Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 15:49, 6 September 2023

Skip to table of contents

2023 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 06:00 (UTC), Saturday, 6 July 2024 (Purge)

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.

Shortcut

WP:ACERFC2023

This page in a nutshell: This is the annual RFC to propose changes to the existing rules for electing the Arbitration Committee.

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Wikipedia proposals

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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 or using {{subst:ACERFC statement}}.

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) ====
*
----

"Candidates" bullet point

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^[a]...
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^[a]...
Option 3: Registered account with 500 mainspace edits that is not under block (as of the time of the nomination) or ban^[a]...

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

Notes

^ ^a ^b ^c Which blocks and bans are disqualifying is TBD at #Blocks and bans which disqualify candidates

Option 1 ("that is")

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

I like Pppery's idea more. Second choice to option 3. House Blaster^talk 19:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice to Option 3. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Option 2 ("and is")

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)[reply]
Good standing ought to be considered a broader category than merely not being blocked. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 (delete "good standing")

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)[reply]
per Pppery. House Blaster^talk 19:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Risker (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per above. SN54129 12:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Less ambiguous. Stifle (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Removes the vague term "good standing". North8000 (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Dangerously meaningless term. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 17:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
per Pppery. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"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)[reply]
-Ad Orientem (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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). House Blaster^talk 19:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does "block" mean only a full block, any partial block, or something in between? Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I have started #Eligibility of partially blocked/banned users because answering that question seems out of scope for this specific question. House Blaster^talk 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

U4C membership

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

Support (candidate may not be a U4C member)

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. House Blaster^talk 19:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would write something here, but HouseBlaster sums it up perfectly. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
HouseBlaster said it very well; ArbCom and U4C need to be mutually exclusive roles within enwiki. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 01:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Houseblaster. Martindo (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per above. SN54129 12:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems sensible for numerous reasons. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SkyWarrior 19:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Oppose (candidate may be a U4C member)

I am not surprised to see this gaining support but I think it's a real mistake. The reasons that apply to Ombuds and CRC - 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)[reply]
Per Barkeep. North8000 (talk) 15:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per Barkeep49 and Pbritti. Frostly (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Barkeep. Folly Mox (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, per Barkeep, S Marshall & Pbritti. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Barkeep49. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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. House Blaster^talk 19:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Blocks and bans which disqualify candidates

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)

House Blaster^talk 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Option 1 (any block)

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)[reply]
People with blocks cannot be trusted to be an arb NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 02:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ltbdl (talk) 12:13, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per Risker. SkyWarrior 19:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Frostly (talk) 20:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per above. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 (only blocks that prevent submission)

Consistency with suffrage eligibility is a good thing. House Blaster^talk 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. House Blaster^talk 02:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:46, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
per HouseBlaster. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per above. Izno (talk) 17:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
-Ad Orientem (talk) 14:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Heart ^(talk) 15:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 (only site-blocks)

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)[reply]
Per BilledMammal. Edward-Woodrow :) _[talk] 12:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per BilledMammal. SN54129 12:40, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Let the voters decide, though anyone who's blocked is unlikely to get my vote. Certes (talk) 13:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per BilledMammal. The Blue Rider 14:42, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per BilledMammal.—S Marshall T/C 17:07, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per BilledMammal. Iamreallygoodatcheckers^talk 18:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per BilledMammal Mach61 (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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!). House Blaster^talk 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should also include AC/DS sanction enforcement as well. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 01:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
- 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. House Blaster^talk 20:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Allow "guides of voter guides"

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)[reply]

Support (allow "guides of voter guides")

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)[reply]
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. House Blaster^talk 14:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Placing a restriction here is not necessary. Frostly (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ban is a solution in search of a problem. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 05:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support making things easier for people. SN54129 11:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (allow "guides of voter guides")

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per Izno and Thryduulf. Mz7 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per Izno and Thryduulf. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (allow "guides of voter guides")

What exactly is this meant to achieve? Stifle (talk) 14:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
This rule was instituted by the 2012 RFC. Izno (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Length of voting

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

Support (Length of voting)

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)[reply]
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- per Barkeep49. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 15:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Barkeep49. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Barkeep49. The process leading to the actual voting is already tediously long. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Barkeep49 & Jkudlick's addendum. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Barkeep49, Jkudlick, and my own impatience. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Barkeep. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:41, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The math in the oppose section is sub-par, and they show no workings. SN54129 11:53, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Per Barkeep, good idea to shorten the voting period. Toadette ^(chat)/_(logs) 13:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Length of voting)

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)[reply]
I think it is a reasonable time already. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per everyone above. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
per above. Therapyisgood (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That does not correctly summarize the trade off I think we should make. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
-Ad Orientem (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Length of voting)

Electoral Commission experience

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)[reply]

Support (Electoral Commission experience)

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)[reply]
* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to try to construct a balanced crew if the numbers allow. Folly Mox (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Electoral Commission experience)

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Comments (Electoral Commission experience)

[block-1] Which blocks and bans are disqualifying is TBD at #Blocks and bans which disqualify candidates

[a]

@@ Line 178: / Line 178: @@
 # Per above. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 17:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 # -[[User:Ad Orientem|Ad Orientem]] ([[User talk:Ad Orientem|talk]]) 14:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
+# [[User:HeartGlow30797|'''<span style="color:red; text-shadow:#ffdf00 0.0em 0.0em 2.0em">Heart</span>''']] <sup><small>[[User talk:HeartGlow30797|''(talk)'']]</small></sup> 15:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 === Option 3 (only site-blocks) ===