Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m →U4C membership: yes, yes, I know it's been two months...sorry |
|||
| (458 intermediate revisions by 67 users not shown) | |||
Line 8:
<!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] 20:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1696881771}}
{{nutshell|This is the annual RFC to propose changes to the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections/ACERFC decisions to date|existing rules]] for electing the Arbitration Committee.}}
The purpose of this '''[[Wikipedia:Requests for comment|request for comment]]''' is to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the '''[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023|December 2023 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election]]''' and resolve any issues not covered by the [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections/ACERFC decisions to date|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 [[#toc|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 [[#Formatting|format template below]]
'''Duration''': In order to preserve the timeline of the election (see below), we should aim to close this RfC as soon as 30 days have passed, i.e. '''on or after 23:59, {{#time:d F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|rfcend}}-1 day}} (UTC)'''. The results will determine the structure, rules, and procedures for the election.
Line 36 ⟶ 35:
Neutral description of proposal. ~~~~
# Additional comments here ~~~~
#
*
----
Line 49 ⟶ 48:
{{TOC limit|3}}
{{atop|This RfC is now closed. A summary of the results follows; detailed closing rationales are provided in each section.
*A requirement that candidates for the Arbitration Committee be "editors in good standing" was removed as ambiguous and redundant.
*Editors subject to a block or ban that prevents them from submitting their candidacy are ineligible to run for the Committee.
*A prohibition on guides to other guides was removed.
*For all other proposals, there was not a consensus to alter the status quo.
I have not modified [[WP:ACERULES]] and the other pages that need to be updated, so any help on that front would be much appreciated. Many thanks to everyone who participated in this year's discussion. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 08:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)}}
{{clear}}
== "Candidates" bullet point ==
{{atop|result=There is '''consensus for option 3''', removing the "good standing" verbiage, which editors feel is ambiguous and adds nothing to the explicit requirements (not under block or ban) later in the sentence. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 05:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)}}
What should the gist of the beginning of the "candidates" bullet point at [[WP:ACERULES]] be?
*'''Option 1''': Registered account with 500 mainspace edits, <strong>editor in good standing, that is,</strong> not under block (as of the time of the nomination) or ban{{efn|name=block|text=Which blocks and bans are disqualifying is TBD at [[#Blocks and bans which disqualify candidates]]}}...
Line 99 ⟶ 107:
# "Good standing" can be interpreted many ways. If it just means not banned than stating that clearly instead is ideal. – '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">[[User:Aza24|<span style="color:darkred">Aza24</span>]][[User talk:Aza24|<span style="color:#848484"> (talk)</span>]]</span>''' 06:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
#No need for {{tq|good standing}} since the vote itself can decide if the candidate is in good standing with the community. [[User:Terasail|<span style="color:#088; font-weight:800;">Terasail</span>]][[User talk:Terasail|<sup><span style="color:#000;">'''[✉️]'''</span></sup>]] 14:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
# Let the voters vote for whom they would like to vote. If voters wish to overlook "good standing", then that is their decision; allowing voters to make that decision is far more democratic than the alternative. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 23:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
#: <del>This option provides the most clarity for me. I've always found 'good standing' a vague term. [[Special:Contributions/82.35.44.68|82.35.44.68]] ([[User talk:82.35.44.68|talk]]) 01:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)</del> <small>[[WP:STRIKESOCK]]. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 16:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)</small>
# Trim useless blather. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 04:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# per Terasail. '''〜''' <span style="font-family:Big Caslon;border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:#437a4b">[[User:Askarion|<span style="color:#FFF">'''Askarion'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Askarion|<span style="color:#000000"><strong>✉</strong></span>]] 12:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# "good standing" is far too vague for me, if there are reasons other than being blocked to not permit voting they should be spelled out explicitly. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|<span style="color: darkred;">Ravensfire</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 16:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per Red-tailed hawk. - 🔥[[User:Illusion Flame|𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆]] [[User talk:Illusion Flame|(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)]]🔥 01:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
# The other options are a waste of words. [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 12:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
# We don't know what 'good standing' means, so we shouldn't have a rule about it. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:09, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
# Sure. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 14:07, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
# "good standing" is unclear. [[User:Strobilomyces|Strobilomyces]] ([[User talk:Strobilomyces|talk]]) 20:09, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
# Yeah. [[User:NotAGenious|NotAGenious]] ([[User talk:NotAGenious|talk]]) 05:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
=== Comments ("Candidates" bullet point) ===
Line 108 ⟶ 127:
*Per [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#Finally resolving "that is"/"and is"|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. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
*:Yes, this RfC is not specific to one page, so all appropriate pages can be updated based on any established consensus. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 22:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
*::'''Note to closer:''' When implementing the result of this proposal please also update the wording on all the election pages (e.g. the candidates page) to make them consistent. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
*Similar to {{u|Thryduulf}}'s question about about what "block" means, what does "ban" mean? Fully banned from the project? Topic ban? Interaction ban? [[WP:SBAN]] says {{tq|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". [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 13:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
*:I add my voice to question- what do we mean by block and ban here? Better to be explicit than allow confusion to creep in later. [[User:SilverTiger12|SilverTiger12]] ([[User talk:SilverTiger12|talk]]) 15:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Line 114 ⟶ 134:
*::::[[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] Yep! Corrected, and thanks for pointing it out! <small>Why that happened: I left that comment and started the RfC in [[Special:Diff/1173868895|the same edit]]; I changed the title of the section multiple times while drafting the RfC (which quite frankly was most of the "drafting" needed for the RfC) but forgot to fix the link.</small> [[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|Blaster]]<sup>[[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]</sup> 17:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
*Yes: as noted in my comment (#4) supporting Option 3, we should use "who" instead of "that", please tweak if Option 3 wins. [[User:Martindo|Martindo]] ([[User talk:Martindo|talk]]) 20:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
{{abottom}}
== U4C membership ==
{{atop|result=There is '''no consensus''' in favor of the proposal as written. Supporters are concerned about the risk that an arb would have to recuse from consequential enwiki-related U4C cases; some opposers see overlap as unlikely and/or prefer to let voters decide on a candidate-by-candidate basis. Other opposers believe that arbs should simply be prevented from serving on both at the same time, which would allow U4C members to seek election to ArbCom so long as they resigned the former role if successful. Consensus on ''that'' issue is unclear, and since it seeks to regulate the behavior of sitting arbs, it's ultimately outside the scope of the election RfC. It seems an RfC along the lines of [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 159#RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators]] would be the best way to decide the question if editors are sufficiently interested in doing so. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 06:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)}}
Should members of the [[:foundation:Policy:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines#4. UCoC Coordinating Committee (U4C)|U4C]] be barred from standing for election to ArbCom? [[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|Blaster]]<sup>[[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]</sup> 19:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
=== 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 {{tq|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.{{pb}}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. [[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|Blaster]]<sup>[[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]</sup> 19:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
#:I have been thinking about the "peer" argument. I have nothing but respect for the work that Barkeep has done w.r.t. the UCoC. That being said, I cannot get behind the idea that the U4C is actually a peer body to ArbCom. I would love for that to be true, but it is simply not the case. From the [[meta:Special:Permalink/25595275|U4C charter]] (which is admittedly a draft, but I somehow doubt that the relevant portion will change substantively between now and the final version), the U4C will deal with {{tq|"complaints <strong>and appeals</strong> in the circumstances as outlined in the Enforcement Guidelines, including but not limited to [...] consistent local decisions that conflict with the UCoC"}} (emphasis mine). The U4C can and will be able to hear appeals from ArbCom, when anyone claims <em>something</em> in the final decision is indicative of systematic failure to enforce the UCoC (and we have already have [[User talk:BrownHairedGirl/Archive/Archive 077#Withdrawal from the SmallCat case|evidence]] parties will try to drag the UCoC into anything and everything).{{pb}}I empathize with the oppose voters (I really do!), and I want nothing more than to agree with their conclusion. But the U4C is not, and will never be, a peer body to ArbCom without a fundamental rewrite to the [[foundation:Policy:Universal Code of Conduct/Enforcement guidelines|Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines]] (which were approved by >75% of the global community). [[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|Blaster]]<sup>[[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]</sup> 22:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 19:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
# I would write something here, but HouseBlaster sums it up perfectly. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 22:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Line 139 ⟶ 163:
#:Except the guidelines say that's not supposed to be true. That it's supposed to be a peer body. It could have jurisdiction if there has been a systemic failure to enforce the UCoC, but ArbCom's remit is far broader than that and the U4C's remit for communities that don't have arbcoms is also far broader. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per above. [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query Me!</sup>]] 23:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
# Support. Separation of powers. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 04:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' [[User:ToadetteEdit|<span style="color: #fc65b8;">Toadette</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:ToadetteEdit|chat]])</sup>/<sub>([[Special:Contributions/ToadetteEdit|logs]])</sub> 11:23, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' [[User:Strobilomyces|Strobilomyces]] ([[User talk:Strobilomyces|talk]]) 20:14, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
#'''Support.''' <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 04:34, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
=== Oppose (candidate may be a U4C member) ===
Line 163 ⟶ 191:
# Per xaosflux. If there is a problem with U4C membership, only blocking through elections isn't the best way to fix this. [[User:Terasail|<span style="color:#088; font-weight:800;">Terasail</span>]][[User talk:Terasail|<sup><span style="color:#000;">'''[✉️]'''</span></sup>]] 14:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
#I'm not yet sure if people should be allowed to simultaneously sit on arbcom and U4C, but if we want to say they're not, this is the wrong way to go about it. An arbcom candidate could be (with apologies to {{u|vermont}}) a codie and resign their seat on the U4C should they get on arbcom. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 22:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
# Let the voters decide if they're comfortable with someone serving on both bodies. —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="color:#004080">python</span><span style="color:olive">coder</span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 04:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
#Having membership overlap could be of considerable value, and I agree with the peer group interpretation of the U4C's role. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 20:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
#Let the voters decide on whether they'd like to elect someone who's on the U4C. If the voters won't have it, then that is their decision, but I think that the voters are smart enough to make that decision on their own at the time of an election. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 23:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per Barkeep49. — [[User:Ixtal|Ixtal]] <sup>( [[User talk:Ixtal|T]] / [[Special:Contributions/Ixtal|C]] ) </sup> ⁂ <small> [[Non nobis solum]]. </small> 09:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per Barkeep and S Marshall. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|<span style="color: darkred;">Ravensfire</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 16:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per Barkeep and others, who've put this better than I can. ''[[User:JavaHurricane| <span style = "color:green">Java</span>]][[User talk:JavaHurricane|<span style = "color:red">Hurricane</span>]]'' 14:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per S Marshall, they should be required to step down from U4C if elected, but shouldn't be required to stand down to run. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 23:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
#The electorate can decide. (I might support an ArbPol amendment that a sitting arb must resign to be appointed to the U4C, but that would be a change of circumstance that our local electorate would not be consulted on by a sitting arb. Someone running for Arbcom while sitting on U4C would be fully known by our electors.) [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 13:34, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per Barkeep. '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 18:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
#I don't think this should apply to candidates, just to serving members. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 05:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
=== Comments (U4C membership) ===
Line 172 ⟶ 210:
*: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. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 15:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
*::You're right. I'd forgotten that discussion and think they can already apply in these rules (where they belong). Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
{{abottom}}
== Blocks and bans which disqualify candidates ==
{{atop
|result=There is a '''consensus for option 2''': editors subject to a block or ban that prevents them from submitting their candidacy are ineligible to run.
At a glance this may seem to be a clear "no consensus", but there's more agreement here than the raw !vote totals might suggest. A wide majority of editors (everyone in groups 1 and 2) agree that users who can't submit their candidacies due to blocks or bans shouldn't be eligible to run. A somewhat smaller but still substantial majority (everyone in groups 2 and 3) believe that users with other blocks or bans (e.g. an interaction ban or a single-article partial block) ''should'' be eligible to run. There's no real basis for me to downweight any side's arguments here, so option 2 appears to best reflect the consensus. Obviously editors subject to a block or ban will almost never have a serious chance of being elected, as !voters of all stripes agree.
There was little or no enthusiasm for carving out separate rules for editors subject to [[WP:CTOP|contentious topic restrictions]], as suggested in option 4.
[[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 07:03, 1 October 2023 (UTC)}}
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
Line 201 ⟶ 249:
#Someone with an active block/ban is not the person who should be the neutral party in disputes. [[User:Terasail|<span style="color:#088; font-weight:800;">Terasail</span>]][[User talk:Terasail|<sup><span style="color:#000;">'''[✉️]'''</span></sup>]] 14:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query Me!</sup>]] 23:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
# Any ongoing block/ban is reason enough to disqualify. This is the highest-trust position on the system. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 04:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 03:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
#Obviously. ''[[User:JavaHurricane| <span style = "color:green">Java</span>]][[User talk:JavaHurricane|<span style = "color:red">Hurricane</span>]]'' 15:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 12:27, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
# per {{u|Risker}}'s point ''"Arbcom membership comes with CU and OS"''. It also comes with access to '''''all''''' the ArbCom's prior confidential mail & other info. Also, electing an arbitrator who has a set of topics on which they will need to recuse is like electing a half-an-arbitrator. [[User:Cabayi|Cabayi]] ([[User talk:Cabayi|talk]]) 10:41, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:NotAGenious|NotAGenious]] ([[User talk:NotAGenious|talk]]) 05:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
=== Option 2 (only blocks that prevent submission) ===
Line 219 ⟶ 273:
# [[User:Иованъ|Ivan]] ([[User talk:Иованъ|talk]]) 14:07, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
# I'd be unlikely to vote for a candiate who had any kind of active block or ban, as we're electing people to sit in ultimate judgment of others who are subject to blocks and bans. And I doubt anyone with a block or ban would actually succeed in the election. But I think it should be on a case-by-case basis, decided by community vote. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 10:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
# First choice. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 12:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
#This makes the most sense to me. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 19:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
#Second choice to option 3. Seems reasonable. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 00:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#A very common method of disqualifying potential opponents in elections is to arrange that they be thrown in jail. [https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/sheerafrenkel/12-people-who-actually-jailed-their-political-opponents exemplī grātiā] -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 10:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#I think eligibility should be broad; highly unlikely anyone with a block/ban could be elected but there's no reason to pre-emptively disqualify them. [[User:Galobtter|Galobtter]] ([[User talk:Galobtter|talk]]) 23:36, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#Seems like the best option. - 🔥[[User:Illusion Flame|𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆]] [[User talk:Illusion Flame|(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)]]🔥 01:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 22:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
#I guess I'll land here. Ultimately, I think a site block or entire namespace block should be enough for disqualification, but not a single page block (which option 1 would be). If you're site blocked or blocked from project space... then your candidacy would be futile, anyway, of course, but having the hard rule to point to would prevent any requests to proxy add a candidacy. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 13:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
#Now that we are getting rid of the mumbo-jumbo of 'good standing', if you can't submit your application without help, that may be what should have been meant by good standing. Partial blocks and topic bans should not disqualify, but the community should take partial blocks and topic bans into account. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 16:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
# With option #3 as my second choice. '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 18:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
# First choice. This is a good rule to prevent troll candidacies, but other than that, I think there should be enough room for edge cases (e.g. IBAN, single page block) to be judged on a case by case basis by voters. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 06:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
=== Option 3 (only site-blocks) ===
Line 230 ⟶ 295:
# Per BilledMammal [[User:Mach61|Mach61]] ([[User talk:Mach61|talk]]) 20:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
# Makes sense per BilledMammal's explanation. This is the kind of thing that we should trust voters with. – '''<span style="font-family:Lucida;">[[User:Aza24|<span style="color:darkred">Aza24</span>]][[User talk:Aza24|<span style="color:#848484"> (talk)</span>]]</span>''' 06:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
# Second choice to option 2. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 12:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
# Let the voters vote for whom they would like to vote. If there is a partial block, that is a fact that can be accounted for by the voters, who are more than smart enough to account for it at the time of voting. Barring people from candidacy over this seems contra-democratic—rather than barring people from candidacy, we should tend towards allowing them to run (even if they are voted down). — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 23:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
#:<s>An editor with a block is very unlikely to be elected. However, we should move, in my opinion, more towards trusting the voters with who they want and allowing a candidate to run, as improbable as it is they will be elected. [[Special:Contributions/82.35.44.68|82.35.44.68]] ([[User talk:82.35.44.68|talk]]) 01:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)</s> <small>Strike !vote from CU-blocked IP.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 16:04, 10 September 2023 (UTC)</small>
# Per BilledMammal. '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|<span style="color: darkred;">Ravensfire</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 16:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
# Sitebanned users are expelled from the Wikipedia community and aren't permitted to participate at all, and siteblocked users aren't supposed to edit at all except to address their block so they can't submit a candidacy nor respond to questions, nor can other editors do those things for them per [[WP:PROXYING]]. For partial blocks and other bans (like topic bans) the circumstances matter - not often but sometimes these actions are no-fault sanctions. Per BilledMammal it's not very likely that someone under active sanction is going to do well in an ArbCom election, but if a user is not sitebanned then that decision should be up to the voters. Also just pointing out that this section doesn't address what to do if a candidate is accepted and then is siteblocked before the end of voting. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 21:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
# It should be up to the voters, the other options would be unnecessary rules. [[User:Strobilomyces|Strobilomyces]] ([[User talk:Strobilomyces|talk]]) 20:18, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
# With #2 as second choice.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 04:36, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
=== Option 4 (AC/DS enforcement as well as blocks that prevent submission) ===
Line 235 ⟶ 307:
#:See my vote for Option 2. Not too lenient because it would be in force even if a block were currently being appealed. [[User:Martindo|Martindo]] ([[User talk:Martindo|talk]]) 02:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
#People who have active CTOP sanctions cannot be trusted to make binding desisions in those areas <span style="border: 1px solid #0000FF ;color:#0000FF; padding:0px 7px;border-radius:10px"><b>[[User:NightWolf1223|NW1223]]<[[User talk:NightWolf1223|Howl at me]]•[[Special:Contributions/NightWolf1223|My hunts]]></b></span> 02:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
# Second choice to option 1. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 04:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
=== Comments (Blocks and bans which disqualify candidates) ===
Line 250 ⟶ 323:
*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."—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 13:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
*:Which would be a bad block and likely get the admin dragged before ArbCom ultimately. That aside, that framing of it is solely an issue with item 1. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 15:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
*::Nah. Too easy to hide true intent behind such block. As the man said, “show me a man and I can find you the criminal code paragraph”.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 04:39, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
*I don't think we need a rule here at all. If a user is p-blocked from a topic area, I can't imagine that the community would elect them to the committee. You can't trust someone to resolve disputes if they are the one causing them. [[User:Beeblebrox|Beeblebrox]] ([[User talk:Beeblebrox|talk]]) 23:18, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
*:After thinking about it, I agree wholeheartedly with Beeblebrox. What's the point of an additional rule if users and voters will clearly be able to clearly see whether someone has an active block/ban in an area? It'd be one thing if there were no electoral process whatsoever, but I don't think the community would be so willing en masse to avert their eyes from a candidate's block history in consideration for a role such as arbitrator. This is [[WP:NOTBURO]] territory. <sub>Duly signed,</sub> '''[[User:WaltCip|⛵ <span style="color: white; font-family: Verdana; font-weight: bold; background: linear-gradient(white, blue, navy, black)">WaltClipper</span> ]]'''-''<small>([[User talk:WaltCip|talk]])</small>'' 13:26, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
*It's very unclear to me whether this means currently blocked or ever blocked. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 16:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
*:{{tq|is not under block (as of the time of the nomination) or ban}} from the current ACERULES. I do not think any of this intends to change that aspect. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 16:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
* What is ''status quo''? Based on the current wording of ACERULES it is option 1 (I think Pppery thinks the same based on the talk page). Is there any other discussion to indicate otherwise? [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 02:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*:There is no status quo. If this RfC ends up with no consensus for any option then the Election Commissioners will need to make a decision if the issue comes up. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 06:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
{{abottom}}
== Allow "guides of voter guides" ==
{{atop|There is '''consensus in favor''' of removing the prohibition on guides to other guides. Opposers argue that "meta-guides" would encourage poor voting behavior and serve little real value, while supporters disagree and feel that the voter should be the judge of a guide's usefulness. This is again a reasonable and well-reasoned disagreement that can't be resolved by weighting !votes, so as a closer I would be supervoting if I didn't defer to the fairly clear (2–1) numerical majority. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 07:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)}}
Remove the {{tq|Guides to other guides are ineligible.}} sentence from templates such as {{tl|ACE2022}}, {{tl|ACE2021}}, etc.. – [[User:John M Wolfson|John M Wolfson]] ([[User talk:John M Wolfson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/John M Wolfson|contribs]]) 14:21, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Line 273 ⟶ 351:
#Nothing is stopping this being reversed if it turns out not to work, so why not give it a try [[User:Terasail|<span style="color:#088; font-weight:800;">Terasail</span>]][[User talk:Terasail|<sup><span style="color:#000;">'''[✉️]'''</span></sup>]] 14:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query Me!</sup>]] 23:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
# I find meta-guides interesting and they're potentially useful to voters. However, I would say they should be separated off somehow because they are of course not normal guides. —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="color:#004080">python</span><span style="color:olive">coder</span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 04:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
# Supporting this because I don't believe it's proper to enjoin editors from relevant internal commentary of whatever form. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 04:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# '''[[User talk:Ravensfire|<span style="color: darkred;">Ravensfire</span>]]''' ([[User talk:Ravensfire|talk]]) 16:34, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#I would prefer disposing of the guides altogether, but as long as we're allowing users to express their preferences and then advertising them in a prominent place, I don't think we should police what they're putting in "guides" beyond our basic guidelines for editorial conduct and userspace content. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 19:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
#My general philosophy is "trust the voter". In this case, trust the voter to put whatever weight they determine is appropriate to a guide or a meta-guide. <small>ooops, forgot to sign this, so I'll do that now, even if the timestamp will be wrong</small> [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 16:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
# I agree that metaguides would be useful. As a good way to compile lots of data instead of switching between sevreal open tabs. [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|OLIfanofmrtennant]]
# I see no reason to prohibit this. If a meta-analysis is bad, voters are smart enough to know that and make their vote accordingly. Opposing meta-guides on the basis merely because they may reflect the writer's bias is an argument for getting rid of all guides, not just meta-guides, and I don't think that we ought go down that path. If the community were to humbly accept that guides be subject to scrutiny, it would be a good and healthy thing for the deliberative democratic process that is this election. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 03:02, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
# '''Support''' freedom of speech. [[User:Strobilomyces|Strobilomyces]] ([[User talk:Strobilomyces|talk]]) 20:21, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
# Why not? Always seemed strange and overbearing.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 04:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
=== Oppose (allow "guides of voter guides") ===
Line 284 ⟶ 371:
# I think the the guides alone put too much influence in their writers' opinions (and I say that as someone who used to write them, but changed my mind). Guides to guides, at worst, would create further undue influence, and at best would only add confusion and create yet another way to argue. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 10:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
# I find the guides each year a useful guide (sorry) of where to look; i can see the value in a meta-guide but nevertheless oppose per Boing! and Izno. Happy days, ~ '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''<sup>'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]]</sup> 15:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
#What about guides of the guides to the guides? I think a midpoint may be the way to go here: don't list all these meta guides on the template, but allow them in a category, list the category on the template. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 13:51, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
#:One guide to guide them all ... and in the darkness bind them? ;-) [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 13:58, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
#:I think the same could be done for the guides themselves. However, one benefit of the current arrangement for guides is that the template lists them in random order, whereas most WP categories list their items in alphabetical order. If this "category" could list the guides, and guides to guides, in random order, then I would support having only a link on the template and having the actual list of guides & guides to guides as its own thing. {{Userlinks-abbr|All in}} 🔒 '''[[User:All in|ALL ]][[User talk:All in|IN]]''' 🧿 17:18, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
#::Not opposed to just making some page of all the guides, meta guides, etc - and just linking to it. OK if it wants to use some not-really-random control; I've got a pocket full of trout if anyone says it must have some enforced randomness (''..but if we made a gadget....''). — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 18:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
# Speaking as a longtime guide-writer, I think it's best to just let each guide speak for itself. A "guide to guides" usually ends up reflecting the bias of someone who's writing about already biased guides, or else it's a quantitative analysis, which isn't really helpful either. Personally, I wish everyone wrote a guide. Then it would be more like an RfA, where people support and oppose and you know *why* they are doing this, so we get the discussion going and it's not just a flat vote. But as it is, let people who wish to write a serious guide do so, and other than that leave it alone. --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 21:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
=== Comments (allow "guides of voter guides") ===
Line 292 ⟶ 384:
*::It has remained more or less as-is since 11 years ago. I think there's probably WP:Silent support for the current statement. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 17:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::For quite a few years now (without looking it up I'd guess circa 2014) the rules for the preceding election have been explicitly determined to be the governing consensus unless and until there is an active consensus to change. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 08:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
{{abottom}}
== Length of voting ==
Line 348 ⟶ 441:
== Electoral Commission experience ==
{{atop|There is '''consensus against''' this proposal. The general sentiment is that considerations of experience should be weighed by editors in the ELECTCOM selection process rather than by the closer. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 07:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)}}
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. [[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 21:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Line 370 ⟶ 464:
#Sounds like a supervote to me. It should be solely based on consensus, and that's all the closer should judge. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 10:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
#I agree with {{u|Floquenbeam}} that it's important to get new blood, but community members are perfectly capable of doing that by endorsing new candidates should they decide that's important to them. [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 21:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
#It always works out. The community has done a phenomenal job for years. [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query Me!</sup>]] 23:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
#No need for explicit guidance. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 23:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
#[[User:Terasail|<span style="color:#088; font-weight:800;">Terasail</span>]][[User talk:Terasail|<sup><span style="color:#000;">'''[✉️]'''</span></sup>]] 18:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per xaosflux - my thoughts exactly. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 21:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
#This could create undesirable situations where a candidate getting elected with much less support than another candidate. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 06:08, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
#Per Thryduulf. [[User:NotAGenious|NotAGenious]] ([[User talk:NotAGenious|talk]]) 05:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Comments (Electoral Commission experience) ====
*
----
{{abottom}}
== About WP:ACERULES ==
{{atop|This section received too little participation to determine consensus. For what it's worth, the suggestion of making ACERULES a procedural policy seems to be relatively unwelcome, while editors are open to (but also ambivalent to) name and/or formatting changes. I suppose an RM can be started at some point if anyone thinks it'd be worthwhile. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 07:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)}}
[[WP:ACERULES]] should be made a procedural policy, be reformatted to resemble one ([[Special:Permalink/1174340126|example]]), and be moved to <s>[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Election rules]]</s> <u>[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Election/Rules]]</u>. –<span style="font-family:CG Times, times">[[User:MJL|<span style="color:black">MJL</span>]] [[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]]<sup>[[User:MJL/P|☖]]</sup></span> 21:13, 7 September 2023 (UTC) <small>Edited 21:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)</small>
Line 381 ⟶ 484:
# [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 21:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Frostly|Frostly]] ([[User talk:Frostly|talk]]) 21:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:SQL|<span style="font-size:7pt;color: #fff;background:#900;border:2px solid #999">SQL</span>]][[User talk:SQL|<sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query Me!</sup>]] 23:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
# For a longer time that I'd like to admit, I could never find the rules until the next RFC cycle because the place where they are located isn't that initiative. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 08:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
# Active rules should not be placed in a place that is only found by those who know about its existence. [[User:Terasail|<span style="color:#088; font-weight:800;">Terasail</span>]][[User talk:Terasail|<sup><span style="color:#000;">'''[✉️]'''</span></sup>]] 18:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Oppose (About WP:ACERULES) ====
Line 386 ⟶ 492:
# I don't see any benefit to making this a procedural policy but it could make it harder to interpret with flexibility and add a greater reluctance to make changes. While I have no strong opinions about the ___location of the page and neither support nor oppose the proposed move, I do oppose codifying that ___location in the rules themselves - doubly so if they are to become a procedural policy. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 21:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
# Since we have had significant rules changes on a nearly annual basis, I'm more inclined to keep it as is. I do believe it can, and should, be more visible on all of the relevant pages (perhaps even requiring any on-wiki voter guides to include a link to it). I do think if there's a procedural policy, it should be on the rules of the RFC that reviews the ACE rules, rather than on the rules themselves. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 23:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
# No concerns with moving it to a better page, categorizing it, or putting a banner on it - however I think the current format is sufficient. The proposed format is a more traditional wikitext page that would tend to encourage editing, while this is really more of just an index of decisions made elsewhere. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 12:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
# I don't care much about the page name, but this is something we heavily revise with a flood of RfCs every year, so it just doesn't seem like policy material, and turning it into a policy is like to ossify it further. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 04:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Comments (About WP:ACERULES) ====
Line 396 ⟶ 504:
*:::I think it would probably be reasonable to split what's at [[WP:Elections]] regarding ACE into its own page, especially if this proposal is successful.
*:::That said, I kind of have to agree that someone should just do it if they think it's an improvement. (I think it probably is.) [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 21:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
*::::I went ahead and spun out the Arbitration Committee section on the Elections page to [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Election]]. <small>(We can now proceed to argue if it should be pluralized, or lower case.)</small> [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 04:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
----
{{abottom}}
== Three members selected by lottery ==
{{atop|This is a very interesting proposal, and I commend [[User:Thinker78|Thinker78]] for coming up with it. However, the level of opposition to it at this time [[WP:SNOW|warrants a second early close]], one which I would advise the proposer or anyone else not to revert. Perhaps something to this effect might make sense in the context of RfA. – [[User:John M Wolfson|John M Wolfson]] ([[User talk:John M Wolfson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/John M Wolfson|contribs]]) 17:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)}}
Implement a system like in the [[Athenian Democracy#Ecclesia]] of Ancient Greece where officials were selected by lottery among citizens. Therefore, three Arbitration Committee members appointed among everyone considered an editor of Wikipedia of age (extended confirmed) with at least 500 edits for the past month. This system is used in other organizations and is currently named [[sortition]]. Regards, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 01:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Support (Three members selected by lottery) ====
# Additional comments here <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 01:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Oppose (Three members selected by lottery) ====
# No thank you. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 01:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
# Randomizing the members of ArbCom is a very bad idea. ArbCom is already one of the most controversial areas of Wikipedia, and we need the members to be qualified. We can't just have some random 600-edit guy deal with some of the most contentious disputes on the site, not to mention giving them CheckUser and Oversight. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 01:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
# For admins, I like the idea of sortition with a heavily restricted pool; if designed properly it would resolve many issues with our current system of admin selection. However, those same issues do not apply to ARBCOM; I cannot see any issues this would solve, and I can see it introducing many more, particularly with how broad the pool is. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 01:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per the other opposers above, and in spite of my comments [[User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog#One_approach_to_RfA_reform...?|here]]. [[User:Newyorkbrad|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad|talk]]) 02:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
# I think the idea behind this is valid, but the specific proposal here is unworkable for many reasons. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 03:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
# ArbCom is too important to the encyclopedia to be left to chance like this. —[[User:pythoncoder|<span style="color:#004080">python</span><span style="color:olive">coder</span>]] ([[User talk:pythoncoder|talk]] | [[Special:Contribs/pythoncoder|contribs]]) 04:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
# ArbCom members have to deal with private evidence and cannot effectively monitor the usage of the CheckUser and Oversight tool without these rights. Giving these rights and access to a private wiki with lots of private information (such as people's real names and accounts that may owned by different people in the same household) is an issue. If an idea of just not giving access to private data is discussed, this makes these arbitrators have very little they can actually do.{{pb}}Furthermore, to assume that a randomly selected extended confirmed user would actually keep this data private is difficult. We also have several [[WP:LTA]]s who regularly create and operate extended confirmed accounts who would therefore be included in this. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 08:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
# Even among the pool of people who meet the current requirements to stand for election, which is much narrower than just extended confirmed, there are a great many people who would make absolutely appalling arbitrators for a variety of reasons. Some cannot be trusted with the private information, some would be unwilling and/or legally unable to sign the necessary access to non-public data policy, some wouldn't understand the principals, some would use it as an opportunity to get back at those they've been in dispute with, some would not have the time, some wouldn't get on with the bureaucracy, some wouldn't have the ability with the English language, some people just really do not want to do the job, etc. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
#Obvious no. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 10:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
# This is not a change I'd support this without a major change to the arbcom structure. If arbcom was actually only about dealing with dispute resolution, maybe. But as they are also in charge of all private information investigations, access to which they generally maintain even following their term, the membership should be subject to strict community scrutiny and approval. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 10:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
#:Additionally, strongest possible oppose at selecting anyone that doesn't want to do this, they will then just not do the work and the committee will become useless. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 12:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
#Only editors who have applied for this role should be asked to carry its burdens.—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 11:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
#There is a case for being tried by a jury of one's peers, but it's outweighed by the arguments against outlined above. Few random editors would have the time, skill, experience and dedication required for the role. Is it [[WP:SNOW|snowing]] in here? [[User:Certes|Certes]] ([[User talk:Certes|talk]]) 16:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Comments (Three members selected by lottery) ====
* I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023&diff=prev&oldid=1174531956 originally hatted] this discussion per [[WP:SNOW]], but the original proposer reopened it. {{ping|Thinker78}} I won't revert the reopening (perhaps I was a little hasty, as this was only at 1–3 when I hatted it), but I have to say, I am surprised that an editor with your tenure thinks that the proposal does ''not'' have only a snowball's chance of passing. Your proposal is an interesting thought experiment that might be suitable for the talk page of this RfC, but there is no way that we could ever implement your idea in practice. There are a number of reasons for this, but one big one is that, as of 2023, members of the Arbitration Committee are given access to non-public information (e.g. ArbCom and functionary mailing lists, and access to [[WP:CHK|checkuser]] and [[WP:OS|oversight]] tools), and in the past, the Wikimedia Foundation has refused to grant this level of technical access to users who have not undergone {{tq|RFA or an RFA-identical process}}—see [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 116#RFA reform Proposal: Automatic admintools to users with 1 year of registration and 3000 mainspace edits]]. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 02:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
*:Thanks for your reply. I believe that discussion regarding this proposal can be fruitful and may lead to other ideas regarding elections. Some editors may like it enough as to support it. There may be reasons that the proposal may or may not be implemented, similarly as there are contrary views for other proposals. Discussion can clarify what these issues may be and whether they are insurmountable or not.
*:The system of choosing officials by lottery via [[sortition]] is nothing new. In fact it is still used to select [[Jury|jurors]] in the United States. I point out how a delicate position that of a juror is, someone who determines the fate of fellow citizens in judicial proceedings.
*:I read the summary of the discussion you linked. It reads, "WMF already has a stated position that all admins absolutely must have community approval, so if this passed, they wouldn't implement it." We can work on this, for example by selecting by lottery nine editors and from them, directly voting for three by a [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|RFA]] process. Regards, <span style="border-radius:8em;padding:0 7px;background:orange">[[User:Thinker78|<span style="color:white">'''Thinker78'''</span>]]</span> [[User talk:Thinker78|(talk)]] 02:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
*::While the comparison to a juror may make sense, I would say that a juror is heavily vetted. In the UK:
*::* A criminal background check is run
*::* Their full names and addresses are known to the court
*::* They have a fairly long process of in-person vetting, where a juror could be excluded
*::There is no way the Wikimedia Foundation or the community could carry out the same level of vetting given to jurors.{{pb}}In the UK it is also contempt of court for a juror to speak about what happened in the court room on social media, even after it has finished. It is also illegal for jurors to speak about what happened in the deliberation room in general.
*::There isn't a way that we as the community or the Wikimedia Foundation could prevent the leaking of data in as strong as a way that the jury system has. Maybe in the US the NDAs that are signed could work, but these may not be recognised by a given country where the user lives.{{pb}}All of this is to say that just because the process works for jurors doesn't mean it would work for arbitrators on the English Wikipedia. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 08:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::The idea of a random selection from a pool in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, but the process would need to be finely tuned and discussed. Certainly selecting from all extended confirmed users would not work, as these users are likely not aware of how time consuming being an effective arbitrator is and there are too many yet-to-be-discovered [[WP:LTA]]s that would meet the proposed requirements. [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 08:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::Given the voluntary nature of being an arb, it would have to be a choice from people who fit the requirements ''and'' who want to do it... and they're the ones who stand for election, surely. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 10:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Increase percentage support requirement for a two-year term ==
{{atop|There is '''consensus against''' this particular proposal. There are concerns (e.g. those expressed by CaptainEek and Thryduulf) that one-year terms are non-ideal for arbs and shouldn't be made more common. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 07:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)}}
This proposal would amend the statement "The minimum percentage of support that is required is 60% for a two-year term, and 50% for a one-year term." to "The minimum percentage of support that is required is 70% for a two-year term, and 50% for a one-year term." [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 19:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Support (increase support requirement) ====
# In the three most recent ACEs, there were multiple candidates who would have qualified for a two-year seat, had there been enough seats for them to recieve one. Notably, in the last ACE, all candidates either failed to meet the 50% threshold or successfully met the 60% threshold. To me, this seems like evidence that there's some sort of community appetite for a more diverse set of arbitrators, and increasing the threshold neccesary to get a two year term would make it so that there are more seats to compete for (in 2024 and onward, since obviously this would not apply retroactively), hopefully reducing the amount of candidates who qualify for a seat yet do not get one. I would also support expanding the committee, but I did not formally propose that because I do not think it has a [[WP:SNOW|snowball's chance in hell]] to pass as a proposal. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 19:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
#:TL;DR why do we even have the one-year seat, if nobody ever gets a one-year seat? [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 20:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
# Some variation of this has been proposed every year, I've supported it then, and it's always failed. The same appears to be happening. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 21:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Oppose (increase support requirement) ====
# This would create a revolving door of candidacies, quite unnecessarily. I did not feel comfortable in my role until about 6 months in. That meant I was only most effective at 6 months+. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 20:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
#Except in marginal cases, I find the two year term to be quite appropriate. I agree with Izno that I did not feel fully useful until at least 6 months in, and think that much of the Committee's most important work happens in the first couple months of each new year, as there is generally a flush of new business and new energy. Having greater numbers of inexperienced candidates, or candidates who are experienced but have just had to run through the grueling election process, saps energy and expertise from the Committee in a critical time. This seems like a solution in search of a problem. [[User:CaptainEek|<b style="color:#6a1f7f">CaptainEek</b>]] <sup>[[User talk:CaptainEek|<i style="font-size:82%; color:#a479e5">Edits Ho Cap'n!</i>]]</sup>[[Special:Contributions/CaptainEek|⚓]] 21:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
#Idea maybe, values no. If we want to raise something it should be the 50%. These are effectively lifetime checkuser/oversight appointments and that is far under what we expect for admins. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 22:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
#:But to the point here, I think 60% is enough for the core theory. The ArbCom doesn't have to be perfect, because except for making themselves functionaries their other decisions require the majority of the committee to agree. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 22:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
#As a former 1-year arb, I think we should be decreasing the number of 1-year terms not increasing them. I didn't really feel at all confident in most of the main case-related aspects until around 6-9 months in, and with typically fewer cases being heard these days (in 2015 there were 19 cases, in 2022 there were 7) the necessary experience isn't going be gained quicker than it was. Additionally, arbitrators who are standing in elections have less energy to devote to their arb duties (let alone all the other things they want to do on Wikipedia) than those who aren't. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thryduulf|contribs]]) </small>
#We needn't create more churn or turnover for a system that works fine as-is. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 23:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
#Not broke, don't "fix" it. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — [[User:SMcCandlish|'''SMcCandlish''']] [[User talk:SMcCandlish|☏]] [[Special:Contributions/SMcCandlish|¢]] 😼 </span> 04:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per CaptainEek [[User:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|<b style="color: #E2062C ;"> ''Iamreallygoodatcheckers''</b>]]<sup>[[User talk:Iamreallygoodatcheckers|<b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b>]]</sup> 06:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#I think we should get rid of 1-year terms entirely, not make more. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 13:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#Oppose raising the support requirement, ''someone'' has to deal with the intractable problems. It would be too easy to cause institutional crisis if S/S+O > 0.7 were required. -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 16:20, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 17:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# Oppose: a 60% minimum for two-year terms is just fine. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 23:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# There are two kinds of people in the world - those who understand how multi-seat elections work, and those who keep trying to fiddle with arbitrary ArbCom cutoffs every year ;-) (If you put 2 candidates up for a fixed number of seats, or 20 candidates, the percentage scores will be very different even if the candidates are all equally good.) [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 07:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
# I feel like that the current limit is enough (from experience in RfA). ~~[[User:2NumForIce|<span style="background:#007eb3;color:#ffffff;">2NumForIce</span>]] ([[User talk:2NumForIce|<sup style="color:#007eb3">speak</sup>]]<span style="color:55a7db">|</span>[[Special:Contributions/2NumForIce|<sub>edits</sub>]]) 22:29, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per Xaosflux. - 🔥[[User:Illusion Flame|𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆]] [[User talk:Illusion Flame|(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)]]🔥 01:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 22:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Comments (increase support requirement) ====
*I'm not sure how having many candidates that met the standard of being selected is an indication that the community wants to have a more diverse set of arbitrators, or that more one-year arbitrators are desired. The most recent comments from non-arbirators that I recall on the subject of term length is that people like arbitrators having two years to gain more experience in the role, and that overlap provides continuity. If there were a desire for more rapid turnover, though, then I think directly having a fixed number of 1-year seats would be a better approach, rather than trying to induce this situation with the current rules on term length by changing the threshold values. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 20:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
* As a more general comment than this specific proposal, it's a real pain that people keep throwing spaghetti at the numbers wall each year without actually working with the people most affected (those who go through this election, or would like to go through this election). What we have is really, actually, fine. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 20:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
*:Here's the series of previous discussions: [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022#Proposal_5:_Minimum_support_to_be_elected|2022]], [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2021#Raise_minimum_support_percentages|2021]], [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019#Number_of_arbitrators|2019]] reaffirming 2018's decision for a split percentage election, and [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2018#Percentage_support_needed_for_appointment|2018]] instituting our current regime (which also decreased the size of the committee and then bad things happened). [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 01:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
* I agree that there's an arb learning curve and two years helps make sure the ratio of productive to learning time is well skewed toward productive. That said, I would support more of an option for people to announce they want a 1 year term. I think, for instance, some former arbs might do an additional year but would be hesitant to do 2. Perhaps some firstimers also. But I would think this would need to be declared ahead of time so the community could make an informed decision when voting. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
*:Along those lines, would you be open to divvying up some seats into "2-year term" seats and "1-year term" seats? A person would choose which seat to run for, and there could be two parallel elections for each (min. thresholds could be kept; something like "there are 5 two-year seats open this year, which require a minimum of 60% approval, and 2 one-year seats open this year, which require a minimum of 50% approval"). — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 01:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*::If there were fixed number of 1-year term and 2-year term seats that were contested separately (and thus no more 2-year term seats turning into 1-year term seats), then I think my personal preference would be to have a uniform 60% threshold for both. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 01:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::Arb terms used to be 3 years. We dropped them to 2, due to arb fatigue and resignations. I wouldn't mind if we set it up where when we elect arbs it's for a "term", which is a minimum of 1 year but a maximum of 3. And leave it up to each arb's discretion every year to affirm before the election whether they are staying on or stepping down (or running again, for that matter). - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 01:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*::::Well, arbitrators already have the discretion to stop serving at any time (ideally, they'd avoid doing it after voting starts, to allow for their seat to filled during the annual election). I'm not sure if the community would support three-year terms, though. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 01:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::::2 years is fatiguing, having to serve for 3 as the earliest tranches did would be horrible. :) As I noted elsewhere for a different "committee" with similar rules to ours (but a different scope), 2 years is probably about the most you can ask for from volunteers. Less than 1 and you're just dealing with turnover. (I don't get how our sister arbcoms function, many of which are indeed on 1 year or less for terms.) I think our rolling 2 year terms are about as good as you're going to get on the point. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 01:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*::::: (ec) Isaacl - Dunno. Like I said, they used to. And I think this would allow for an arb to stay for that "additional year" mentioned above, to help with transition, but those who aren't interested in staying for 3 years can drop out. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 01:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*::::::Sure, but the community has changed, the workload of arbitrators have changed, and... arbitrators didn't want to serve for three years, thus the change to two. I'm skeptical that the community will decide that they should be trying to get more people to serve three year terms, particularly against the experience of past arbitrators. There is plenty of continuity now with two-year terms (even with mid-term resignations). [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 02:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::My point wasn't to make "3-year terms", it was instead to elect for a "term", which has a minimum and maximum length. If no one wants to do 3 years, I think we'd find out soon enough. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 02:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::That's the same thing as electing arbitrators for three-year terms when they can resign at any time. My point is that I don't think the community would support this given what it knows about how arbitrators feel about signing up for three years, and as I feel it prefers to review an arbitrator's tenure earlier than that. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 02:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::::::::It's not the same. There's a difference in perception and in expectation. If you are elected to a 3-year term, we tend to expect that you will serve a three=year term. If we elect you to a term, that is a minimum of one year and a maximum of three, then that is all we expect of you. And it's quite possible that, by making the term length self-selecting, that we could well see more and better activity from arbs. People tend to be more productive, the more "free" they feel. The term shouldn't ever feel like a burden. Yes, they presumably know what they're signing up for. But, from what little we've been able to see behind-the-scenes over the years, no one really knows exactly what it's like until one sits in that seat. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 02:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*::::::::::From a standpoint of gaining consensus, a proposal where arbitrators are approved to fill a seat for up to three years requires the community to be willing to live with their selections for the maximum length of the term. Thus it has to consider all arbitrators as if they will serve for three years. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 03:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*::I'd greatly prefer a system where an arb candidate says if they're running for 1 year or 2 (I appreciate why jc37 suggests 3 but agree with isaac that having 1 or 2 year options would increase the chances of finding consensus). Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 03:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*I seem to remember, once upon a time, many moons ago, back when JW was the intermediary step between the arbcom election and selection of arbitrators. Due to several people doing decently though not great, a few at the low end received 1 year terms. It was controversial at the time, but it worked, and was the standard for awhile. All that said, if we want an absolute bottom threshhold, agree with [[User:Xaosflux|Xaosflux]]. The 50% should probably be raised. RfA tends to have a "fuzzy middle" between 2/3 and 3/4, with 60 pretty much being the bottom. I think that stadard would probably be fine, though obviously our current ''voting'' system for Arbcom doesn't allow for "fuzziness" : ) - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 23:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
*:ACE is not RFA and can't be compared percentage-to-percentage. That's a conversation that's been had before: raising the 50% threshold was tried last year. And the year before that. And I think the year before that. That's the point of my general-oriented comment above: it's a tired "really, again?" thing getting on toward the realm of [[WP:DROPTHESTICK|stickiness]] barring actual [[WP:RFCBEFORE|discussion]] that decides whether a proposal is fit to solve whatever problems it aims to solve. Making it harder to elect ArbCom members for a full term is not a win for the health of the committee itself which I am definitely going to posit is not a win for the health of the community given the matters that ArbCom {{em|must}} handle, and changing these percentages or associated durations are likely to have that outcome.
*:Separately, I have to say that the productivity of individual arbs, as at least one measure of goodness of a candidate, has almost 0 correlation to the ending percentage that elects that member. And having been an arb the past two years, I have to say that individual productivity is an important aspect of a candidacy. We have been absent an arb for most of that time and I've felt the drag of less-chronically-absent arbs this year (moreso than last). (There are certainly other factors on which to select one's chosen 7/8 or more come election time.)
*:Speaking particularly to this year's version, no actual problem is posited besides "too many people got above 60%" as I read it. I think Barkeep below said exactly what I wanted to earlier: that looks more like evidence to me that people are getting to choose the candidates they think are suitable or at least good-enough for the role. That is the opposite of a problem. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 00:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*::I understand. And you make some exceptionally valid points.
*::But, for me at least, this isn't about arbitrator activity. It's about having the ''voting'' sytem more aligned with ''community trust''. And with this merely being a hard numbers choice, without the ability for nuance, then I think 60 is the bottom. And if we're getting more candidates than seats who are achieving 60 at the moment, then there shouldn't be an issue. But I don't think we should be adding people just to fill seats. If an election doesn't produce enough people above 60, then we have follow-up options. If the Wikipedia community knows anything, it knows how to hold a discussion on an issue : ) - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 01:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
* I think in some ways the ideal length of term for an arbitrator would be initially 2½ years with subsequent terms being the arb's choice of 1 or 2 years, with terms beginning and ending 6 months after an election. The first 6 months would be a probationary arbitrator (for want of a better term) spent learning the role and finding what it is really like. Probationary arbs would not count towards the size of the committee so there was no penalty or stigma for leaving early if it turns out it isn't for you. At the 6 month mark the whole committee (including the probationary arbs as equal participants) would decide by consensus which of the probationary arbitrators would be staying on to become full arbitrators (which could be anywhere from none to all of them). Once that decision was made those arbs whose terms were expiring would step down (after the conclusion of any ongoing business as now) and the incoming arbs would step up to full. This would fit well with Barkeep's comment above and allow the extended onboarding time that the reduced voting period proposal seeks. This is not a fully-formed idea so is not something I'm proposing this year - not only does it require refinement in various places, consideration of things I've not considered, and there are lots of practical issues that would need to decisions to be made (e.g. regarding transitional arrangements for term start/end dates moving from January to July), and this really isn't the place to discuss it in detail so this is just really just seeking first opinions to determine if it's even worth discussing it further. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Thryduulf|contribs]]) </small>
** Just noting that I did not make this unsigned comment. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 23:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
*Irrespective of this specific proposal, do people think "we have more people qualifying for seats than people who get seats" is a problem or not? Judging by the response this proposal has, people do not generally think that it is, but if it IS a problem then we should look for a solution, right? [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 23:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
*:I think it's great that a small number of people each year cross the 60% threshold and don't get elected. It means the community has a genuine choice its making and is not just settling for someone because that's how many seats there are. And I say this as someonw who was 14 votes short of getting elected the first time I ran. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 23:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
*:I agree with Barkeep49. I think it would be a problem if there were just enough candidates passing the threshold (or not enough), which would indicate that there weren't enough people interested in taking on an arbitrator workload that were also sufficiently trusted by the community. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 00:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*:IIRC I've twice reached the qualifying percentage but not been elected, and while this is frustrating for me personally (and possibly anyone who supported me but not one or more of those finishing higher than me) I agree with Barkeep that more good candidates than seats is a Good Thing. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 00:49, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
:It might be well to explain, for those unfamiliar with the process, that no arb has had a >60% ratio of supports to total voters in recent memory. In last years election, 55.2% of voters supported the candidate with the highest tally; three of the elected candidates had over 50% support from the total electorate. The year before that, the candidate with the most votes had 57.7% of the electorate supporting them, with only two of the elected candidates breaking 50%. The year before that only one successful candidate had over 50% of the electorate supporting them. What artificially inflates the reported percentages (as those who have followed this regularly know) is the "don't care" neutral votes, which are thrown out for purposes of calculating the reported percentages. This is done because in order to validate a vote one must chose either support, neutral, or oppose for ''every'' candidate, so the support percentage is calculated based on a different electorate for each candidate (i.e. only those who either supported or opposed that candidate). Unless I'm mistaken, a candidate receiving 10 support votes, 990 neutral votes, and 0 oppose votes would have a 100% support rate according to ACE math and 1% according to vintage math. I am not saying this is necessarily good or bad, just that it should possibly be explained for those unfamiliar with the system. -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 11:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
::It is explained at [[Wikipedia:5-minute guide to ArbCom elections]] which is prominently linked and is explained when the results table is posted on the main page. Where else do you think it should be because it is important info? And if people weren't forced to vote for each candidate you could still have the 10/990/0 situation. The idea that a neutral vote should count the same as an oppose when calculating the percentage has never made sense to me. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
:::I felt that it needed to be explained <u>here</u>, since this proposal talks about support percentages. Someone having never followed an ArbCom election might think that getting 60% or 70% of the vote is an unreasonably high expectation in order to be elected, not realizing that normal understandings of support percentages do not apply in elections with Schrödinger's voters, who can simultaneously be voters and !voters (part of the electorate and not part of the electorate) when voting on the same slate of candidates. Since by far the largest number of total votes are "don't oppose and don't support", it's always seemed strange to me not to report it, {{small|but then I ''also'' think that the abstention rate should systematically be reported in real world elections with normal (i.e. non-Schrödingerian) voters}}. -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 15:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] changing (in different, often incompatible ways) how we count and/or describe neutral has been proposed a great many times. There has never, to my recollection, been a consensus that there was a problem that needed fixing let alone on a specific proposal for change. Personally, despite the literally dozens of explanations I've read over the years I still don't understand what the problem is actually meant to be. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:11, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
::Why would an editor participate in an RFC about the rules for arbcom elections if they're unfamiliar with the process of arbcom elections? {{Userlinks-abbr|All in}} 🔒 '''[[User:All in|ALL ]][[User talk:All in|IN]]''' 🧿 17:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
*See [[User:Thryduulf/Arbcom election stats#Support percentages since 2013]] for how this change would have impacted previous elections. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
::It would be interesting to see this recalculated based on the full electorate (in standard support %, neutral %, oppose % format). The elected candidate with the lowest percentages in 2013 was supported by 34.0%, opposed by 27.5%, with 38.5% indifferent. So this candidate was not opposed by 44.7% of the total electorate as your table suggests. In fact, it would be wiser to focus on absolute "oppose" percentages for determining confidence in individual candidates, unless of course the "just say no" vote should become a more popular voting tactic (which would likely translate a loss of confidence in ArbCom given that neutral votes are a tacit vote ''for'' the institution). -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 21:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
:::The total electorate has over 40,000 users, so the percentage based on the full electorate is really small. Someone voting neutral for one candidate is in essence joining the large group of non-voters, but just for that candidate. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 22:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
::::I apologize for not using the term ballot-castors for those of us busy beavers who vote. Again, the current system creates impressive-sounding support percentages, but also creates the appearance of worryingly high oppose percentages despite the ballot-castors explicitly having said they didn't see anything to worry about. -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 03:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
:::::You have fundamentally misunderstood what neutral votes mean. The voter is not saying "I don't see anything to worry about" it is saying "I do not wish to express an opinion about this candidate". It is means exactly the same with regard to that candidate as those who did not vote for or against any candidate. It is therefore incorrect to include them in the support or oppose percentages. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
----
{{abottom}}
== Eliminate 1-year term results ==
{{atop|There is '''no consensus''' for this particular proposal. In addition to general disagreement with the idea, editors are concerned that this variant would unbalance the tranche system. See also the closure for the alternative proposals below. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 07:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)}}
Eliminate 1-year term results.
This is a leftover from the past. We no longer have JW choosing arbs following an election.
This will also effectively make 60% the "floor" to be a seated arb. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Support (eliminate 1-year term results) ====
# '''Support''' as nom. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 15:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# We don't use them much, and a two-year term is better for the arbitrators. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 16:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# '''Support in principle''' I don't know exactly how this would be implemented in practice, but seems good to me. – [[User:John M Wolfson|John M Wolfson]] ([[User talk:John M Wolfson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/John M Wolfson|contribs]]) 17:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Terasail|<span style="color:#088; font-weight:800;">Terasail</span>]][[User talk:Terasail|<sup><span style="color:#000;">'''[✉️]'''</span></sup>]] 17:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# '''Support''' with a floor of either 50 or 60% (or somewhere in between). Per my comments elsewhere, a single year is not really enough time on the committee to find ones feet and become a fully productive member of the committee. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#:If both this and the alternate proposal reach consensus, this is my second choice. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 08:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#'''Support''' because I feel confident saying that ''even if this proposal fails, there will never be another person elected between 50%-60% again under the current rules'', so why do we have them anyway? [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 00:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#:See also [[#Eliminate 1-year term results (alternate proposal)]], which is a modified version of this to address some opposing concerns [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 01:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#I opposed this last year, but having spent some time looking at the stats, I prefer 60% as the threshold for everybody. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 18:06, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#Ditch the 50%, use 60%; but keep the terms for tranche balancing. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 19:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#:Just to clarify - As I noted in the discussion below, if a tranche situation arises, that can be addressed. So this obviously doesn't affect/restrict future discussions addressing that. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 20:02, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
# -- 🔥[[User:Illusion Flame|𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆]] [[User talk:Illusion Flame|(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)]]🔥 01:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
#Per [[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]]. I don't see the need for a full slate, and if someone can't get 60% in a secret ballot they probably shouldn't be an arb. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 02:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
#:Whether someone gets 60% or not in an arbcom election depends as much on other candidates, and how many of them there are, as it does on their suitability to be an arbitrator. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 13:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Oppose (eliminate 1-year term results) ====
# Per my above opposition and general comments. NB the other way to "eliminate" one-year terms is to extend the floor back to 50%. As I said, [[WP:DROPTHESTICK|this is sticky]] and needs to stop. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 16:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 17:56, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# No one has explained what happens if this occurs and there is a one-year term on offer to finish out the two-year term of an arb who resigned (and the tranches would otherwise be unbalanced). Since we will inevitably have the occasional one-year term, we should keep the mechanism for handling it in place. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 23:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# Unless another proposal gains consensus support that eliminates the tranche system, I think one-year terms to replace midterm vacancies should remain. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 00:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#No, I don't want to see the cutoff creeping upwards, because I really don't think arbitrary cutoff percentages make sense anyway. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 07:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#To maintain the tranche system. <b>[[User:Callanecc|Callanecc]]</b> ([[User talk:Callanecc|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Callanecc|contribs]] • [[Special:Log/Callanecc|logs]]) 23:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per BlueMoonset. Essentially, this proposal is too broad. As worded, this would eliminate the case where if an arbitrator resigns in the middle of their first year in a two-year term, the arbitrator that succeeds them would serve for one year to maintain the tranche system. No convincing reasons have been provided to discard that system, so I am in the oppose section for this one. If the desire is to eliminate only the case where a candidate between 50–60% support gets a 1-year term, then I would encourage you to support [[#Require 60% minimum support]] below, which more narrowly targets that case. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 21:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
# I agree with Mz7 and BlueMoonset. Inevitably 1 year terms will be needed. [[User:OlifanofmrTennant|OLIfanofmrtennant]]
# Unclear that this solves a problem effectively; see Mz7. '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 18:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
#Unbalancing the tranches is a Bad Thing, per Mz7 and many supporters (who seem to be supporting [[#Require 60% minimum support]]; I have yet to make up my mind on that proposal). [[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|Blaster]]<sup>[[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]</sup> 18:54, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Comments (eliminate 1-year term results) ====
* For context, note that the one-year terms based on support percentage was introduced by the community in 2018 via this discussion: {{section link|Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018|Percentage support needed for appointment}}. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 15:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*:Yes, but the goal there was to raise from 50 to 60. This wasn't the first time we had 1-year terms. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 15:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*::I appreciate that one-year terms may have existed earlier, but they didn't in 2017 (other than mid-term vacancies), and their introduction in 2018 wasn't directly linked by any supporters to earlier practice. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 15:27, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*Question: How would this apply to mid-term vacancies? When Donald Albury stood down last year, his seat swapped tranches because it would not imbalance the tranches. Would that always happen, even if it would result in a six (or fewer) member tranche and a nine (or greater) member tranche? Would the seat remain vacant until it could be filled by a two-year term without imbalancing the tranches? Or would it result in a one-year term? [[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|Blaster]]<sup>[[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]</sup> 22:41, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*:We have one of these RfCs before every election. If a special situation comes up, it can be dealt with at that point. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 22:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
* This was previously proposed (also by jc37) in 2021: [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021#Minimum of 60% to be seated as an arbitrator]]. At the time, it seems the main objection was more towards how late the proposal came in the RfC (with only about a week left) rather than on the merits of the proposal. Looking back at the elections since the rule was created in 2018 (as isaacl pointed out above), it seems that everyone we've appointed has gotten 60%+ support anyway, so there's not a whole lot of data on the pros and cons here. I suspect this will have the most impact in elections where the candidate pool is small—there would be a slightly greater chance that we won't fill all the vacancies if we lift the floor to 60%. Right now, I don't have any view on this proposal—still thinking. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 23:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*:It was [[Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022#Proposal_5:_Minimum_support_to_be_elected|repeated a year later]] where it got a fair shake. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 23:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*::Ah, forgot about that one. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 00:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
*I'm a bit unsure on this one. While the proposal as worded can cause long-term issues by disrupting the tranche system, I could certainly get behind a proposal that has safeguards against lopsided tranches. But yes - a system better than the current one is certainly needed, considering the feelings for one-year terms expressed here and elsewhere. ''[[User:JavaHurricane| <span style = "color:green">Java</span>]][[User talk:JavaHurricane|<span style = "color:red">Hurricane</span>]]'' 14:41, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
*:Without a change to the maximum number of seats that can be elected each year (eight), this change would prevent midyear vacancies from being filled. This situation is not a rare occurrence (there have been four instances since 2018) and thus I think it makes sense to keep the existing rules in place, rather than deal with them on a case-by-case basis when they arise (which can be anytime, including after the elections RfC). [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 16:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
{{abottom}}
== Yearly update prior to the election ==
{{atop|result=Clear consensus '''against''' this proposal in the form proposed. There were, however, some unopposed musings that arbs doing this might be A Good Thing, if done by ArbCom or just as a convention rather than rule. That is, this close should neither to be construed as "the community has said this is a [[WP:BADIDEA]] and you should really think twice before bringing this concept up again" nor "editors may demand any and all sitting arbs affirm they will continue to serve the following year by the authority granted in this RfC". To the extent that there was any consensus <em>for</em> any particular action, I would say that the community does not hate Enterprisey's plan to have ArbCom vote on this internally. <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> [[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|Blaster]]<sup>[[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]</sup> 07:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)}}
Set a time prior to the election, for each sitting arb to say if they will continue to serve in the upcoming year.
By having this as a set part of the process, should reduce possible disruption to the election timeline, among other things. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Support (yearly update prior to the election) ====
# '''Support''' as nom. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Oppose (yearly update prior to the election) ====
# This is a nullity - nothing stops arbitrators from resigning prior to the election if they want to. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 15:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#: While that is also true, what this does is request that all arbs make that affirmation yearly as a set part of the process. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 15:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#:: And what if they don't? It's happened a few times (including in the 2022 elections) than an arbitrator with a non-expiring term has been completely inactive at election time. I guess I could get behind requiring each arbitrator to explicitly say they want to continue their term each year, and removing those who make no answer. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 15:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#:::Well, for this proposal, I'm relying on arbs' good faith willingness to follow process. I suppose someone could add a new proposal adding the requirement you are suggesting. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 15:43, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per Pppery's followup objection. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 16:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 17:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Terasail|<span style="color:#088; font-weight:800;">Terasail</span>]][[User talk:Terasail|<sup><span style="color:#000;">'''[✉️]'''</span></sup>]] 17:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per Pppery. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#'''or what'''? If they are renewing they will apply, if they are not then the election is out of scope for them. No way we're going to disqualify them from the NEXT election if they don't do this years before. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 13:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' per [[WP:CREEP]] {{Userlinks-abbr|All in}} 🔒 '''[[User:All in|ALL ]][[User talk:All in|IN]]''' 🧿 17:37, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
#Explicitly adding this rule sounds like rule creep, but I agree it would be ''desirable'' that arbs did this. [[User:MarioGom|MarioGom]] ([[User talk:MarioGom|talk]]) 06:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Comments (yearly update prior to the election) ====
* While I concur with the opposers that this is out of scope for this RfC, it's a good idea, so I'll try to get arbcom to vote on something like this ourselves. [[User:Enterprisey|Enterprisey]] ([[User talk:Enterprisey|talk!]]) 06:13, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
{{abot}}
== Set term to 3 years, with yearly assertion ==
{{closed rfc top|Clear [[WP:SNOW]] consensus '''against''' this proposal. Concerns were raised about burnout, arbs not serving full terms when three year terms were previously a thing, and lack of problems with the current two-year terms (c.f. [[WP:AINTBROKE]]). <small>([[Wikipedia:Non-admin closure|non-admin closure]])</small> [[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|Blaster]]<sup>[[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]</sup> 17:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)}}
Set max term length to 3 years, with affirmation every year.
(basically, same as the above proposal, but setting the max from 2 years to 3 years.)
So after year 1/prior to year 2, at a set time prior to the election, each sitting arb to say if they will continue to serve in the upcoming year. And the same thing the following year.
No arb is or would be "required" to serve out 3 years, this merely provides the option, while also providing arbs the set, yearly opportunity to leave service on the committee, at their discernment.
==== Support (set term to 3 years, with yearly assertion) ====
# '''Support''' as nom. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 14:52, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 15:12, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Oppose (set term to 3 years, with yearly assertion) ====
# Per Barkeep's earlier commentary. If the yearly assertion were separable, that might be worthwhile discussing. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 16:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#:What do you mean by "separable"? - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 16:31, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#::A yearly assertion could have been discussed entirely separate to a specific proposal like this one which moves the term goalposts ''also''. These proposals aren't ''separable'', meaning you have to discuss the entire package rather than the atomic proposal. (This has its pros and cons.) One con is that I must oppose this proposal in toto rather than just the part that I am concerned with, which is changing the maximum term length. I would be interested to see an RFC question similar to Pppery's second comment ({{tq|I guess I could get behind requiring each arbitrator to explicitly say they want to continue their term each year, and removing those who make no answer.}}) as I think this would have some other positive benefits (and likely some negative ones as well, but at least I can see it as worth discussing further). [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 16:38, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#:::For the first part, that's what the proposal directly above was supposed to be (so I'm confused by your opposition there). For the second, I agree that Pppery's idea is interesting. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 16:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#::::I opposed there because your proposal there is not ultimately feasible. That's why I said "Per Pppery". [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 16:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#:::::I think trusting arbs to follow procees in good faith, is feasible. That said, I appreciate and understand that a more pragmatic approach may be necessary. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 17:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#::::::I think trusting {{em|absent}} arbs to follow any process in any faith is infeasible. Planning solely for [[Happy path|sunny days]] is pretty well established not to work out. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 17:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per my comments in a previous section. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#:I thought your opposition was that you didn't think others would support 3 years, not that you opposed it. What did I miss? - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 16:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#::I think the arb needs to declare the term they want to serve at the time of election so the community can make a decision accordingly. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 16:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#::As a note I also think such a thing could make a non-admin Arb more likely as it makes the "stakes" of electing one lower. For me this would be a good thing. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 17:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# I just don't see any good reason for this [[User:Terasail|<span style="color:#088; font-weight:800;">Terasail</span>]][[User talk:Terasail|<sup><span style="color:#000;">'''[✉️]'''</span></sup>]] 17:59, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Frostly|Frostly]] ([[User talk:Frostly|talk]]) 19:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# Because the two portions are combined, and per Barkeep. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# Three years is too long; two years is plenty. [[User:BlueMoonset|BlueMoonset]] ([[User talk:BlueMoonset|talk]]) 23:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# I don't see any problem with the current 2-year terms. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 07:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
# Nope, 2 years is long enough. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 19:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
# Two years is too long (but far more practical than one year), three is right out. ~ [[User:Pbritti|Pbritti]] ([[User talk:Pbritti|talk]]) 17:19, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
#What I've read about three-year terms from ArbCom archives as well as from past Arbs suggests that three year terms are simply not a good idea - even with the yearly confirmations. ''[[User:JavaHurricane| <span style = "color:green">Java</span>]][[User talk:JavaHurricane|<span style = "color:red">Hurricane</span>]]'' 14:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
# Bad idea for a number of reasons, from too much power to conducive to burn out.<small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 04:42, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
# Way too much. [[User:NotAGenious|NotAGenious]] ([[User talk:NotAGenious|talk]]) 05:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Comments (set term to 3 years, with yearly assertion) ====
*We moved away from 3 year terms because people were regularly resigning halfway through their terms. We still have this issue with 2-year terms (or worse yet, people *not* resigning when they've been inactive for months). Agreeing to commit three years of one's volunteer life to a potentially very challenging job isn't the big draw that some people think it might be. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 07:01, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
*:Which is why I phrased it the way I did. We also have had people stay on for multiple terms as well. So some editors at least were willing to go for more than 2 years. So the idea for this is to basically have someone go through 1 election, but before the next year's election, decide if they are staying on the following year. With a max of 3 years before needing to go through another election. So each each arb could be seated for 1, 2, or 3 years, at their own discernment. But that seemed to get lost somewhere above. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 08:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
{{closed rfc bottom}}
== Election requirements for non-admins ==
{{Discussion top|reason=Withdrawing; [[WP:SNOW]] consensus against. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 10:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)}}
When one or more non-admins meet the minimum required percentage of support to be eligible to sit on ARBCOM, the non-admin who received the most support will be elected regardless of where they otherwise rank.
==== Support (Election requirements for non-admins) ====
# As nom. Non-admins bring a different perspective to the table than admins do; it would be beneficial to ARBCOM's ability to resolve problems to have that perspective at the table, and this proposal makes it more likely that it will have that perspective. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 17:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Oppose (Election requirements for non-admins) ====
# Per [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022#Proposal 10 B: Require at least 1 non-admin (detailed)|my comments when this was proposed in 2022]] [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 17:36, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' - adminship is merely an extra set of tools and responsibilities. All admins are also "non-admins", in that they can do and experience everything someone without those tools and responsibilities can. Besides that, I oppose anyone being seated below the community-established threshold for a seat. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 17:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#:Ideally, adminship would just be an extra set of tools and responsibilities, but in practice many treat it as significantly more despite [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]]; in relation to ARBCOM this has lead to concerns like the [[WP:SUPERMARIO|Super Mario effect]].
#:{{tq|Besides that, I oppose anyone being seated below the community-established threshold for a seat.}} I think you misunderstood the proposal; this would only seat a non-admin if they {{tq|meet the minimum required percentage of support to be eligible to sit on ARBCOM}}; in other words, if they meet the community-established threshold for a seat of at least 50% support (60% for a two year term). [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 17:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#::I'm not sure we have the same understanding of "community-established threshold". The threshold is the top X vote-getters ''that receive at least 50% support''. Both elements need to be met. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 22:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# I also once had sympathy for this idea, but a) either the "admin" vs. "non-admin" distinction is meaningless, in which case this "[[affirmative action]]" should not matter, or b) it is meaningful, in which case people who have the mop are more specialized towards arbitration matters and are thus better suited for ArbCom, especially since arbs are ''ex officio'' granted CU and OS permissions that even most admins do not possess. If anything, I would rather formalize a requirement for adminship to serve on the committee. – [[User:John M Wolfson|John M Wolfson]] ([[User talk:John M Wolfson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/John M Wolfson|contribs]]) 17:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#I think a candidate who gets ~50% of the vote shouldn't get a 10%+ point boost because they have chosen to not become an admin (or because they don't have support of the 70%+ of the RfA electorate). The will of the elctorate should be respected. Even the 6% difference between the highest non-admin and the lowest elected arb from last year's election would be pushing it in terms of respecting the many many many voters ACE gets but I could maybe see that. But this goes too far for me. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:53, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 17:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Terasail|<span style="color:#088; font-weight:800;">Terasail</span>]][[User talk:Terasail|<sup><span style="color:#000;">'''[✉️]'''</span></sup>]] 18:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# If the voters want a non-admin, then they should vote for them. If they don't, then they shouldn't vote for them. Voters are smart enough to make a decision as to which people they want on the committee—there's no need to reserve a seat in advance. — [[User:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">Red-tailed hawk</span>]] <sub>[[User talk:Red-tailed hawk|<span style="color: #660000">(nest)</span>]]</sub> 20:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# ^That. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 20:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# Red-tailed hawk said what I was going to say, but they said it better (and far more concisely). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# The candidates with the highest level of support from the community should be the ones appointed. I would stop short of actually formalizing an adminship requirement for being an arbitrator, but I believe that having administrative experience makes one a better arbitrator, especially because much of what the Arbitration Committee does is review administrative actions. [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 22:46, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#Maybe if there was more than one non-admin who 1. wanted to be an arbitrator and 2. actually has a chance of getting more than 50% support, I'd change my mind. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 01:46, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#:Both Smcandlish and Robert McClennon have run multiple times and gotten above 50% in each. So there's at least 2. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 03:11, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#::See [[User:Thryduulf/Non-admin arbitration committee candidates]] for details of all the non-admin candidates since 2014. In that time period 7 non-admin candidates have finished with more than 50% support, last year Robert McClenon achieved more than 60% support. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 08:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Comments (Election requirements for non-admins) ====
*{{re|BilledMammal}} do you mean for a 1 year or 2 year term (assuming status quo there)? Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 17:33, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
**The status quo. If they receive between 50% and 60% they will always receive a 1 year term; if they receive greater than 60% then they will receive a 2 year term, unless there is a seat limited to a 1 year term and they received the lowest support of the elected candidates, in which case they will receive a 1 year term. [[User:BilledMammal|BilledMammal]] ([[User talk:BilledMammal|talk]]) 17:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
* I suggested last year that we ask this question to the voters themselves instead of pre-deciding it in the RfC. [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 17:58, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
{{Discussion bottom}}
== Require yearly update before each election ==
{{Discussion top|reason=Closing as apparently out-of-scope. Feel free to revert close if appropriate. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 23:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)}}
Set a time prior to the election, for each sitting arb to say if they will continue to serve in the upcoming year.
So after year 1/prior to year 2, at a set time prior to the election, each sitting arb to say if they will continue to serve in the upcoming year.
No arb is, or would be, "required" to serve out 2 years, this merely provides the option, while also providing arbs the set, yearly opportunity to leave service on the committee, at their discernment.
If an arb does not affirm prior to the timeframe set in process (prior to the election), then, that shall be treated as a voluntary termination of their service on the committee.
(added this option per discussion above) - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 17:17, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Support (yearly update before each election) ====
# [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 17:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Oppose (yearly update before each election) ====
# This is not related to the rules for running an election; ACERFC has no authority on sitting arbitrators, only on candidates for the Arbitration Committee. It may be appropriate to *encourage* arbitrators with a 2-year term to indicate prior to the commencement of voting if they decide to resign at the end of the first year of that term; however, given that the majority of resignations occur mid-cycle, it isn't even all that useful. As to an arbitrator whose term is coming to an end, they need to put their candidacy forward at the same time as everyone else, as is appropriate. If they don't make the cut-off date/time for candidacy, then they have clearly indicated that they do not intend to run for another term. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 22:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per Risker, this proposal is in the wrong place (it would need to be in arbitration policy) and it also won't really bring any benefits or disbenefits so it would be pretty pointless even in the right place. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:22, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#:There would have been a benefit for the current committee had this rule been in place last year. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 22:26, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
#In addition to being out of scope (as Risker says), I don't see any need for this, or any past problem that it might solve. And, in a volunteer community, people are allowed to change their minds any time they want. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 07:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#This is a good idea, but out of scope. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 12:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#Seconding QuicoleJR. I want this, but we're here to determine how to run the election. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 21:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Comments (yearly update before each election) ====
* I don't think I would hate this, but it is not obvious to me that ACERFC has authority to decide how currently-sitting arbs may or must act. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 21:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
*:{{+1}} [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 21:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
{{discussion bottom}}
== Eliminate 1-year term results (alternate proposal) ==
{{atop|There is '''no consensus''' for this particular proposal. Quite a few opposes don't explain why this version is worse than the status quo, but regardless it clearly didn't receive sufficient support to be successful. It might fare better in a year with fewer alternative proposals on this topic—or, then again, it might not. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 07:59, 1 October 2023 (UTC)}}
Eliminate 1-year term results by making 50% the floor to be elected to a 2-year term. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 01:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Support (alternate elimination of 1-year results) ====
#It seems the main reason people oppose eliminating the 1-year term from 50-60% is a concern that there may not be enough people reaching 60% to fill seats. (My opinion is that people are very unlikely to be elected to a seat with between 50% and 60% in the near future anyway.) So, this is a support per my supports for the previous two proposals relating to dealing with the existence of 1-year seats. To clarify, this is my second preference to the first proposal. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 01:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#Please construe this comment as a !vote for eliminating one-year terms and imposing the highest vote-support floor that has consensus on the remaining two-year terms. – [[User:John M Wolfson|John M Wolfson]] ([[User talk:John M Wolfson|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/John M Wolfson|contribs]]) 03:21, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#I don't think the current 1/2-year, 50%/60%, rules contribute anything other than unnecessary complication.[[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 07:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#Per Boing! and my comments on the other proposal to eliminate 1-year terms. In the event of both proposals gaining consensus, this one is my first choice. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 08:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#: <s>[[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 12:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)</s>
# I agree that this contributes unnecessary complication. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 17:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#: To provide a little more context to my thinking about removing the 1-year terms in favor of 2-year terms at 50%: to me, the primary damage done by someone who shouldn't be on the committee getting on is somewhere along 2 prongs: 1) access to private data (both collated as on arbcom-en and other mailing lists and uncollated as in CUOS), and 2) slowing the committee down. The first is an issue as soon as they're on the committee, so whether it's 1 or 2 years is irrelevant. So, it's just a question of whether 2 is enough to have this separate tier of members. Ultimately, I don't think the electorate can meaningfully do much about that either given how much time a year is. For extreme and obvious disruption, ArbCom can kick a member off and strip their permissions. And to me, it falls into a lot of noise of "we have 15 cats and getting them to all go in the same direction is an issue regardless of whether 1 of the cats is on the committee in bad faith - even in the case of public or private completely-split decisions". So again, the not-math falls out that I don't see a need for the second tier of members. We also have the list of users less than 60% (see my comment from last year's RFC) that would seem to indicate that the users elected with less than 60% have not been ''especially'' problematic as to warrant a status of, uh, "trainee"/"apprentice"/whatever one might call a temporary position relative to another position arb members. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 19:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#Honestly, I've come around to the view (which I opposed last year) that we should have a 60% threshold for all arbitrators; but I can see the logic in simplifying the term limits. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 18:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Frostly|Frostly]] ([[User talk:Frostly|talk]]) 21:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
:<s>[[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 09:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)</s> <small>(moved to oppose)</small>
==== Oppose (alternate elimination of 1-year results) ====
# '''Oppose''' - anything that reduces community support below 60%. These are [[WP:CON|un-nuanced results]]. And if by "numbers alone", then we should ''at least'' match the long-held threshholds at [[WP:RfA]], as this is merely another process for entrusting individuals with additional tools and responsibilities. Which, by the way, includes [[WP:OS]] and [[WP:CU]]. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 18:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#:Result percentages at RFA and ACE are not at all comparable. The former is a public discussion of rationales that has some vote-like elements where everyone can see your comment, including anything you bold, and ask you to justify it or explain it better, etc. The latter is a pure secret ballot where nobody knows how you voted or why you voted. An arbcom election has a finite number of seats available and some (possibly most) voters will support only that many candidates (at most) and oppose the others, regardless of the suitability or otherwise of those candidates. An RFA is only about the individual standing, tactical voting is not possible. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 18:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#::I understand your perspective, but the fact that these aren't comments where ''"... everyone can see your comment, including anything you bold, and ask you to justify it or explain it better, etc."'', or in other words, that [[WP:CON]] has been removed from the process, strengthens why I would not support lowering the threshhold. And "tactical voting" is very much possible at RfA. Just in a different way. It's long been noted that (merely from a "vote count" perspective) 1 oppose basically offsets 3 supports. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 18:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#::If my math is correct, the mean number of candidates supported in 2022 was 5.07 and in 2021 was 4.39. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 18:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#:::None of that, whether correct or otherwise, changes the fact that the two processes are very different and so comparing percentages is like comparing apples and oranges. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 20:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per Jc37. [[User:QuicoleJR|QuicoleJR]] ([[User talk:QuicoleJR|talk]]) 18:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
# I don't really mind whether 1-year terms are kept or not, but I'm concerned about lowering the threshold for two years to 50%. ACE is a vote and not a consensus discussion, but I'd like to see more confidence in candidates beyond what is basically a 50/50 split, especially for a position with such responsibility. <span style="font-family:'Tahoma'; color:#005494">[[User:Giraffer|Giraffer]] <sup>([[User talk:Giraffer|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Giraffer|contribs]])</sup></span> 18:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#Nope, 50% is too low for what ends up being lifetime CUOS appointment. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 19:32, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#:I agree, but a one-year term is just as much a lifetime CUOS appointment. Opposing this won't change that. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 19:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#::I don't want to expand the "problem" - noted above I think we should raise them all to 60%. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 19:49, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
# 50% should be moved away from not moved towards. 50% is a stalemate and shows 1 in every two people disagree with appointing a candidate. [[User:Terasail|<span style="color:#088; font-weight:800;">Terasail</span>]][[User talk:Terasail|<sup><span style="color:#000;">'''[✉️]'''</span></sup>]] 21:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
# See my comments below. It wasn't acceptable to accept 50% when it was first proposed, and history shows that there's no need for a 50% bar. I don't care one way or another about one-year terms. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 06:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per xaosflux. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 02:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per xaosflux. Admins seeking CU/OS have to first pass RFA, with its expected 70% support threshold in an open election, and then also pass suitability vetting by ArbCom with feedback from the community. Elected arbs have both handed to them automatically. I still personally don't see the wisdom in giving those sensitive permissions at all to arbs who haven't also gone through the same vetting, at any vote percentage. And yes RFA ''is'' a vote - the plain numerical result determines the outcome, except in a very narrow range of percentages and even then the percentage influences bureaucrat discussion. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 21:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 00:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 06:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 12:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
# No appointments at all between 50 and 59 would be my preference. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 13:44, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Comments (alternate elimination of 1-year results) ====
*I know John Wolfson made mention of this but this is a two-part proposal. It eliminates a one-year term ''and'' it changes the support % needed for a two-year term to 50%. Since the other comments have just been about one-year terms I would like a check from those two ({{ping|Boing! said Zebedee}} and {{u|Thryduulf}} (and not the third because it offers no reason). [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 14:57, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
*:I haven't really seen any benefit in 1-year terms since we've had them, so I think getting rid of them is worth doing in itself. These days, I also think having high minimum pass cutoffs is misguided, and I support a reduction to 50%.<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Boing! said Zebedee|contribs]]) 15:19, September 11, 2023 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Xsign -->
*:Yes, I agree with both parts of this proposal. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 17:56, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
* I want to voice this, because I think we're all taking it as an assumption based on the framing of this proposal: 1-year terms are still pertinent for the "filling the other tranche" case. Disprovable statement about which: This proposal does not seek to modify how that part of how ACE functions. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 19:22, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
*:Right - as I said "somewhere" above, we have these RfCs every year. So if a tranche situation happens, that can be addressed on the case-by-case basis as usual. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 19:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
*::Arbitrators leaving before their second year is not unusual, with four occurrences since 2018, so with the current two-term system in place, it's reasonable to continue with the current rules, rather than seek to re-enact them on a case-by-case basis. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 21:01, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
*::I don't think what you said there answers why casual made the proposal and whether my supposition is actually a true one, despite that you used the word "right".... [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 01:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
* Don't care much one way or the other about one-year terms, but I'd rather see minimum acceptable percentage of support elevated to 60% for any seat. I wasn't thrilled with the 50% reduction in the first place. If we are consistently not getting sufficient candidates to fill 15 seats with 60% support, then it's time to determine if there's (a) a need for 15 seats, or (b) grounds for rethinking the Arbcom policy entirely.<p>Incidentally, it may be time to stop granting CU/OS permissions automatically, and instead grant new arbs the same permissions as Ombuds have (i.e., read permissions for the actions and logs). Then those arbs who really want the permissions will be able to put their name forward at the same time as everyone else when CU/OS appointments happen. Wouldn't be surprised if half the committee said "no thanks"; there have always been a lot of arbs who never really use those permissions. This would, of course, require a community consensus separate to this discussion. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 21:43, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
*:All of that sounds like a good idea. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 22:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
*:Actually, in every year since 2018 there's been at least two people reaching 60% who didn't get a seat because there wasn't enough room - methinks we should maybe expand the committee, but that's not exactly viable to discuss on this page for a plethora of reasons. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 02:07, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
*::Or maybe it could be something like "eliminate 1 year terms and tranches, everyone who gets more than 60% gets elected and ArbCom is however big it is with no set size." That would be a radical change but also a potential one. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 02:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::See [[Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023#A radical and perhaps ridiculous idea for next year]] where I've expanded on this. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 19:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
*:With respect Risker, this would require ArbCom consensus separate to this discussion as granting of CUOS is part of ArbCom's remit per scope and responsibility 5. Absent an amendment to ArbPol, the community of course could suggest/urge/petition (choose the verb you like best) the committee to do so. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
*::Not sure if this is really correct. To this point, the community has not realized that it can create the rules under which Arbcom should be making those appointments. There's nothing in ArbPol or anywhere else that says CU/OS is an automatic grant for arbitrators. It became that way because back in 2009 we didn't have any other way to ensure that arbitrators signed an NDA. (True story.) That has since been rectified. Of course it is not the whole story; prior to 2009, Arbcom took very little interest in actually monitoring use of CU/OS, and having all the arbs properly accredited made it easier to do so. At the same time, the AUSC was created to more closely monitor and address issues. So...most of the monitoring is now done by active CU and OS with reports to Arbcom if there are concerns. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 15:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::I always appreciate the institutional history. I genuinely didn't know that and I really enjoy learning these things. But while that might have been the origin of the language, {{tqq|To approve and remove access to (i) CheckUser and Oversight tools and (ii) mailing lists maintained by the Arbitration Committee.}} feels pretty categorical to me and I don't see anywhere else in our related policies to suggest that the community also could make its own appointments/requirements. [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 15:54, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::[[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight|The relevant policy]] states {{tpq|In accordance with Wikimedia global policies ([[metawiki:CheckUser|meta:CheckUser]] and [[metawiki:Oversight|meta:Oversight]]), the committee retains jurisdiction over the granting and revoking of access to these advanced permissions.}} I suppose it is possible, at least in theory, for the community to modify [[WP:ARBPOL|ARBPOL]] to put additional limits on who they can appoint, but it would need to be carefully worded. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 16:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
*See [[User:Thryduulf/Arbcom election stats#Support percentages since 2013]] for how the change to support percentage would have impacted previous elections. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
{{abottom}}
== Require 60% minimum support ==
{{atop|There is '''no consensus''' for this proposal. Both sides make reasonable arguments, and while numerically we're at a point where it's sometimes possible to see a consensus, this isn't one of those cases. Notably, participation here is quite low even compared to other questions in this very RfC, and the topic is sufficiently high-stakes that "64% of the 25 people who happened to scroll down this far" just isn't a sufficient mandate for change. This is especially true given that an identical proposal [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022#Proposal 5: Minimum support to be elected|was rejected last year]] in a higher-participation discussion; while some editors' positions have changed, this brief and divided discussion is not enough to show that community consensus has changed as well. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 08:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)}}
Require minumum of 60% for any and all arbcom seats.
The various above proposals add various things. So here's the straight-foarward question. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 22:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Support (Require 60% minimum support) ====
# '''Support''' as nom. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 22:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#'''Support''' per all of the above nonsense [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 02:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
# '''Support''' per my statement above. This bar was too low when it was set, and it's too low now. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker|talk]]) 06:55, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Иованъ|Ivan]] ([[User talk:Иованъ|talk]]) 09:21, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
#Per my comments above. Prefer this since I'm theoretically fine with mid-year replacements, but I'd support whatever proposal leads to a de facto or de jure 60%. [[User:TonyBallioni|TonyBallioni]] ([[User talk:TonyBallioni|talk]]) 02:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
#Seems reasonable for lifetime CUOS appointments. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 13:39, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
# See my oppose at #alternate elimination of 1-year results [[User:Terasail|<span style="color:#088; font-weight:800;">Terasail</span>]][[User talk:Terasail|<sup><span style="color:#000;">'''[✉️]'''</span></sup>]] 18:06, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per xaosflux here and per xaosflux in the section above. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 21:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Pppery|* Pppery *]] [[User talk:Pppery|<sub style="color:#800000">it has begun...</sub>]] 00:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Dreamy Jazz|Dreamy <i style="color:#d00">'''Jazz'''</i>]] <sup>''[[User talk:Dreamy Jazz|talk to me]]'' | ''[[Special:Contribs/Dreamy Jazz|my contributions]]''</sup> 06:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
#I think this is somewhat redundant to the above, but yes, I support it. Not because there's something special about the 60% threshold; it's arbitrary, as any threshold is going to be; but looking at historical results and support percentages, 60% seems to me an appropriate calibration. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 22:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
# [[User:Firefly|<span style="color:#850808;">firefly</span>]] <small>( [[User talk:Firefly|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Firefly|c]] )</small> 12:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
# <span style="font-family:'Tahoma'; color:#005494">[[User:Giraffer|Giraffer]] <sup>([[User talk:Giraffer|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Giraffer|contribs]])</sup></span> 14:18, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
#Given taking an Arbcom seat comes with CU/OS access for essentially forever (baring inactivity or misconduct), yes, I support a minimum of 60% for election. [[User:Courcelles|Courcelles]] ([[User talk:Courcelles|talk]]) 13:43, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
# Support. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">[[User:Volunteer Marek|<span style="color:orange;background:blue;font-family:sans-serif;">''' Volunteer Marek '''</span>]]</span></small> 04:44, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per everyone else. [[User:NotAGenious|NotAGenious]] ([[User talk:NotAGenious|talk]]) 05:24, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Oppose (Require 60% minimum support) ====
# Per my comments in the various other places on this page support percentages are being discussed. There is no evidence that arbitrators getting between 50% and 60% are any better or worse than arbitrators who get over 60% support. There are problems with arbcom, this will not solve any of them. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:30, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
#There's no need for any minimum in a multi-seat election, except for keeping out trolls etc when there's only a small number of candidates. And 50% has served us fine for that. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 03:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
#:I also wonder, would a 50% or 60% cutoff actually have made any difference in any past ArbCom election? (It's 04:30 here, and any attempt to check would almost certainly send me to sleep ;-) [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 03:31, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
# Per my previous commentary. [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 03:30, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
# '''Oppose''' Existing rule is acceptable and does not need to be changed. {{Userlinks-abbr|All in}} 🔒 '''[[User:All in|ALL ]][[User talk:All in|IN]]''' 🧿 17:52, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' 50% (according to ACEmath) is fine: trust the ballotcasters to "just vote no" rather than to vote milquetoast when unsure. That said, counting ''all'' the votes would be much wiser. -- [[User:SashiRolls | SashiRolls]] <sup>[[User_talk:SashiRolls | 🌿 ]] · [[Special:Contributions/SashiRolls| 🍥]]</sup> 03:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
#'''Oppose''' Don't see what problem this is trying to solve. [[User:Pawnkingthree|Pawnkingthree]] ([[User talk:Pawnkingthree|talk]]) 17:40, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
#'''oppose''' could lead to too many problems, I don't think this solves anything. [[User:Hobit|Hobit]] ([[User talk:Hobit|talk]]) 20:08, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
#'''Oppose'''. Given the nature of ArbCom elections, candidates with more than c.55% have consensus support to several on the Committee. I am happy with a cut-off at 50% and could see moving it up a bit to 52.5 or 55 but not all the way to 60. [[User:Eluchil404|Eluchil404]] ([[User talk:Eluchil404|talk]]) 05:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
# Because of the degree of strategic voting, the percentages (in absolute not relative terms) are driven not just by the community's trust in a candidate but also the number of people in the candidate pool. The percentages don't really make sense as percentages per se, and we shouldn't treat the percentages similarly to other areas on Wikipedia. Best, '''[[User:L235|KevinL]]''' (<small>aka</small> [[User:L235|L235]] '''·''' [[User talk:L235#top|t]] '''·''' [[Special:Contribs/L235|c]]) 18:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
==== Comments (Require 60% minimum support) ====
* How is this not a duplicate proposal of [[#Eliminate 1-year term results]]? [[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 22:51, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
*:Because this specific proposal does not eliminate 1-year terms. This is ''only'' about the percentage for any seat. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 23:23, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
*::I'm still confused. If this proposal passed, how could someone get elected to a 1 year term? <span style="font-family:'Tahoma'; color:#005494">[[User:Giraffer|Giraffer]] <sup>([[User talk:Giraffer|talk]]·[[Special:Contributions/Giraffer|contribs]])</sup></span> 17:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::Potential 1-year seats due to vacancies, etc. - <b>[[User:Jc37|jc37]]</b> 18:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
*::::I was thinking of proposing that we fill the vacancies from the top vote percentage down, i.e. if there are 3 2-year vacancies and 2 1-year vacancies, and 4 candidates are elected, the top 3 get the 2-year seats and the last gets one of the 1-year seats, with the remaining seat left vacant. But I think that might already be how it works, and so it would be moot. [[User:Ivanvector|Ivanvector]] (<sup>[[User talk:Ivanvector|Talk]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ivanvector|Edits]]</sub>) 21:34, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::::Yes, seats are filled in decreasing order of support percentage. If the number of people over 60% run out before the number of two-year seats, then the remaining two-year seats are left vacant. If there are more people over 60% than the number of two-year seats, then the remainder will be seated in any available one-year seats. If 60% is set as a minimum for all seats, then no more allocation will be done after all the people over 60% are seated. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 22:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
*:These proposals are all starting to interlock with each other in complicated ways that will probably punt this off to next year if we aren't careful. That's what this proposal is trying to remedy. [[User talk:Casualdejekyll|<span style="color:#E6007A">casualdejekyll</span>]] 02:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
*::That seems to be what jc37 wants, they have said that they're okay with using this annual rfc to deal with issues as they arise (rather than, you know, leaving them as is until an issue arises). {{Userlinks-abbr|All in}} 🔒 '''[[User:All in|ALL ]][[User talk:All in|IN]]''' 🧿 17:54, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
*See [[User:Thryduulf/Arbcom election stats#Support percentages since 2013]] for how this change would have impacted previous elections. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 09:40, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
*:Hmm, so nobody has been elected with between 50% and 60% since one in 2014 and one in 2013 (and back then there were more candidates, which usually means lower percentages in a multi-seat election). Not the most pressing problem facing ArbCom, then. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 11:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
*::As you note, the percentage support depends in part on the number of candidates (and number of seats available) so when it becomes an issue is completely unpredictable. Almost everybody thinks a large number of candidates is a Good Thing so when we solve the small field issue we'll be back to this mattering. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 11:57, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::Or we'll still be in the same state where the actual percentage vote in a multi-seat election is not a reliable indicator of individual candidate quality, but reflects the number of candidates and voting tactics (with the latter often changing depending on the former). But I guess we'll still have to face the people who really don't understand the differences between a multi-seat election like ArbCom and a single-candidate yes/no choice like RfA, and will keep on pushing to raise the percentages. Oh well, experience shows that the percentage cutoff really doesn't make any difference to ArbCom performance, so I guess it doesn't matter. [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 12:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
*::::My rationale for switching to supporting a 60% threshold (I opposed it last year, per your comment) is that we've seen a relative scarcity of candidates in more recent elections. With an abundance of candidates the floor percentage doesn't come into play, but with a number of candidates comparable to the number of available seats, it easily could. And there's at least a few candidates who've fallen in that 50-60 range that I wouldn't want to see as arbs, whereas there were no instances where candidates I considered good were in that range ''and'' there weren't enough "good" candidates making the 60% cutoff. I fully agree the number is arbitrary, and not comparable at all to an RFA support percentage; but we're essentially calibrating a filter, and based on past data I'd like to calibrate it higher. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] ([[User Talk:Vanamonde93|Talk]])</span> 16:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
{{abottom}}
== Clarification Exclusion of Ombuds ==
{{atop|Clarification has been provided; if there's a desire to change [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Prohibition of multiple roles]] and/or [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 159#RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators]], this would not be the right place to do it. [[User:Extraordinary Writ|Extraordinary Writ]] ([[User talk:Extraordinary Writ|talk]]) 08:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)}}
I would like to request a clear reasoning for the exclussion of current Ombuds from running for ArbCom. I have read your past discussions of this now archived and am aware it is current policy. My reasons for asking are I am interested in being a part of ArbCom however I am the current Chair of the Ombuds Commission. Clearly I am also not a current admin here and that too has its issues with being el;ected but I am aware and understand those, I accept this fact alone could impair my chances.
Anyway I see that in the past there was concern that there may be overlap between the Ombuds functions and ArbCom and although there is some truth to this as a potential, in practice it would not happen as no Ombud may be involved in a case for which their can be a perceived Conflict of Interest. As such current Ombuds such as AGK and JJMC89 cannot investigate English Wikipedia cases. Technically ENWP is not my home wiki though as I have edited here significantly I also avoid ENWP cases for myself.
Clearly as Chair I have additional responsibilities at OC however, I am stepping down as Chair at the end of this term (January) and will not be retaking it, I have served as chair for 2 years its someone elses turn I believe. I am not trying to sell myself here at this point, just acknowledging that there are issues so the answers here can address the issue of crossover roles between Ombuds and ArbCom.
In anycase I would like to propose that ArbCom should look at these issues on a case by case basis and allow the election to sort this issue. If people genuinely believe it creates a COI they can vote against any nomination for a current OC which of course should be declared by any nominee. This would remove it as effectively precluding any options to discuss this issue in an election rather than have it as an automatic exclsusion. I believe Ombuds can actually bring some investigative experience and benefit to the operations of the ArbCom. I can always leave nominating for this till I leave the OC I have proposed this so I can determine if I can nominate or must wait till a later date. I appreciate some discussion of this at least thank you. [[User:Faendalimas|<span style="color: #004730">Scott Thomson</span>]] (<small class="nickname">Faendalimas</small>) <sup>[[User talk:Faendalimas|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]</sup> 22:07, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Added per {{u|Thryduulf}} I would like to propose the changing of the policy prevluding the nomination of Ombuds to permit it on condition their involvement on that Commission is declared and addressed in their nomination. It would then go to the election on whether this is an acceptable conflict. [[User:Faendalimas|<span style="color: #004730">Scott Thomson</span>]] (<small class="nickname">Faendalimas</small>) <sup>[[User talk:Faendalimas|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]</sup> 22:48, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
=== Support (Exclusion of ombuds) ===
#
=== Oppose (Exclusion of ombuds) ===
#
=== Comments (Exclusion of ombuds) ===
*It's unclear to me what this proposal exactly is, and thus what support and oppose mean in context. Please could you add a single sentence explicitly proposing something that can be supported or opposed. [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
*Regarding the topic in general, I think it is important that there is an independents ombudsman corps; that their members would have to recuse from cases on the largest project is something I don't see as desirable. That being said, like the UCOC stuff above, I think this prohibition probably belongs more in the arbcom policy (e.g. You may not be on the committee at all while in such a conflict) - not in the election rules, meaning if that rule was there and you were elected and then chose to accept the committee posting you would have to resign. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 18:59, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
*:The rules page just documents what was decided in the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 159#RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators|corresponding policy Village pump discussion]]. The community reached a consensus agreement that arbitrators could not simultaneously serve on the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or the ombuds commission. Elected arbitrators are duty-bound to follow this community consensus. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 21:29, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
*::I 100% agree it's community consensus and it's one I have (and will) respect. However, I think the community can't actually make it a binding consensus outside of an amendment to ArbPol and I don't think ArbCom can make it a binding consensus via procedures - which is where it lives now - either. Perhaps this is what you mean by "duty-bound" but perhaps not since the CRC membership is secret in a way ombuds is not and so perhaps that's what's referred to there. Best, [[User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] ([[User_talk:Barkeep49|talk]]) 21:56, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::I mean that since I know the community doesn't want someone to serve in both roles simultaneously, and since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, I should comply. [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 22:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
*::There is a difference between prohibiting elected arbitrators from serving on either or both those bodies and from prohibiting arbcom ''candidates'' from serving on either body. If the prohibition is restricted to elected arbs (my preference) then a candidate would need to declare that, if elected, they would need to resign their membership of the other body before their term as arbitrator began (although I'd personally be fine with allowing someone to serve out a term that ended on or before 1 January). [[User:Thryduulf|Thryduulf]] ([[User talk:Thryduulf|talk]]) 22:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
*:::The village pump consensus did not refer to candidates; the consensus was against simultaneously serving. The closing statement begins as follows: {{tq|There is consensus in this discussion that '''current members of the Arbitration Committee may not simultaneously serve on either the Trust and Safety Case Review Committee or the ombuds commission'''.}} [[User:Isaacl|isaacl]] ([[User talk:Isaacl|talk]]) 22:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
*::::thanks for the many responses very helpful. I was more after clarity on this than genuinely a vote. Of course I too am bound to follow the wishes of the community and will do so. The main reason for my questions was for this purpose. I agree this is perhaps something that should be in policy for ArbCom but that is ArbComs decision and agree that permiting nomination but acceptance requires that one should resign the other position is reasonable. At present I have been actively serving on the OC for three years and intend to do so a little longer. As outgoing Chair this January it would be remiss of me I believe to not be around to assist the new Chair if they need it. So I would do at least another year. Our terms end on 20 January each year for info and we are selected by WMF in December of each year for one or two year terms. Thanks for the input it has been very clarifying. Cheers [[User:Faendalimas|<span style="color: #004730">Scott Thomson</span>]] (<small class="nickname">Faendalimas</small>) <sup>[[User talk:Faendalimas|<span style="color: maroon">talk</span>]]</sup> 02:16, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
{{abottom}}
{{abottom}}
| |||