Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 78.28.44.31 (talk) at 14:58, 3 September 2021 (→‎Comments (exclude bots)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

2021 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 18:57 (UTC), Monday, 3 June 2024 (Purge)

  • Thank you for participating in the 2021 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
  • You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.
Shortcut


The purpose of this request for comment is to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2021 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. 00:36, 1 September 2021 (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 prior elections 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 points will be listed in the table of contents below. 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 above), we should aim to close this RfC as soon as 30 days have passed, i.e. on or after September 30, 2021. 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: Saturday 00:00, 2 October – Friday 23:59, 8 October (7 days)
  • Evaluation period: Saturday 00:00, 9 October – Friday 23:59, 15 October (7 days)
  • Commission selection: completed by Friday 00:00, 22 October

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

  • Nominations: Sunday 00:00, 7 November – Tuesday 23:59, 16 November (10 days)
  • Setup period: Wednesday 00:00, 17 November to Sunday 23:59, 22 November (5 days)
  • Voting period: Tuesday 00:00, 23 November to Monday 23:59, 6 December (14 days)
  • Scrutineering: Begins Tuesday 0:00, 3 December

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) ====
*
----

Proposals

Withdrawn candidates

If a candidate withdraws from the election between the start of voting and the end of voting, then the final results will be calculated as if the withdrawn candidate never ran. For example, if there are eight vacant seats in the election, and the withdrawn candidate finishes in the top eight, then we would still fill all eight vacant seats, skipping over the withdrawn candidate and awarding their seat to the candidate with the ninth highest support percentage. Mz7 (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (withdrawn candidates)

  1. This is the way that the Electoral Commission in WP:ACE2020 decided it would be tallied in the event that TonyBallioni, who withdrew midway through the voting period, finished in the top 7 (he did not end up doing so). The alternative would be to treat it as if the withdrawn candidate had won a seat and promptly resigned, leaving one empty seat on the Committee to start the next year. Mz7 (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Seems reasonable. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 00:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Why of course. GoodDay (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Makes the most sense.  Mysterymanblue  04:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No brainer. pandakekok9 (talk) 06:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Turns out, it is a brainer... See my comment below. pandakekok9 (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This seems sensible. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Obvious way to do it. Happy days, LindsayHello 06:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Bibeyjj (talk) 07:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. SoWhy 08:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 10:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. The idea seems logical. In response to the comment below, I would note that this theoretical unsuitable candidate would still need at least 50% to get in, so it remains far more likely that a better candidate than an empty seat gets in, to me eyes Nosebagbear (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Generally seems sensible. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Seems entirely reasonable. firefly ( t · c ) 15:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support. There are always "what-if" corner cases, but filling the seat is preferable to leaving it open in the vast majority of likely scenarios. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Reasonable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Per Nosebagbear. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Comments below. Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Makes sense. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  23. This seems the best way to go about things. Thryduulf (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Seems reasonable. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  25. This makes sense JW 1961 Talk 21:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Reasonable lomrjyo (✉ • 📝) 23:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  27. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Similar to what I proposed back in 2020 on the talk page for this year. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 07:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  29. ~Swarm~ {sting} 08:57, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Assuming Nosebagbear's safety net reasoning is correct. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Support, reasonable. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  32. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:48, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Support. In a real election there would be concerns that some people had voted while the withdrawn candidate was on the ballot. In the WP arbcom election those voters simply vote again which overrides their previous vote. 02:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Oppose (withdrawn candidates)

Comments (withdrawn candidates)

  • Just a litte concerned that the presence of the withdrawee candidate may have been the decider or others not to stand. Let us say as an extreme use case 8 execllent candidates and one unsuitable candidate Z, I offer myself as an extreme example, stood. Now because the 8 excellent candidates have stood a further reluctant to stand excellent candidate Y choose not to but would have stood as last resort. However the withdrawal of the excellent candidate during the process meant unsuitable candidate Z got through. (I forget if there is a further safeguard to this). I bring this up as I thought this may have happened previously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs) 09:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh, good point, I didn't consider this. I still think that a withdrawn shouldn't cause a vacant seat for the next Committee, but there could be a chance that the last member is unpopular and get elected due to a winning candidate withdrawing. Perhaps we could make it so if there aren't any remaining candidates with a support percentage above 75%, and a winning candidate withdrew, we just leave the seat vacant? pandakekok9 (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Certainly this could happen, but potential candidates should have the courage of their convictions, as well as allowing for the rather high probability of withdrawals, and stand anyway, even if they think they are likely to lose, based on the starting line-up . We don't have enough candidates in most elections. I don't mind a minimum %, but 75% seems too high - the usual 60% (2 yr) & 50% 1 yr) are fine. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "safeguard" is that there is a minimum support percentage to be eligible. In this case, a candidate must have more support than oppose, regardless of the other candidates. In the event there are not enough candidates with that percentage, the seat is left vacant. 02:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️

Partially blocked voters

Currently voters are not allowed to vote if they are blocked, since this was last decided partial blocks have been introduced. Assuming that site-blocked users are still denied voting while blocked, how should partially blocked voters be treated? The only options are (a) Deny voting eligibility for partially blocked users; (b) Do not deny voting eligibility for partially blocked users; (c) Deny voting eligibility for only some sub-set (what?) of partially blocked users. — xaosflux Talk 02:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option A (Denying all partially blocked voters)

  1. Best that 'only' completely unblocked voters, get to cast ballots. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option B (Allowing all partially blocked voters)

  1. Partially blocked people have committed some transgression against the project, but the admin team has determined that they still deserve to be a part of the community. I don't think that they should be disenfranchised because of this. I might be willing to support denying some sub-set of partially blocked voters if the specific given circumstances are narrow enough.  Mysterymanblue  04:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. With the same reasoning and caveat as Mysterymanblue above. There's a reason that partially blocked editors aren't fully blocked. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Partial blocks are very similar to topic bans, and we have historically allowed topic-banned editors to vote in ArbCom elections. I see no reason to deviate from the status quo. Mz7 (talk) 04:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. They're still a part of the community and therefore should be able to help decide how the community functions. -- Longhair\talk 05:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support this is often due to a specific and relaively trivial issue. DGG ( talk ) 07:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Same reasoning as Ezlev. Bibeyjj (talk) 07:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Mz7. Regards SoWhy 08:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Partial blocks are like topic bans. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I actually support the "pbanned from everything except AN/ARBCOM for block review remains not permitted" position, but since that's a really hard one to assess on the timescales of our elections, I think the "permit all" position is most practical. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I'm partially blocked, and I haven't committed any "transgressions against the community".—S Marshall T/C 12:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I think this is the most fair. If someone has some special remedy or community restriction preventing participation in elections, they can be dealt with exceptionally. — xaosflux Talk 13:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Seems reasonable. Not sure why blocked users aren't allowed to vote (mainly those temporarily blocked but expected to return, rather than blocked long ago users). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Any disruption that led to a project-space partial block, or to a ban from participating in project-space discussions, is unlikely to occur in a silent voting process. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. There are too many use cases of partial blocks for there to be a blanket disenfranchisement of these users (or even a subset of these users). There is a reason each one is not fully blocked or banned, and as such they are still part of the community. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I oppose the use of partial blocks as a whole on the English Wikipedia, thus I also oppose making them more restrictive in any way, shape, or form. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Second choice to Option C. Thryduulf (talk) 20:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I don't think partial blocks are intended to disenfranchise a user entirely in this manner. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Partial blocking is still new on the encyclopedia and hasn't bedded in. Therefore I'm not happy to disenfranchise those users who are partially blocked. WormTT(talk) 07:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21. First choice. If a user is still allowed to edit, but can't edit some pages or namespaces, then they still should get a say in electing arbitrators. If a user's partial block covers the Wikipedia namespace, then this may present a reason to not allow them to vote. However, this partial block of the Wikipedia namespace may be completely unrelated to voting or arbitration in general. It may be disruption in administrator boards, but as only 10 pages can be specified in partial blocks, it may be that this disruption extends over more than 10 pages and so a namespace partial block was used because of technical restrictions. As such just checking for the existence of a Wikipedia namespace partial block may exclude editors who would be constructive in the voting process via secure poll, but get uncivil in commenting to other editors in the Wikipedia namespace. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22. No other realistic way of doing it. Partially blocked users cannot be classified as a single unit who are unfit to vote. Partial blocks are a low-level sanction, and many are partially blocked short-term for minor transgressions such as edit warring on a single page. As someone else said, all partially blocked users have been deemed fit to continue participating in the community to the fullest extent with the sole exception of their partial blocks. ~Swarm~ {sting} 09:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  23. A partial block from one article can be a practical way of resolving a dispute while allowing the editor to continue editing, and is often accepted by the editor in that spirit. If the effect of the partial block is disenfranchisement in the election, I foresee this would lead to partially blocked editors' feeling compelled to appeal from partial blocks that they would otherwise have accepted. The burden this might place on reviewing admins could be significant, at a time when requests for unblock already take too long to be processed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  24. There's a reasonable argument made below that editors partially-blocked from the entire Wikipedia namespace should not be allowed to vote, while other partial-blocks should not prevent voting. However, I think that's more complicated than necessary, and this simpler proposal should carry. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  25. As I see it, Option B is comparable to when someone commits a crime on Friday, but because he went to church on Sunday the congregation sings "hallelujah! we forgive you". Sometimes a partial block is handed down because some Admins are willing to slap, but not kick. So if the community is willing to bend over backwards about partial blocks, my first question would be: what is the contentious history of this editor? -- and -- how many partial blocks has this editor earned? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:28, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Thank you ProcrastinatingReader for the clarification. Partially blocked users are still part of the community and should be able to vote in my opinion. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 12:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option C (Denying some sub-set of partially blocked voters)

Please describe specific criteria if selecting this section
  1. There are some who gets downgraded to partial blocking to make them participate in a block review or unblock discussion about them. I don't think the downgrading admin meant for the partially blocked user to contribute back again, at least not yet. Users who are blocked from all pages except WP:AN and WP:ANI shouldn't be allowed to vote. pandakekok9 (talk) 06:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Being partially blocked should not prevent them from voting. However if they are blocked from the namespace that the vote takes place then they should not have an exception to that partial block. HighInBC Need help? Just ask. 06:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The vote takes place on SecurePoll. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support for users blocked from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case (or, more generally, Wikipedia:Arbitration or any subpage thereof), including both users who are blocked from the project namespace and those blocked from all pages except WP:AN and WP:ANI. —2d37 (talk) 04:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Second choice. Ideally I would only want to see users partially blocked from Arbitration pages be intelligible to vote, and not those who have been partially blocked in the Wikipedia namespace in general as detailed in my first choice vote in the above section. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option C1 (Denying users partially-blocked from project namespace)

  1. Users who are blocked from the project namespace should be prohibited from voting, whereas other partially blocked users should be allowed to vote. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Support this. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SecurePoll is a de facto extension of projectspace. Thus I support disallowing users with projectspace blocks. I also think that ElectCom should be allowed a significant amount of discretion in determining whether a given partial block ought to be disqualifying, for edge cases like someone who was downgraded to a p-block for a siteblock appeal (but not for something like someone who's p-blocked from that one article where they can't drop the stick). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 14:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is a difficult space to be in, but I agree with Tamzin that it makes sense to exclude those blocked from project space. --BDD (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Pppery and Tamzin. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Those blocked from project space should be disenfranchised per Pppery and Tamzin. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, my second choice is allowing all partially blocked users, not to prevent all of them from voting. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice (ahead of option B) per Tamzin and Pppery - users partially blocked from projectspace should not be allowed to vote. Other partially-blocked users should retain the franchise. Thryduulf (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The users who have been blocked from the Wikipedia namespace during the voting period should not be allowed to vote. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. For users pblocked from project space per Tamzin and others. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support, users who are partially blocked from project space. Majavah (talk!) 08:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Tamzin. Additionally, it seems strange that a p-block from project-space would prevent participation at RfA (which traditionally has very low standards) but wouldn't prevent participation at ACE (which traditionally has higher standards). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:27, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. pandakekok9 names my only objection to B, which I would support (strongly) over A. If we can prevent exactly the users blocked from every projectspace page (or, hell, specifically all those blocked from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case) then that would be my ideal. — Bilorv (talk) 19:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Partially blocked voters)

  • I've seen partial blocks used to enforce interaction bans (user A is blocked from user B's talk page and viceversa). It does not feel fair to prevent these users from participating in the election if they have been respecting the i-ban and editing constructively elsewhere. –FlyingAce✈hello 03:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to present myself as a use case. I've just had a 72-hour block, served my time reasonably well, for these purposes let's assume I did the 72 hours with a halo and have been reasonable since, but I offered and was accepted for a block for any which I have has a conflict of interest, in fact only one has been issued for the Railway Preservation Society of Ireland (RPSI). Now is it appropriate that the PBLOCK for the RPSI should prevent me from !voting? Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Pedant's note: !voting is what's happening here; the actual elections involve actual voting. :) —2d37 (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou for the good faith clarification, which was a thoughtful thing to do. Pragmatically this proposal is heading away from A and towards a B/C and I'm likely to choose to sty away from the !voting. Likely the case on several other proposals unless I feel urgent need to come in and !vote or taactically !vote. But clarification I could !vote here was nice. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocking is a tool to enforce an imposed editing restriction. Thus we should examine the actual restriction being imposed, and judge if it encompasses participation in arbitration committee elections. isaacl (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very opposed to option C, in particular the idea that ElectCom have it's own ad hoc rules for deciding who gets to vote. Arbitration processes are there to serve the community, and p-blocked users are still part of that community and should be allowed to have a vote. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Option C does not mean ad hoc rules - if it were closed right now there would be a consensus for disenfranchising users partially blocked from Project space and no others. That's as definite as either A or B. Thryduulf (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the supporters commented " I also think that ElectCom should be allowed a significant amount of discretion in determining whether a given partial block ought to be disqualifying, ". So, apparently at least one person does want that. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That one person wants that is true, but that's not what is written in the proposal and it's not what 13 of the other 14 commenters want (4nn1l2 has not described the specific criteria they are supporting). Unless something drastically changes, ad hoc rules are definitely not going to get consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 00:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Thryduulf for informing me. I thought the project namespace has been determined in the proposal itself, but it was not. I added some explanation to my vote. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those saying "people blocked from Project namesapce" - do you realize this is all of about 4 editors that need a special rule? — xaosflux Talk 13:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that as a feature rather than a bug. --BDD (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I move that Option C be re-factored so the most common alternative option is a separate section from "something else". User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 00:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Good idea. Thryduulf (talk) 01:11, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've done the split. I'm not sure if everyone needs to be pinged to ensure it was done correctly or not; there are a few comments that are only sort-of supporting the Pppery statement where I had to make a judgment call whether to move or not. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I see the comments by @HighInBC, Bilorv, and 2d37: as possibly ambiguous and so worth pinging but I think everyone else's !votes are sufficiently clear. Thryduulf (talk) 11:09, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. I'm in support of the new Pppery option, so I've moved myself over. — Bilorv (talk) 11:25, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voting system - STV

SecurePoll now supports the single transferable vote (STV) system in elections, as demonstrated by the recent WMF Board elections. There's a good explanation of how the system works on Meta Wiki, but put simply:

  1. Each voter ranks the candidates in order of preference (with the option to not assign a preference to candidates they oppose)
  2. The number first-preference votes for each candidate is calculated.
  3. If any candidate exceeds the "quota" (which is the number of votes divided by one more than the number of candidates), then they are deemed elected, and any votes over the quota (their "surplus") are assigned to the other candidates according to their voters second preferences.
  4. This means that if Alice was elected, and 20% of Alice's voters ranked Bob second, then 20% of Alice's surplus would transfer to Bob.
  5. If no candidates are elected, then the candidate with the lowest vote is eliminated, and their votes are assigned to the other candidates according to their voters' next preferences.
  6. If any candidate exceeds the quota after these votes are transferred then they are elected, and the process repeats until all seats are filled.

With this in mind, should we change the voting system used for ArbCom elections to the single transferable vote, or should we keep the current three-option support/oppose/neutral system? PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 07:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Voting system - STV)

  1. I have previously suggested a ranked-choice voting for ACE and I think this is a possible way to implement this. Unlike the current S/O/N system, this system would not force people to oppose candidates simply so that another candidate has a better chance. Candidates which the voter straight up opposes can still be opposed by not assigning them a preference at all (as the meta wiki page illustrates). As I understand it, ff you don't assign a preference to a candidate, there is no risk that your vote will be redistributed to that candidate. I also don't think having to decide between two equally qualified candidates is really a problem in practice. Neither do I see a real problem with too many candidates making the process too difficult, seeing as the WMF Board Elections with 19 candidates was no problem either. Regards SoWhy 08:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Not convinced it will be too complicated, given the turnout at these board elections which IIRC was greater than previous ones. Seems like a more accurate method. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But was STV the cause? Or was it due to other factors (such as spamming basically every wiki except for enwiki)? --Rschen7754 18:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per SoWhy. Imperfect, but an improvement. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per SoWhy. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Generally a good system to use. Used elsewhere inside and outside the Wikimedia movement, e.g., for WMF board election votes, New Zealand government elections. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is the best voting system. Those who support diversity, as I do, should support this proposal. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Voting system - STV)

  1. Given the low eligibility requirements to be a candidate, the vote serves both as an evaluation of qualifications as well as support. I think approval voting is a good fit to determine which candidates are deemed to be qualified. isaacl (talk) 07:12, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I usually find it much easier to decide whether to support or oppose a candidate than to rank the candidates in any sort of order. Hut 8.5 07:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. STV is great and all, but it tends to become difficult to use when the number of candidates is high and/or people - for whatever reason - do not have enough information to rank a significant number of candidates. Quite frankly, the trustee election should also be approval voting; I did not vote in it, but I would have if it were approval voting. This system also has the benefit of being easier to run.  Mysterymanblue  07:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I tend to prefer approval voting because of the option to vote against certain candidates. STV does have the advantage of showing the degree of support for candidates, and allowing for neutrality (not putting them in your vote ranking), but this can also be expressed verbally, and with enough voters in an election is not a major discrepancy. Ranking is just more flexible, and there is less pressure on the voter. Bibeyjj (talk) 07:59, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Just researching the approval (s/n/o) votes is enough work. Ordering candidates by level of approval is too much. Voters will be effectively flipping coins to decide the order of two equally good/bad candidates. wikinights talk 08:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Oppose, as the goal of this election is not the same as the goal of the election that STV is designed for. STV works well for filling multiple seats when primary goal of the election is to fill n seats with the n candidates that have the most support. However, we have no need to actually fill all of our seats, it is preferable that we have vacant seats if it would have otherwise meant installing a functionary that has an individual majority opposition. I'm not opposed to changing the voting system - but these proposals need to be very clear about this factor and how they will satisfy it - and this current proposal falls short. — xaosflux Talk 09:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. xaosflux makes a good point here. A seat in arbcom includes sensitive privileges like checkuser. If you don't trust a candidate in one or some parts of their duties, it wouldn't be a good idea to include your support for them, now matter how tiny. --pandakekok9 (talk) 10:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support / Neutral / Oppose is an excellent method. Ranking amongst approved candidates encourages political competition between the approved, which is not the point of the election. Candidates should be evaluated as suitable or not. While tactical voting is possible, voting suitable candidates as opposed to increase the chance of your favorite, this is an unnatural thing to do, and I am unaware of any suggestion that it is happening to an extent to worry about. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose per xaosflux. SQLQuery Me! 12:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. xaosflux nails it in one. An empty seat is better than an unsuitable candidate for ARBCOM - and we can handle that. As a secondary consideration, the STV-rework didn't include a capability to tie votes. This means if you have good, bad, and unknown/neutral candidates, you can deal with the first two, but the unknown group just has to be randomly ordered, which is unfair on (some of) them. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree with xaosflux. Goal of the election makes STV inappropriate. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. STV fails if we have less qualified candidates than available seats; our current voting system doesn't. Let's keep our current one. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Agree with xaosflux. STV doesn't fit the purpose here. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 17:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I didn't vote in the Board elections because this was too much work. --Rschen7754 18:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Approval voting is the form of voting we want to see for ARBCOM. --Enos733 (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I agree with all above comments. NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 18:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Per Xaosflux. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 20:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Per Xaosflux and Nosebagbear. Every year there are one or more proposals to change the voting system but never once has any of those proposals managed to convince me that the current system needs to be replaced, let alone that the alternative de jour is what should be used to replace it. This proposal is, in that respect at least, no different to the previous ones. Thryduulf (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I think this is simply asking too much of the electorate. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Xaosflux is right. I'll also point out that there are so many different STV systems that misunderstandings about how the SecurePoll one works are inevitable; in fact, there are already some misunderstandings exhibited in the responses/comments to this suggestion. To be honest, I have a lot less faith in STV systems than S/N/O ones. Risker (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  22. ARBCOM is not intended to be a representative body, it is intended to be a body with members who all individually have the support of the community as a whole. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Xaosflux highlights my concern. I'm not happy for someone who would normally get insufficient support to sit having that support "transferred" to them. WormTT(talk) 07:37, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  24. No, we should be able to cast an oppose vote for a candidate we know to be unsuitable just as easily as a support for one we know to be suitable, and without having to even consider those of whom we have no knowledge. In the recent Board election I had to rate about fifteen candidates about whom I knew nothing whatsoever in order to register a couple of opposes. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Not violently opposed but feel more comfortable with oppose argues and status-quo on this one. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Oppose. This system makes it more confusing to vote and thus decreases turnout. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Approval voting is terrible for partisan elections because it punishes honest voters by diluting their votes. So long as there is no evidence that Wikipedia has split into partisan camps who believe that the other side is evil incarnate, approval voting works great and provides a more granular view into voters' preferences than a ranked vote. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Oppose, the current yes/no voting system is a better system. 02:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
  29. I'm a huge fan of STV in certain circumstances, but it doesn't fit here. I can't support taking the three valuable options afforded by S/N/O and cutting them down to two. Retswerb (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  30. I usually find myself only recognizing 4 or so names and voting neutral on everyone else; STV would make that impossible. I guess I'm in agreement with #20. 78.28.44.31 (talk) 14:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Strongly Oppose STV, although it works well in some settings, by its very nature allows hated and terrifying candidates to be elected if they are loved by a devoted minority. These are precisely the kinds of candidates we all need to keep off ARBCOM, but may often be stuck with under STV (I can think of at least one such candidate who would almost certainly have been elected to ARBCOM not too long ago had STV been in use, although it would presumably be a violation of WP:NPA for me to name that candidate even if I wanted to do so, which I don't). Tlhslobus (talk) 14:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Voting system - STV)

  • Many of the past discussion on this try to compare the ARBCOM election to local political elections and fail to keep in mind that there is a big difference in the goal of the election. In elections for your presidents, MP's, even the chair of the local wastewater management board there is a single overwhelming goal: install someone to this position. For ArbCom, we have many seats available and it is OK if some of them are not filled. Keep in mind, that a vote for someone to be on ArbCom is also a vote that they should be a checkuser and oversighter, and it becomes more clear why ensuring each individual can show a majority support from the community in their own capacity. Without this individual mandate should the number of candidates not exceed the number of seats - we wouldn't even need the election, everyone would just immediately be installed no matter how opposed anyone is. — xaosflux Talk 09:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux: I'm not an expert on the math, but surely there's several ways to get around this problem? For instance: candidates who were not ranked within the top X positions (where X represents the number of seats) by a minimum of Y voters (where Y is a threshold we choose here) can be declared to be ineligible. Alternative cutoff methods are easily devised. Our current minimum support threshold is just as arbitrary; it isn't a product of the voting system itself. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde93: I seem to think there is something somewhere that requires at least 25 support votes (which is trivial here) but that is another issue. "Top x" doesn't solve the problem, it is perfectly acceptable for 0 or only 1 person to be appointed to the committee if there are no well supported candidates. — xaosflux Talk 13:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux, that's far from the only option though. We could set a minimum number of first-choice votes: or add a "none-of-the-above" option, and eliminate those who end up below it; etc. My point is a minimum support threshold isn't any more inherent to our current system than the STV system, and if that's the only concern, it's one we can address. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde93: we can do pretty much whatever we want, however this specific proposal doesn't address the issues I've brought up. Feel free to submit a new proposal for changes to the voting system that addresses the two goals of the election: (a) ensure that anyone appointed to arbcom is individually trusted by the community for this role (b) fill the arbcom vacancies with the most supported volunteers that satisfy (a). Or, we could look at redefining what being an arbcom member means. — xaosflux Talk 13:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vanamonde93 and Xaosflux: None of the above (the exact phrase Vanamonde93 used) is actually widely used in STV systems for exactly the purpose of preventing the election of candidates who are not supported by the community, and I think it's very successful at doing so. — Bilorv (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bilorv: You'd think it would need to be "none of the below" as you rank from most desired to least desired; we really should have some actual mock-ups of what the options would be under any proposed system, along with what the results for different vote distributions in such systems would be. — xaosflux Talk 20:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, you can name it want you want but the point is that it describes a voting option with a specific purpose. "None of the above" is designed for paper ballots where it's the last option, but you could have "No candidate" or whatever. — Bilorv (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the "None of the above" article you linked to, the only examples given have the "Re-open nomination" option as one of the choices that can get eliminated and thus its votes transferred to the next preferred options, which I don't think is what people have in mind here. Do you know of any examples where a different procedure was put in place? isaacl (talk) 20:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Real world political systems have a surrounding ecosystem that helps ensure candidates are qualified (I appreciate it doesn't always work). Yes, we could layer single transferable vote on top of an approval mechanism, but at that point I'm unclear if the incremental effect of STV is worthwhile relative to the additional effort in voting. isaacl (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • STV is a popular method for electing proportional representation. Changing to STV means moving to a system where minority groups achieve representation on the committee. This means factionalism on the committee. Under approval voting, it is natural that the committee elected will align with community consensus. Encouraging factions is contrary to the principle of consensus. Representation of all viewpoints is sufficiently achieved with the standard practice of ArbCom inviting case opinions from any interested Wikipedian. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To address concerns above, could STV could have an "empty seat" option, below which we could rank any candidates considered unsuitable? I don't know whether the software supports this, or if a dummy User:Empty seat would need to stand. A variant is to treat candidates with no number as ranked below Mr. E. Seat, but that risks losing votes for candidates who, although unnumbered because not outstanding, are all equally decent. Certes (talk) 13:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding your vote not being transferred to someone you didn't rank: part of the advantage of STV is that you can rank candidates who you don't support, to indicate your relative preference between them. Thus ranking a candidate isn't necessarily an indication that you support the candidate, or feel they are qualified. isaacl (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure where you get that idea; the current STV system being used for the Board elections will keep dropping your vote down to all ranked candidates as necessary. If you don't support a candidate, the only choice you have with the SecurePoll STV is to *not* rank them at all. Risker (talk) 22:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, I didn't say anything to contradict the first sentence. What I'm saying is that you can still rank candidates you don't support, as you recognize that their support levels may be high with other voters, and so you still want to influence which candidate may get selected in that case. isaacl (talk) 00:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been dissatisfied with the change of the system, for years. Thus, my reason for no longer voting in Arbcom elections. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question we need an answer to: The logistics of implementing STV can be complicated, and there is experience (albeit from NYC School Board elections years ago) that the complexity increases in proportion to the number of candidates and the number of seats to be filled. Can anyone with WMF SecurePoll technical knowledge confirm whether the software would currently and reliably support (for example) an election in which 20 candidates are running for 8 seats? Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Newyorkbrad: I created testwiki:Special:SecurePoll/vote/933 in STV mode with over 20 options for 8 seats. I don't think this necessarily fixes the mechanics problems related to ensuring that a voter may ignore evaluating any specific candidate (i.e. that a "skip" is not a "objection") and that it will ensure that each candidate has a direct (untransfered counts) majority support. — xaosflux Talk 15:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    information Administrator note voting in that poll will reveal a portion of your checkuser data on testwiki to electionadmins. — xaosflux Talk 16:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can LOOK at it without saving your vote, and that won't reveal your info though. — xaosflux Talk 10:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think technical complexity is the bigger problem. I think the explosion of candidates that STV attracts, which makes for ballot complexity for the voter, is the bigger problem. STV for n seats means that a quota for election is 1/(n+1) + 1, which is small for large n. Candidates no longer have to think they will get a majority, just a quota, and so many more think they can do it, and so they run. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voting system - STV (alternative)

Based on the comments above, I'm proposing using the STV system but with the caveat that all candidates must meet the quota after (re)distribution of votes, ensuring that seats are not filled if there are not enough candidates meeting the quota. The procedure would differ from the original proposal by changing the last step to read

6. If any candidate exceeds the quota after these votes are transferred then they are elected, and the process repeats until no more candidates meet the quota

Since voters can choose not to give preference to candidates they oppose, candidates who receive less preference votes won't be seated even if there are still seats to fill. Regards SoWhy 13:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Voting system - STV (alternative))
  1. Support per above. Regards SoWhy 13:38, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (Voting system - STV (alternative))
  1. Let's not have proposed changes that require new technical development; we tried that last year with candidate ordering, and it didn't work out. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Mostly for the same reasons as in the other section. Goes on the premise that seats should be filled regardless of the individual support of a candidate; we have a maximum number of seats that may be filled, not a minimum number of seats that must be filled. — xaosflux Talk 17:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Xaosflux and my comments above. I'm not convinced that the current system is broken, let alone that something this complicated is an improvement. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I am all for STV, but this proposal doesn't make sense at all! Please don't change the established rules of STV on the fly. In a STV poll, if you want to fill n seats, exactly n candidates surpass the quota (which its value depends on the seats) and k-n candidates don't make it, where k is the total number of candidates. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Does not solve the things that I dislike about STV.  Mysterymanblue  17:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As above, this still unhelpfully cuts S/N/O down to S/(N/O). Retswerb (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No. STV is a bad idea, it would turn the committee into a politicised factionalised body. Proportional representation means minority representation, which means elected arbs not approved by the majority of the community. ArbCom is not a governance body, and should not be politicised. Approval voting, S/N/O voting is good for this body. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (Voting system - STV (alternative))
  • Still seems to have a problem - this seems to negate the ability to abstain from evaluating any specific candidate (as a lack of support is assuming an active opposition). Am I missing something here? — xaosflux Talk 13:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Not indicating a preference is both an opposition and a neutral as far as I understand it. In STV, you are either in favor of a candidate (at any place) or you are not. If you are not, regardless of whether you oppose them or genuinely have no preference, the candidate will not receive any votes from you. The end result should be comparable to the current S/O/N system since currently neutral votes are simply ignored. Regards SoWhy 14:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    "not being in support" is not the same as skipping. Skipping someone shouldn't be seen as a vote of no confidence in that person. — xaosflux Talk 14:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't. But if you vote "neutral" in the current system or indicate no preference in STV will lead to the same outcome, i.e. this candidate not getting a vote from you. On the other hand, STV allows you to simply give those candidates you wouldn't mind to win the lower preferences to raise them above those you oppose (and give no preference). Under the current system, you have to support or oppose someone without the nuance of a "weak support" which a lower preference gives you. Regards SoWhy 15:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You can still express your relative preference between candidates you don't personally support. This is one of the advantages of STV. isaacl (talk) 15:09, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amendment isn't meaningful; STV doesn't fill a seat unless a candidate has met the quota after all redistributions are done (with Meek's method, the quota is a slightly adjusted version of Droop's quota, which is the minimum number of votes you need to guarantee you finish in the top N places, where N is the number seats to be filled). isaacl (talk) 15:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Isaacl: Correct me if I'm wrong but from all I have read about STV, usually the last seats will be filled by the last candidates left standing, irregardless of whether they reach the quota, on the basis that if there is only one seat left to fill and one candidate, that candidate gets the seat. At least that is what our articles at single transferable vote#Example and Comparison of the Hare and Droop quotas#Scenario 1 say. The amendment proposes to not fill the seat in this case. Regards SoWhy 15:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I understand of Meek's method [1], it always eliminates the hopeful candidate with the fewest votes if there are fewer candidates meeting quota than seats to be filled. (I don't know what the SecurePoll implementation does, though). isaacl (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change it back to when one didn't have to jump through hoops, to vote. GoodDay (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User guides confined to a category

Voting guides or guides to candidates will be placed in a dedicated category that will be linked to from the ACE banner, but they shall not be individually listed on the template.

Option 1 (User guides confined to a category)

  1. Listing guides individually on the banner gives them too much prominence. They serve a useful purpose, and so centralizing them is helpful; but our status quo gives them too much of a soapbox. I'm not saying anyone making a guide is doing so for the purpose of soapboxing, but there's few other circumstances where editors can air greivances against other editors, with no right of response, in such a prominent way. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:26, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The guides are nonsense. If you can't decide independently, you shouldn't vote at all. Wikipedia is not a place for herd mentality. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:42, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 (User guides listed in ACE template)

  1. I fail to see why guides being prominent is a bad thing. It is ultimately up to the voter whether to read a guide or not, to agree with it or not, or to cast an informed vote or not. Having a variety of opinions easily accessible seems, at least to me, to be a very desirable thing. Having them in a category isn't really a hindrance, but it is unnecessary to reduce their visibility.
    5225C (talk • contributions) 12:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Forcing voters looking for the guides through a category when the template is right there seems like an unnecessary complication and a solution in search of a problem. Regards SoWhy 13:40, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per both of the above. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per all three above. Happy days ~ LindsayHello 16:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm fine with this, no objections to them also being in a category. — xaosflux Talk 17:50, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. If it ain't broke don't fix it. --Rschen7754 18:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. While every year we see guides that are decidedly unhelpful, I think a lot of users find them a valuable resource and I see no benefit to trying to hide them in this manner Beeblebrox (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I don't see anything wrong with guides, and even if I did, I'm not sure what problem listing them in a category vs listing them in a template is supposed to solve. ~Swarm~ {sting} 09:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Guides give a foothold into the process for those who are not as familiar with ArbCom or with in-depth checking of other users, and should remain prominent. If the issue of unhelpful or soapboxing guides needs to be addressed, there should be a proposal to address that problem directly. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I don't see why we should change this, it has worked well in previous elections. 02:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC) TOA The owner of all ☑️
  11. Per SoWhy and ElHef. Retswerb (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (User guides confined to a category)

  • As long as it is easy enough to navigate to the guides, it doesn't really matter. I don't understand why navigation to guides to guides is forbidden. The value of a guide to me is in the logic of what it says, and the respect with which I have for its author. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked this question a couple of years ago, but I still do not understand what is a difference between a user guides and comments on the candidates. And if there is no difference, I do not see why user guides get a special treatment.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    A lot of the guides use tables and things like that which would not be appropriate for a comment section. Some of them are also set up to compare and contrast candidates answers to one specific question, something not really possible on the comments page. I have mixed feelings about them myself but it seems clear some users do value them. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but also many guides do not evaluate all candidates, only a subset, and sometimes even say "I do not have time to look at the candidates". This could have been just one or two talk page comments, but calling this a user guide such comments get more prominence.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guides written by candidates

A candidate who writes a guide must declare in the guide that they are a candidate. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Guides written by candidates)

  1. As a matter of transparency. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure. — xaosflux Talk 23:21, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes. And be categorised separately. While no guide should ever be taken as "impartial", a candidate written guide is a candidate statement, assumed to be in support of their candidature. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I struggle to imagine reading support for User:X in "User:X's Voter Guide" and forgetting that it's X writing in support of their own candidature, but maybe it would be more forgettable when reading X's remarks on the other candidates, especially if X comments only on the others. —2d37 (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Ok, now this one is a no brainer... --pandakekok9 (talk) 02:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support, with two suggestions: (1) that the rule include a reminder to assume good faith if a candidate neglects to make the disclosure and (2) that the rule specify that anyone may add the disclosure (in case the candidate neglects it and then becomes unavailable). —2d37 (talk) 04:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the close of WP:ACERFC2020, I guess my suggestion (2) is covered well enough by the existing rule that the electoral commissioners can: [...] Add official commentary to guides. Indeed, maybe it's better limited to commissioners. —2d37 (talk) 07:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Such guides should be banned entirely, but better than nothing. --Rschen7754 04:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. For the sake of transparency. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. 100% appropriate and in the spirit of our baseline standards of conduct such as WP:GAME. ~Swarm~ {sting} 09:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Should be obvious, if you're a serious candidate, but sure. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  12. NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 14:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Seems reasonable. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:40, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Not looked into deeply but seems reasonable. Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  15. As a matter of transparency, this does seem reasonable. --TheSandDoctor Talk 17:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  16. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 18:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I find it extremely distasteful for a candidate to even write a guide and I think any candidate who does so probably has a low chance of succeeding, and if they do get in... awkward... but in any event, yes, they should have to declare as much prominently in their guide. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Seems reasonableParadise Chronicle (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Definitely. Retswerb (talk) 07:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Guides written by candidates)

Comments (Guides written by candidates)

  • This was proposed last year with not insignificant support, but did not pass due to interaction with other proposals. This is therefore presented independently of any proposals which seek to limit who may write guides (although there are none at the time of writing). Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Voting start date

The election will open for voting at 00:00 UTC on a Tuesday. This is the de facto but not de jure status quo.
In 2018 there was an issue with secure poll that could not be resolved without action from WMF staff in San Francisco. UTC midnight on Monday is 4pm Sunday in San Francisco so staff were not available and the election was postponed by 1 day. In 2019 and 2020 the Tuesday start date was carried over without formal discussion. We should rectify this and formalise the start date as 00:00 UTC on a Tuesday (i.e. 16:00 Monday PST) so that in the event of securepoll or other similar issues WMF staff will be able to fix it without significant delay to the election. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Voting start date)

  1. As proposer; we should formalise this. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I also support Xaosflux's generalisation. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Sure, but even more generally "the second business day" of the week in the event of a Monday Holiday in the future. — xaosflux Talk 23:22, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Also would support Xaosflux's more general idea. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I support Xaosflux's proposal, but I feel it should be noted that what Mondays are holidays will differ by location — should the business day be specified as a business day in San Francisco? —2d37 (talk) 04:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support per Xaosflux. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No complaints. NW1223(Howl at me|My hunts) 14:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. It is now tradition. Good arguments against starting Sat/Sun/Mon 0000GMT, no arguments to change to some other time. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Why not formalise this? Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Looks good lomrjyo (✉ • 📝) 01:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Makes sense, let's learn from the past. Support per Xaosflux. Retswerb (talk) 07:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Either, but prefer Xaosflux's generalisation. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Voting start date)

Comments (Voting start date)

  • Mandated Tuesday election? Is this US-centric? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @SmokeyJoe: eh? The voting period will still run for two weeks, only the starting date will change (and even then this is just codifying what already happens). The only reason the US is relevant is that the only people who can resolve any technical issues are physically located on the west coast of the US, so it makes sense for the start date (the only time urgent action is at all likely to be required) be during US west coast office hours. Thryduulf (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I agree that having a consistent start date/day of week is entirely reasonable, and Tuesday is best because it means giving a weekend at the end of the voting period, I'll note that many of the people who actually resolve SecurePoll problems live far, far away from US West Coast (Australia and Europe). Nonetheless, they work mainly a Monday to Friday week, like the rest of the WMF staff. Therefore the point of ensuring experienced tech support (plus whoever the WMF liaison is for elections) is still valid, and they're not usually available on Friday nights. Risker (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of withdrawals before voting

Eligible voters should be notified if a candidate withdraws after the start of nominations but before the start of voting. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Notification of withdrawals before voting)

Oppose (Notification of withdrawals before voting)

  1. The only real beneficiaries will be those people debating whether to stand, but if their candidacy is dependent on other people they should be watching the list of candidates anyway. For everyone else the notifications run the risk of being seen as spam, with the negative connotations and behaviours that would ensue. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Under the current system, eligible voters are notified for the first time when voting starts, so it's already assumed that the process of selecting the candidates is considered unimportant to them. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No way, esp as this is going to require tens of thousands of mass messages, possibly multiple rounds for multiple w/d's. Listing the w/ds on an ACE page is enough. — xaosflux Talk 23:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. So what? 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Completely unnecessary. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. We have seen considerable pushback about any notifications; increasing the number is not a great idea. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I don't see any value in this specific proposal. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose excessive notifications, unless strictly opt in. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Notification of withdrawals before voting)

Notification of withdrawals during voting

These are two sets of related proposals regarding whether, and if so who, should be notified if a candidate withdraws during the voting period. See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021#Should voters be notified if candidates w/d ? for background.

Set A will determine who should be notified, Set B will determine when they should be notified. Set B will be moot if proposal A3 gains consensus, but the sets are otherwise independent. If A1 or A2 gain consensus but there is no consensus regarding specifics in B then the election commissioners will have discretion.

  • Proposal A1: All eligible voters should be notified if a candidate withdraws during the voting period.
  • Proposal A2: Those people who have already cast a vote should be notified if a candidate withdraws during the voting period.
  • Proposal A3: Nobody should be notified if a candidate withdraws during the voting period (this is the status quo).

Support for A1 or A2 implies opposition to A3 and support for A3 implies opposition to A1 and A2, but you may also express explicit support or opposition if you choose. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Proposal B1: Notifications should be made only after a period of time has elapsed (please specify what period if supporting this).
  • Proposal B2: Notifications should be made only after a certain number of votes have been cast (please specify what period if supporting this).

Opposing B1 or B2 means only that there should be no time and/or number of votes requirements, i.e. notifications will be sent for any withdrawal after the voting opens. To oppose sending notifications at all, support proposal A3. If B1 and B2 both gain consensus, both requirements will apply. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Notification of withdrawals during voting (A1))

  1. Second choice to A2. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Notification of withdrawals during voting (A1))

  1. I fail to see how people who haven't voted could possibly care. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Notification of withdrawals during voting (A2))

  1. First choice over A1. I think the provides a useful element of information without spamming. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I was originally intending to support A3. However, after thinking about it more closely, the voting system used most likely fails the independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion, so these notifications do serve some purpose. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If the voters have already voted, I think it would be useful to them to see that a candidate they may have supported is no longer running for election. This may change their vote. Voters who have voted are also unlikely to see this withdrawal unless they put the relevant pages on their watchlist, as once you've voted why keep checking candidate statements? Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 08:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This seems reasonable, we don't want a Mel Carnahan situation. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Notification of withdrawals during voting (A3))

  1. Please don't make it unnecessarily complicated. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Simply due to the mass message (or watchlist notification, which in my view would be equivalent). If a person has withdrawn from the elections, it may due to personal reasons, and I don't believe this should be plastered everywhere. I would support a note on an election page, explaining, but since mass messaging is on the table, this whole suggestion is a non-starter for me. WormTT(talk) 08:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Please don't send me more messages. That may even discourage me from voting at all. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Too many messages. I didn't even bother change my vote after the withdrawal last year. I don't think most would, and those that do probably follow the election closely enough to know anyway. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Gog. Vanamonde (Talk) 13:22, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Not necessary unless there's a fundamental change in the election process. If you're voting S-N-O for each candidate on their own merits as is intended, the withdrawal of a given candidate should not impact your other votes. If you're voting elsewise, that's on you. Also what WTT said. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 15:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I support the way the commissioners handled this last year. We do not need to over think this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:38, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Notification of withdrawals during voting (A3))

Comments (Notification of withdrawals during voting (Set A))

Support (Notification of withdrawals during voting (B1))

Oppose (Notification of withdrawals during voting (B1))

  1. If notifications are sent they should always be sent imo. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If A1 passes, I may be convinced to support one of these, but A2 by itself limits who gets notified sufficiently. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Notification of withdrawals during voting (B2))

Oppose (Notification of withdrawals during voting (B2))

  1. If notifications are sent they should always be sent imo. Thryduulf (talk) 22:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If A1 passes, I may be convinced to support one of these, but A2 by itself limits who gets notified sufficiently. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:48, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Notification of withdrawals during voting (Set B))

Comments (Notification of withdrawals during voting (general)

  • Same question as in preceding section - how is said notification expected to be sent? — xaosflux Talk 23:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There are three possible ways I can think of - (1) a message on a widely watchlisted page related to the election; (2a) mass message to everyone; (2b) mass message to people who have explicitly opted in or haven't opted out. I don't think (1) is the sort of thing that needs consensus for or against, so we're really discussing just (2). I don't think it unreasonable to mass message people who have already voted alerting them that circumstances have changed since they voted hence that is my first choice. If technically possible (I have no idea) and there is consensus to notify voters we should link the opt-in or opt-out list on completion of voting. Thryduulf (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commissioner reservist selections

Historically the selection of the fixed number of commissioners has used the "most endorsements collected" method (see last years's page). It has also been used to select a ranked list of commissioner reservists. The cutoff between reservist and non-reservist has been left to the discretion of the RfC closer. Should some specific cut off or method be used, for example "those within 20% of the 3rd ranked commissions" or should this continue to be discretionary? — xaosflux Talk 00:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option A (Closer discretion of reservist cutoff)

  1. Not important. 4nn1l2 (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I likewise don't see the purpose of doing this. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option B (Specified method for reservist cutoff)

If selecting this option, please include some details
  1. Ironically, I think Xaosflux's closure of the commissioner election last year is a good example of why it is nonsensical to allow the closer to arbitrarily rule on reservists even though there are no set standards. There were six candidates. Three were appointed, one was appointed as a reservist. The other two had unanimous support and were not appointed as reservists for some inexplicable reason. I do not propose anything radical here, but candidates with unanimous support consensus should be presumed to be appointed by the community as reservists. If applicable, the top three "runner-up" candidates who received unanimous consent from the community should be appointed as reservists without being subjected to arbitrary prejudice from the closer. ~Swarm~ {sting} 09:30, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swarm: I opened this as follow up from that last year! Commissioners always get "unanimous support" really though, since we have only collected "endorsements" - but we certainly could collect "objections" as well, which would be simple enough and let this be closed along more traditional consensus lines. I don't think someone with for example only 1 endorsement ("unanimous support!" would suffice though) — xaosflux Talk 10:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That's true. We don't want users with only one endorsement just because they're "unanimous", and on the other hand we don't want users stonewalled by a single objection even though they have a high level of support. I agree with your suggestion that we simply collect endorsements and objections and assess consensus in the traditional way, and assign the three reservist seats according to the strength of consensus. ~Swarm~ {sting} 05:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with Swarm. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think the best fix for this is to collect "objections" as well as "endorsements", then more traditional consensus-based closing guidelines can be used, without needing to specify any specific percent at this time. Fine with there being "up to three" ranked reservists, but if consensus is not met it could be less. — xaosflux Talk 10:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. There are occasionally trolls or socks that run for these positions; they generally get negligible support. Perhaps having an explicit "oppose" section would help, but alternatively a written "minimum 15 supports" rule might be sufficient here. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 03:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Commissioner reservist selections)

  • Well, I agree with Xaosflux that having a yes/no vote is a good idea, but I don't see much of a problem with just collecting endorsements. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 17:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tol: the problem with only collection endorsements is that everyone has "100% support", even if you only only have 1 endorsement - so should anyone that volunteers automatically be a reserve commissioner? I don't think so, and as the RfC closer last year I king of pulled a solution out of the air that I thought was good enough - but was hoping to have a little more community guidance on that facet going forward. — xaosflux Talk 18:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would much rather trust the closer's judgement than make it a numbers game that incentivizes people to come and dump on the candidate. I don't have a problem with using numerical thresholds of support, but we do not need a repeat of WP:CUOS2018. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus Required for ACE RfC

Note: This was asked last year, and my close of it was met with some challenges. I am asking it again to gain a clearer sense of the consensus, or lack of it, for this particular proposal.

At least 15 editors need to support any statement at the Arbitration Committee Election Request for Comment for it to be closed with consensus. If fewer editors support a statement it will be closed as no consensus and the status quo will remain.

Support (Consensus Required for ACE RfC)

This support section has two subsections. Please only pick one when supporting

Implement this immediately

Should this proposal take effect starting with this RfC?

Implement starting next year

Should this proposal take effect with the next RfC?

  1. ArbCom elections are the single most participatory event we have on Wikipedia. ACERFC is also tremendously powerful. It has the ability to change how many seats there are on arbcom. It has the ability to change who can vote in the elections. I like this about ACERFC but having an elite with uncheckered power is, I think, contrary to our overall project ethos. The idea that say 1% of the total electorate should be required before we change fundamental things about ArbCom doesn't strike me as ridiculous or absurd. Further, at the moment we have no safeguards against a late proposal that wouldn't normally have consensus with more eyes passing in a low participation subset of a relatively low participation discussion (with massive impact). I admit that this is a low probability idea but it is high impact. So on both consensus basis and safeguarding basis I think we should do this. If I had been proposing the idea this year I wouldn't have proposed it exactly this way but I do believe this is a reform with doing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Consensus Required for ACE RfC)

  1. Nah, standard consensus rules can apply - if something is running at 13-0 for example, some people might not bother "piling on" just to meet this arbitrary number. Also "vote counting" is not the best way to determine consensus. — xaosflux Talk 17:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Xaosflux. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 18:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Is there any actual problem that this proposal is solving? * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC) * Pppery * it has begun... 18:17, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. per all the above. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. contra the above. In a vacuum, I support the idea of a participation requirement. However, this is an "unwritten rule" already, one of several governing how "consensus" is determined in this type of RFC. I think it would be harmful to make this alone a written rule. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:07, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Closers are capable of determining whether the correct level of consensus for a given change has been achieved. If a closer screws up, I suppose it could be appealed at AN in the usual manner, but they usually don't screw up presumably. ACERFC is already one of the most rigorous consensus/drafting processes around; if only we expended this much energy into drafting our PAGs. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The issue that this is seeking to deal with, namely a major and possibly controversial change being enacted based on the consensus of very few commenters, is already solved: RFC closers can, should and (in my experience) do take into consideration the amount of participation (absolute and relative to other proposals), the length of time available for for participation, and the scale and nature of the change proposed. A proposal for a major change that has been open a full month, has 15 supports (some weak), and 5 opposes (most strong, most not answered) compared to other proposals open about the same time that have attracted over 50 comments each likely does not have consensus. In contrast a proposal for a minor change that has gained 14 supports (many strong) and no opposition despite being opened only a week before the end of the month almost certainly does have consensus. Another point is that it doesn't account for proposals where there is no status quo or it is not clear what the status quo is (there were examples of both last year). Also, what Xaosflux and ProcrastinatingReader said. Thryduulf (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Consensus Required for ACE RfC)

  • Is this consensus required, or is it quorum required? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    力, It's definitely an interesting dilemma isn't it. If it's got 13 supports and 0 opposes, and it's for immediate implementation, then you would have to retroactively reassess all already closed proposals. But then this proposal would fail and once again all closes are reassessed again. I think it would only be fair for this to properly pass, it would need to meet the required minimum that this proposal asks for. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 17:44, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Exclude satiric and non-serious guides from template

During the 2015 election, an issue arose in which some editors added one or more satirical voter guide(s) to the template, which was reverted by an editor asserting a consensus from the ACE RFC from 2011 (four years prior), and which was reverted again based on that consensus being four years old at the time.

Somehow, no one brought it up at subsequent ACE RFCs, so I will do it here. The 2011 RFC reached a consensus and that consensus should be enforced, by removing satiric guides from the template. The closer's summary from that discussion was: Consensus is that any serious guide may be included at T:ACE2011, while satires and other non-serious guides should not be.

References:

TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Exclude satiric and non-serious guides from template)

  1. As proposer TOA The owner of all ☑️ 03:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Exclude satiric and non-serious guides from template)

  1. Is it really necessary to dredge up six- and ten-year-old problems to solve here? If there were actually a problem with satirical guides in need of solving, then it would have been rediscovered more recently. This proposal lacks a proper justification. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Pppery. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, what is satirical? Is User:Nick/ACE2020 (in Template:ACE2020) satirical? If so, and this proposal seeks to ban that, then definitely oppose. If not, then oppose on grounds of ambiguity. In either case, this is not a problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:43, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Largely per Retswerb, below. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  4. The Election Commissioners already have discretion to deal with problematic guides, including adding official commentary to state that a particular guide is satiric if it is unclear, and ultimately the community can deal with something if there is a particularly serious problem. I don't see a need for anything more than that. Thryduulf (talk) 11:15, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose. Satire and other forms of humour can serve well. Disruptive, misleading, offensive, maybe, but satire is a valid method of criticism.

Comments (Exclude satiric and non-serious guides from template)

  • If they are to be excluded, is there a standard process for determining what makes a particular guide satiric or non-serious? This seems like a huge subjective judgment call in some cases. Retswerb (talk) 07:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse the question limit

Last year, a proposal to implement a question limit to two per candidate narrowly passed (16 supports to 13 opposes). Should that question limit be removed? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Reverse the question limit)

  1. The ACERFC2020 proposal caused messy limits on question asking IMO. Some candidates have more to be asked of than others. The concern then raised about people pushing vendettas wasn't fixed by this, yet it limited legitimate question-asking. Besides, if someone is asking an unreasonable amount of optional questions I'm sure other editors understand that time isn't infinite and such questions won't be answered; candidates are not obligated to answer any questions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I could be inclined to back a compromise, but in lieu of that, I think the question limitations should be removed. Arbs need to handle huge amounts of reading and research, so I don't buy any issues on the candidate side. To me, more information being available outweighs the more legitimate concern about voters with limited time being able to read everything. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Reverse the question limit)

  1. From my perspective the limited number of questions asked made reviewing the answers by candidates much easier than in previous years, so contra the proposer I think this was actually largely a success. Thryduulf (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Reverse the question limit)

Remove Central Notice / Site Notice advertisement options

We currently advertise the election using: Noticeboards and discussion templates such as T:CENT, by a watchlist notice, and by individual user talk mass messaging. The prior RfC's called for using the Central Notice system, or possibly the Site Notice feature. These have not actually been used in the last few years, and I propose that the Central Notice / Site Notice options are removed.— xaosflux Talk 13:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Remove Central Notice / Site Notice advertisement options)

  1. As proposer, I think this is primarily a paperwork exercise as these features are no longer being actively used, especially in light of the thousands of indiviudal user talks that are sent now. Central Notice requires coordination with metawiki, and Site Notice hasn't been used for anything (that had consensus to remain for more than a hour) since the Visual editor RFC in 2013. — xaosflux Talk 13:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Remove Central Notice / Site Notice advertisement options)

  1. I think we should start using them in practice. We advertise the Board elections using the CentralNotice system. Even the WPWP contest is advertised using CentralNotices. Only 5% of eligible voters actually vote in ArbCom elections; a bit more advertisement, and no more than other comparable things, seems appropriate. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Remove Central Notice / Site Notice advertisement options)

Voter suffrage - exclude bots

While we have set this feature on SecurePoll before, it was never actually codified in to the standing rules. To wit, propose ammending: Accounts categoried within Category:All Wikipedia bots or members of the 'bot' usergroup are excluded from eligibility to vote. — xaosflux Talk 14:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support (exclude bots)

  1. As proposer, note we already exclude these accounts from advertisement - but didn't specifically disenfranchise them from voting. — xaosflux Talk 14:10, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Second position: still avoid 'bot' group members, even if not excluding unflagged bots. — xaosflux Talk 14:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  2. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:16, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (exclude bots)

Comments (exclude bots)

  • Why don't we just ban any alternate account from voting? It doesn't matter if it's a flagged/categorised bot or whether it's just an alt account for AWB usage. One person, one vote. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader: could possibly expand, programmatically this rule would be used as part of building the voter rolls. While it is expected that any bot operator has a working, responsive user account - unintended consequences could apply to other types of alts. While it is certainly not allowed for you to actually cast a vote with two accounts - Using user:ProcrastinatingReader (mobile) vs User:ProcrastinatingReader (as a generic example) could cause disenfranchisement of editors based on their current situation. — xaosflux Talk 14:21, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux: Currently, are accounts within Category:All Wikipedia bots programmatically unable to vote, or is it only flagged bots that are unable to vote? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader: so my reading of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections/ACERFC decisions to date says that we don't exclude bot accounts, however in secure poll we generally have been selecting the exclude bots option (which is strictly about if the account has the bot permission). We manually (programmatically) make the voter rolls for ACE though - so we can tweak the generation script to fit whatever parameters we need. — xaosflux Talk 14:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll support this for flagged bots. I think the "Category:All Wikipedia bots" part is dubious though. a) what makes unflagged bots distinct from AWB alt accounts? b) it's technically unenforcable, so it's the same as the implied requirement that you can't cast two votes; c) leads to absurd ideas like what if I edit User:Xaosflux and add you into Category:All Wikipedia bots (which is probably why it's not technically enforced). Basically, the category part doesn't make sense to me. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @ProcrastinatingReader: we have actual bots, that are not in the "bot" usergroup - as their edits are wanted, but wanted to never actually use the "bot" flag. I certainly get what you are saying though - and would like to at least document that we should not allow "full bots". — xaosflux Talk 14:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has there ever been an instance of someone using their bot account to cast a second vote? And if this doesn't pass, would that mean bot operators are now allowed an additional vote for each bot they control? Frankly, I find this proposal a bit odd. If you want to cast your one vote using a bot account, what exactly is the problem? 78.28.44.31 (talk) 14:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021&oldid=1042170833"