Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022

Reduce the length of the nomination period to 7 days, instead of 10 days.

Since the dates of the nomination period are known far in advance, potential candidates have ample time to prepare their statements ahead of time. Thus a lengthy nomination period isn't needed. This will reduce the amount of time that the community will engage in speculation on the number of eventual candidates. isaacl (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Shorten nomination period to 7 days)

1. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. isaacl (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. I have no objection to this, it's planned long ahead, so one week is sufficient. The elections go on far too long as it is. Worm^TT(talk) 15:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yes, the whole thing goes on too long anyway, and this would shorten it without any damage that I can see. Anyone intending to run really should have made up their mind long before the process kicks off. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. The longer we make the nomination window, the longer we are going to have to wait to actually get to see the candidates. Way too many wait until the last day and can avoid the 10 days of scrutiny that anyone who announces on Day 1 has to undergo. Setting the window to only a week means the disparity between those who announce first and those who announce last will shorten (I hope this makes sense?). –
   ☖ 21:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Most everyone waits until the last day anyway, honestly 3 days would probably be enough. 7 days provides more than enough opportunity for anyone to notice the election and nominate themselves. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support. Tony (talk) 06:51, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per Worm & Boing!. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 22:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Shorten nomination period to 7 days)

1. I don't see a reason to shorten the window --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. The window should be long enough for people to make a decision while it is open, and potentially for editors to ask other editors whether they're interested. Per Guerillero I don't see much upside to shortening it, people speculating is up to them.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'm just not seeing the particular need to shorten. As a collateral benefit, the length of "oh no, barely anyone has signed up yet" might ultimately get us more candidates. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Not necessary, more time to participate is usually a desirable thing.. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Why? Also, there are always people who find out later rather then earlier. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. No benefit to shortening the period. Protonk (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. I see no reason to shorten the window. As said above, additional time has never hurt anyone. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. I don't see a compelling reason to do this.
   LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. What's 3 days? Looks like a solution in search of a problem. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. I don't see a reason to reduce the time. Ten days is hardly "lengthy". ···
    Join WP Japan! 06:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
11. Less real chance for those sitting on the fence to actually put in their application for a very difficult job. -- Amanda (she/her) 09:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
12. I don't see any advantage to a 7 day window instead of 10 days - ThatSpiderByte (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13. I too like the ones above me fail to see anything good achieved by this rule change. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14. I simply don't see any point in this Sarah777 (talk) 15:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15. People have real jobs, and RL things to do so the extra time is helpful. Why rush? Atsme 💬 📧 20:33, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
16. If anything, it should be two weeks. As Atsme notes, why rush? Jusdafax (talk) 20:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
17. Like many, I find the whole process tediously long, but I don't see any compelling reasons for shortening it. In fact with barely enough candidates of the right calibre to fill the seats, there is just a chance that the longer periods helps people to decide even if they throw their hat in the ring at the last minute. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
18. I do not see why a reduction of the application period from ten to seven days would improve the voting procedure in general. The Banner talk 17:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
19. Reducing the time for nominations seems pointless. Again, why rush? StartOkayStop (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
20. 10 days to 7 days didn't fix any issues. No need for change. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 01:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
21. No need to shorten, the period working just fine.
    talk) 04:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
22. I see no real need to shorten this, Whilst some could argue it drags the nomination period on as others above said it gives people chance to chuck their hat in if they so wish. 10 days is fair imho. –Davey2010^Talk 10:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
23. I realize that the fact that most candidates do not file until the last minute is a reason for getting to the "last minute" sooner. But I think there is still a net positive to giving people more time to get ready to stick their toes in the water. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
24. per Amakuru, Nihonjoe, an Atsme. It is not just about the candidates, it is about the voters as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:53, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
25. This strikes me as a trivial change, almost frivolous. If there is concern about "wasting time" then why not omit this proposal, which clearly has added to the time necessary to review the set of proposals! Martindo (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
26. I don't see any light in which further restricting the pool of potential candidates as proposed here is a net positive for the process or the project. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:10, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
27. Solution in search of a problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
28. Seems to be a solution looking for a problem. firefly ( t · c ) 20:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
29. Don't think this will improve anything. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
30. Some of the better candidates decide to run at the last minute, after reviewing who the other candidates are or at the urging of other editors. I don't think this period of time should be extended but 10 days seems like a reasonable amount of time and I see no benefit from shortening this period of time. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
31. Nomination window is fine as it is. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 08:11, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
32. Reducing the amount of time available will just mean less users can contribute. We should be encouraging contributions, not put barriers up. GimliDotNet (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
33. Unnecessary change. Bill Williams 22:57, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
34. A 10 day window is necessary due to the amount of work needed to properly administer Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curiouswriter18 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Shorten nomination period to 7 days)

• I agree that giving people more time to participate is desirable. Thus we should be trying to attract interested editors now, to seriously consider whether they want to run, and to talk to each other as necessary. I feel we shouldn't wait until the start of the nomination period to start. isaacl (talk) 16:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the overall timeline: note by
  previous consensus, the nomination period starts on the second Sunday of November, followed by a five-day fallow period, and then voting starts on the second business day of the week in San Francisco (based on the current work calendar, the start date is a Tuesday, which means the actual fallow period is one day longer than required). For simplicity this proposal does not include a proposal to alter the timeline for this year. isaacl (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I don't know why there needs to be a start date for nominations. Is it because new and important information required for nominating is not necessarily released until that date? Perhaps there should be a period of pre-nominations statements of interest, and open invitations to likely suspects to nominate. I recall past elections where there were few nominations, and it looked like positions would go begging for candidates, and so some people nominated due to a lack of nomination. This was a poor look. I think it would be good to see the list of people openly thinking of running. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I presume that part of the reason for a start date for nominations is that the RfC can change the eligibility requirements and process of nomination so it makes sense from a practical standpoint to only open nominations after that has concluded. The RfC also determines the size of the committee, and so the number of vacancies which is something that many people consider as part of their decision about whether to stand or not. This was even more relevant in the past when things were less settled (this is by far the fewest number of proposals in an RfC that I can recall) but still holds some relevance. The length of time for questioning is also currently relevant (10 days difference is not much compared to potentially months of difference) but this will cease to apply if proposal 2 passes. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Users can of course announce their plans any time they want. The main effect of having an official nomination period is having a start time for posting questions on the formal questions to candidates page. isaacl (talk) 15:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions to candidates on the "Questions" page (such as Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Questions) should only be posed once the nomination period is over.

Some potential candidates might feel deterred from announcing early, as without other candidates to discuss, it might result in additional attention focused on them. Opening the official questions page at the same time for all candidates will help mitigate this. isaacl (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Start questions to candidates after nomination period ends)

1. Everyone should have the same amount of time to field and answer questions --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. isaacl (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. This seems sensible. There should be a level playing field.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Absolutely. As per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think as BDD notes the ideal solution is a new norm, but I worry that the current system produces a scenario where I could nominate myself early and if I don't respond actively enough during the nomination period I lose votes or I could nominate myself late and be seen as escaping scrutiny which other candidates have subjected themselves to. I'm sympathetic to the idea that ArbCom candidates should want as much scrutiny as possible but it seems more fair to have a period for nomination followed by a period for questions and have both of those time periods fixed at the same value for everyone. Protonk (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Guerillero and Amakuru. Levivich 18:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Protonk and Guerillero. Thryduulf (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Ultimately seems more fair and removes potential biases from timing—blindlynx 21:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. I support anything to help encourage people to announce candidacies earlier. –
   ☖ 21:41, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Removes some of the motivation to wait until the last minute to nominate yourself. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per Guerillero and Amakuru.
    LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. Per Protonk and Guerillero. Guettarda (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13. This makes sense. Let's level the playing field. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14. Consistency is a good thing – Atsme 💬 📧 20:39, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15. Highly sensible. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:05, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support. Tony (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support all candidates facing the same period of questioning, whether the declare early or late. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support, just common sense. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 18:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
19. An improvement, clearly. Jusdafax (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
20. Common sense. The Banner talk 17:20, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
21. Even if candidates who nominate themselves late in the nomination period have other motivations than reducing scrutiny, I think it's fair for all candidates to have the same amount of time to have questions asked and to answer them. If candidates are entering late to avoid scrutiny then that's not fair to those going in early. Even if this is not the case I can see how people may assume that it is to avoid scrutiny, especially if there are problems later discovered regardless of their intentions, which may further negatively affect their nomination more than if they nominated earlier as some may use that assumption as a feather on the camels back. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 18:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
22. Much better than the alternative. Aza24 (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. StartOkayStop (talk) 01:43, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. Sounds sensible. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:55, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
25. Consitency is a good thing as questions are focused on all candidates.
    talk) 04:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
26. Support per Guerillero and DreamyJazz - Everyone should have the same amount of time to answer questions. –Davey2010^Talk 10:37, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
27. Strong support for an excellent idea. It avoids privileging some candidates and some questioners. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
28. I see this as very beneficial. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 10:49, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
29. All candidates should face the same period of questioning.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
30. Agree. It's not so much a matter of "avoiding scrutiny" but rather giving the voters a clearer picture for comparing candidates. Martindo (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
31. Uniformity in this aspect of the process strikes me as entirely appropriate. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
32. Seems reasonable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
33. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
34. May improve things. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
35. Seems reasonable. Deryck C. 15:30, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
36. Good idea. Bill Williams 22:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
37. Yes, common sense.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Start questions to candidates after nomination period ends)

1. ArbCom is inherently a high-scrutiny role; the idea that people would go out of their way to avoid scrutiny of their candidacies is silly. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't think this will make a difference, as I believe individuals wait to see who has put themselves forward and work out if they need to make up numbers, leading to the pile on at the end, I don't believe it's about scrutiny. When I put my name in, I put it in early, fully expecting to answer questions. I don't like the idea of putting my name in and waiting ages to actually be able to talk to people who want to talk to me about it. Worm^TT(talk) 15:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Another issue that comes to mind, if everyone is going to be asked questions at the same time, it encourages asking every candidate the same question. While there is some interest in seeing how different candidates answer the same question, there is also an important process of asking specific questions of specific candidates, which I think will be lost except where someone has a bone to pick. Worm^TT(talk) 15:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3. I'm more likely to favour candidates who nominate early and are keen to engage with questions as soon as they can, and I don't actually see a problem with fielding questions early. Anyone who wants to minimise the attention they face should not run for ArbCom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. As a voter, I like to talk, and not at the same time with multiple candidates. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Start questions to candidates after nomination period ends)

• I agree that prospective candidates understand they will be scrutinized regardless of when their announcements are made. Human nature being what it is, though, for some it is more daunting to stand in a small group answering questions than in a larger group. isaacl (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The obvious compromise here is not a new rule but a norm: candidates should feel free to wait until the end of the nomination period to begin answering questions, and we should not think less of them for doing so. If they choose not to wait, that's fine too. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• As someone who nominated themself late in the period last year (last day), dodging scrutiny wasn't a relevant consideration. Providing some non-0 choice to voters was, given that not quite sufficient numbers of candidates had nominated to provide such choice. I want to oppose here, but I think dropping the comment is more important. --Izno (talk) 21:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what you mean by "non 0-choice"; I'm guessing you mean you wanted to ensure there were more candidates than vacant seats? Was your decision affected by candidate answers made prior to your announcement? isaacl (talk) 21:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Almost: to ensure there were more candidates to clear the 50% line for all available seats. Probably yes to the latter, but I don't have that to hand. Are you implying that's scrutiny? It might be. I probably still would have considered running last year, but I have a sneaking suspicion that supporting this would cause some people not to run because they wouldn't be sufficiently motivated by lack of knowing the who of each person running. There is definitely a "I'm dissatisfied with the choice that is available so far" motivation for some candidates, and holding questions until everyone is in the race would cause those people not to run. --Izno (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  No, my question was to understand how much influence candidate answers had on your decision. I agree this can be helpful for those who want to take a wait-and-see approach. This does of course encourage a wait-and-see approach, leading to an effectively shorter nomination period in practice, and thus most candidate questions starting around at the same time, anyway. isaacl (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You of course can both vote and drop the comment... Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:13, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  True, but then I might need to do that whole crossy-liney-outy song and dance if I should change my mind after having a discussion with you fine folks. ;) Izno (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who are blocked or banned at the time they cast their vote may not vote using any account, votes that are cast in violation of this rule are struck by the scrutineers and so do not count towards the result. However the 2021 scrutineers noted that where the sockmaster was not blocked at the time they cast their vote the rules do not specify whether every vote should be struck or only the sock's vote (at least one case of sockpuppetry was discovered by the scrutineers last year). Both of the two editors who commented suggested that the status quo is that only the sock votes should be struck (because this would be consistent with how votes for people blocked for other reasons are treated), but that it should be clarified for this year. One editor (me) suggested consideration should be made for striking all-but the latest vote rather than all-but the master's vote. These proposals seek to clarify the situation.

• Proposal 3a: All votes by sockpuppets and sockmasters should be struck

  This would treat newly discovered sockmasters the same as those discovered before the election.

• Proposal 3b: Only votes by sockpuppets should be struck

  This would treat newly discovered sockmasters the same as those blocked during the election for other reasons.

• Proposal 3c: All-but the most recent vote by sockpuppeteers should be struck (whether this is the master or a sock)

  This would treat newly discovered sockmasters the same as people who legitimately cast multiple votes from the same account.

• Proposal 3d: No votes by newly-discovered sockpuppeteers should be struck

  This would allow the master multiple votes as if the sockpuppetry had not been discovered.

As these proposals are mutually exclusive support for one implies opposition to the others. Opposing all four possibilities would leave the situation undefined (which is not desirable) so is not presented as an option here.

All of these proposals are independent of whether any or all of the accounts or the person operating them are blocked and/or given any other sanction going forwards, and impact only their contribution to the Arbitration Committee election. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: All these proposals deal only with editors who intentionally cast multiple votes in a single election. Thryduulf (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal 3a (strike all votes by sockpuppeteers)

1. If a person intentionally votes in the election with more than one account, they should have 0 votes, not 1 vote. (And 3d is not a valid option because it would violate the rule of 1 person/1 vote.) My !vote is contingent on the word being used in this proposal being "sockpuppet" and not just "alt account"; so if someone forgets that they voted and ends up accidentally voting with their main account and their declared public mobile editing account, then that good-faith mistake shouldn't render them ineligible, they should have 1 vote. But for the malicious types -- sockpuppeteers -- 0 votes. Levivich 18:57, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   3a would be a change from "was not blocked at the time of voting" to "was not blocked at the time of voting, or was socking at the time of voting" as the (one of the?) criteroi(a/on) for striking. Izno (talk) 18:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   This is my confusion: whether every vote should be struck or only the sock's vote implies that we're talking only about a situation in which multiple votes were case by the same person. If someone is socking, not blocked, but votes only once, and then during the election is discovered to have been socking (but still only voted once)... I don't see this proposal as applying at all, since all the options are talking about multiple votes (at least one by a master and one by a puppet). But in that scenario: one vote by someone who was socking but not yet caught, I would probably not strike the vote, unless we also struck votes by people who were uncivil, bludgeoning, edit warring, etc., but not yet caught. Levivich 19:04, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   I took the framing of the question to indicate the issue was that at least two accounts, run by one person, had each registered a vote, but that at least those same two accounts, run by one person, were both unblocked at the time they made their votes. Izno (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Izno's interpretation is how I understood the issue that came up last year. Thryduulf (talk) 19:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for clarifying that. I think that confirms my support for 3a, with the provisio that we're talking about intentional sockpuppetry and not good-faith mistakes made with valid alts. Anyone who intentionally votes with more than one account should be allowed zero votes. Levivich 19:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. The expected value for the number of votes a sockmaster gets to cast needs to be cannot be more than one. With any of the other options, the expected value is above one, because there will be the occasional sock that slips under the radar and gets to vote multiple times. In other words, other options give a sockmaster more influence than a good-faith voter. I support this with the same caveat as Levivich above: good-faith accidental votes on an alternative account should not render their single vote invalid. However, bad faith ones should. I am going to explicitly say I oppose 3d for what I hope are obvious reasons. HouseBlaster^talk 20:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. This seems to be the easiest route for enforcement. If an editor is found to cast more than one vote then it could be a good-faith mistake (I wish there was a way to indicate in preferences that an account is an alt so it doesn't trigger discussion/voting prompts on watchlists or login, but that's beside the point), but it is ok if the consequence for a good-faith mistake is to have your vote invalidated. Protonk (talk) 21:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. A malicious sockmaster should not get any votes.
   LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. Per Levivich. Guettarda (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sock puppeteers, especially those who use it to multiple vote, are inherently bad faith editors. Once identified, all votes should be discounted. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per MaxBrowne2. If you intentionally use a sock to make multiple votes, you should lose the right to vote at all. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support after clarification by Thryduulf that this is about intentionally casting multiple votes. --LordPeterII (talk) 19:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Absolutely. Atsme 💬 📧 20:45, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. In light of Thryduulf's clarification, I support this, essentially per HouseBlaster. We don't normally strike the votes of individuals who weren't blocked at the time of voting, but it's appropriate to make an exception here to disincentivize election-related sockpuppetry. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. I thought about this for a while, but in the end HouseBlaster's argument about the possibility of socking not being detected is convincing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support retrospectively banning from participating any person who deliberately attempts unacceptable sockpuppetry through the voting system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 07:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13. Essentially per HouseBlaster. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 13:16, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14. Attempts to game the process need consequences. Jusdafax (talk) 20:20, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support per Izno/Levivich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Donald Albury (talk • contribs) 22:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
16. Equal First choice to 3b. Using multiple accounts to vote only really sounds like voter fraud to me, so I'd support striking all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreamy Jazz (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
17. If someone is really determined to sway an election, and I mean unhinged to a degree where it horseshoes into "I'm actually impressed that you're this desperate" territory, I could see a situation arising where they set up a number of meatpuppets who then have sockpuppets, with the intention that if sockpuppetering gets discovered, they'll still have as many valid votes in the election as they do meatpuppets, should those meatpuppets go undetected. Not many people qualify as this untethered to the swinging door of reality or have this much time on their hands, but obviously, no-one wants this to happen, and a brief look at Wikipedia's Long-term Abuse page brings up instances of editors who repeatedly, and in some cases very slyly, endeavour to break the community's rules on engagement and good-faith editing. Option 3a is the most structurally sound and ensures that no-one who edits in bad faith as a sockpuppet gets to engage, by definition in bad faith, with the elections that decide how English Wikipedia is run.--
    ping}} me!) 19:26, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
18. Support, socks and any type of voter fraud are unacceptable.
    HighKing⁺⁺ 20:18, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
19. I support voiding all of the votes made by the same person, if that person uses multiple accounts to enter multiple votes, regardless of when the discovery of the multiple account control is discovered. I also support voiding all votes made by a person that is ineligible to vote (such as a newly discovered sockpuppet of an already ineligible sockmaster). — xaosflux ^Talk 20:39, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
20. Much more practical than the alternatives imo. Aza24 (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
21. This is the only option which makes any sense, all the others would in some fashion reward malefactors who willfully violated a basic Wikipedia rule.Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support as per BMK - I too see the other 3 proposals as sort of rewarding them in a way. They should ALL be struck/discounted. –Davey2010^Talk 10:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
23. Sockpuppetry should not be tolerated whatsoever.
    talk) 19:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
24. I see no reason to allow any vote to count for someone who intentionally tries to cheat. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
25. Enough shenanigans with socks at AfD discussions, this is a welcome proposal. Supported. Oaktree b (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. The clarification should have the word "intentionally" deleted. Provability is one issue. It's quite possible that someone who has multiple puppets (and shares some of them?) might be frenetic enough to lose track of whether they cast a vote. Even if somehow the act was not intentional, casting multiple votes is still unfair. Martindo (talk) 00:14, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
27. This was a close call for me, but ultimately I feel anyone who has acted so completely in bad faith in relation to one of our few outright community voting processes ought to not be included in the ultimate tally. It's not even about discouraging disruptive, manipulative, and abusive behaviour; it's also that I just don't think anyone demonstrating such poor judgment and anti-consensus perspective ought to be, at the end of the day, considered a useful voice for such a determination. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:22, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
28. per Levivich. firefly ( t · c ) 20:59, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support per House Blaster, with the same caveat about good-faith accidental votes. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:55, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. If a sockpop is cheating, it should be hammered. The Banner talk 17:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. I have previously taken this position in regards to RFCs. Consensus is based on the views of reasonable, responsible, good faith editors. Someone deliberately multivoting is not voting in good faith, nor are they acting as as reasonable and responsible members of the community. And as someone else noted, attempted multi-votes should not be permitted an expected value greater than one. Allowing a multi-vote to count as one guarantees one + undetected socks. Alsee (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support - no toleration for sockpuppets or their masters. - tucoxn\^talk 00:57, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
33. First choice with the caveat that this only applies to sockmasters who are caught casting multiple votes in the same election. I think one person one vote is important, but we should also try to make the expected value of socking to cheat in the election lower than one. Prefer option b if this proposal applies to sockmasters blocked for socking but did not try to cast multiple votes. Deryck C. 08:41, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
34. First choice, but 3c is also okay. I agree with Levivich's sentiment that other blocks for disruptive behavior not getting votes retroactively struck is inconsistent, but election interference should be treated especially harshly. Toadspike (talk) 01:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
35. This is the cleanest solution. Mz7 (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support, per Levivich and House Blaster. And thanks to the scrutineers for their work! Edderiofer (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
37. If they try to cheat they shouldn't have any votes whatsoever. Bill Williams 23:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
38. I don't have rationale to add that's not already covered several times by previous commenters.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
39. Per Houseblaster, Levivich, et al. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Retswerb (talk) 03:44, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal 3b (only strike sockpuppet votes)

1. I am fine with this as a first choice. Oldest account "wins" is (generally) how SPI gets named, so might as well keep a similar rule. --Izno (talk) 18:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second choice, because which account is regarded as the master can be somewhat arbitrary. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. If there were a proposal of "strike all votes where the sockmaster attempted to vote more than once in the election", I'd be fine with it. But where the sockmaster just voted normally, and was then caught for socking in any of the normal ways then the original vote should still stand. If that is how it's being interpreted then please consider this to back 3a. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   @Nosebagbear and @AmandaNP an editor who makes only a single vote and who is later blocked for sockpuppetry (or any other reason) will be completely unaffected by these proposals, they are only relevant to those who intentionally cast more than one vote. Thryduulf (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4. Per Nosebagbear. -- Amanda (she/her) 10:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. No reason to strike the one vote of the sockmaster, as long as he himself is not blocked. Debresser (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. No reason to remove a single vote. Sarah777 (talk) 15:21, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. First choice. One person, one vote; no more, but also no less. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:50, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Equal first choice to 3a. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Second choice. (Or first choice if no distinction is made between those who socked to cheat in the election, and those who are blocked for socking but did not try to make multiple votes in the election.) Deryck C. 08:36, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal 3c (strike all-but the most recent vote by sockpuppeteers)

1. Fine as a second choice (perhaps this is convenient for the scrutineers). --Izno (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. First choice. This treats these users the same as any other blocked user who changed their mind before being blocked, which I think is fairest. Thryduulf (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yes. As someone says further up in one of the other proposals, one person-one vote ~ but better phrased for the way we do arbcom elections, i think, as one person-most recent vote. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 22:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal 3d (don't strike any votes by sockpuppeteers)

No reason to strike the one vote of the sockmaster, as long as he himself is not blocked. Debresser (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. As i don't trust investigations, so "sockpuppeteer" and "sockmaster" are just two words of labeling users by access-holders. And as a victim of sockophobia, I have many deep concerns about how they find a "sockpuppeteer" and "sockmaster". --Ruwaym (talk) 06:59, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Striking of votes by sockpuppeteers)

• 3d is obviously unacceptable. I'm leaning 3a, but see the wisdom behind the others. I'd be interested to hear from scrutineers what minimizes their burden. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the intent for 3a to strike votes for just sock masters blocked after the start of the election, or unblocked ones as well? isaacl (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with BDD. 3d is completely unacceptable and what minimizes burden on scrutineers is important here. I'm also not sure how we should interpret the options here. Specifically: do we distinguish between cases where an editor has socked and then returns to the community with our knowledge and understanding (e.g. they are blocked for a year for socking and 2 years later they are back and voting but naturally their sock accounts are still indeffed) and those where the human is indeffed but one of their accounts just happens not to be (e.g. there are some scenarios where a user decamps to a "main" sock and operates there for a while and then gets caught using more sock accounts--sometimes that results in the main sock and related socks being indeffed but the original account going unblocked). I would want the latter to result in them not being able to vote but not the former. However, that seems like an awfully difficult determination to make while you're trying to scrutinize hundreds of votes. Protonk (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Protonk and Isaacl: The issue that came up last year, and which I based this proposal on, is one editor whose socking was discovered because they cast multiple votes in the same election. Editors who cast a single vote in the election are outside the scope of this proposal, regardless of other circumstances. If an editor controls multiple accounts (legitimately or otherwise) I don't think it is relevant which of their accounts they use to vote with as long as it is only one. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @Thryduulf not sure why you pinged me. I have not voted (nor do I plan to vote) on this proposal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I must have missed you commented rather than voted when scanning down, sorry. Thryduulf (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    In the examples last year, both the sock master and sock puppets were blocked after the start of the election. Thus is it your intent that 3a only address blocked sock masters? isaacl (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Let's say a single person controls accounts called Alice, Bob and Charlie with the latter two being sockpuppets. Alice's socking has not been discovered prior to the election, none of the accounts are blocked and all are used to cast votes with Alice voting first and Charlie last. What happens depends on which proposal passes:

    • 3a: All three votes are struck.
    • 3b: Alice's vote stands, those by Bob and Charlie are struck.
    • 3c: Charlie's vote stands, those by Alice and Bob are struck.
    • 3d: None of the votes are struck.

    Accounts that are blocked cannot cast a vote. Votes by socks of users blocked before the election are struck according to existing rules and these proposals will make no changes to that. Which (if any) accounts are blocked after casting a vote is completely independent of these proposals. Thryduulf (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks; so 3a includes both sock masters that were subsequently blocked and ones that remain unblocked. isaacl (talk) 23:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, that's the case for all of them - although obviously they can in practice only apply to those sockmasters who have been discovered. Thryduulf (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there a potential case where the sock-master isn't blocked should still have a vote? Rigging and gaming aside members should still get a vote no?—blindlynx 21:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think that sock-masters who were not blocked before the election started and who cast multiple votes in the election should have:

  • No votes: support 3a
  • One vote: support options 3b or 3c
  • Multiple votes: support option 3d.

  Sock-masters who cast only one vote are not addressed by these proposals and (unless someone makes a proposal otherwise) will continue to get one vote as they do now. Thryduulf (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf Proposal 3a: All votes by sockpuppets and sockmasters should be struck doesn't seem to suggest that, and I don't think many of the !voters above see it that way either. 3a seems to say that any sockpupppet, or any sockmaster, found at anytime before the close of counting would be struck. If a sockmaster cases only one vote, they would be in the class of "all votes by ... sockmasters". Am I missing something? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:29, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See the final line, "Clarification", in the introduction - All these proposals deal only with editors who intentionally cast multiple votes in a single election.. This was the original intent of the proposals, I thought that was clear and nobody commented (either way) in the month it was in draft, so I didn't get chance to reword the individual proposals to make it explicit. I actively oppose striking the vote of anyone who is blocked after casting a single legitimate vote, regardless of why they are blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thryduulf and Xaosflux: I've come to raise exactly the same concern. Currently 3a is trending, but at face value it would imply that sockmasters who cast only 1 vote between multiple accounts would also have that vote struck, which is less than ideal. I think the clarification is helpful. Deryck C. 16:07, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Deryck Chan are you saying more clarification is needed/clarification is needed in a different place or are you saying that the existing clarification is sufficient? Thryduulf (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think your clarification is clear enough. The comments mostly agree on your subsequent interpretation, which really clears things up: Sock-masters who cast only one vote [between all their accounts] are not addressed by these proposals and (unless someone makes a proposal otherwise) will continue to get one vote as they do now. Deryck C. 08:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Pardon my penchant for recursion, but I think we need an RFC on how to handle socks in *this* vote. Alsee (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point. But then who is going to scrutinize the scrutineers? Yet more recursion! Martindo (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Selection of the election commission, including reservists, should change from the current method of "most endorsements received" to "balance of support and opposition".

Historically, the selection of the fixed number of commissioners has used the "most endorsements collected" method (see e.g. last year's page). In the 2021 RfC, a proposal to change the method of reservist selection gathered some comments regarding disendorsements/reservations, but these got lost in the general lack of desire to change the selection of reservists specifically. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Election commission selection)

1. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. isaacl (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Election commission selection) - Option 2

(From discussion section below) Still only collect endorsements, but set a cut-off to those exceeding 50% of the third highest endorsement gatherer.

1. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Most sensible balance between the two approaches. A balance that I think is needed here. Debresser (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Debresser. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Interesting balance that actually agrees with and quantifies the current practice of appointing "the best runner-ups". Deryck C. 09:12, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Election commission selection)

1. Our Election commission elections are delightfully lowkey and I suspect part of the reason for this is the method of "most endorsements". I know in the past I have wanted to vote against certain candidates but doing so through strategic voting, rather than outright opposition, creates less of an ill feeling, in my view, among those who might be opposed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree with Barkeep. Worm^TT(talk) 15:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. I see no big deal here, and no good reason to change anything - it's a very temporary position of no lasting importance, so anything that selects a few acceptable candidates is fine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Ultimately we just need a method of comparing people to determine who should actually get on Electcom, and the one we have seems to work fine. It's also explicitly stated that comments made during the selection process are taken into account upon closure, so if someone is truly opposed to a candidate then they can just post a comment to that effect. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 15:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. (second choice to option 2 above) - agree that this is one of the most "nice" public elections we have, and that is a good feature. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per the above. Protonk (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. The election commission is ideally an unimportant detail. We don't need an extra layer of bureaucracy around it.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Just make things easy --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per Barkeep49 - I like how well out EC works with this lowkey method. They're agile, communicative, briefly engaged and then gone. I've no particular objection to method 2 - I assume it's designed to handle a case with 4 candidates, 3 approved and the 4th with only a handful of endorses becomes the 1st reservist, rather than a circumstance where we get down to the 3rd reservist. Nosebagbear (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   @Nosebagbear here are some 4 candidate outcomes using "option 2" (gathered endorsements -> result)

   • 50/45/40/25 -> 3+1
   • 50/45/40/15 -> 3+0
   • 50/45/20/15 -> 3+1
   • 50/30/20/1 -> 3+0

   If the 4th gets quite low endorsements, there is no reserve. (e.g. in the 4th example above, the 4th got 1 endorsement -- if I was closing that RFC I'm quite likely that is how I'd handle it today, even without explicitly having a redline.) We do have all sorts of edge cases (like ties, what to do if we don't get 3 successes, etc)) that we're not really dealing with here, but this is a rare event.

   — xaosflux ^Talk 13:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10. I'm not seeing something that is broken here. The current system seems to work well. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. I prefer leaving well-enough alone. Atsme 💬 📧 20:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
12. Per Barkeep49. Jusdafax (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13. Per Barkeep49 + Peacemaker67. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14. The proverbial solution in search of a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15. Per Barkeep49. –Davey2010^Talk 23:42, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
16. Also per Barkeep. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:15, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
17. per Barkeep; not sure what this is trying to solve. firefly ( t · c ) 21:01, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
18. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:18, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
19. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 22:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
20. No need for a change. Bill Williams 23:05, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
21. I like that the process is non-adversarial. It's perhaps the most collegial electoral system we use and we should keep it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
22. What Wugapodes said. We should be using it for the ArbCom election as well, instead of the current "double voting" system wherein people vote for who they want and vote against who they don't want. It's nuts and we should be using standard "vote for who you want" election processes consistently. Not spreading a broken system from ArbCom election to EleCom election.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Election commission selection)

• I agree that having this be a very "low-key election" is a feature, not a bug. The way I see it, the "goals" of ELECCOM election differ from other things: we must fill the slate; we would like to have reservists; we don't want to fill positions with undesirable candidates. The good news with this role is that it is temporary, and by having a panel any reckless actions can be overcome by the rest of the panel -- so the "pass" bar doesn't need to be very high. So really criteria 3 is what is at stake, perhaps something like setting the pass rate to "Candidates who have collected endorsements in excess of 50% of the endorsements collected by the candidate with the third most endorsements" would do? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If this method were used, it would produce results consistent with the prior years. IIRC, the only contentious outcome from prior years was that 2020 may have resulted in 3+2 instead of 3+1.

  • 2021: 29/41/37/34/6/35 | Resulted in: 3+2 | Would have resulted in: 3+2
  • 2020: 19/46/14/39/42/25 | Resulted in: 3+1 | Would have resulted in: 3+1
  • 2019: 76/44/84/75/47 | Resulted in: 3+2 | Would have resulted in: 3+2
  • 2018: 42/36/40/46/0 | Resulted in: 3+1 | Would have resulted in: 3+1

  — xaosflux ^Talk 15:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing that you garner less support than others can no doubt be difficult. Having people outright oppose you is a whole together different matter. I think we should avoid bringing that level of unpleasantness to this election where it has historically not been needed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barkeep49: agree, my suggestion was to still only collect supports but use the amount of supports to dynamically build a cut off. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• What's an Election Commission? Should there be a link to an explanation from the question? Is this something that the average Wikipedian should need to know about? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See

  WP:ACERULES and sentence at Wikipedia:5-minute guide to ArbCom elections, if anyone thinks such a page would be useful Wikipedia:Election commission is available. It should not be confused with the m:Election committee which oversees elections to the WMF Board of trustees (happening now with voting open until 6 September, see m:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2022/Community Voting). Thryduulf (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The nutshell is: a group of editors that can make binding decisions on unexpected situations that may arise related to the election. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:52, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xaosflux 14:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Minimum support to be elected)

1. (as proposer) Given that arbcom members are granted indefinite checkuser and oversight access (which is retained even after their term expires), I don't think a 50% support showing is a sufficient measure of community support for these advanced permissions. If the community ever takes over the CUOS management, leaving arbcom to primarily be only a dispute resolution committee I wouldn't have this concern. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Last year, I wrote It seems obvious that the level of trust required to be an arbitrator is greater than the level of trust required to be an admin. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC). Any step in that direction is good. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Pppery, it's ludicrous that someone might be an Arb when half of the community don't support them. The bar should be higher than adminship, not lower.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Amakuru (and Pppery). I could agree with 66.67% as well. Debresser (talk) 16:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Amakuru and Pppery as well, and I'd also support a higher threshold, or a "real 50%" threshold (not excluding neutrals). Contra to some oppose rationales, I do see a problem here that needs fixing, but giving examples would mean calling out individual arbs for individuals actions and re-litigating past dramas, so I'm not going to do that, I'm just going to !vote for a higher threshold. Levivich 18:43, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   giving examples would mean calling out individual arbs for individuals actions and re-litigating past dramas Then you would be arguing not for this proposal but for a proposal that establishes a higher percentage than 60% given the few below who I would suggest were not so problematic. I think that proposal would be categorically infeasible if you also support the current number of arbitrators. I do not know if you do, but I think it is trivial to point to dissatisfaction when specifically that (a smaller committee) was tried.
   If we take you at "including neutrals at 50%", we would have elected exactly two arbitrators last year, WTT and Opabinia; 1 in 2020, Barkeep... and so on. Which is also clearly infeasible. Izno (talk) 18:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   You're right, given the infeasibility of proposals for either a higher percentage than 60%, or including neutrals at 50%, I'd better just support this proposal ;-) Levivich 19:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   So then, in reality, this proposal solves no problems. ;) Izno (talk) 19:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   It would solve a problem, and in my opinion, it would have solved problems had it been instituted before. I just don't want to re-air dirty laundry by identifying the specific problems that would have been solved. I reject the premise that identifying candidates who were elected below the current threshold constitutes proof that the current threshold has never led to problems; I believe it constitutes proof of the exact opposite. Levivich 19:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

6. Current threshold is simply too low.
   LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:55, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. The minimum support % definitely needs to be increased as 50% is way too low, even for a one-year term. I'd rather see an empty seat on the committee than an incompetent arb. Some1 (talk) 01:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per what has already been said above. Anarchyte (talk) 14:11, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support per
   Lepricavark, the general threshold ought to be even higher. There really has been controversy surrounding some members in the past, and with barely enough candidates to fill the seats, under the current system just about anyone can end up with a seat. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:58, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]
10. Support, as per Pppery. Higher bar is at least an approximation of more community trust. Regarding one of the Oppose arguments: if there are too few candidates (as I've noticed in recent years), then there is a systemic problem that will not be solved by making it "easier to win". The problem is getting enough people nominated and vetted, which harks back to Proposal 1 above. Martindo (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. I think this is a reasonable placement for this hurdle, given the level community trust and influence invested in arguably our highest institutional local community role. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:26, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
12. The last time an arb was elected with less than 60% was 2014, so apart from anything else this rule is defunct. We should cut bloat wherever we can. – Joe (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13. They should have more than half the voters supporting them considering the powers they are granted, and having people with one-year terms doesn't solve a shortage anyway. Bill Williams 23:10, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14. When we had lots of people competing to be on arbcom, the minimum percentage was less of an issue because the competition for limited seats was the real bar. That's no longer the case, so the minimum percentage needs to be higher. I strongly disagree with those who say that it's more important to fill seats than to worry about the quality of the people filling those seats. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Minimum support to be elected)

1. The support percentage figure is based on a closed vote and ignores neutrals. Due to these two factors, I feel that 50% + 1 is the right line to draw, to be on the committee, and like the 1 year factor for the first 10%. Looking back on the below 60% arbs, I do not see issues with the individuals, and those I think of as "problem arbs" got over 60%. I'd rather have a fuller committee that can deal with any problem arbs and absorb the loss of a problem individual or indeed any absence than I would a more empty committee giving any potential problematic individual a larger voice. Worm^TT(talk) 15:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Agree that having a full committee is desirable, and most anything that sitting arb can do is tempered by the rest of the committee - my relunctance is that because the committee also grants themselves lifetime functionary access, that increased individual support should be attached. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Lifetime functionary access is given to any individual that the committee feel are appropriate under CUOS appointments. Yes, we get feedback and so on, but the hurdle at CUOS is lower than the hurdle at Arbcom. I'm a perfect example of that, I got OS in 2011 (and therefore "lifetime functionary"), but didn't get elected to Arbcom and didn't meet 60%. Functionaries are simply the very trusted community members, and you need to be a very trusted community member to get 50% support at an ACE. Worm^TT(talk) 15:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Looks like you became an OS in 2012 (log), having also obtaining a 100% community support in the community consultation. If this was a 51% support and the committee still appointed you, I'd expect there would have been a lot of drama. We're getting a bit off the original topic, but if arbcom !=CUOS I know I'd be more open to electing more diverse candidates; such a change is certainly beyond the election RFC. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Damn my memory, struck. Doesn't change my point of view though. Worm^TT(talk) 09:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. Agree with WormTT. Past proposals that have reduced the number of selected candidates (and which I supported at the time) turned out to be bad ideas. We need to maximise the chances of getting enough people on the committee. Also, I don't see any evidence of the 50%+1 threshold having ever caused a problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, and comparisons to RfA percentages don't make any sense (as we seem to have to explain every year). They're entirely different selection processes, and opposing can mean completely different things. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3. First, as folks note above, the comparison of percentages doesn't line up. Second, we've had a lot of arbitration elections and as WormTT notes you can't really make an argument that those who receive 50% + 1 are empirically worse than those who get 60%. Protonk (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Solution in search of a problem. The candidates since 2010 who have been elected with less than 60% at some point are: Thryduulf (1 term of 1 year), Beeblebrox (2 terms, 1 of 1 year and the current 1 of 2 years), John Vandenberg (2 terms of 1 year each), Jclemens (1 term of 2 years), and Shell Kinney (1 term of 1.5 years, followed shortly by retirement; reason for both not disclosed but not under a cloud specific to this user). I don't see that any one of these users did not deserve to sit for the terms for which they were elected. On the other hand, I'm sure that we can all name arbs that we would rather have not had on the committee that were accordingly elected with more than 60%.
   It is vastly more important for 15 people to be available on the committee than to increase the requirement regarding vote support. I also agree with the three others in this section so far. --Izno (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   @Izno (I think you meant to indicate these people had <60% support?) — xaosflux ^Talk 18:17, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Yup. --Izno (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5. Per Worm, Boing, Izno and Protonk. I feel it worth noting here that I was elected with <60% support for my one term on the committee. Thryduulf (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. per Izno --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. So it is valuable for arbcom to have 15 members but not vital to have 15. This is one of the key reasons why we should stick with SNO rather than STV - better an empty slot than a bad arb. However, while we have a closed vote, the fact is that the % of support will be far less than RfA. Those proposing an increase to above admins (76%) would leave us with almost no arbs. Thus the status quo should apply. Regarding CUOS rights, I'd be open to committee-wide change, perhaps to not retain past the next CUOS application after they finish, but that's not this motion. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   I also wanted to +1 Newslinger's point re tactical voting. Changing to fixed 60% would, at least for one election, lead to candidates missing out as an effect of tactical voting rather than any particular malaise Nosebagbear (talk) 07:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

8. Voters are actively encouraged to engage in
   WP:ABOUTACE) states, "The influence your ballot has on the results of the elections is maximized when you select Support or Oppose for every candidate, and support approximately the same number of candidates as there are vacancies." As a result of this, when there are more acceptable candidates than there are vacancies, each candidate's support percentage underrepresents the candidate's actual level of support within the community. — Newslinger talk 00:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. I haven't seen any major problems with arbs elected at 50%, and I think it's better for the Committee to not have empty seats. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   That's a systemic problem related to number of candidates. Making it harder to win doesn't detract candidates. Nobody is sure they will win, but hopefully they are sure they want to fill the position. So we should redirect effort toward attracting more. Martindo (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10. Per pythoncoder, I am not seeing a problem here that needs fixing. I'd rather have all the seats filled, which limits the damage someone who turns out to be less than suitable can cause. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:57, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per Izno, -- Amanda (she/her) 11:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
12. I agree with several folks above, especially WTT, Izno, and BsZ!. I'd add that it's quite inaccurate to say the threshold to be elected an arbitrator is lower than that for adminship. The numerical threshold is lower, but we are commenting on administrator candidates in one case, and voting for arb candidates in the other. I'd say it's quite safe to assume most editors apply a higher standard automatically in the latter case. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:16, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13. When people vote for an arbitrator they already hold the candidates to a different set of standards than what they hold adminship hopefuls to. I think the current rule works good as is and agree with the statements of those above me. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14. I'm ok with the sq. Atsme 💬 📧 21:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15. I see no problems with the status quo; no horrid arbs have been elected with <60% support. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 13:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
16. Per Thryduulf. Jusdafax (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
17. The need to have enough active members is a real one, whereas the need to avoid electing the unqualified has not, in practice, been a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
18. Per Izno. The more committee members there are the harder it is for a rouge arb to be rouge. Having CU and OS past their term is something to consider, but that needs it's own proposal. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:30, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
19. Per Izno - Solution in search of a problem. –Davey2010^Talk 23:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
20. per Dreamy. firefly ( t · c ) 21:03, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
21. Mainly per WTT & Izno. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 21:54, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
22. The 50-60% range for a one-year term strikes a nice balance between having a well-staffed committee and giving the community (more) options to modify the committee's composition annually. I don't see a reason to change it. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 10:35, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
23. Tryptofish said what I was thinking.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Minimum support to be elected)

• The inherent temptation for tactical voting is unfortunate, and is probably too hard to counter, except maybe by a plea to vote sincerely. I once read somewhere that score voting is associated with more sincere voting than approval voting, and I believe it. If true, future elections could be moved to score voting, and with less tactical voting, the minimum approval level may be much better respected as reflecting the community. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:36, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There are more options for tactical voting with score voting (simply by virtue that each voter provides a score rather than a yes/no answer). If everyone votes sincerely, and there is a common calibration across voters on the scale, then it can provide a better reflection of the group view. However these aren't great assumptions to make in cases where voters are vested in the outcome. (In the ultimate tactical scenario, where everyone votes tactically, there is no incentive to use anything other than the maximum and minimum scores, effectively replicating approval voting.) isaacl (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think that for most, they have no tactical incentives, real or imagined. If asked: “Rate” (whether on a slider scale, or give a percentage, or a score, a select from 5 or so statements) “… each candidate on how suitable you think they are for Arb Com”, I think virtually all Wikipedians will vote sincerely.

  When I’m faced with yes/no/abstain, I find myself wondering, what’s the point of giving “yes” to all, or almost all, I may as well not bother. Am I supposed to limit the number of “yes” votes to the number of positions, and there I go, slipping into tactical voting, for no sincere reason.

  I think, assume, the vast majority of Wikipedians have no interaction with ArbCom.

  I am really glad I am not asked to rank (1,2,3…) them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @SmokeyJoe Keep in mind, ACE is designed to provide dual outputs in series: (1) Is each candidate, individually, acceptable to be on the committee at all? (2) Of the acceptable candidates, rank them by acceptability percentage. Strict-ranking would require a ghost candidate of "NONE OF THE BELOW" or something like that to be able to get past the first stage. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:50, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Well in mind. Ranking would be bad. Rating is good. Rating can be approval, with abstention, the current method; or it could be score voting, which I read somewhere is better for voters to interpret and vote sincerely, which I believe. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. As proposer. Hopefully this proposal is mostly moot. However, I don't think it's too much to ask that when a voter clicks on a guide on the official template's list, their time isn't wasted by having it not be a guide, but rather a short essay, or the like. This did come up last year, and it wasn't a big deal with just one guide, but if there were lots of non-guides / incomplete guides on the list, it would make it more difficult for casual voters to find the relevant guides. Essays are fine of course, they're just not voter guides, and shouldn't pretend to be a guide to get publicity. ElectCom curation - which should hopefully be very rare - should ensure that doesn't happen. SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes. Please remove, or at least separate, non-serious guides. I am happy to contribute to a discussion on what constitutes a serious guide, but last year the guide rule was ridiculed, and if it continues, it devalues the whole process and the resulting committee. Joke guides belong elsewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:40, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   I really like the guides, the ones that are real guides. I value the guides by how much I respect the guide writer. Without help, not knowing much at all about the candidates, it’s work to review them. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3. Support as a good start. Actually, after 15 years of pondering them, I'm in favor of removing the "guides" altogether, which simplifies the process. Let the candidate's statements speak for themselves. Jusdafax (talk) 20:39, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support. As a guide-creator, I do like to read (and re-read) the other guides to see if I missed something. My expectation is that they are written in good faith and may contain useful information. But a "f*** off, do your own research," type of page is offensive, unhelpful, and ultimately a waste of my time. --Elonka 00:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Adjusted voter guide inclusion criteria)

1. I actually find Nick's guides refreshing in a way. People should be doing their own research about the candidates and not just blindly following other people's voter guides. Plus humorous guides are allowed anyway. ♠JCW555 (talk)♠ 06:43, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per JCW555 above and Mz7 below. It should not be for the EC to determine what is and isn't a high-quality guide or how much effort was put in to creation. Nick's guides to the election are guides imo and are just as valuable as more detailed guides. Thryduulf (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Leave as is – PAs are actionable all over WP, and I am not aware of it ever being an issue. Atsme 💬 📧 21:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. I do not believe that a single guide telling people to do their own research is a problem. In fact, I would consider it good guidance. HouseBlaster^talk 21:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per my comments below. I still think the best approach is a cautious toleration of quirky voter guides. I have concerns about ElectCom wading too far into the waters of policing voter guides beyond necessary. Mz7 (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Not convinced this is a problrm. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. My preference is to not have guides which are designed to teach readers a lesson about doing their own research--or at least to not make them prominently available by linking them alongside guides which are purportedly trying to help people and not lecture them. However, it seems unfair to ask ElectCom to make that determination and unproductive to subject ourselves to a follow-on RfC where we spell out in detail just what makes a guide useful or not useful. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose, per Atsme and Mz7's comments above and below. Nobody forces voters to read the guides and any guides that are time wasting will be regarded as such. Scrutiny of Arbcom candidates is essential and in the absence of an open system such as RfA, the guides provide a serious service and may even stimulate otherwise drive-by voters to do some of their own research. Clerking of them should be kept to a minimum, such as for example, removing any PA - which incidentally has not always been exercised in previous years. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. I'm not comfortable giving ElectCom more responsibility. If someone finds a particular guide unhelpful, they should ignore it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. If you don't like what you read then visit another page, simples. –Davey2010^Talk 23:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per the comments above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    This feels like a specific referendum on Nick's annual tradition of putting his satirical one-liner on the list of guides. But on a more general point, I agree with Thryduulf and Pppery that I'm uncomfortable with burdening ElectCom with a requirement to police the boundaries of "humorous". Deryck C. 09:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC) (Striking own vote - I misunderstood the proposal. Thanks User:SnowFire for clarifying. Deryck C. 19:20, 21 September 2022 (UTC))[reply]

12. Oppose creating a subjective quality standard and making electcom deal with this. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:53, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13. Per Mz7 and Tryptofish. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Adjusted voter guide inclusion criteria)

• As a bit of context, in the 2021 election, an electcom member said that their personal preference would have been to remove a contested guide as setting a bad precedent, but expressed concern that the community's negative response to the "ban satirical guides" proposal meant the community did not wish Electcom to curate the list of voter guides barring truly egregious policy violations. This proposal is for the community to give a more explicit grant that clerks can remove very low-quality guides or non-guides, even if they are not directly disruptive. SnowFire (talk) 01:22, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see why we can't refer to context more explicitly. The voter guide in controversy was

  WT:COORD21#Is this a guide?. Against this backdrop, the core thrust of SnowFire's proposal is the part that would exclude essays that don't appear to actually be voter guides (e.g. documents that don't have anything to say about the various candidates individually, or their merits). This would appear to require exclusion of Nick's guide in future elections if this proposal passes. I'll also note that Nick submitted a nearly identical guide for ACE2020—see User:Nick/ACE2020—and it was included among the guides that year without any controversy.

  I was a member of the 2021 Electoral Commission that decided to keep Nick's guide in, and I want to make clear that Cyberpower678's statement at the discussion regarding his personal view of Nick's guide was precisely just that: his personal view. I am personally very hesitant to grant ElectCom more discretion beyond removing disruptive, misleading, or mistakenly added guides. Suppose an editor writes a guide that doesn't "have anything to say about the various candidates individually", but does have general comments about that year's specific election that might be informative to voters (e.g. commenting on what they think are the most important issues for that year's election). Should that really be excluded? Also, what is and is not "low effort"? What if an editor just posts a guide that just says, "Vote for XYZ candidate!", without any further reasoning? By giving ElectCom the discretion to decide questions like this, I think it risks letting ElectCom's personal views on the election unconciously seep into their decisionmaking (e.g. an ElectCom member might unconsciously favor excluding a guide that is critical of their preferred candidate—alternatively, it might appear that this is the case and invite unnecessary drama). Mz7 (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I did not want to personalize this into a specific "is XYZ guide good or bad", but rather discuss more general principles. I think you describe some very reasonable worries, I don't want ElectCom removing guides willy-nilly either, and if you served again and were very hesitant to remove guides, good! As I stated in my proposal, the default should be for inclusion. (And I agree that ElectCom removing a guide merely for being critical of a candidate is problematic - but also note that the guide in question last year didn't espouse any opinions at all on specific candidates.) That said, if anything qualifies for removal, then I'd think that stuff like Nick's guide does, because it blatantly wasn't a guide. It would be a violation of

  WP:POINT to make one, but if I posted a guide that was just memes or Rickrolls or profanity or the like, hopefully that would be worthy of removal? Even if the memes vaguely mentioned the election? Anyway, as for your specific question on if someone writing an essay that is not a voter guide would qualify for exclusion... yes, it would (to me at least). Maybe it's a very helpful essay about the ArbCom election, and there's no harm writing it, but what you describe fundamentally doesn't sound like a voter guide, but rather an essay. The voter guides section should be for, well, voter guides, not essays. If there was truly a deep desire that such essays should be publicized, create a new section on the template for "user essays about the election", but voter guides should be voter guides and discuss the candidates, not Something Else. I'd obviously trust ElectCom if there was a very unique case or a non-traditional work that was still some sort of unorthodox voter guide that merited inclusion. SnowFire (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Also, just to be clear, I don't agree that the bit on non-guides was the "core focus" of my proposal. It was what came up last year, yes, but the other parts are legitimate concerns as well, and not window dressing. If someone posts an exceptionally poorly-written / massively incomplete / outright misleading guide, that can potentially be removed as well, although as discussed the bar would be very high. SnowFire (talk) 03:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (the following is sarcasm)Maybe we should make a rule that 'satirical' guides need to be funny or at least require more effort than a particularly long-lasting fart. (end sarcasm [note added 15:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)]) Protonk (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  When you find some way of objectively defining what is and isn't funny we can discuss a rule like that. Thryduulf (talk) 09:06, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  See my oppose vote lmao. Protonk (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be moot since this doesn't appear likely to pass anyway, but since this seems an area of confusion, for the record to User:Deryck Chan and User:Protonk, as was stated very directly in the proposal, let me state again that this is not a proposal to police "humorous" guides. (I personally would also favor allowing satirical guides). It is a proposal to restrict "non-guides", i.e. things that don't appear to actually be voter guides from being listed as voter guides. It would apply to non-voter guides that don't attempt to be humorous and not apply to voter guides that are satirical. SnowFire (talk) 18:15, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In coordination with the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections, hold an en-wiki-wide vote of confidence on the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC).

This will be implemented by the addition of a separate question with two options after the candidate question. The question shall be called "Community survey on the Universal Code of Conduct policy and enforcement guidelines". The first option shall ask "Do you endorse the Universal Code of Conduct policy text?", and the second shall ask "Do you endorse the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines?"

Respondents will have the choice of responding "Yes", "No", or "Abstain". 12:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Support (Poll on the Universal Code of Conduct)

1. It is important to gauge how much support the UCoC has on enwiki, and the best way to do this is by attaching the poll to the event that has the highest level of participation on enwiki; arbcom elections. For context, this was originally proposed several months ago on the Administrators Noticeboard. BilledMammal (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Getting a sense of where enwiki stands on this feels like it would be helpful and this would give the widest count we're likely to get. I would support having some kind of widely noticed discussion ahead of or parallel to the vote. Barkeep49 (talk) 12:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think this is a reasonable idea. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 19:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Basically, I don't understand why anyone would find this objectionable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. One, let's not bother the folks at votewiki more than once. Two, we vote on more than one thing all the time IRL, and it does not seem to cause any issues. HouseBlaster^talk 02:05, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Doing this simultaneously reduces the work for votewiki to a fairly minimal level. Finding out if a project as a whole backs it is beneficial. It is also a good means of getting a wide set of discussion and further awareness from those who otherwise might not. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. per User:Barkeep49 and others above. The closed nature of the process - creation and implementation - was/is very concerning, and perhaps this will help the power-that-be to hear and understand that perhaps there maybe, just maybe, some issues here to address. Let voices be heard. We can hammer out the details after that. - jc37 22:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Keep, this is a good idea. Strong support. Oaktree b (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Reluctant support. In principle it's a good idea, but if this is intended as a poll, it would make more sense presented as a separate referendum. And the qualifications for voting on it should be lower (e.g., fewer edits, but still a significant number) -- that would broaden the poll and also extract the referendum from being coat-tailed on an election. Martindo (talk) 00:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. it would be preferable to do it separately, but that's never going to happen.
    LEPRICAVARK (talk) 04:52, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
12. This is an important matter, and I see no significant problem with voting on more than one thing. I have serious concerns with the Code itself and with the Foundation's process. As illustrated in this academic research paper, the Foundation has a bad habit of attempting and failing to run an open processes, due to compulsively hoarding control directly or via hand-picked representatives. I'd prefer an RFC where people can consider the competing arguments rather than attempting to evaluate the Code from scratch, but this is a good opportunity to get a large response. Alsee (talk) 21:28, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13. I've been following the UCoC process closely and am cautiously supportive of its rollout. It strikes me as a good idea to run a referendum on it concurrently as elections to our main body of conduct arbitration. Deryck C. 09:05, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:51, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15. Yes, we should be using voting time to tackle more than one issue.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
16. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 21:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
17. ArbCom is formed by election and elections are inherently political. While I doubt this will have any meaningful impact on the UCoC implementation, a symbolic referendum with a voter base that isn't stacked by WMF employees is useful to let the community's voice be heard. Given that future arbitrators are expected to formally pledge to abide by the UCoC, this is entirely relevant. We shut down for SOPA/PIPA; we're political now. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 13:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Poll on the Universal Code of Conduct)

1. I have yet to see any evidence that en.wiki deserves self governance on this issue. Protonk (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't understand what you mean by self-governance. By definition the Universal Code of Conduct is universal and so enwiki doesn't get to opt out of it. Understanding if the current code and the enforcement guidelines are things enwiki supports, as a whole, or are things that enwiki desires to have changed feels like a worthy endeavor and by having it as part of ACE we get to do so on the largest scale we have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   If we don't get to opt out, then why bother having a vote of confidence in it? What I'm saying is it is not a worthwhile endeavor to see what the community desires to have changed. If you feel otherwise that's fine but that forms the basis for my oppose. Protonk (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. I just don't think this is useful? It doesn't particularly relate to arbcom elections, and it seems like a lot to ask voters for them to make an informed choice on arbcom candidates while also having to weigh in on the UCoC stuff. Disclaimer: I am on the UCoC Phase 2 Revisions committee, but this is only my opinion and not that of the committee's. –
   ☖ 17:02, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. Huh? Am I misunderstanding, or is this just shoehorning in an unrelated question to force a vote on something that might not get the same turnout if put out on its own? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   It is shoehorning/coat-tailing. I think it should be separate with a broader "electorate" (lower bar to voting rights). But has that kind of separate referendum ever been done before? Martindo (talk) 21:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4. Per my comments on the talk page, this is not an issue that should be reduced to a single yes/no/abstain choice when there are many legitimate reasons why people may want to endorse, endorse with caveats and/or not endorse portions of the whole and everybody should get the chance to explain the reasoning for their choice (otherwise it's not useful). Also per Protonk. Thryduulf (talk) 20:00, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. I don't see the WMF setting up secure poll for this --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 20:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   What makes you think the WMF would veto this? From my understanding the actual configuration of the poll is done by the election commission, not WMF staff. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:59, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   From a technical perspective, see the discussion on the talk page that indicated it was technically feasible. Izno (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   @Guerillero Barring a purely technical problem, I don't think that the WMF T&S person assigned to work on our SP setup would stop the questions from being added. Now, they certainly could discard any conclusions we draw or draw their own conclusions. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:31, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   I also suspect that the WMF T&S person who works on setup would do nothing to stop these questions from being added. As for Now, they certainly could discard any conclusions we draw or draw their own conclusions. I'm not sure who xaosflux meant for the "they" but I the WMF employees tasked to work on the UCoC have been quite desirous of feedback - it's why there's several employees whose job it is to get it so I think "they" would like to know the results. I think the board clearly wants there to be community support - it's why "they" asked for revisions after the first round of voting and so having the largest wiki results would be an important data point about how to interpret the global results. Bottomline I have no reason to suspect anyone would try to stop us and I see no downside to getting the results. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   My "they" was the WMF as on organization entity. Really just was calling out that even if there was a local consensus against the result, it doesn't mean anything would change (it certainly COULD though). That is, this isn't some sort of opt-in/opt-out situation - just feedback gathering, so it is important to ensure that if those goes forward it is properly described. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:40, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't think such a rejection is likely, but even if it is I don't see any harm in making the request to hold the poll. As a related note, partially prompted by this question, although I have been considering it ever since I started looking into SecurePoll, I've opened a discussion on the village pump about a local implementation of SecurePoll. BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

6. I don't see a point to an up/down on the documents as a whole. It provides 0 meaningful feedback to anyone. If we think there are specific issues, that should be a separate discussion/exercise analyzing each of the sections of each of the documents and deciding whether or not those are meaningful for us. --Izno (talk) 03:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. I think that each kind of poll should stand on its own. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Maybe somewhere but this is the wrong place and the wrong time. --Rschen7754 07:33, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   To add, this is a political move and we don't need to make these elections any more political. --Rschen7754 19:36, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   I will also add that this is a slippery slope. Should we add a question about the rollout of Vector (2022)? --Rschen7754 00:02, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   The distinction between those is that this has to do with governance and that doesn't. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

9. This is just not the forum or format to address such a complex and proceduraly/institutionally complicated issue as the UCoC, whether or not it is deserving of community endorsement, and what the purview of the relevant interested parties, stakeholders, and communities are in relation to it. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 08:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. I know the UCoC is the controversy of the day, but please can we not? This is really an absolutely terrible idea. As controversial as Arbcom can be, these elections have a strong tradition of being uncontentious, neutral, and run with a high level of professionalism and integrity, in order to ensure the legitimacy of Arbcom. Attempting to use it as a platform to make a symbolic statement rejecting the WMF’s authority would be entirely antithetical to this important tradition of independence and neutrality. If you’re concerned about the self-governance of the project, Arbcom is an extremely important part of that, and the independent, uncontentious, apolitical elections are an important part of Arbcom’s legitimacy. Leave the elections alone from this political drama. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 20:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per Rschen. —Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 21:02, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
12. Don't mix up things up or have unrelated things on the same ballot. It's fine to gauge approval for a new policy but keep the election to strictly approving candidates for the Arbitration Committee, don't expand it to include other pursuits. That's what RFC are for. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:18, 11 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13. I don't like this scope creep. I don't like that if a voter shows up to vote they may not complete their ballot because now they have these questions to deal with - which could have them abandon their ballot while they start researching all the UCOC stuff, possibly never returning. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14. Putting referendums on ballots with dozens of other elections to vote in is already an issue in America, no need to bring that to Wikipedia. People can look at this issue separately and examine it in detail. Bill Williams 23:27, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15. This is asking for a garbage fire. Gamaliel (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
16. Oppose for all the reasons already cited above. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
17. Not the place nor the time. -- Amanda (she/her) 06:31, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
18. Per Swarm, xaosflux and Amanda. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
19. They are unrelated things; this would be an unnecessary complication.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
20. I think there should be a discussion planned in conjunction with any vote, to provide context and to enable the community to gain a better understanding of the views of the interested editors. I also am concerned about the ballot abandonment issue raised by Xaosflux. isaacl (talk) 21:02, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Poll on the Universal Code of Conduct)

• If this is adopted, we need to make it very clear in the directions and massmessages that this is completely optional and has no bearing on the ACE results. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @BilledMammal: as you a proposing this, can you make an informational landing page specific to this new question? Perhaps something like Wikipedia:2022 Community UCoC poll (feel free to come up with a better name). The page should explain what is being asked, why it is being asked, what will be done with the results. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:38, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. It is very basic, and editors should feel free to make

  WP:BOLD editors if they feel it is needed. BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• If I were to see something like this, I'd actually really like it to be a section by section question of each document. --Izno (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that is practical, unfortunately; unless there is some undocumented XML (and there probably is), SecurePoll doesn't support extended question-specific text. As such, voters would need to be tabbing between the code of conduct and the enforcement guideline as they are voting, and given how many sections there are I don't think enough would bother to make it a worthwhile exercise. BilledMammal (talk) 03:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think an up/down vote on the items as a whole is a meaningful exercise either..... Izno (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a fair point; I had similar concerns, but they were addressed by the fact that an up-down vote on the text as a whole was what the WMF did for the enforcement guidelines, and because it was pointed out to me that to convince the WMF to act we need broad participation in a way that we are unlikely to get in an RfC. BilledMammal (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If we want the WMF to act we need to explain to them clearly what action it is we want them to take and why. A "no" vote here would be no more useful than an

  Andy Pipkin-style "I don't like it". Thryduulf (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Well there are as few as 8 sections which doesn't strike me as necessarily an unreasonable amount to poll on, though going any more granular doesn't strike me as feasible in a vote like. But I do prefer the 2 question version to the 8 question version myself. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I was looking at it in a more granular manner that that; I counted between five and seven sections (depending on whether you include the preamble and the introduction) for the Universal Code of Conduct itself, and many more for the enforcement guidelines. However, if you do it as top-level sections only it does become much more manageable. BilledMammal (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Split this to another page. This is out of scope here. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Personally, I suggest including, as part of this proposal, a plan to hold an RfC discussion prior to the vote. This will allow interested editors to discuss the various considerations to be weighed. isaacl (talk) 23:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please just move the voter guides from the main template, and merely just have a link to an overview page/category? The main template already has a link, that should suffice - editors will still easily find them. For concerns about features the template currently provides, those features could be split to a new, different, template, which could then be placed at the top of the category and/or related list page. - jc37 22:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Move list of voter guides)

1. As nom - jc37 22:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. The guides are important, but they should be less prominent. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. I supported this last year. My opinion has not changed. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. As I say elsewhere, I'm in favor of ending ArbCom voter guides. This proposal at least reduces their profile. Jusdafax (talk) 04:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. I have never loved the idea of us broadcasting a selection of personal commentary before the election. Lowering their prominence is a good idea, and I'd supporting removing any links to them altogether. Vanamonde (Talk) 05:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Move list of voter guides)

1. I might move to support if the proposal could be fleshed out in more detail, depending of course on what those details are. I can see some value in making the guides look less "official". But everyone is free to read them or not, and to be swayed by them or not. (And some editors even find some of the guides to be useful.) I think using the category page (example) as the list location is a bad idea. I don't think we gain that much value by making a link on the main template, that just goes to another template. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Adding: with the renaming to "Personal" (see the discussion section just below), I'm moving into a firm oppose for this proposal, as no longer addressing a need. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. I'm not seeing any problem that needs solving regarding the guides, and certainly nothing this vague proposal will resolve. Thryduulf (talk) 01:44, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Perennial proposal. --Rschen7754 07:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Solution in search of a problem. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. The guides are only listed if the guide author wants them there, and the template already collapses these. We can always add to the intro text (via Module:Arbcom_election_banner) if any more disclaimers are needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Kudpung. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 22:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Thryduulf and Kudpung, I found that there is no problem here. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 00:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Move list of voter guides)

• Can we just remove the voter guides from the main template, and merely leave the link? If the list is moved somewhere else, editors will find them. I'd add this as a new "proposal", but there seems to be some sort of "process" to that. If someone else would be willing to add this as a proposal, that would be most welcome. - jc37 22:21, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you use the wikitext editor, see the template text just before the table of contents on this page, and copy and paste it to create a new proposal section. Alternatively, just mimic someone else's section. isaacl (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I copied the text at the top and edited it. Thank you very much : ) - jc37 22:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If you do make such a proposal, please consider giving some thought to what the "list... moved somewhere else" would be. Aside from a category page, which isn't the most useful list for this purpose, we do not currently have such a list. Would it be a stadalone page? Would it, as the template does now, randomize the order of list entries every time it is loaded? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  A new, different, template at the top of the category page could do all of that, if wished. - jc37 22:45, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a pretty unconventional use for category space, and I don't think it would be a good idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Unconventional? This is presumably a form of Wikpedian collaboration. This type of thing is rather common. Please see all the subcats of Category:Wikipedians. - jc37 22:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you clarify in your proposal the link to which you are referring when you say "leave the link"? isaacl (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. And thank you for suggesting the copy edit. - jc37 23:16, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Guides are overrated and us elites spend too much time talking about them. They get a relatively low number of views and there is no correlation between any individual guide and results over multiple years. Only when all guides show some strong consensus for or against a candidate is there any correlation. But that seems to say more about candidate quality, which likely means without the guides those same people would/wouldn't be elected (evidence: User:Izno/ACE meta guide). I have written my own guide and will definitely read every guide that's published but I view it as entertainment on the same level as enjoying a horoscope. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  "They get a relatively low number of views"? Relative to what? The number of votes? I think that the only people who read guides are voters, and each reads each guide a maximum of once.

  In 2021, 1,570 votes were counted. Looking at their pageviews, 1/11/21 to 7/12/21, four of the guides received more views than there were counted votes. I think that says a lot. I do not think that correlations is a validating feature. The guides, mostly, advocate voters to think for themselves, to not just follow the guide writer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Another comparison is 1287, the number of watchers of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll just throw out another idea that occurred to me, although I don't feel like it's particularly necessary. On the template that links to the guides (example), the collapsed section with the guide list is labeled "Voter guides". It would be easy to revise that to "Unofficial voter guides". It's certainly true, and it might address some of the perennial concerns without creating any new kludges. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tryptofish you good with "Personal Voter Guides"? I'm good with boldly just changing the module to that. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:51, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Done if a word can reduce drama, I'm all for it! — xaosflux ^Talk 18:02, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that ArbCom has never elected a non-admin in its nearly 20 year history, it shows that the community wants administrators to serve on ArbCom rather than non-admins. It also shows that non-admins are very likely to fail if they do run. Interstellarity (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Require all candidates to be administrators)

1. Interstellarity (talk) 23:14, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Require all candidates to be administrators)

1. While I'm personally very unlikely to support a non-admin for arb, this feels like instruction creep that won't accomplish anything. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is a huge jump from the current requirement of being a Registered account with 500 mainspace edits... in good standing. The voters can already make this judgement. If the goal is to make the election run smoother by avoiding purely hopeless candidates, a lower bar could be tried first (perhaps starting with something like requiring you to be registered for a year or something). — xaosflux ^Talk 23:25, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Just because non-admins never get elected, that's no reason to bar them from running. I agree RE: xaosflux's reasoning. Ultimately, administrators are just users who have been granted the ability to perform special actions, but are no more important than other editors. Edderiofer (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. There are plenty of non admins who are just as knowledgable, mature, and responsible as members of the committee are/have been. Not having the admin tool set might be a slight disadvantage for a member and preclude their activity in some of Arbcom's background work, but it is in no way a 100% required accessory for intelligently assessing and voting on cases. In hindsight, there could even be an argument for suggesting a new policy that some members are not admins. This might even attract more candidates of the right calibre to run for election. It's not too late to propose such a change. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Xaosflux and Edderiofer. I also agree with much of what Kudpung says (my initial gut reaction to requiring a non-admin is unfavourable, but more thinking may change that). Being a good admin and being a good arbitrator require overlapping but not identical skill sets - indeed arbitrators probably actually need a narrow set of skills (primarily good communication, diplomacy, critical thinking, tolerance of bureaucracy) than is typically required to pass an RFA these days (where content creation, technical skills, assessing consensus, etc. are also regularly demanded). Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Inability of non-admins to get elected doesn't merit excluding them from running. Reasons per above. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. I can think of multiple non-admins who would be a positive on the committee. Valereee (talk) 19:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. I also can think of non-admins who I think would make good arbs. Further I believe it is possible to be elected, though admittedly it might take the right candidate + the right election field to make it happen. Beyond that I think there is value in candidates running who bring fresh perspectives and ideas that get discussed even if those editors don't end up making the committee. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. The minimums are to ensure that newbies don't get bitten and disincentivize socking. Determinations of quality or suitability for the role beyond that are best left to voters. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. No. It's alreadly admin-overloaded.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:16, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. per above. Additionally, if a non-admin had sufficient support to be elected to arbcom, they would have enough support to get this rule repealed. Let's avoid making that person jump through unnecessary hoops. HouseBlaster^talk 22:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
12. Philosophically, I believe we are one community - non-admins, admins, arbs, we're all Wikipedians and anyone who volunteers and has sufficient trust amongst the community of Wikipedians should be part of the arbitration committee. I do not agree with the idea of someone who is empirically more trusted missing out on a seat on the committee to someone who is empirically less trusted. Worm^TT(talk) 10:05, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13. There's very few non-admins I'd support for ARBCOM, and most of them are ex-admins who are very unlikely to run. But a requirement? Absolutely not. As I said below with respect to requiring one non-admin, I think we should be appointing the people who get the most support in the election, period. If that ends up being a non-admin, that's fine. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14. Per Worm That Turned above. Mz7 (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15. The community hasn't elected a non-admin, but it should remain an option. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
16. I don't see what benefit it would really bring to mandate this. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
17. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
18. Just let Wikipedians who vote decide. NE Ent 20:44, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Require all candidates to be administrators)

• @Interstellarity: technically, in 2017 Worm That Turned was elected to the committee while not being an administrator (he then reclaimed access at BN). — xaosflux ^Talk 01:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  ... technically. Worm^TT(talk) 14:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Technically the same thing happened with Xeno in 2019 - was not an admin got it back by asking after elected. The fun twist there is Xeno was a crat at the time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the members of ArbCom are dominated by administrators, it would be helpful that if at least 1 non-admin was on ArbCom so that it is more diverse and would make adminship not a big deal. Interstellarity (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Require at least 1 non-admin)

1. Interstellarity (talk) 13:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Strong Support for the reasons described in Proposal 9, oppose votes 4 and 5, but at least two such seats would be preferable. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support. I think the committee would be enriched by input from a non-admin. Because active admins are very visible, they may have an unfair advantage in a vote. Valereee (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Weak support. I think at least one seat should be allocated for a non-administrator. Perhaps if all of the spots on the Committee are filled by administrators, there can be a separate "run-off" election where only non-administrator candidates can run. Whoever gets the highest support percentage in the run-off is elected to a one-year term.
   talk) 20:01, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   This works too, except that I'll appreciate a cut-off % because Arbitrators get Checkuser, Oversight(?) rights by default which are pretty sensitive userrights. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

5. Yes. Ideally more than one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Require at least 1 non-admin)

1. Regardless of one's opinion about whether non-admins should be elected, hijacking the voting process in this way is not the answer. What if no non-admins run? What if the only non-admin candidate is clearly unsuitable in other ways? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   An arbcom election is a vote, and there are voter guides, questions for the candidates, and discussions on the candidates. If a candidate, whether admin or otherwise, is 'clearly' unsuitable, they are highly unlikely to be voted for. You can see that clearly enough in previous elections. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:36, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   The issue is what happens if all the non-admin candidates are unsuitable? The proposal requires 1 non-admin be elected, so presumably the leading non-admin candidate would get the seat even if they only got 5% support? Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Same as happens when all the admin candidates are unsuitable? :D Valereee (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   No, as stated this proposal is not "run for ArbCom", this is "elected to ArbCom". There is no rejection at any percentage of placing at least non-admin on ArbCom in this proposal (or if there is, there is insufficient detail, a la xaosflux's comment below, to indicate it). Izno (talk) 19:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   What happens when all the admin candidates are unsuitable for arbcom? Valereee (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Nobody gets elected. However, we have a line in the sand that defines what makes a candidate administrator unsuitable today: 50%. This proposal does not have that same line in the sand. Izno (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Let's add that line. I don't see any reason to think it's more likely all non-admin candidates would be unsuitable than all admin candidates. Valereee (talk) 19:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   I think this requirement might encourage more non-admins to run. I could actually see a field. Valereee (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. Per Pppery and also this might discourage non-admins from standing to be an administrator (which not benefit the project). Practical issues that would need resolving before this could be implemented include: Are former admins eligible to be elected to this seat? If so how long ago do they have to have been an admin? (i.e. can they hand in their bits and then run the same day?). Would people who failed an RFA be eligible or only those who have never run? What about editors who are or have been admins on other projects? What happens if someone elected to this seat gains (or regains) adminship during their term? What happens if there is exactly 1 non-admin on the Committee but they resign or leave the Committee in some other way? Thryduulf (talk) 13:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Strong Oppose as is, I think there are a multiple problems with this proposal, as it is very light on details. The proposal title says that it is about who may be elected, the proposal reasoning says it is about the makeup of the sitting committee. Would such an elected non-admin arb be prohibited from becoming an admin once elected? What happens if no non-admins run, as the election "requires" this outcome is the election invalid in that case? If there are already non-admins on the committee, "must" more be elected? Does resigning adminship prior to the election qualify a candidate as a non-admin (e.g. the WTT example cited in the prior proposal)? Would this override other requirements (such as have >50% support demonstrated -- as the election is being "required" to produce such an output). — xaosflux ^Talk 13:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. While I would not hate to see some non-admins run (and have voted for at least one in the past), and from historical appearances there are usually one or two candidates, sometimes more, this proposal either completely contradicts the requirement to have at least 50% or simply is so lazy as not to make it obvious whether the minimum is still required for a non-admin candidate. --Izno (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Determinations of quality or suitability for the role are best left to voters. If the electorate evaluates a non-sysop to be qualified, they may elect her, or the reverse. If we would like the committee to have seats for constituencies, that should be a wider discussion on restructuring. Given the amount of reports we get regarding gender-based discrimination, racism, and privacy in oppressive regimes, the limited representation of women, editors of color, and editors outside of North America and the UK is a problem we've actually faced and discussed when making decisions. Holding spots for those perspectives would be more useful than holding a spot for someone who could pass an RfA but doesn't want to. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:30, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. If User:Admin gets 70% of the vote and User:NotAnAdmin gets 60% of the vote, under zero circumstances should User:NotAnAdmin get the seat. HouseBlaster^talk 22:45, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. This forces a non-admin to be on ArbCom, qualified or not. --Rschen7754 00:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   To add to this: it seems that they appoint non-admins to the ombuds commission, and m:Requests for comment/Ombuds Commission inactivity is the result. --Rschen7754 03:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

8. Philosophically, I believe we are one community - non-admins, admins, arbs, we're all Wikipedians and anyone who volunteers and has sufficient trust amongst the community of Wikipedians should be part of the arbitration committee. I do not agree with the idea of someone who is empirically more trusted missing out on a seat on the committee to someone who is empirically less trusted. Worm^TT(talk) 10:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strong oppose. We should appoint people by the support they received, and no other criterion. Vanamonde (Talk) 10:19, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. This is an arbitrary and unnecessary requirement that would simply lower the qualifications by requiring someone who does not beat out admins in a fair election. Bill Williams 12:41, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per Worm That Turned. Mz7 (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
12. Don't require it. Let the community decide. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
13. This is a disaster in the making. Imagine if we had only a single non-admin candidate and that person was a total troll. Don't make rules the paint you into a corner. I'm not fundamentally opposed to non-admins on arbcom, but if the community wants a non-admin, they already have the power to vote for one. Also, the biggest reason I see for reasonably qualified people refusing to become admins is because they don't want the pressure of going through a week of hell at RfA. If they can't handle the stress for a week, how are they going to handle it for a year? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    +1 to that last comment. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:35, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

14. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:11, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
15. Just let Wikipedians who vote decide. NE Ent 20:43, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
16. Absoutely not --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Require at least 1 non-admin)

• What happens if this proposal (require a non-admin be elected) and the previous proposal (require all candidates to be admins) both gain consensus? The two are mutually exclusive. Thryduulf (talk) 13:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  At this point "require all candidates to be admins" is going to be a snow close. So, not going to bother about that. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the proposal on the surface, but agree with Thryduulf's questions in oppose section. Further, in my opinion, if you reserve a seat for non-admins in hopes of increasing diversity, that seat should be the one-year term seat. Such an editor should also pass the minimum 50% support. Question is what if no non-admin meet the criteria? In any case, if proposal succeeds, they should be limited to just one reserved term. Ofcourse, the non-admin can get re-elected in the non-reserved seats in their own merit. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 13:51, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Which leads to the question about what happens if a non admin standing for the first time gets >60% support, do they get a normal seat (2 years) or the reserved seat (1 year)? Does it make a difference if they are the only non-admin to get >50%? If they get a normal seat, do they count as the non-admin member or not? If not, does the next highest-placed non-admin get the reserved seat even if one or more admins were better supported? I don't think any these questions are unanswerable, but they (and any others that arise) do need answering before a proposal like this is viable. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If one non-admin gets elected to a two-year seat in their own merit, we no longer need reservation because the objective of having "at least one non-admin" is met. The one-year seat is opened unreserved. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That is logical but isn't what the proposal says. If the objective is having "at least one non-admin [on the committee]" then if a non-admin gets elected two a two year term then is there a need to still "require at least one non-admin to get elected" the following year? Thryduulf (talk) 14:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, then there's no need to reserve another seat. And I agree that current proposal is vague. I might support a variation of this proposal that addresses the issues raised. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:47, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• At the conclusion of an ArbCom election, the 14 two-year term seats would be filled as usual (upto 7 of them already filled due to elections 1 year prior).
• Upon the filling of the 14 seats, it will be checked if there is at least 1 non-admin.
  • If there is a non-admin, the 15th seat (one-year term) would be elected as usual.
  • If there are no non-admins, the 15th seat (one-year term) would be reserved for a non-admin provided that they meet the minimum support % criteria. If no candidate meets that requirement, seat remains vacant for the term.^{(taken from Valereee's suggestion above)}
• Any vacancies arising shall be handled similar to how vacancies are currently handled.
• Note: "Non-admin" for the purpose of this proposal is defined as any editor who would be required to go through an RfA in order to gain adminship.^{(per comments below)} as an editor who is not an Administrator (and/or higher than Admin user group member) currently and has not been so anytime in the 3 years preceding November 1 of the election year. (modified: 20:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)) —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Require at least 1 non-admin (detailed))

I think having the perspectives of the underrepresented is a net positive. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:03, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about this and found Wugapodes's argument convincing. When a non-admin is given advanced permissions that come with ArbCom like oversight, checkuser, that line separating the non-admins from admins is essentially removed, except that the Arb would be significantly powerless. Further, a non-admin volunteering for elections would be already very visible, enough to potentially win a RFA if they ran. We should have opinions from non-admins but maybe that should come by the way of appointment by ArbCom themselves, like CUs are appointed. This way the not-visible, hardworking non-admins can be recruited. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. Support in principle, but like its predecessor at #10 this is a very thinly prepared proposal. At best it can only serve as a precursor to a properly thought out RfC. See comments below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Support. And yes, some clarifying RfC might be needed later.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:18, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   In my experience, if clarification proves to be needed what will happen is that the election committee will make a call for that election and then it will end up clarified in the subsequent ACERFC. See Proposal 3 as an example this year. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Require at least 1 non-admin (detailed))

1. I would like the ~1500 people who vote in the community to elect a non-admin arb or two before less than 50 of us here mandate that it happen. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Admins have an unfair advantage that we need to address. There are any number of qualified non-admins, and many of them may not be running because they are fully aware they're at a disadvantage. Let's even the playing field. One seat at the table. Valereee (talk) 20:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   If they're at a disadvantage it's because the electorate, the majority of whom are non-admins, have decided they care about that. If the electorate was majority admin the idea of a single seat for representation would play differently. But the electorate is a large number of editors and I think telling them they can't have preferences they would like is not something the small number of us who participate here should be doing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   BK49, all respect and apologies in advance, but that's bs. Again, apologies. But there's an inherent/cultural human likelihood -- at least in most English-speaking countries -- to believe in authority, and admins are authority and have the recognition that accompanies that. If there weren't, we would be seeing non-admins running more frequently. And an admin -- an ArbCom! -- making this argument is slightly problematic. Valereee (talk) 20:29, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   You think it's problematic that I respect democracy. I think it's problematic that you don't. If this were a tyranny of the majority situation I would feel differently. It's not and so yes I think the fact that our electorate makes a choice should be respect and not overridden by a very small number of people who, simply by participating on this page, are very elite. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   You think the fact I disagree with you means I don't respect democracy? Wow. Valereee (talk) 21:14, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   You're the one who choose to escalate by saying the fact that my view was problematic and BS especially given that I'm a sitting arb. So yes I choose to restate in strong terms why I am opposing this proposal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   BK49, from my perspective you said that if the community hadn't yet elected a non-admin, that means there just weren't good non-admin candidates and we shouldn't try to ensure we removed any barriers to that. There are barriers to non-admin candidates being seriously considered by voters. Valereee (talk) 21:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   I've struck what is probably problematic, happy to do so, and I apologize for causing offense. Valereee (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   I didn't say there aren't any good non-admin candidates. I said nothing about non-admin candidate quality in this proposal. Where I talked about non-admin candidate quality I said I also can think of non-admins who I think would make good arbs. with the also referring to your comment above mine. What I said in this proposal, in every comment I've made in response to you, is that the opinions of the large number of voters should be respected. I get that you're trying to represent a group you feel isn't getting a fair shake. I'm suggesting that we have, among a large number of editors, a pretty clear consensus going back years on this topic and this small group of editors who participate in this discussion shouldn't override that consensus. That wouldn't be fair to our rather large electorate, which has many many non-admins among them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Those barriers can't be disentangled from the actual practical value of the sysop buttons for arb work. What value is there in an editor who can use checkuser but not block socks? Oversight edits but not protect pages where material is being readded? Make discretionary sanctions but not enforce them? All of those are barriers to serious consideration because they are a fundamental disadvantage to choosing someone without sysop buttons. These aren't even hypothetical concerns, the all-time highest placing non-sysop faced scrutiny over whether he would even be able to view deleted material, a basic function of reviewing evidence. Even looking only at committee book-keeping, the non-sysop arbitrator could not protect case pages or effect case blocks or bans increasing the workload for clerks or other arbs. Presumed authority or status might be one other criteria voters use, but there are plenty of legitimate, qualification-based reasons for why voters would not seriously consider a non-sysop and these have been expressed in elections involving those candidates. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   A single arb who can't perform all arb tasks seems to me less of a problem than an entire committee, which conducts business often in private, which doesn't include any representation of non-admins. Valereee (talk) 13:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. This is certainly better fleshed out and more practical than the previous proposal, but Barkeep49 makes a valid point; this is trying to LOCALCONSENSUS its way around the actual ACE election. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:28, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   It's on the Centralized Discussions Template. How is that LOCALCONSENSUS? Valereee (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Under normal circumstances, it wouldn't be. But it is when you are comparing it to the election itself. which is far more heavily advertised. That is, IMO this proposal is seeking to improperly overrule the will of the voters. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:00, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

3. Oppose as the proposal above would shrink the committee rather then fill it with what could otherwise be a highly supported candidate - simply if no non-admins run (or are deemed appropriate by voters) in a specific election. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:53, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   @Xaosflux, what's the likelihood of zero appropriate candidates from among the thousands of active non-admin editors? Valereee (talk) 20:59, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Given the number of non-admin candidates in recent elections, very high. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   @Thryduulf, and how many non-admin candidates have we had in recent elections? And do we not think this is circular? Valereee (talk) 21:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   1. I'd run but 2. I'm not going to win because 3. only admins win so 4. if I run, I look like an idiot who doesn't realize I can't win. Oh, and if I run, the fact I've shown I'm an idiot affects my chances at RfA. Valereee (talk) 21:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   @Valereee: I'm not sure how to measure this "likelihood", here are some recent actual results:

   • In 2021, 1 non-admin ran, they got ~31% support - this would have shrank the committee rather than fill it with any of the 3 candidates with >60% support.
   • In 2020, 1 non-admin ran, they got ~56% support - they would have bumped 2 people with >~60% support.
   • In 2019. 3 non-admins ran, they got ~27%, ~39%, and ~40%, this would have shrank the committee rather than fill it with any of the 5 candidates with >60% support.

   It's possible a "good thing" in 2020, but in the 2021 and 2019 I think this would have been a net-loss. A second possible problem, voters may more harshly vote against non-admins, as they are basically in a different election in this scenario. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:13, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   At risk of bludgeoning here, and I apologize if that's what I'm getting into, just responding. @Xaosflux, IMO, the 56% support in 2020 would be a reason to replace the 66% admin with a non-admin in aid of a diverse committee. Valereee (talk) 21:19, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Agree, that's why I called that one out as possibly a "good thing". — xaosflux ^Talk 21:23, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   But why would we have only 1-3 candidates from among literally thousands of non-admins if it weren't obvious they couldn't win? Valereee (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   To clarify: if plausible non-admin candidates (of which there are certainly hundreds if not thousands) didn't think there was some chance of being elected, why wouldn't we have more of them than 1-3 a year? Valereee (talk) 22:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Considering that the opposition from Thryduulf and you has primarily been regarding the shrinking of ArbCom, I was wondering of a situation wherein the 15 seats are elected as is. But one supernumerary seat is added if and only if one non-admin meets the minimum 50% support criteria. What would be your opinion in that case? —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   @CX_Zoom see my note in the comments section below on an off-the wall idea. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:26, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4. Per Xaosflux. The Committee should only have seats unfilled if there are fewer supported candidates than seats available, if there are more supported candidates than seats the seats should be filled by the most supported candidates regardless of their admin status. Thryduulf (talk) 21:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. See my comment in the above proposal. If we are going to potentially shrink the committee or skip over vastly more preferred candidates (per Xaosflux's data), I would want a better justification than saving a spot for someone who doesn't have certain buttons (why the sysop buttons? why not require a non-page mover or a non-template editor?). If a non-sysop candidate is more qualified than other candidates, they will be elected; that they have not tells us something about voter preferences which we should not override without an extremely compelling reason. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per my comment in 10A. HouseBlaster^talk 02:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per previous comment. --Rschen7754 03:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. There's some good points being made above about the likelihood of non-admins running, and the effects of differing thresholds, but I'm fundamentally unhappy with the idea of the ARB seats being filled by any besides those with the highest support. If we want non-admin candidates to be on the committee (and I tend to disagree that their absence is a fundamental problem) then we ought to encourage a bunch of good candidates to run. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:04, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Philosophically, I believe we are one community - non-admins, admins, arbs, we're all Wikipedians and anyone who volunteers and has sufficient trust amongst the community of Wikipedians should be part of the arbitration committee. I do not agree with the idea of someone who is empirically more trusted missing out on a seat on the committee to someone who is empirically less trusted. Worm^TT(talk) 10:02, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per Worm That Turned above. Mz7 (talk) 14:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. The actual community vote should be controlling. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
12. While I agree with many other opposers, I have something else to add. Arbitrators effectively require administrative permissions to do their work. All arbitrators are designated as oversighters/checkusers for life, and it's illogical to let someone use
    WP:RFA that can be opened with as little as 50% support. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 19:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
13. Just let Wikipedians who vote decide. NE Ent 20:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
14. Absoutely not --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 21:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Require at least 1 non-admin (detailed))

• @CX Zoom: could I suggest the definition of "Non-admin" be "Any editor who would be required to go through an RfA in order to gain adminship"? For instance if ArbCom desysopped someone and they ran that year I think they should be eligible to fill that non-admin slot were this to pass. That wording would also cover the Xeno/WTT scenario discussed above. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Support this. Someone who voluntarily desysopped and could resysop at any point shouldn't count as a non-admin. Valereee (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Makes sense, so I've changed the proposal. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 20:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• So "comments" time, I opposed #9 above because I don't think we should "require" adminship for the committee - I actually like the idea of non-admins being on the committee in theory, but I don't personally think I like it in practice. I'd even support one of these 10's if the non-admin was a "special" seat: one that could only access and vote on matters that were public - the same way other non-admins would see situations. By making them non-admins, but also making them checkusers, oversighters, giving them access to all the private mailings and private wikis -- they aren't really a non-admin anymore. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to clarify from ambiguity of "it" above, I'm referring to the "it" of requiring a non-admin, not the "it" of a non-admin getting elected under the current process. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:51, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  About 90% of the work that an arb does is non-public; a public-information-only arb's role would quite different from that of other arbs. Also, it is very frequent that public matters involve some element of private information: e.g., non-public background on a particular conflict. It is almost impossible to separate the roles. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 07:40, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes I understand, in that most of it doesn't deal with just dealing with cases that have public evidence, etc - but with things like private unban requests so this may be of little utility. The things that are public (most full cases that have public evidence etc; ARCA's, many public motions) is what the non-admin community members often "see", where that could possibly give them more representation. This was only here in the comments as a possible idea, certainly nothing I fleshed out in to building real proposal over. Thank for the feedback! — xaosflux ^Talk 10:14, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree that admins have an unfair advantage as a candidate to be an arbitrator. Their service to the community is weighed in accordance to each voter's preference. I can appreciate an argument for dividing the committee into categories of seats in order to increase its diversity. This can be proposed independently of calling anyone's Wikipedia history unfair. isaacl (talk) 21:34, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Ideally, yes. In actuality, we don't know how much someone unconsciously considers authority. Valereee (talk) 21:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  To me dwelling on unfairness is a distraction from the underlying question of diversity. There are lots of other aspects that could be considered, such as time period when the editor first became engaged with the community. Admin/non-admin might not the community's highest priority to address. isaacl (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thryduulf's table is interesting but doesn't tell us anything that ACE-aware editors don't already know: that some non-admin candidates regularly score high enough to obtain a seat if one were available. There has been no suggestion that this proposal would diminish the number of seats, Wugapodes, indeed, the constant absenteeism on the committee is argument enough for increasing its number. If no non-admin candidate reaches the pass mark, so be it, a non-admin seat would remain unfilled. All this besides, however, clearly demonstrates to me at least that the entire committee composition system is due for a major review. Such a policy change requires and extremely well planned and wordsmithed RfC, which is probably too late to organise for this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Kudpung (talk • contribs) 22:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin candidates since 2014

notes:

• Green background indicates candidate would have been elected under this proposal
• Yellow background indicates a candidate who received over 50% support but would not be elected under this proposal
• Vaulter
  .
• Hawkeye7 is, and was at the time of both elections, a former administrator
• Wbm1058 is currently an administrator.
• Wildthing61476 is now known as RickinBaltimore
  and is currently an admin.
• In 2015 Hawkeye7 was the third highest placed candidate who did not get elected.
• In 2016 Calidum was the third highest placed candidate who did not get elected.
• In 2017 SMcCandlish was the second highest placed candidate who did not get elected.
• In 2018 Robert McClenon was the fourth highest placed candidate who did not get elected.
• In 2020 SMcCandlish was the second highest placed non-withdrawn candidate who did not get elected, Hawkeye7 was the third
• Information taken from the candidate guide and results table for each year's election and excludes candidates who withdrew before the election. Thryduulf (talk)

Great data. I would just note that RickinBaltimore is not only currently an admin but is a former arb having been elected in ACE2017. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Having become an admin in 2016. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that there was a missing non-admin candidate who I have added to the table. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I've added Robert McClenons's finishing position to the notes above. Thryduulf (talk) 22:52, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf: I ran in 2015 as well. I had the most votes of any non-administrator candidate that year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:38, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7: Ah yes, the strikethrough of the A on the 2015 candidates guide is almost impossible to see (at least on my screen) which is why I missed you ran as a non-admin that year. Anyway, I've added your 2015 stats to the table and notes. Thryduulf (talk) 23:49, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I would just note that the guy this proposal would have elected in 2016 was indefinitely blocked last month (personal attacks or violations of the harassment policy: trolling). But I can think of at least one former Arbitration Committee member who was also indefinitely blocked, in a highly dramatic episode, while they were standing as a candidate. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is this micro community of Arbcom regulars assuming that the broader community is not intelligent enough to vote on a well fleshed out RFC? Certainly some things need to be drastically changed at Arbcom, if not even deprecating it altogether and replacing it with something else. A major RFC can be launched any time. It won't be in time for this year's election but it does not need to wait until next year's ACE RFC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed this RFC is intended to be about how the elections are run and practical issues associated with doing so. It's not really the right venue for significant reforms to the structure or operation of the committee itself (although who may stand as a candidate is certainly on-topic here), especially as it would be seriously beneficial to take the time to properly develop any proposals, thinking through potential consequences, ironing out kinks, rewording things to avoid misunderstandings and ambiguities, coming up with answers to common questions, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The factor we can't know is who would have run if they knew a non-admin with more than X support would be elected. Some wise folks wouldn't waste their time if they know it's a non-starter. Valereee (talk) 17:33, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Has anyone thought about the idea of including proposal 10B in the election itself? (that is, including as a question for voters to vote on "Should ArbCom always contain at least one non-admin?") This would address Barkeep49's and my objection above. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I oppose that suggestion because needs to be determined by consensus not by a vote. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The Rambling Man, who ran in 2019, is another non-admin candidate (well, ex-admin). Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:36, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added to the table. I can't explain why I overlooked them! Thryduulf (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the 2020 Arbitration election request for comment,

1. Technical challenges for implementing the 2020 decision make the cost/benefit ratio too high. isaacl (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per proposal statement. Thryduulf (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. No prejudice against revisiting this idea if it becomes technically possible. HouseBlaster^talk 23:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Isaacl. The devs have got more important things to do - if only they would. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. I was meaning to propose this myself earlier, but never got around to it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Basic housekeeping, that prior idea sounded OK, but if someone wants to propose something that requires "magic" to implement - they really should first have to be a sorcerer. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. Very reasonable. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. Mmhmm. Izno (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
9. Reasonable, but note on
   talk) 12:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   Which, if used, would also not fix the the "magic" per-user sticky attribute requested a couple of years ago that never materialized. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:44, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

10. Seems sensible. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:30, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
11. Tol (talk | contribs) @ 02:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
12. Any kind of shuffling, including manual, bot-based, giving editors a big button that says "Click here to shuffle the page", or whatever else you can think of, is IMO both a good idea and sufficient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    @WhatamIdoing "button" type added for now, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates for an example. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (candidate order on candidates page)

Comments (candidate order on candidates page)

The makeup of the committee is decided by freeform election and should remain so. If we wish to increase diversity on the committee, such as by holding seats for certain groups, it should be decided at an RfC with wider participation than the election RfC. Worm^TT(talk) 10:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Diversity on the committee)

1. When it comes down to it, I see the problem we're trying to solve here is one of diversity. There is a concern that the committee is a homogenous group, not representative of certain views of Wikipedians and I believe that's true. However, I question whether altering the diversity by forcing non-admins onto it is the right way to alter that diversity. Surely, there other measures of diversity which should be considered as more important than whether we are admins or not. I'm talking about gender diversity, geographical diversity, racial diversity, I'm sure there are others. If we are going to stop the "free form" election and alter the make up of the committee with some sort of affirmative action, I believe that there are more important issues that we should deal with than whether or not the community member would be required to go through RfA to hold a user right. Whatever we do decide, it should be decided by a wider community group that the ones who are considering the rules around the election. Worm^TT(talk) 10:29, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per WTT. Proposals for reform in this (or indeed any other) matter should also be fully and publicly workshopped, ideally with input from all groups being targetted, before being presented for a vote or consensus discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree about the process, and agree also that if we're trying to have a committee that includes a diversity of perspectives, non-admin perspectives aren't the ones that seem most urgent to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 12:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Without a vote it would be unfair to add committee members to represent specific groups. Bill Williams 12:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. I think at least something should be discussed. A wider RfC would be more appropriate than the election discussion.
   talk) 16:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. Basically per WTT. It concerns a RfC on a proposed major change to a Wikipedia procedure and as such it should be extremely well workshopped and wordmithed before being launched. It's obviously out of scope for the annual pre-election RfC which incidentally is not particularly heavily subscribed. It can be held any time and is not contingent upon being concomitant with the annual pre-election RfC. That such a RfC might not end in a consensus for the adoption of the proposal should not be a reason to presuppose that it might fail - 'if you never ask, you'll never know'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Diversity on the committee)

1. The election RfC is already quite powerful, in that it can change the size of the committee, change candidate and voter eligibility, etc. Based on that I don't support forbidding this annual RfC from being used to introduce other such requirements. That being said, I agree that the larger and more complex a proposal is, the more it should be workshopped in advance to work out kinks. I also agree that the more impactful a specific proposal, the greater the requirement for it to be well advertised and well attended. So if a diversity proposal were included at the start, didn't have to be changed during the RfC, and was well attended - I don't see a reason it should be prohibited. On the other hand, a late-added proposal with issues that is poorly attended should already be able to be discarded by the RfC closer(s) as defective. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:42, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   To follow up on some notes from others; I'm not opposed to a standalone RFC like WTT proposes also being able to be valid - just that we don't need a prohibition that it could never be part of this format of RFC. Wider advertisement could be prudent for more striking changes as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. I agree with Xaosflux. I see no reason why all diversity-related questions should be outside of the realm of this RfC, which has historically been effective at making significant changes to the structure of the committee (e.g. by changing its size and the length of its terms). (Note: I understand this proposal merely to be about what can and cannot be decided at this pre-election RfC; I understand it not to be a referendum on any actual question of whether we wish to implement rules or mechanisms to increase diversity on the committee.) Mz7 (talk) 14:54, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. I am not opposed to having additional RfCs scheduled earlier in the year regarding the arbitration committee elections, or having an RfC dedicated to a single proposal. (Earlier this year I encouraged proposals to be made early so the community could consider if a different schedule of one or more RfCs was desirable.) I don't think it is a good idea, though, to lock in the idea that this specific topic must be handled in a separate RfC. They're all election RfCs, whether or not they are held in September, if they affect the election. We should have the flexibility to decide on a year-to-year basis what makes sense for the current year. isaacl (talk) 15:10, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. This is a well-attended RfC that is advertised at the Centralized Discussion Template. I think that's sufficient. Valereee (talk) 17:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. I agree with the sentiment of the proposal, but there is no need to spell it out explicitly, and no need to encourage an RfC that is unlikely to succeed. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
6. Tryptofish spells out my thoughts well: good sentiment, but no reason to spell it out. As a procedural point, I believe that a future pre-election RfC would simply be able to achieve consensus to get rid of this rule and introduce additional qualifications. HouseBlaster^talk 17:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
7. The pre-election RfC is advertised and pretty well attended. This is a one-stop destination for all ArbCom RfCs at the moment. Editors should be able to propose major changes within it, which the other editors already knowing the predetermined schedule would be able to discuss on. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 14:59, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
8. I strongly agree with WTT's statement, but I think the proposal as written will actually undermine the goals we share. Yes, like others in support I think a separate RfC would be the best way to discuss and consider options for goals and election methods which will achieve them, but I don't think that should be the only way. As a wiki, we're used to piecewise change: we try some narrow use case and expand or contract depending on how it works out. While I think the proposals this year regarding admin/non-admin seats are not ideal, the general idea of trying some constituency seat and then re-evaluating is a viable way to build support for larger scale change. Additionally, as xaosflux and others point out, we already make major modifications to the committee composition in the annual RfC, so if we can change the number of seats, qualifications to run, threshold to win, and method of selection in this RfC, why should diversity measures be singled out as invalid proposals? Singling out diversity initiatives gives them a higher bar by requiring volunteers to set up another RfC at a different time and then building a critical mass to impose a change, things this annual RfC already provides. The proposal as written gives diversity initiatives a higher bar than any other change in composition or selection method, and this will have the practical effect of blocking only diversity measures which undermines the actual intent of the proposal. We shouldn't mandate an all-or-nothing approach on this because it will most likely result in nothing, which paradoxically undermines the goals we share. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:17, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   @Wugapodes: I hear you, and share the concern about "diversity measures" being set a higher procedural bar. I do think there's a logic to it in this specific case, though, and given the brevity of my support I thought I'd elaborate a little. This RfC is, I believe, seen as a niche procedural RfC. We've tinker with support percentages and such, that have an actual impact on composition; perhaps the biggest impact this RFC has had is in the number of seats on the committee; but to my view it does not alter in any way the baseline expectation an uninformed editor may have for the ARBCOM election, that is, the candidates with the most support are elected. Even changes to the !voting system are only looking to better define "most support". I don't think changing that expectation should be left to an RFC that typically has a few dozen participants. Also, this statement isn't about diversity measures as such (the most effective of which likely have to do with candidate recruitment, and aren't even formal measures). It grew out of the proposal above to elect non-admins, and is addressing only the notion of some seats on the committee being determined by criteria besides the a vote. As such, intentionally or otherwise, I think it's actually levelling the playing field a little. If someone proposed that a seat on ARBCOM be reserved for a woman, I'm quite certain a hue and cry would ensue, participation in this RFC would explode, and megabytes of text would be expended on criticizing us elsewhere on the internet. A proposal addressing a minor within-Wikipedia disparity, rather than an enormous societal one, might have snuck through using the same mechanism. This statement raises the bar for all such efforts, and is therefore no bad thing, IMO. Forgive the length, but I felt it a topic worth discussing. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:22, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

9. I think there is a real problem with entertaining Proposals 9 and 10 at this RfC, but it's not that the proposals were brought during ACERFC. Instead, it's that they were brought so late – almost halfway through the process – after most of the other proposals have mostly been settled. There's no sense in which Proposals 9 and 10 were discussed at a "30 day RfC", which is the kind of consensus I'd like to see in major community decisions (see also
   WP:PROPOSAL). So, I agree that Proposals 9 and 10 should be barred, but on the procedural grounds that they did not receive sufficient discussion to reach a meaningful PROPOSAL-level consensus. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 22:02, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply
   ]

• I think more specifics should be expanded upon, given that there is no single mandated election RfC. Is the proposal that this topic must not be covered in the traditional multi-proposal election RfC, but in a separate standalone RfC? Is a minimum participation requirement being proposed? If yes, then can consensus on the topic be reached in a multi-proposal election RfC if the minimum participation requirement is met? isaacl (talk) 16:30, 16 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]