally; three of the elected candidates had over 50% support from the total electorate. The year before that, the candidate with the most votes had 57.7% of the electorate supporting them, with only two of the elected candidates breaking 50%. The year before that only one successful candidate had over 50% of the electorate supporting them. What artificially inflates the reported percentages (as those who have followed this regularly know) is the "don't care" neutral votes, which are thrown out for purposes of calculating the reported percentages. This is done because in order to validate a vote one must chose either support, neutral, or oppose for every candidate, so the support percentage is calculated based on a different electorate for each candidate (i.e. only those who either supported or opposed that candidate). Unless I'm mistaken, a candidate receiving 10 support votes, 990 neutral votes, and 0 oppose votes would have a 100% support rate according to ACE math and 1% according to vintage math. I am not saying this is necessarily good or bad, just that it should possibly be explained for those unfamiliar with the system. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 11:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

It is explained at Wikipedia:5-minute guide to ArbCom elections which is prominently linked and is explained when the results table is posted on the main page. Where else do you think it should be because it is important info? And if people weren't forced to vote for each candidate you could still have the 10/990/0 situation. The idea that a neutral vote should count the same as an oppose when calculating the percentage has never made sense to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I felt that it needed to be explained here, since this proposal talks about support percentages. Someone having never followed an ArbCom election might think that getting 60% or 70% of the vote is an unreasonably high expectation in order to be elected, not realizing that normal understandings of support percentages do not apply in elections with Schrödinger's voters, who can simultaneously be voters and !voters (part of the electorate and not part of the electorate) when voting on the same slate of candidates. Since by far the largest number of total votes are "don't oppose and don't support", it's always seemed strange to me not to report it, but then I also think that the abstention rate should systematically be reported in real world elections with normal (i.e. non-Schrödingerian) voters. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 15:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 changing (in different, often incompatible ways) how we count and/or describe neutral has been proposed a great many times. There has never, to my recollection, been a consensus that there was a problem that needed fixing let alone on a specific proposal for change. Personally, despite the literally dozens of explanations I've read over the years I still don't understand what the problem is actually meant to be. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Why would an editor participate in an RFC about the rules for arbcom elections if they're unfamiliar with the process of arbcom elections? (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 17:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• See User:Thryduulf/Arbcom election stats#Support percentages since 2013 for how this change would have impacted previous elections. Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see this recalculated based on the full electorate (in standard support %, neutral %, oppose % format). The elected candidate with the lowest percentages in 2013 was supported by 34.0%, opposed by 27.5%, with 38.5% indifferent. So this candidate was not opposed by 44.7% of the total electorate as your table suggests. In fact, it would be wiser to focus on absolute "oppose" percentages for determining confidence in individual candidates, unless of course the "just say no" vote should become a more popular voting tactic (which would likely translate a loss of confidence in ArbCom given that neutral votes are a tacit vote for the institution). -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 21:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

The total electorate has over 40,000 users, so the percentage based on the full electorate is really small. Someone voting neutral for one candidate is in essence joining the large group of non-voters, but just for that candidate. isaacl (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I apologize for not using the term ballot-castors for those of us busy beavers who vote. Again, the current system creates impressive-sounding support percentages, but also creates the appearance of worryingly high oppose percentages despite the ballot-castors explicitly having said they didn't see anything to worry about. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

You have fundamentally misunderstood what neutral votes mean. The voter is not saying "I don't see anything to worry about" it is saying "I do not wish to express an opinion about this candidate". It is means exactly the same with regard to that candidate as those who did not vote for or against any candidate. It is therefore incorrect to include them in the support or oppose percentages. Thryduulf (talk) 22:32, 16 September 2023 (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.

Eliminate 1-year term results

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.

---

Eliminate 1-year term results.

This is a leftover from the past. We no longer have JW choosing arbs following an election.

This will also effectively make 60% the "floor" to be a seated arb. - jc37 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Support (eliminate 1-year term results)

1. Support as nom. - jc37 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
2. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
3. We don't use them much, and a two-year term is better for the arbitrators. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Support in principle I don't know exactly how this would be implemented in practice, but seems good to me. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Terasail^[✉️] 17:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Support with a floor of either 50 or 60% (or somewhere in between). Per my comments elsewhere, a single year is not really enough time on the committee to find ones feet and become a fully productive member of the committee. Thryduulf (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

   If both this and the alternate proposal reach consensus, this is my second choice. Thryduulf (talk) 08:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

7. Support because I feel confident saying that even if this proposal fails, there will never be another person elected between 50%-60% again under the current rules, so why do we have them anyway? casualdejekyll 00:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   See also #Eliminate 1-year term results (alternate proposal), which is a modified version of this to address some opposing concerns casualdejekyll 01:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

8. I opposed this last year, but having spent some time looking at the stats, I prefer 60% as the threshold for everybody. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
9. Ditch the 50%, use 60%; but keep the terms for tranche balancing. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   Just to clarify - As I noted in the discussion below, if a tranche situation arises, that can be addressed. So this obviously doesn't affect/restrict future discussions addressing that. - jc37 20:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

10. -- 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
11. Per Vanamonde. I don't see the need for a full slate, and if someone can't get 60% in a secret ballot they probably shouldn't be an arb. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

    Whether someone gets 60% or not in an arbcom election depends as much on other candidates, and how many of them there are, as it does on their suitability to be an arbitrator. Thryduulf (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (eliminate 1-year term results)

1. Per my above opposition and general comments. NB the other way to "eliminate" one-year terms is to extend the floor back to 50%. As I said, this is sticky and needs to stop. Izno (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
3. No one has explained what happens if this occurs and there is a one-year term on offer to finish out the two-year term of an arb who resigned (and the tranches would otherwise be unbalanced). Since we will inevitably have the occasional one-year term, we should keep the mechanism for handling it in place. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Unless another proposal gains consensus support that eliminates the tranche system, I think one-year terms to replace midterm vacancies should remain. isaacl (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
5. No, I don't want to see the cutoff creeping upwards, because I really don't think arbitrary cutoff percentages make sense anyway. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
6. To maintain the tranche system. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Per BlueMoonset. Essentially, this proposal is too broad. As worded, this would eliminate the case where if an arbitrator resigns in the middle of their first year in a two-year term, the arbitrator that succeeds them would serve for one year to maintain the tranche system. No convincing reasons have been provided to discard that system, so I am in the oppose section for this one. If the desire is to eliminate only the case where a candidate between 50–60% support gets a 1-year term, then I would encourage you to support #Require 60% minimum support below, which more narrowly targets that case. Mz7 (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
8. I agree with Mz7 and BlueMoonset. Inevitably 1 year terms will be needed. OLIfanofmrtennant
9. Unclear that this solves a problem effectively; see Mz7. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
10. Unbalancing the tranches is a Bad Thing, per Mz7 and many supporters (who seem to be supporting #Require 60% minimum support; I have yet to make up my mind on that proposal). HouseBlaster^talk 18:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments (eliminate 1-year term results)

• For context, note that the one-year terms based on support percentage was introduced by the community in 2018 via this discussion: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018 § Percentage support needed for appointment. isaacl (talk) 15:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, but the goal there was to raise from 50 to 60. This wasn't the first time we had 1-year terms. - jc37 15:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  I appreciate that one-year terms may have existed earlier, but they didn't in 2017 (other than mid-term vacancies), and their introduction in 2018 wasn't directly linked by any supporters to earlier practice. isaacl (talk) 15:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• Question: How would this apply to mid-term vacancies? When Donald Albury stood down last year, his seat swapped tranches because it would not imbalance the tranches. Would that always happen, even if it would result in a six (or fewer) member tranche and a nine (or greater) member tranche? Would the seat remain vacant until it could be filled by a two-year term without imbalancing the tranches? Or would it result in a one-year term? HouseBlaster^talk 22:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  We have one of these RfCs before every election. If a special situation comes up, it can be dealt with at that point. - jc37 22:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

• This was previously proposed (also by jc37) in 2021: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021#Minimum of 60% to be seated as an arbitrator. At the time, it seems the main objection was more towards how late the proposal came in the RfC (with only about a week left) rather than on the merits of the proposal. Looking back at the elections since the rule was created in 2018 (as isaacl pointed out above), it seems that everyone we've appointed has gotten 60%+ support anyway, so there's not a whole lot of data on the pros and cons here. I suspect this will have the most impact in elections where the candidate pool is small—there would be a slightly greater chance that we won't fill all the vacancies if we lift the floor to 60%. Right now, I don't have any view on this proposal—still thinking. Mz7 (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  It was repeated a year later where it got a fair shake. Izno (talk) 23:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  Ah, forgot about that one. Mz7 (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• I'm a bit unsure on this one. While the proposal as worded can cause long-term issues by disrupting the tranche system, I could certainly get behind a proposal that has safeguards against lopsided tranches. But yes - a system better than the current one is certainly needed, considering the feelings for one-year terms expressed here and elsewhere. JavaHurricane 14:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Without a change to the maximum number of seats that can be elected each year (eight), this change would prevent midyear vacancies from being filled. This situation is not a rare occurrence (there have been four instances since 2018) and thus I think it makes sense to keep the existing rules in place, rather than deal with them on a case-by-case basis when they arise (which can be anytime, including after the elections RfC). isaacl (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2023 (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.

Yearly update prior to the election

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.

---

Set a time prior to the election, for each sitting arb to say if they will continue to serve in the upcoming year.

By having this as a set part of the process, should reduce possible disruption to the election timeline, among other things. - jc37 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Support (yearly update prior to the election)

1. Support as nom. - jc37 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (yearly update prior to the election)

1. This is a nullity - nothing stops arbitrators from resigning prior to the election if they want to. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

   While that is also true, what this does is request that all arbs make that affirmation yearly as a set part of the process. - jc37 15:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

   And what if they don't? It's happened a few times (including in the 2022 elections) than an arbitrator with a non-expiring term has been completely inactive at election time. I guess I could get behind requiring each arbitrator to explicitly say they want to continue their term each year, and removing those who make no answer. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

   Well, for this proposal, I'm relying on arbs' good faith willingness to follow process. I suppose someone could add a new proposal adding the requirement you are suggesting. - jc37 15:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

2. Per Pppery's followup objection. Izno (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Terasail^[✉️] 17:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Per Pppery. Thryduulf (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
6. or what? If they are renewing they will apply, if they are not then the election is out of scope for them. No way we're going to disqualify them from the NEXT election if they don't do this years before. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Oppose per WP:CREEP (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 17:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
8. Explicitly adding this rule sounds like rule creep, but I agree it would be desirable that arbs did this. MarioGom (talk) 06:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments (yearly update prior to the election)

• While I concur with the opposers that this is out of scope for this RfC, it's a good idea, so I'll try to get arbcom to vote on something like this ourselves. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:13, 23 September 2023 (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.

Set term to 3 years, with yearly assertion

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear WP:SNOW consensus against this proposal. Concerns were raised about burnout, arbs not serving full terms when three year terms were previously a thing, and lack of problems with the current two-year terms (c.f. WP:AINTBROKE). (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster^talk 17:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Set max term length to 3 years, with affirmation every year.

(basically, same as the above proposal, but setting the max from 2 years to 3 years.)

So after year 1/prior to year 2, at a set time prior to the election, each sitting arb to say if they will continue to serve in the upcoming year. And the same thing the following year.

No arb is or would be "required" to serve out 3 years, this merely provides the option, while also providing arbs the set, yearly opportunity to leave service on the committee, at their discernment.

Support (set term to 3 years, with yearly assertion)

1. Support as nom. - jc37 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
2. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (set term to 3 years, with yearly assertion)

1. Per Barkeep's earlier commentary. If the yearly assertion were separable, that might be worthwhile discussing. Izno (talk) 16:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

   What do you mean by "separable"? - jc37 16:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

   A yearly assertion could have been discussed entirely separate to a specific proposal like this one which moves the term goalposts also. These proposals aren't separable, meaning you have to discuss the entire package rather than the atomic proposal. (This has its pros and cons.) One con is that I must oppose this proposal in toto rather than just the part that I am concerned with, which is changing the maximum term length. I would be interested to see an RFC question similar to Pppery's second comment (I guess I could get behind requiring each arbitrator to explicitly say they want to continue their term each year, and removing those who make no answer.) as I think this would have some other positive benefits (and likely some negative ones as well, but at least I can see it as worth discussing further). Izno (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

   For the first part, that's what the proposal directly above was supposed to be (so I'm confused by your opposition there). For the second, I agree that Pppery's idea is interesting. - jc37 16:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

   I opposed there because your proposal there is not ultimately feasible. That's why I said "Per Pppery". Izno (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

   I think trusting arbs to follow procees in good faith, is feasible. That said, I appreciate and understand that a more pragmatic approach may be necessary. - jc37 17:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

   I think trusting absent arbs to follow any process in any faith is infeasible. Planning solely for sunny days is pretty well established not to work out. Izno (talk) 17:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

2. Per my comments in a previous section. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

   I thought your opposition was that you didn't think others would support 3 years, not that you opposed it. What did I miss? - jc37 16:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

   I think the arb needs to declare the term they want to serve at the time of election so the community can make a decision accordingly. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

   As a note I also think such a thing could make a non-admin Arb more likely as it makes the "stakes" of electing one lower. For me this would be a good thing. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

3. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
4. I just don't see any good reason for this Terasail^[✉️] 17:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Frostly (talk) 19:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Because the two portions are combined, and per Barkeep. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Three years is too long; two years is plenty. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
8. I don't see any problem with the current 2-year terms. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
9. Nope, 2 years is long enough. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
10. Two years is too long (but far more practical than one year), three is right out. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
11. What I've read about three-year terms from ArbCom archives as well as from past Arbs suggests that three year terms are simply not a good idea - even with the yearly confirmations. JavaHurricane 14:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
12. Bad idea for a number of reasons, from too much power to conducive to burn out. Volunteer Marek 04:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
13. Way too much. NotAGenious (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments (set term to 3 years, with yearly assertion)

• We moved away from 3 year terms because people were regularly resigning halfway through their terms. We still have this issue with 2-year terms (or worse yet, people *not* resigning when they've been inactive for months). Agreeing to commit three years of one's volunteer life to a potentially very challenging job isn't the big draw that some people think it might be. Risker (talk) 07:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Which is why I phrased it the way I did. We also have had people stay on for multiple terms as well. So some editors at least were willing to go for more than 2 years. So the idea for this is to basically have someone go through 1 election, but before the next year's election, decide if they are staying on the following year. With a max of 3 years before needing to go through another election. So each each arb could be seated for 1, 2, or 3 years, at their own discernment. But that seemed to get lost somewhere above. - jc37 08:04, 12 September 2023 (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.

Election requirements for non-admins

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Withdrawing; WP:SNOW consensus against. BilledMammal (talk) 10:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

---

When one or more non-admins meet the minimum required percentage of support to be eligible to sit on ARBCOM, the non-admin who received the most support will be elected regardless of where they otherwise rank.

Support (Election requirements for non-admins)

1. As nom. Non-admins bring a different perspective to the table than admins do; it would be beneficial to ARBCOM's ability to resolve problems to have that perspective at the table, and this proposal makes it more likely that it will have that perspective. BilledMammal (talk) 17:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (Election requirements for non-admins)

1. Per my comments when this was proposed in 2022 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Oppose - adminship is merely an extra set of tools and responsibilities. All admins are also "non-admins", in that they can do and experience everything someone without those tools and responsibilities can. Besides that, I oppose anyone being seated below the community-established threshold for a seat. - jc37 17:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

   Ideally, adminship would just be an extra set of tools and responsibilities, but in practice many treat it as significantly more despite WP:NOBIGDEAL; in relation to ARBCOM this has lead to concerns like the Super Mario effect.

   Besides that, I oppose anyone being seated below the community-established threshold for a seat. I think you misunderstood the proposal; this would only seat a non-admin if they meet the minimum required percentage of support to be eligible to sit on ARBCOM; in other words, if they meet the community-established threshold for a seat of at least 50% support (60% for a two year term). BilledMammal (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

   I'm not sure we have the same understanding of "community-established threshold". The threshold is the top X vote-getters that receive at least 50% support. Both elements need to be met. Risker (talk) 22:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

3. I also once had sympathy for this idea, but a) either the "admin" vs. "non-admin" distinction is meaningless, in which case this "affirmative action" should not matter, or b) it is meaningful, in which case people who have the mop are more specialized towards arbitration matters and are thus better suited for ArbCom, especially since arbs are ex officio granted CU and OS permissions that even most admins do not possess. If anything, I would rather formalize a requirement for adminship to serve on the committee. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
4. I think a candidate who gets ~50% of the vote shouldn't get a 10%+ point boost because they have chosen to not become an admin (or because they don't have support of the 70%+ of the RfA electorate). The will of the elctorate should be respected. Even the 6% difference between the highest non-admin and the lowest elected arb from last year's election would be pushing it in terms of respecting the many many many voters ACE gets but I could maybe see that. But this goes too far for me. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Terasail^[✉️] 18:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
7. If the voters want a non-admin, then they should vote for them. If they don't, then they shouldn't vote for them. Voters are smart enough to make a decision as to which people they want on the committee—there's no need to reserve a seat in advance. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
8. ^That. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
9. Red-tailed hawk said what I was going to say, but they said it better (and far more concisely). Thryduulf (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
10. The candidates with the highest level of support from the community should be the ones appointed. I would stop short of actually formalizing an adminship requirement for being an arbitrator, but I believe that having administrative experience makes one a better arbitrator, especially because much of what the Arbitration Committee does is review administrative actions. Mz7 (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
11. Maybe if there was more than one non-admin who 1. wanted to be an arbitrator and 2. actually has a chance of getting more than 50% support, I'd change my mind. casualdejekyll 01:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

    Both Smcandlish and Robert McClennon have run multiple times and gotten above 50% in each. So there's at least 2. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

    See User:Thryduulf/Non-admin arbitration committee candidates for details of all the non-admin candidates since 2014. In that time period 7 non-admin candidates have finished with more than 50% support, last year Robert McClenon achieved more than 60% support. Thryduulf (talk) 08:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments (Election requirements for non-admins)

• @BilledMammal: do you mean for a 1 year or 2 year term (assuming status quo there)? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
  • The status quo. If they receive between 50% and 60% they will always receive a 1 year term; if they receive greater than 60% then they will receive a 2 year term, unless there is a seat limited to a 1 year term and they received the lowest support of the elected candidates, in which case they will receive a 1 year term. BilledMammal (talk) 17:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
• I suggested last year that we ask this question to the voters themselves instead of pre-deciding it in the RfC. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:58, 10 September 2023 (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.

Require yearly update before each election

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing as apparently out-of-scope. Feel free to revert close if appropriate. - jc37 23:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

---

Set a time prior to the election, for each sitting arb to say if they will continue to serve in the upcoming year.

So after year 1/prior to year 2, at a set time prior to the election, each sitting arb to say if they will continue to serve in the upcoming year.

No arb is, or would be, "required" to serve out 2 years, this merely provides the option, while also providing arbs the set, yearly opportunity to leave service on the committee, at their discernment.

If an arb does not affirm prior to the timeframe set in process (prior to the election), then, that shall be treated as a voluntary termination of their service on the committee.

(added this option per discussion above) - jc37 17:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Support (yearly update before each election)

1. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (yearly update before each election)

1. This is not related to the rules for running an election; ACERFC has no authority on sitting arbitrators, only on candidates for the Arbitration Committee. It may be appropriate to *encourage* arbitrators with a 2-year term to indicate prior to the commencement of voting if they decide to resign at the end of the first year of that term; however, given that the majority of resignations occur mid-cycle, it isn't even all that useful. As to an arbitrator whose term is coming to an end, they need to put their candidacy forward at the same time as everyone else, as is appropriate. If they don't make the cut-off date/time for candidacy, then they have clearly indicated that they do not intend to run for another term. Risker (talk) 22:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Per Risker, this proposal is in the wrong place (it would need to be in arbitration policy) and it also won't really bring any benefits or disbenefits so it would be pretty pointless even in the right place. Thryduulf (talk) 22:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

   There would have been a benefit for the current committee had this rule been in place last year. Izno (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

3. In addition to being out of scope (as Risker says), I don't see any need for this, or any past problem that it might solve. And, in a volunteer community, people are allowed to change their minds any time they want. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
4. This is a good idea, but out of scope. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Seconding QuicoleJR. I want this, but we're here to determine how to run the election. casualdejekyll 21:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments (yearly update before each election)

• I don't think I would hate this, but it is not obvious to me that ACERFC has authority to decide how currently-sitting arbs may or must act. Izno (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

  +1 Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:34, 10 September 2023 (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.

Eliminate 1-year term results (alternate proposal)

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.

---

Eliminate 1-year term results by making 50% the floor to be elected to a 2-year term. casualdejekyll 01:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Support (alternate elimination of 1-year results)

1. It seems the main reason people oppose eliminating the 1-year term from 50-60% is a concern that there may not be enough people reaching 60% to fill seats. (My opinion is that people are very unlikely to be elected to a seat with between 50% and 60% in the near future anyway.) So, this is a support per my supports for the previous two proposals relating to dealing with the existence of 1-year seats. To clarify, this is my second preference to the first proposal. casualdejekyll 01:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Please construe this comment as a !vote for eliminating one-year terms and imposing the highest vote-support floor that has consensus on the remaining two-year terms. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
3. I don't think the current 1/2-year, 50%/60%, rules contribute anything other than unnecessary complication.Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Per Boing! and my comments on the other proposal to eliminate 1-year terms. In the event of both proposals gaining consensus, this one is my first choice. Thryduulf (talk) 08:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   QuicoleJR (talk) 12:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

5. I agree that this contributes unnecessary complication. Izno (talk) 17:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   To provide a little more context to my thinking about removing the 1-year terms in favor of 2-year terms at 50%: to me, the primary damage done by someone who shouldn't be on the committee getting on is somewhere along 2 prongs: 1) access to private data (both collated as on arbcom-en and other mailing lists and uncollated as in CUOS), and 2) slowing the committee down. The first is an issue as soon as they're on the committee, so whether it's 1 or 2 years is irrelevant. So, it's just a question of whether 2 is enough to have this separate tier of members. Ultimately, I don't think the electorate can meaningfully do much about that either given how much time a year is. For extreme and obvious disruption, ArbCom can kick a member off and strip their permissions. And to me, it falls into a lot of noise of "we have 15 cats and getting them to all go in the same direction is an issue regardless of whether 1 of the cats is on the committee in bad faith - even in the case of public or private completely-split decisions". So again, the not-math falls out that I don't see a need for the second tier of members. We also have the list of users less than 60% (see my comment from last year's RFC) that would seem to indicate that the users elected with less than 60% have not been especially problematic as to warrant a status of, uh, "trainee"/"apprentice"/whatever one might call a temporary position relative to another position arb members. Izno (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

6. Honestly, I've come around to the view (which I opposed last year) that we should have a 60% threshold for all arbitrators; but I can see the logic in simplifying the term limits. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Frostly (talk) 21:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC) (moved to oppose)

Oppose (alternate elimination of 1-year results)

1. Oppose - anything that reduces community support below 60%. These are un-nuanced results. And if by "numbers alone", then we should at least match the long-held threshholds at WP:RfA, as this is merely another process for entrusting individuals with additional tools and responsibilities. Which, by the way, includes WP:OS and WP:CU. - jc37 18:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   Result percentages at RFA and ACE are not at all comparable. The former is a public discussion of rationales that has some vote-like elements where everyone can see your comment, including anything you bold, and ask you to justify it or explain it better, etc. The latter is a pure secret ballot where nobody knows how you voted or why you voted. An arbcom election has a finite number of seats available and some (possibly most) voters will support only that many candidates (at most) and oppose the others, regardless of the suitability or otherwise of those candidates. An RFA is only about the individual standing, tactical voting is not possible. Thryduulf (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   I understand your perspective, but the fact that these aren't comments where "... everyone can see your comment, including anything you bold, and ask you to justify it or explain it better, etc.", or in other words, that WP:CON has been removed from the process, strengthens why I would not support lowering the threshhold. And "tactical voting" is very much possible at RfA. Just in a different way. It's long been noted that (merely from a "vote count" perspective) 1 oppose basically offsets 3 supports. - jc37 18:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   If my math is correct, the mean number of candidates supported in 2022 was 5.07 and in 2021 was 4.39. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   None of that, whether correct or otherwise, changes the fact that the two processes are very different and so comparing percentages is like comparing apples and oranges. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

2. Per Jc37. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
3. I don't really mind whether 1-year terms are kept or not, but I'm concerned about lowering the threshold for two years to 50%. ACE is a vote and not a consensus discussion, but I'd like to see more confidence in candidates beyond what is basically a 50/50 split, especially for a position with such responsibility. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 18:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Nope, 50% is too low for what ends up being lifetime CUOS appointment. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   I agree, but a one-year term is just as much a lifetime CUOS appointment. Opposing this won't change that. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

   I don't want to expand the "problem" - noted above I think we should raise them all to 60%. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

5. 50% should be moved away from not moved towards. 50% is a stalemate and shows 1 in every two people disagree with appointing a candidate. Terasail^[✉️] 21:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
6. See my comments below. It wasn't acceptable to accept 50% when it was first proposed, and history shows that there's no need for a 50% bar. I don't care one way or another about one-year terms. Risker (talk) 06:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
7. Per xaosflux. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
8. Per xaosflux. Admins seeking CU/OS have to first pass RFA, with its expected 70% support threshold in an open election, and then also pass suitability vetting by ArbCom with feedback from the community. Elected arbs have both handed to them automatically. I still personally don't see the wisdom in giving those sensitive permissions at all to arbs who haven't also gone through the same vetting, at any vote percentage. And yes RFA is a vote - the plain numerical result determines the outcome, except in a very narrow range of percentages and even then the percentage influences bureaucrat discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
9. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
10. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 06:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
11. firefly ( t · c ) 12:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
12. No appointments at all between 50 and 59 would be my preference. Courcelles (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments (alternate elimination of 1-year results)

• I know John Wolfson made mention of this but this is a two-part proposal. It eliminates a one-year term and it changes the support % needed for a two-year term to 50%. Since the other comments have just been about one-year terms I would like a check from those two (@Boing! said Zebedee: and Thryduulf (and not the third because it offers no reason). Barkeep49 (talk) 14:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I haven't really seen any benefit in 1-year terms since we've had them, so I think getting rid of them is worth doing in itself. These days, I also think having high minimum pass cutoffs is misguided, and I support a reduction to 50%.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Boing! said Zebedee (talk • contribs) 15:19, September 11, 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I agree with both parts of this proposal. Thryduulf (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• I want to voice this, because I think we're all taking it as an assumption based on the framing of this proposal: 1-year terms are still pertinent for the "filling the other tranche" case. Disprovable statement about which: This proposal does not seek to modify how that part of how ACE functions. Izno (talk) 19:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Right - as I said "somewhere" above, we have these RfCs every year. So if a tranche situation happens, that can be addressed on the case-by-case basis as usual. - jc37 19:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Arbitrators leaving before their second year is not unusual, with four occurrences since 2018, so with the current two-term system in place, it's reasonable to continue with the current rules, rather than seek to re-enact them on a case-by-case basis. isaacl (talk) 21:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think what you said there answers why casual made the proposal and whether my supposition is actually a true one, despite that you used the word "right".... Izno (talk) 01:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• Don't care much one way or the other about one-year terms, but I'd rather see minimum acceptable percentage of support elevated to 60% for any seat. I wasn't thrilled with the 50% reduction in the first place. If we are consistently not getting sufficient candidates to fill 15 seats with 60% support, then it's time to determine if there's (a) a need for 15 seats, or (b) grounds for rethinking the Arbcom policy entirely.

  Incidentally, it may be time to stop granting CU/OS permissions automatically, and instead grant new arbs the same permissions as Ombuds have (i.e., read permissions for the actions and logs). Then those arbs who really want the permissions will be able to put their name forward at the same time as everyone else when CU/OS appointments happen. Wouldn't be surprised if half the committee said "no thanks"; there have always been a lot of arbs who never really use those permissions. This would, of course, require a community consensus separate to this discussion. Risker (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  All of that sounds like a good idea. - jc37 22:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, in every year since 2018 there's been at least two people reaching 60% who didn't get a seat because there wasn't enough room - methinks we should maybe expand the committee, but that's not exactly viable to discuss on this page for a plethora of reasons. casualdejekyll 02:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Or maybe it could be something like "eliminate 1 year terms and tranches, everyone who gets more than 60% gets elected and ArbCom is however big it is with no set size." That would be a radical change but also a potential one. casualdejekyll 02:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#A radical and perhaps ridiculous idea for next year where I've expanded on this. casualdejekyll 19:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

  With respect Risker, this would require ArbCom consensus separate to this discussion as granting of CUOS is part of ArbCom's remit per scope and responsibility 5. Absent an amendment to ArbPol, the community of course could suggest/urge/petition (choose the verb you like best) the committee to do so. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure if this is really correct. To this point, the community has not realized that it can create the rules under which Arbcom should be making those appointments. There's nothing in ArbPol or anywhere else that says CU/OS is an automatic grant for arbitrators. It became that way because back in 2009 we didn't have any other way to ensure that arbitrators signed an NDA. (True story.) That has since been rectified. Of course it is not the whole story; prior to 2009, Arbcom took very little interest in actually monitoring use of CU/OS, and having all the arbs properly accredited made it easier to do so. At the same time, the AUSC was created to more closely monitor and address issues. So...most of the monitoring is now done by active CU and OS with reports to Arbcom if there are concerns. Risker (talk) 15:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  I always appreciate the institutional history. I genuinely didn't know that and I really enjoy learning these things. But while that might have been the origin of the language, To approve and remove access to (i) CheckUser and Oversight tools and (ii) mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee. feels pretty categorical to me and I don't see anywhere else in our related policies to suggest that the community also could make its own appointments/requirements. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  The relevant policy states In accordance with Wikimedia global policies (meta:CheckUser and meta:Oversight), the committee retains jurisdiction over the granting and revoking of access to these advanced permissions. I suppose it is possible, at least in theory, for the community to modify ARBPOL to put additional limits on who they can appoint, but it would need to be carefully worded. Thryduulf (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

• See User:Thryduulf/Arbcom election stats#Support percentages since 2013 for how the change to support percentage would have impacted previous elections. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2023 (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.

Require 60% minimum support

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.

---

Require minumum of 60% for any and all arbcom seats.

The various above proposals add various things. So here's the straight-foarward question. - jc37 22:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Support (Require 60% minimum support)

1. Support as nom. - jc37 22:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
2. Support per all of the above nonsense casualdejekyll 02:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
3. Support per my statement above. This bar was too low when it was set, and it's too low now. Risker (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Ivan (talk) 09:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Per my comments above. Prefer this since I'm theoretically fine with mid-year replacements, but I'd support whatever proposal leads to a de facto or de jure 60%. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Seems reasonable for lifetime CUOS appointments. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
7. See my oppose at #alternate elimination of 1-year results Terasail^[✉️] 18:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
8. Per xaosflux here and per xaosflux in the section above. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
9. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
10. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 06:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
11. I think this is somewhat redundant to the above, but yes, I support it. Not because there's something special about the 60% threshold; it's arbitrary, as any threshold is going to be; but looking at historical results and support percentages, 60% seems to me an appropriate calibration. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
12. firefly ( t · c ) 12:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
13. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 14:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
14. Given taking an Arbcom seat comes with CU/OS access for essentially forever (baring inactivity or misconduct), yes, I support a minimum of 60% for election. Courcelles (talk) 13:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
15. Support. Volunteer Marek 04:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
16. Per everyone else. NotAGenious (talk) 05:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Oppose (Require 60% minimum support)

1. Per my comments in the various other places on this page support percentages are being discussed. There is no evidence that arbitrators getting between 50% and 60% are any better or worse than arbitrators who get over 60% support. There are problems with arbcom, this will not solve any of them. Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
2. There's no need for any minimum in a multi-seat election, except for keeping out trolls etc when there's only a small number of candidates. And 50% has served us fine for that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

   I also wonder, would a 50% or 60% cutoff actually have made any difference in any past ArbCom election? (It's 04:30 here, and any attempt to check would almost certainly send me to sleep ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

3. Per my previous commentary. Izno (talk) 03:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
4. Oppose Existing rule is acceptable and does not need to be changed. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 17:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
5. Oppose 50% (according to ACEmath) is fine: trust the ballotcasters to "just vote no" rather than to vote milquetoast when unsure. That said, counting all the votes would be much wiser. -- SashiRolls ^{🌿 · 🍥} 03:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
6. Oppose Don't see what problem this is trying to solve. Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
7. oppose could lead to too many problems, I don't think this solves anything. Hobit (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
8. Oppose. Given the nature of ArbCom elections, candidates with more than c.55% have consensus support to several on the Committee. I am happy with a cut-off at 50% and could see moving it up a bit to 52.5 or 55 but not all the way to 60. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
9. Because of the degree of strategic voting, the percentages (in absolute not relative terms) are driven not just by the community's trust in a candidate but also the number of people in the candidate pool. The percentages don't really make sense as percentages per se, and we shouldn't treat the percentages similarly to other areas on Wikipedia. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 18:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments (Require 60% minimum support)

• How is this not a duplicate proposal of #Eliminate 1-year term results? Izno (talk) 22:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  Because this specific proposal does not eliminate 1-year terms. This is only about the percentage for any seat. - jc37 23:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm still confused. If this proposal passed, how could someone get elected to a 1 year term? Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 17:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Potential 1-year seats due to vacancies, etc. - jc37 18:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  I was thinking of proposing that we fill the vacancies from the top vote percentage down, i.e. if there are 3 2-year vacancies and 2 1-year vacancies, and 4 candidates are elected, the top 3 get the 2-year seats and the last gets one of the 1-year seats, with the remaining seat left vacant. But I think that might already be how it works, and so it would be moot. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, seats are filled in decreasing order of support percentage. If the number of people over 60% run out before the number of two-year seats, then the remaining two-year seats are left vacant. If there are more people over 60% than the number of two-year seats, then the remainder will be seated in any available one-year seats. If 60% is set as a minimum for all seats, then no more allocation will be done after all the people over 60% are seated. isaacl (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

  These proposals are all starting to interlock with each other in complicated ways that will probably punt this off to next year if we aren't careful. That's what this proposal is trying to remedy. casualdejekyll 02:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  That seems to be what jc37 wants, they have said that they're okay with using this annual rfc to deal with issues as they arise (rather than, you know, leaving them as is until an issue arises). (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 17:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

• See User:Thryduulf/Arbcom election stats#Support percentages since 2013 for how this change would have impacted previous elections. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Hmm, so nobody has been elected with between 50% and 60% since one in 2014 and one in 2013 (and back then there were more candidates, which usually means lower percentages in a multi-seat election). Not the most pressing problem facing ArbCom, then. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  As you note, the percentage support depends in part on the number of candidates (and number of seats available) so when it becomes an issue is completely unpredictable. Almost everybody thinks a large number of candidates is a Good Thing so when we solve the small field issue we'll be back to this mattering. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  Or we'll still be in the same state where the actual percentage vote in a multi-seat election is not a reliable indicator of individual candidate quality, but reflects the number of candidates and voting tactics (with the latter often changing depending on the former). But I guess we'll still have to face the people who really don't understand the differences between a multi-seat election like ArbCom and a single-candidate yes/no choice like RfA, and will keep on pushing to raise the percentages. Oh well, experience shows that the percentage cutoff really doesn't make any difference to ArbCom performance, so I guess it doesn't matter. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

  My rationale for switching to supporting a 60% threshold (I opposed it last year, per your comment) is that we've seen a relative scarcity of candidates in more recent elections. With an abundance of candidates the floor percentage doesn't come into play, but with a number of candidates comparable to the number of available seats, it easily could. And there's at least a few candidates who've fallen in that 50-60 range that I wouldn't want to see as arbs, whereas there were no instances where candidates I considered good were in that range and there weren't enough "good" candidates making the 60% cutoff. I fully agree the number is arbitrary, and not comparable at all to an RFA support percentage; but we're essentially calibrating a filter, and based on past data I'd like to calibrate it higher. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:10, 12 September 2023 (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.

Clarification Exclusion of Ombuds

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.

---

I would like to request a clear reasoning for the exclussion of current Ombuds from running for ArbCom. I have read your past discussions of this now archived and am aware it is current policy. My reasons for asking are I am interested in being a part of ArbCom however I am the current Chair of the Ombuds Commission. Clearly I am also not a current admin here and that too has its issues with being el;ected but I am aware and understand those, I accept this fact alone could impair my chances.

Anyway I see that in the past there was concern that there may be overlap between the Ombuds functions and ArbCom and although there is some truth to this as a potential, in practice it would not happen as no Ombud may be involved in a case for which their can be a perceived Conflict of Interest. As such current Ombuds such as AGK and JJMC89 cannot investigate English Wikipedia cases. Technically ENWP is not my home wiki though as I have edited here significantly I also avoid ENWP cases for myself.

Clearly as Chair I have additional responsibilities at OC however, I am stepping down as Chair at the end of this term (January) and will not be retaking it, I have served as chair for 2 years its someone elses turn I believe. I am not trying to sell myself here at this point, just acknowledging that there are issues so the answers here can address the issue of crossover roles between Ombuds and ArbCom.

In anycase I would like to propose that ArbCom should look at these issues on a case by case basis and allow the election to sort this issue. If people genuinely believe it creates a COI they can vote against any nomination for a current OC which of course should be declared by any nominee. This would remove it as effectively precluding any options to discuss this issue in an election rather than have it as an automatic exclsusion. I believe Ombuds can actually bring some investigative experience and benefit to the operations of the ArbCom. I can always leave nominating for this till I leave the OC I have proposed this so I can determine if I can nominate or must wait till a later date. I appreciate some discussion of this at least thank you. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Added per Thryduulf I would like to propose the changing of the policy prevluding the nomination of Ombuds to permit it on condition their involvement on that Commission is declared and addressed in their nomination. It would then go to the election on whether this is an acceptable conflict. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Support (Exclusion of ombuds)

Oppose (Exclusion of ombuds)

Comments (Exclusion of ombuds)

• It's unclear to me what this proposal exactly is, and thus what support and oppose mean in context. Please could you add a single sentence explicitly proposing something that can be supported or opposed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
• Regarding the topic in general, I think it is important that there is an independents ombudsman corps; that their members would have to recuse from cases on the largest project is something I don't see as desirable. That being said, like the UCOC stuff above, I think this prohibition probably belongs more in the arbcom policy (e.g. You may not be on the committee at all while in such a conflict) - not in the election rules, meaning if that rule was there and you were elected and then chose to accept the committee posting you would have to resign. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  The rules page just documents what was decided in the corresponding policy Village pump discussion. The community reached a consensus agreement that arbitrators could not simultaneously serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or the ombuds commission. Elected arbitrators are duty-bound to follow this community consensus. isaacl (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  I 100% agree it's community consensus and it's one I have (and will) respect. However, I think the community can't actually make it a binding consensus outside of an amendment to ArbPol and I don't think ArbCom can make it a binding consensus via procedures - which is where it lives now - either. Perhaps this is what you mean by "duty-bound" but perhaps not since the CRC membership is secret in a way ombuds is not and so perhaps that's what's referred to there. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  I mean that since I know the community doesn't want someone to serve in both roles simultaneously, and since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I should comply. isaacl (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  There is a difference between prohibiting elected arbitrators from serving on either or both those bodies and from prohibiting arbcom candidates from serving on either body. If the prohibition is restricted to elected arbs (my preference) then a candidate would need to declare that, if elected, they would need to resign their membership of the other body before their term as arbitrator began (although I'd personally be fine with allowing someone to serve out a term that ended on or before 1 January). Thryduulf (talk) 22:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  The village pump consensus did not refer to candidates; the consensus was against simultaneously serving. The closing statement begins as follows: There is consensus in this discussion that current members of the Arbitration Committee may not simultaneously serve on either the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or the ombuds commission. isaacl (talk) 22:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

  thanks for the many responses very helpful. I was more after clarity on this than genuinely a vote. Of course I too am bound to follow the wishes of the community and will do so. The main reason for my questions was for this purpose. I agree this is perhaps something that should be in policy for ArbCom but that is ArbComs decision and agree that permiting nomination but acceptance requires that one should resign the other position is reasonable. At present I have been actively serving on the OC for three years and intend to do so a little longer. As outgoing Chair this January it would be remiss of me I believe to not be around to assist the new Chair if they need it. So I would do at least another year. Our terms end on 20 January each year for info and we are selected by WMF in December of each year for one or two year terms. Thanks for the input it has been very clarifying. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:16, 28 September 2023 (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.

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.