Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

2023 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 03:32 (UTC), Thursday, 4 July 2024 (Purge)

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


Tweak EC selection process

Added to RFC
 – isaacl (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear yet on how best to do it, but to remind myself for next year: I think it's important we have at least one person on EC who has done it before (for institutional memory). I think it's important we have at least one person on EC who has not done it before (for new blood, and expanding the supply of people who can help the following year). I'd like to figure out a way to ensure this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I suggested on the talk page last year, it could be proposed that one spot be set aside for first-time commissioners, if there are any suitable candidates who receive sufficient consensus support. (If not, the spot is filled from the other candidates who receive sufficient support.) I didn't personally propose it this year as it isn't an issue in which I have a deep interest. isaacl (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a reasonable question to ask at ACERFC with isaacl's caveat. Izno (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Completing an application

 – isaacl (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The nominate page says Applications are considered complete only when properly filled out and transcluded by the deadline are applications only considered the candidate statement or does it also include the other steps (questions, discussion)? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:41, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions only refer to the statement ("Statements must: (i) ..."), and as a matter of practice, I think that's enough. The questions and discussion are boilerplate and can be set up by anyone. isaacl (talk) 06:27, 18 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Based on my reading of the relevant question, I agree that the statement page is sufficient. The question itself uses the word "page" in the singular multiple times, matched by the summary blurb.
Should that be all is perhaps a relevant question, but I think it's clear what the current consensus is. As such, the nominate page should be changed to reflect that consensus, regardless of anything done at this year's ACERFC. (Like isaacl, I don't think it's necessary to require the others, but I think it's a reasonable question to ask.) Izno (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the questions pages are required then that would be subject to "wikilawyering" in the case that some user posts a question(s) for candidates after the deadline. Obviously even if a question is late we would still find it acceptable for the candidate to answer the question. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 02:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Include rename chain for candidates

 – isaacl (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Equivalent of
WP:SNOW
for ArbCom

 – isaacl (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In light of

WP:SNOW equivalent for ArbCom should be implemented. It's not exactly clear to me right now how it would be worded or how it would help save time (especially since I hear this is the first time a candidate has done this little during their ArbCom nomination), or indeed whether such a rule would interfere in the democracy of ArbCom elections, but I'm putting it on the table in case we get anything else like this in the future and anyone has any good ideas to make it effective. Edderiofer (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

This feels like a reasonable question, but 1) obviously needs wording for the question which means someone has to spend time on it, and 2) I think it ultimately ends up being in the remit of the commissioners extraordinary powers whether to remove a candidate. I'm most inclined to say it's not fundamentally necessary to write anything down. Izno (talk) 00:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to leave it to the electorate to decide, rather than establishing a filtering process based on candidate engagement. I think that's just going to expend a lot of time in discussion, without changing the result of the vote. isaacl (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking voter rolls for locked users

 – isaacl (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We probably should discuss next year whether the "you can't vote if blocked" rule also includes globally locked users. I see at least one notification on the talk page of a user who was globally locked well before the elections (

here), and looks like they were on the voter rolls as well. Not particularly critical - globally locked folks won't be able to log in, after all, and I expect it's rare that someone who qualifies to vote is globally locked - but probably something that should be discussed for the sake of completeness. GeneralNotability (talk) 22:24, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Given that they can't actually log in to vote, personally I don't think any special rules are required that need a community discussion. If an account were to be unlocked, and the user met English Wikipedia's voting criteria, they would be eligible to vote. isaacl (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
^-- that. If someone has done something "bad" here, we generally should block them regardless of if they are locked. — xaosflux Talk 22:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Fair 'nuff. Was surprised to see a locked user getting a voter notification, so figured I'd bring it up for review - if folks don't think any action is needed, then that's fine. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:23, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who we send the mass message to is (or can be) slightly different to who can vote, and we can certainly choose to not deliver that message to globally locked users if we want (I'm not expressing an opinion at the moment about whether we do want that). It would mean that they might not know they can vote if they are unlocked between the mass message and the close of voting, but this could be worked around by keeping a list of users who would have been mass-messaged if they weren't globally locked and then checking later to see if they have been unlocked and, if so, send them a message then. Given the list of such users is likely to be small, checking is unlikely to be a big job for either a bot or human. Whether we would want to bother with this is of course a separate question. Thryduulf (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, whoever is preparing the voter roll and the mass message list can make an executive decision about how to do it and how much ongoing effort they want to spend. isaacl (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see this on this year's ACERFC. Many bad faith socks are not blocked these days because stewards get to them first after reports at SRG. Izno (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'm not very concerned about globally locked users getting a notice when they can't actually vote. If they're bad-faith socks, they shouldn't be getting unlocked. isaacl (talk) 00:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not very concerned about blocked users getting a notice, but here we are. :) I think locked users should be treated consistently with blocked users. Izno (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A globally locked user is, by virtue of being globally locked, already banned from all activity on Wikimedia sites. It's not within the English Wikipedia's community purview to alter this, so there's no point in asking the community if globally locked users should be allowed to vote. I agree that it makes sense to handle the sending of notices the same way as for blocked users, but I'd as soon give flexibility to the volunteers doing the work, rather than dictating it has to be done a certain way. isaacl (talk) 02:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In reviewing this for the RFC-proper, locked editors are not supposed to receive notifications already as of 2019. Perhaps a reminder to whoever made the list last year would be desirable. I don't know who that was. (@GeneralNotability @Isaacl @Xaosflux @Thryduulf)
As for who can vote, I agree that the technical inability to log in is sufficient on the point. So I won't be pursuing this question. Izno (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can recall, it is a pain to build that check, it can be tried again though. — xaosflux Talk 21:49, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Length of vote

Added to RFC
 – isaacl (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The voting period feels like it lasts forever. It felt that way in years I didn't run and really feels that way in years I've run. We can capture over 80% of the existing vote if we were to move to 7 days like RfA and about 90% if we reduced to 10 days (we were below 90% this year but the last day always seems a voting bump and so if we'd gone 10 days we would like have gone over the 90% mark). Would it be alright to have marginally fewer voters for the benefit of a marginally faster process? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the benefit of a marginally faster process isn't worth it. Last year, the community felt trimming three days off of the nomination period wasn't desirable, even with over a month from the close of the election RfC available to consider and discuss potential nominations. I think it's better to allow time for the global community to establish consensus. isaacl (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
isaacl is referencing this discussion.
I think this is a reasonable question, but I also think it's likely to be one in the direction of "no, 2 weeks is good" at 60% total or higher. Izno (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Inability to sit on the CRC, Ombud, (and maybe the U4C) as a sitting arb

Added to RFC
 – isaacl (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right now ArbCom procedures say a sitting arb cannot sit on the Case Review Committee or the Ombud Committee. I actually have a problem with ArbCom setting membership restrictions for itself - for instance could ArbCom say only sitting admin can run? I think we should codify the existing limitations into ACE, rather than ArbCom procedures, and then discuss whether we want to extend this ban to also include the yet to be formed (but potentially formed next year) U4C. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As an Ombud I personally would not have an issue from our perspective of a member of ArbCom also volunteering for the OC. First up we are not a community elected Commission so we are different and if WMF feels someone has a serious conflict they can choose not to select them as they would with anyone else. Second on the OC we have strict guidlines on which cases we can take that apply to all our members that I as chair strictly enforce. As such a person who considers the ENWP their home wiki cannot investigate cases related to the ENWP, so the point that a person is an ArbCom would make little other difference from our perspective as they would already be restricted. I am not sure why ArbCom would believe there is any compelling reason why a person with access to the OC would end up in a position of conflict with respect to their duties to the ArbCom. The OC is only dealing with the Global Policies regarding Privacy, CheckUsers, Oversighters and the ANPWP. We look at the local policies of equivalence where they exist but the Global Policy always takes precedence. Also in general we are looking at more global issues. In the past where a case has had both Global and Local issues we have cooperated with the ArbCom so that they could handle the local issue and we would handle the Global one. As I said the ArbCom member would not end up in a direct conflict as I would not assign the Global part of the case to a member who was directly involved in the wiki being investigated. So purely from a conflict of interests point of view I do not see the issue here. I would also hazard that the experience gained by a member of ArbCom by being on the OC would be invaluable to their work with ArbCom. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 18:34, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not ArbCom that believes it - it's the community. See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 159#RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators. And to answer Barkeep49's original post, I would say both are needed - this process has no jurisdiction to impose rules on arbitrators after they are elected, and arbcom procedures have no jurisdiction over the ACE election. So any rules set here can't prevent people from being elected and then later selected as an Ombudsperson, and ArbCom procedures can't prevent Ombudspeople from running. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough thanks for the clarification. I see that many of the opposes had the same reasoning I did. I can though confirm how Ombuds works and yes any EN-ArbCom member would be automatically recusing themselves from any ENWP case. Yes there is still plenty for them to do on other wikis, most ENWP cases are handled by European or South American members of the OC. Anyway above was just my thoughts from the perspective of an Ombud. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 19:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As this was approved by consensus, I think the arbitration committee election rules should be updated now to reflect the community view, without needing any further RfC discussion. isaacl (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy with legal rules, I think it's reasonable to set a criterion for candidates that they will not serve on the ombuds commission or the trust and safety case review committee while they are serving their elected term, and expect elected candidates to follow this, whether or not the arbitration committee has explicitly specified this in their procedures. isaacl (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would support just adding it to ACERULES given the support in other venues and NOTBUREAU considerations. Your point that the requirements wouldn't necessarily bind someone during a term is a good one. However, I am still of the opinion that ArbCom can't set membership requirements for itself in the procedures as ARBPOL does not authorize such a thing and I don't think it's hard to imagine some abusive scenarios. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about the discussion at
ACERFC decisions to date. isaacl (talk) 03:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't know what U4C is. I have a bad feeling if I look it up on (I assume) Meta, I'm going to end up not liking it, and ruin my weekend. So I'm going with "ignorance is bliss" until next week. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:11, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For when you are ready. -- KTC (talk) 17:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-term elections

 – isaacl (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbPol says In exceptional circumstances, the Committee may call interim elections, in a format similar to that of the regular annual elections, if it determines that arbitrator resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional arbitrators. but right now the ACERULES only encompass the "resignations" scenario. What would the rules be if ArbCom says inactivity has created an immeadiate need for additional arbitrators? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:57, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How would the ArbCom (as a body) determine an "immediate need for additional arbitrators" if inactivity in the ArbCom is so severe that an immediate need for arbs is felt? —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 17:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The same way it would determine anything else? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal and summary statement for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019 § Procedures for emergency elections simply says the proposal is for a case where the arbitration committee calls emergency or interim elections, without specifying the reason why, so it encompasses all interim elections. I did ask the question if it applied to both resigned and inactive arbitrators. Tony, the proposer, said it covered both (the opposite answer of yours), and no one else weighed in, so in my view, the literal meaning of the approved proposal holds. isaacl (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:ACERULES can be updated because the plain reading of that in my opinion suggests it only applies to resignations Number of vacancies: Up to the size of the committee authorized in the previous election RfC because in a vacancy election the committee would be, in theory, getting larger. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
That was the motivation for my question then. TonyBallioni's response indicates he intended the proposal to apply to the removal of arbitrators for inactivity. Thus in order to have an interim election when there is a shortage of arbitrators due to inactivity, it is necessary first to remove the arbitrators to create vacancies. I agree at present there isn't a defined way for the arbitration committee to deal with a temporary shortage of arbitrators that is forecast to be resolved. isaacl (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I added a footnote to clarify the circumstances under which the approved interim election procedure applies. Without vacancies, I think the procedure would revert back to the text in the policy: in a format similar to that of the regular annual elections. Thus an elections RfC would need to be held to establish if the community wanted to increase the number of arbitrators, as well as what to do if some of the inactive arbitrators were available once again. isaacl (talk) 21:30, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is what the rules currently say but that's why I think it could be useful to understand if it is the will of the community or not. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I guess I was answering the question in your original post literally. Did you have a specific proposal in mind? My initial thoughts are to allow for a shorter election RfC, such as two weeks, or to allow the arbitration committee to set a length of between one to two weeks. Since there is a format in place for the vacancy situation, I can see proposals during the elections RfC such as "following the approved interim election proposal to replace vacancies, but adding three additional arbitrators to substitute for inactive arbitrators X, Y, and Z. If X, Y, or Z return to activity, the additional arbitrators will be removed, in increasing order of support percentage." isaacl (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been considering writing a draft proposal along these lines, but I'm starting to think it would be too hypothetical to gain sufficient support. The community would have to conceive of a situation where the committee thought it advisable to add members without removing any, with sufficiency urgency to require a fixed-period, relatively short RfC, and that an abbreviated period of time would be sufficient for the community to conclude that the committee's actions were reasonable. I think there might be more desire to allow for an RfC without a fixed time bound. If there is overwhelming support for the committee's proposal, then consensus could be determined quickly. Otherwise, the community would be able to explore other options more fully. isaacl (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Isaacl as Cabayi tips below a special election because of arb inactivity was seriously floated this year. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • When the ArbCom's active numbers were at their lowest in June/July we considered internally the possibility of an interim election. My takeaway from the discussions was that interim elections are not, in most circumstances, a realistically useful option.
    • Q1, Jan, Feb, Mar: We'd be looking at a first-year arbitrator quitting almost before understanding the role, or a second-year arbitrator who missed the window for resigning prior to the recent elections, neither scenario seems probable.
    • Q2, Apr, May, Jun: Probably the only viable window.
    • Q3, Jul, Aug, Sep: About to run into the regular scheduled elections. Is someone going to run for an unexpired 3-6 month term only to repeat the process in...
    • Q4, Oct, Nov, Dec: The scheduled elections.
  • I'm coming to the opinion it would be useful to have a reserve list of candidates who made the numbers in the regular election who can step up to serve until the next regular election should the need arise. Also that the clerks should be empowered to call out any inactive arbitrators for removal as a procedural matter after three months inactivity. Cabayi (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Either a reserve list or simply leaving the position empty sound like the best ways forward. There are many reasons why a serving official might no longer be able to continue without choosing the timing. Certes (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you clarify what you mean by "call out"? Is there anything preventing clerks from identifying inactive arbitrators now?
    For reference, a replacement procedure for filling vacancies using candidates who passed the required threshold was discussed in 2019: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019 § Runners-up to step up to fill vacancies. isaacl (talk) 14:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    By "call out" I mean identify the inactive arbitrator an initiate a replacement process. At present there is, as you note, nothing preventing clerks from identifying inactive arbitrators. Equally, there is no benefit or follow-on from doing so. It would be pointless.
    Thank you for the link to the 2019 discussion. It focussed on the impact on the feelings of the almost-elected candidates. We need to focus this on the needs of the committee to remain well manned. Cabayi (talk) 18:19, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps more encouragement could help; I don't think any more empowerment is necessary, though. (I also think the opposes in the last discussion did indeed consider the effects on staffing the committee.) isaacl (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is where I'm at as well - ArbCom should be able to appoint anyone who finished above the two-year threshold (currently 60%) in the previous election to serve the remainder of a term. I also think to do so we'd have to amend
    ArbPol because appointing others is not a format similar to that of the regular annual elections which is what ArbPol requires. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Since committee size is set by the elections RfC, I think it's something that can be decided by the community via RfC. The RfC question would have to define concepts of serving arbitrators versus reserve ones.
    If it's possible to discuss publicly, can you comment on any discussion of a minimum viable number of active arbitrators? Also, if there was any discussion on prioritizing tasks to deal with a shortage of members, is there a view on ways to reduce the workload of the committee? isaacl (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    My experience is that for every active arb below 12 there is a noticeable difference in how much gets done and the quality of the decisions. And it is my assessment that around 10 active members it becomes very troubling. In part because the tasks that can get pushed off already have been and you run the real risk of a salient point or idea not being considered and an increased burden on those 10 to weigh in on virtually everything that must get decided.
    So your contention is that "reserve" members would be members of the committee under ArbPol so no amendment would be needed? I don't think I can get there as ArbPol doesn't contemplate some two tiered status like that. But I'm willing to be convinced. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the arbitration policy gives the community the ability to manage the selection and appointment of arbitrators, I think it can select a larger committee of say 18, and set conditions on how a subset of 15 will be appointed to serve. True enough that the idea of a conditional appointment is different that what has been traditionally done, but I don't think it's inconsistent with the intent of that aspect of the arbitration policy: let the community decide who it trusts to act as arbitrators. isaacl (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    ArbPol does not give the community the ability to manage the selection and appointment of arbitrators. It gives the community the ability to run annual elections (and as needed other elections called for by ArbCom). For me this is difference between allowing the change we're contemplating here and not. I also think that there is standing consensus that an RfC plus required prerequisite (signatures) is needed to amend ArbPol so we can't just RfC that away. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not suggesting to use an RfC to remove the need to follow the arbitration policy amendment procedure. I think setting the conditions of the annual election does empower the community to manage the selection of arbitrators. However I agree given that arbitrators were formerly appointed by the founder (later turned into a more ceremonial role, and then quietly dropped), the intent wasn't to give the community the power to appoint. Is there anything that can be done to reduce the committee's workload? I think with the faster turnover of editors, the number of potential newcomers to the committee may be decreasing, and thus increasing the number of selected arbitrators becomes harder for the community to do. isaacl (talk) 16:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Truthfully I think this is something that is big enough to justify an ArbPol amendment (though admittedly I might be biased because I would also like to see us close the 100 person loophole we currently have). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, based on history, I agree that an amendment to the policy is advisable should this approach be desired. However given my concerns over the feasibility of its implementation (both approval of an amendment, and whether or not the community would be able to select enough arbitrators from a suitably experienced pool), I think another approach might be needed. isaacl (talk) 16:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct that over the past 3 elections this would have only offered between 1-3 people. Perhaps the right standard is to do it at the 1 year term (as they'd be serving less than a year) which seems like it would be more than large enough outside of extraordinary circumstnaces. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I was referring to the larger pool of potential candidates. With new editors having shorter productive periods on Wikipedia, there's a decreasing number of editors who will attain sufficient experience and social capital to be elected as an arbitrator. Having to select say 3 spare arbitrators above 15 may become more difficult. Thus if there is a way to reduce the workload so it can be done with fewer than 12 arbitrators, it may be helpful. isaacl (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Xeno is an example of a second year arb who resigned after elections (due to taking a relevant role at the WMF). So while improbable, we do have evidence that Q1 resignations do occur.
    Our current most inactive arb also barely made it to Q2 of the first year of their current term. This is a 3rd kind of arb, who does understand the role and is unable to commit to it due to what I assume are unexpected circumstances. Izno (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't planning to go through the analysis, as I think it's true enough that say four resignations (taking the number of arbitrators below twelve) occurring in the first one or two quarters of the year would be rare. (Though it seems that multiple temporary absences did occur this year if the committee was considering the possibility of an interim election.) I do agree though that unexpected circumstances can happen any time of the year, and thus resignations for reasons other than arbitrator fatigue can plausibly occur in Q1. I also imagine that should it be deemed necessary to have one or more interim arbitrators, some former arbitrators can get dragooned into running in the absence of other interested parties. isaacl (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That was part of my argument for having interim elections - namely some former arbs who would never agree to do another 2 year term might be willing to do 6 months. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Finally resolving "that is"/"and is"

Added to RFC

If you immediately understood the above title, you might be a Level V Wikipediholic.

I know that I'm probably bikeshedding, but can we in the upcoming ACERFC finally decide whether it's

editor in good standing, that is, not under block or ban

or

editor in good standing and is not under block or ban

I've tried to look at how this wording initially got in, and the first mention of "good standing" I could find was in October 2010, and the "that is" wording came in a month later. The "and is" wording has existed since the very first version of the 2011 ACE page. I was not able to find any similar requirements in the 2009 elections, but perhaps I've missed something. But if it's true that the "that is" wording was only used once, and the "and is" version ever since, I'd like to propose that we use "and is" going forward. But perhaps that might need some additional wording around what "in good standing" means. Any thoughts? --rchard2scout (talk) 08:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When
MuZemike
appears to have been the editor who did that copying).
Regarding which version is the de facto one in current use is not quite as simple as presented above. The rules presented on the election page are historically the ones that have been controlling. This has been presented as a list of requirements in which the second has always been the one relevant. The wording of this has changed over the years (all emphasis is mine):
  • pre-2008: (not investigated)
  • 2008-2009: (No relevant wording found)
  • 2010: ii) was in good standing, that is, not subject to active blocks or site-bans.
  • 2011: (ii) was in good standing and was not subject to active blocks or site-bans,
  • 2012-2017: (ii) is in good standing and not subject to active blocks or site-bans,
  • 2018-2022: (ii) not subject to active blocks or site-bans
    • Since 2018 the "good standing" wording has been in the "For candidates" sub-section of the "Guides" portion (e.g.
      WP:ACE2022#For candidates
      ). It has always read During this time, any editor in good standing who meets the criteria stated [...] above
Reading the criteria in isolation the implication to me that all that is required is not being subject to blocks (i.e. the equivalent of "that is"), however reading it in conjunction with the Guides portion implies that it is possible to meet all the criteria while not being an editor in good standing (i.e. "and is").
However, there is yet another wrinkle! The "Guides" section does not appear on the Candidates sub-page (e.g.
WP:ACE2022/C
) and the criteria have not always been identical to that on the main page:
  • 2008-2012: (no relevant criterion)
  • 2013-2018: (ii) is in good standing and not subject to active blocks or site-bans.
  • 2019: (ii) not subject to active blocks or site-bans,
  • 2020-2022: (ii) is not subject to active blocks or site-bans,
I have not investigated who made the changes or why, but it is arguable that since 2019 either no "good standing" requirement has been imposed or the implication is the only requirement for being an editor in good standing is not being subject to active blocks (i.e. "that is").
Whatever we decide here regarding "that is" vs "and is", I believe it is important that the same requirement is imposed at the main election page and the candidates page. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Partial blocks

Added to RFC

We decided in the 2021 RfC that partially blocked users could still vote. I noticed while evaluating the other aspect of the candidates bullet point that as currently worded partially blocked used can't run. We should probably either explicitly endorse that interpretation or change it this year, rather than letting a historical accident take control. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:51, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid RfC

Election timeline

Is there a past ACE RFC that formalizes the when the nomination and voting phases should happen? The standard header text for these RfCs says, Per the consensus developed in previous request for comments, the arbitration committee election timetable is as follows. But the truth is we have been manually setting those dates at Template:Arbitration Committee candidate/data, and admittedly, when I have filled in those dates in past years, I've actually just been guessing, and we've kind of just rolled with it in most cases without objections. Based on past ACEs, it seems the timeline is something like this:

  • Nomination period: starts second Sunday of November and lasts for 10 days (ending on a Tuesday)
  • Voting phase: starts on the Tuesday 1 week after the end of the nomination period and lasts for 14 days

And then the Electoral Commission would naturally have the ability to reschedule the election based on unforeseen issues (e.g. technical difficulties with the SecurePoll software). Is this something that we should discuss at this RfC? Mz7 (talk) 02:26, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

May be good to standardize that, it is all sort of a work backwards from the end of the year to get them in, with having an unknown scrutineering duration in there... — xaosflux Talk 10:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit unsure if you've seen the "Timeline" portion of
Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections/ACERFC decisions to date? There are links to the specific RfC decisions that have set the related parameters. The start date and length of the nomination period is specified; a fallow period after the nomination period is specified; and a starting day of the week is specified for the voting period. isaacl (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, I had indeed missed that. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013#Schedule is the relevant discussion, and looks like it specifies second Sunday of November as I mentioned. In light of that, probably don't need to add it to the RFC then. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 22:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate-selected length of term

I'm trying to figure out if there is a way to allow candidates to select the length of their term to be one or two years while also preserving the concept of maintaining a certain number of two-year terms continuing each year. For instance, if there are eight seats vacant, and of the top eight finishers, six candidates were selected a one-year term, then the following year would have thirteen expiring terms, and two continuing. The only way I can think of to ensure more continuing terms (leaving midterm resignations aside) is to limit the number of one-year terms that can be elected in a year. However when the limit is encountered, that would mean skipping over more strongly supported one-year term candidates in favour of two-year term candidates with a lower support percentage, and I don't think that will garner support. Can anyone think of other possibilities? Or would the concept of tranches fall by the wayside with candidates selecting their term length? isaacl (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl it would probably be better to seat someone for only 1 year initially then for them to just resign halfway through - that way it would be planned for. Overlapping tranches are a good thing, but we can't force people to volunteer longer than they want. — xaosflux Talk 10:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing for or against a candidate-selected length of term at this point. I'm just trying to figure out if I'm overlooking a way to do this and have some form of tranches. isaacl (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think the idea of skipping over 1-year candidates to get to 2-year candidates if necessary, would actually get some support. Because a lot of us recognize that ArbCom needs some/most of its members to continue serving after the 1st year. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 03:28, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by skipping over 1-year candidates. There are proposals in the current RfC to eliminate all 1-year terms, and to eliminate 1-year terms based on level of support (thus leaving them in place for midterm replacements). isaacl (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing you meant above. In your example you had a top 8 finishers where 6 of them had selected a 1 year term length. Skip over as many of them as needed, to ensure that there are enough 2-term winners. (I.e., include the 9th place, 10th place, etc) (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 19:29, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies; I lost track of my own idea as I was focused on the proposals that had actually been put forth in the RfC. I agree there would be some support; I should have said I have my doubts if it would gain sufficient support to attain consensus. I suspect most editors find a tranche system to be a more straightforward way to try to preserve continuity. (Midterm resignations can, of course, always create a continuity issue.) isaacl (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that your suggestion would remain compatible with the tranche system. E.g. normally there are 8 or 7 seats to fill, but sometimes because of mid-term resignations there are more than 8. If we used your suggestion of having candidates choose to run for 1 year, some of them could be elected to the 1-year (mid-term resignation) seats. (u t c m l ) 🔒 ALL IN 🧿 01:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note it was an idea raised by Barkeep49 on the RfC page. As I understand it, the idea is for candidates to be able to choose their term length even if there were no midterm resignations, and that the top N finishers would be seated, regardless of the length of term each selected. Thus it isn't two elections being held in parallel—one for 2-year seats, and one for 1-year seats—but a single election. isaacl (talk) 01:46, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you want tranches, just pick an odd number of seats, and say that half +1 are seated to 2-year terms each election. If more are needed due to vacancies, additional arbs may be seated to 1-year max terms. - jc37 15:14, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we have now (well, in the off year, half-1 are seated to two-year terms). If arbitrators are picking the length of their term to be one or two (or three) years, though, then there is no longer a notion of having half+1 number of two-year terms seats. isaacl (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A radical and perhaps ridiculous idea for next year

In the comments on the various interlocking proposals regarding the 1-year term and the tranche system, I sort of floated this idea but got no sort of response. I'd like to see people comment on it, though.

What if we eliminated seats and tranches entirely, and just made everyone who reached the necessary support percentage an Arbitrator?
a. Assuming none of the proposals related to changing these percentages pass this year, that would mean anybody reaching 60% elected for 2 years and anybody 50%-60% elected for 1 year.
b. Assuming that any proposal involving setting 60% to be the minimum passes this year', that would mean anybody reaching 60% elected for whatever term people reaching 60% gets.

It is DEFINITELY too late to be proposing this right now, so I have two questions for the talk page:
1. Would this be within the scope of the 2024 ACE RfC? I'm somewhat concerned that it's such a big change it might need a bigger venue.
2. Does this have a snowball's chance in hell? casualdejekyll 19:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that this would fix the seeming problem that there are too many people that the community wants to be arbitrators but aren't. It would mean the committee's size is ever in flux. If the committee's size dwindles too much, the annual RfC could tweak the process or scrap it then, so I'm not too concerned about that as a potential outcome - honestly, I think this is such a big change that the outcome would be basically unpredictable. There's also probably something to be said about how this affects strategic voting. casualdejekyll 19:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was just reminded that ArbCom can call special elections whenever it wants. That is a potential solution to the problem of the committee's size dwindling too much as well. casualdejekyll 19:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Based on conversations which happened this year and conversations among past arbcoms I believe a majority of arbs will always find a reason not to call for special elections. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps delegating the decision to call top-up elections to the
ARBCLERKs would avoid the boiling frog scenario? Cabayi (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't agree with the premise that there is an issue with more candidates passing the threshold for being an arbitrator than there are seats. Both previous arbitrators and the community have written previously about diminishing returns with larger committees. Recall that the larger the committee, the more voices need to be heard to determine what approach to take. More voices means more interactions, potentially leading to a N-squared increase in communication. With the committee consisting of volunteers participating in their spare time, I feel it's important to keep the committee from being overly large. isaacl (talk) 20:33, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Then just add to this a "cap" on the number of seats, and the best results get seated? - jc37 21:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's what we currently have: there is a cap based on the number of vacant seats to bring the total to a fixed number, and the best results get seated above a threshold level of support. isaacl (talk) 21:15, 15 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One way to resolve that would be to have not a cap on total arbitrators, but a cap on arbitrators active on any one case (or other request). So there may be say 20 arbitrators elected but a maximum of 15 would be active on any one bit of business. This would also reduce the impact of long-term inactive arbs. Whether I would support this proposal I'm not sure, but it is something to consider. Thryduulf (talk) 06:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's similar to the idea of reserve members discussed in § Mid-term elections, with the reserve and active members rotating. Based on that discussion, I think only raising the total size of the committee would be within the purview of the elections RfC. The committee would have to enact procedures for the rotation, or the community would have to change the arbitration policy. isaacl (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't thinking anything as formal or structured as rotation, just that if there were more than 15 (or any other number chosen) active then those arbs would decide among themselves which of them would be (in)active on the given task. Whether recusals would come out of that or not (e.g. if one arb was recused would that make the total active 14 or would one come off the bench so to speak) is something that would need to be decided.
The community certainly couldn't enforce it or even mandate it, without a change to the arbitration policy but the committee choosing to function that way would only require (at most) a change to procedures. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's basically what I said. The key question would be if the community would be willing to raise the total number of arbitrators without first amending the arbitration policy, or if they would be willing to rely on whatever the current arbitration committee decided to use as its procedures. isaacl (talk) 22:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this wouldn't be a good arbpol change but I do feel like it is worth discussing at next year's ACERFC. I could definitely imagine myself supporting it and think in the chicken and egg dilmena here if the community says "there should be 20 total arbs but we expect that the committee will create procedures to manage business with a small subset" the committee would do it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So this would allow creation of an unlimited number of arbcom members? I think the main objection would be that this would be unnecessarily increasing the exposure to the private information accessible. — xaosflux Talk 14:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine the people best equipped to determine how unnecessary that is would be the people with access to that private information (which, of course, includes yourself in some cases due to your bits... sidenote: what the heck is an importer?!) casualdejekyll 21:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See m:Importer. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The tranche system has the benefit that when tasks are shared out they can be done to ensure a mix of experience, and that skills are nurtured. It's a safeguard of stability and continuity, or it's an impediment to revolution, depending on your point of view. Cabayi (talk) 09:04, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Topics for next year's elections RfC

For anyone wishing to queue items to discuss for next year's elections RfC: you can create a section on the Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024 page. isaacl (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023&oldid=1178381759"