Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022

2022 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 02:31 (UTC), Thursday, 16 May 2024 ()

• Thank you for participating in the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
• You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.

Election timeline

Last year, the start of the nomination period for candidates was on the first Sunday of November, which technically contradicts Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections/ACERFC decisions to date: back in 2013 the start date was set as the second Sunday in November. Mz7 has followed last year's precedence and set November 6 as the tentative start date for 2022. Of course, a new proposal could gain consensus and change the schedule, but until then, should we reset the tentative date to November 13? isaacl (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Most of this is a work-backwards, I'm assuming we want the election to start on 28NOV2022, yes? — xaosflux ^Talk 09:51, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The new tradition (which, if I recall previous discussion correctly, originally came about because someone kept the same date as the previous year and so the weekday slipped by one, but people supported preserving in following years out of concern of availability of support) is to start on Tuesday; last year's election started on Tuesday, November 23, 2021. Based on the 2013 RfC, yes, with a ten-day nomination starting on the second Sunday and then a five-day fallow period (now extended by an additional day), the election would start on the fourth Tuesday of November, which this year is the 29th. isaacl (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

So this is really about bringing up the "2nd Sunday of November" component a week or not. Yes, I'd think we certainly want to start the actual election on a "tuesday" for WMF support reasons. So yes, think we should go back to the WP:ACERULES schedule, and the RFC can change it once or recurring if desired. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

OK; since my original edit request was denied on the grounds that it was unnecessary to set any dates at this time, I'll defer to some one with the necessary privileges to make a change (or bring it up later). isaacl (talk)

Candidate order

In the 2020 RfC it was concluded ArbCom candidates will be listed in a random order, and that order will be made static once a given user loads the candidates page for said given user. however the technical work to implement this was not done in time for either that election or the 2021 election. In 2021 it was suggested (by xaosflux) that if it had not been implemented by the time of the 2022 RFC it should be revisited and I agree that would be sensible. I don't know where to look though to see whether this work has been done? Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

It certainly has not been done, especially not with some "stickyness" - that would have required something on wiki, and also a new release of mw:Extension:SecurePoll. We do have a non-sticky random option that is used already; there was another proposal to list the on-wiki (and MAYBE ALSO the SP list) in registration order - so perhaps "candidate order" in general can be a question this rfc - but make it clear that only solutions that are possible can be accepted. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you want to perhaps list any non-static orders you know to be possible? A static random order is dead simple - put the list into random.org's list randomiser and copy that back to here, and I can't think of any technical barriers to other static orders ottomh. Thryduulf (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Re-randomizing every time the page is purged is also possible, and is in fact what's currently done at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021/Candidates. Can't think of any other technically feasible options that make sense. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

We can pretty much go with ordered (however we really want - it is manual, could be alphabetical, by registration order, etc) or randomish (<---- that's what we do now). — xaosflux ^Talk 17:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Does someone intend to post this to the main RfC? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:26, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

@Pppery go for it, I got tired of arguing about why the rules should have never landed on a "magic solution" that doesn't exist... — xaosflux ^Talk 16:47, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Deadline for proposals

Continuing the discussion from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2021 § Deadline for proposals: should there be a deadline set for submitting proposals, such as September 7, so interested editors can know there are no more proposals to come after that date? We can post a message now at, say, the miscellaneous Village Pump to solicit volunteers with ideas to work out proposal details and consolidate them as desired to get them ready / submit them to the RfC. isaacl (talk) 23:22, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is there a need for such a deadline? The admins closing proposals are capable of making their own decisions as to whether they achieved enough participation to reach a consensus. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned, and Levivich described in the previous discussion, it's to allow participants to know that no more proposals will be coming after a certain date. That way, they can plan their participation more easily. Given that the RfC happens every year at the same time, I think it's reasonable for proposers to have their proposals ready to go at the start of the RfC. isaacl (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fair and fine to encourage proposals to be made before a certain time, but I disagree with setting a hard deadline because that would prohibit dealing with things that aren't spotted in time (for whatever reason) for a whole year. It could (depending how it was worded) prevent refinements of existing proposals that are seen as broadly desirable but not in the specific manner worded. Thryduulf (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned last year, ignore all rules is fine for major issues that come up. The process has been running for years now; I don't think any big showstoppers are going to appear out of nowhere. And there's still over a month before any cutoff date, allowing for plenty of discussion and refinement. We could choose to start with a deadline closer to the end of the RfC in order to ease proposers into getting their discussions going sooner. (Now if only we could spend this amount of effort annually on content-related processes...) isaacl (talk) 02:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If the rules include relying on IAR then the rules are wrong - IAR should be for things that were not foreseen at the time the rules were written (e.g. edge cases). What you describe is therefore not actually setting a deadline, but just encouraging people to submit proposals early - which nobody has disagreed with. Thryduulf (talk) 22:44, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No, I'm suggesting that past years of experience have resulted in a smoothly running process, and thus there's no reason to believe that a showstopper will arise in the last X weeks of this year's RfC. Accordingly it's sufficient to set an earlier deadline. (The end of the RfC is already a deadline now, and the electoral committee is there to handle anything that comes up afterwards.) isaacl (talk) 00:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Don't think we need a brightline rule on this. Sometimes things come up, or someone may come up with a new variant of something that is already in there. I don't expect anything to get closed with a show of consensus that isn't "well attended" on this - so if it comes up late and nothing is going to squeeze by and be a show stopper with (2/0/0) compared to others at (50/7/3) for example. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thing is: I don't want to have to watchlist this page, I just want to read it once and vote once. On what day should I read it? The last day? If everyone did that... So, I think it makes sense to have one period for proposal-making, followed by a period for voting, as a general rule whenever we do these sorts of things. Mixing the proposal making and voting at the same times makes it so that the only people who stay on top of it are people who are constantly watching... it emphasizes that whole "consensus is determined by whomever shows up" thing and makes it into "consensus is determined by whomever shows up and then also sticks around and reads everything for the following week". Levivich 19:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

English Wikipedia rarely holds request for comment discussions with a fixed deadline, so there's no ingrained tradition of a deadline for proposals. (I agree with you that the specific circumstances of this RfC can comfortably accommodate a proposal deadline.) isaacl (talk) 20:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Arb step down

I should be clear that this is not some coded message about myself or any arb on the committee. I'd love to create an official pathway for Arbs to step down after year 1 of a 2 year term such that the seat could be filled during election (and potentially stay on for any open cases, if they wish). I am guessing if an Arb announced that they wanted to resign as of Jan 1, that we would IAR and have an additional person selected from among the slate, but I think making that option explicit would be good for Arbs who find that, for whatever reason, a second year isn't the right choice. I don't know quite how this would be phrased - so I'd be welcome ideas on how to refine this. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 hmm, would likely need timeline cutoffs if it will be worked in to the election process. I don't like the idea of someone winning the election to fill a vacancy that is expected far in to the future. Seems like such a future resignation would need to be binding too? In general, I think if an arb wants to resign they should just do so effective either immediately, or effective at the end of the current tranche limit so that the election can be more natural. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:29, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux: what do you mean the current tranche limit? And yes I agree there would need to be some kind of timeline cut-off. I'd suggest some time before voting starts which really means a few days before that so securepoll could be setup. I don't know enough about what that should be to provide a reasonable deadline. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Right now, the arbitration election page says If any of the eight current arbitrators in midterm resign or otherwise leave the committee before the start of voting, the additional vacated seat will be filled for a one-year term in this election, after the original seven vacant seats are filled. This was determined in the 2012 arbitration election RfC. Are you looking for some change beyond this? I agree with Xaosflux that the natural resignation dates would be effective immediately, or at the end of the year (they can of course choose to go inactive between those two points, if they were no longer available to serve in between). isaacl (talk) 22:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I am suggesting that rather than having an arb who has left the committee there should be a way for an arb to say "I will leave the committee" and the offboard the same way arbs whose terms are expiring do. Before I ran I talked to an Arb who definitely told me they were done at the end of year 1, but they stuck around for the second year because they felt obligated to. That doesn't seem good for the Arb or the Committee or the Community and so I would like to suggest there be a way for such arbs to gracefully step off and I think our election process could allow such an option. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

So are you looking for a cultural expectation change, where midterm arbitrators are encouraged to decide if they will continue with the rest of their term, and announce it within a certain timeframe? Personally, I support arbitrators stepping down after a year if that's what they want to do, and I would encourage them to do it by the start of the nomination period. I'm not sure what process change you are seeking, though. The election process already does allow this option for arbitrators leaving before the start of the election, which is the cutoff you suggested. isaacl (talk) 22:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

If they step down at the start of the nomination period there are still 2 months left in the year. So yes I would like the chance for arbs to step down after a year and be replaced, never leaving the committee shorthanded, instead of the current option of "step down after 10 months and leave the committee without someone for 2 months". That difference is going to be meaningful to the type of person I'm talking about who takes their obligations seriously enough to serve out a second year they don't want to. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, I understand the disconnect now. The 2012 RfC discussed regular vacancies (at the end of a 2-year term), expected vacancies (an announced resignation by a midterm arbitrator), and unexpected vacancies. The two proposals that gained the most support both assumed regular and expected vacancies would be filled by the election. Thus I believe the scenario of an arbitrator announcing a resignation that is effective on January 1st is already agreed to by consensus. The wording on the decisions page could be changed to something like "Any additional vacancies announced before voting begins and taking effect prior to January 1 will be filled by a 1-year term", in order to clarify. isaacl (talk) 04:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The most recent precedent I can recall is Beeblebrox, who resigned at the end of 2014 in midterm. He was one of the drafting arbitrators for the GamerGate case, which ended in January 2015. The vacancy was filled in the 2014 election. isaacl (talk) 05:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Isaacl - Beeblebrox didn't resign, he was elected for a one year term in WP:ACE2013. I agree that this is an issue, I make no secret that I've considered resigning in the past (often around this time of year!) and actually, the fact that there is no "good time" to do it has been a major factor in me not doing so. I'm not aware of any arb that has resigned "at a date in the future" - resignation is generally immediate. Worm^TT(talk) 08:15, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Since the incoming arbitrators are appointed on January 1, the end of year is a good time to step down (as per tradition, the arbitrator can choose to stay active on any case in progress), and announcing it prior to the election will allow a replacement to be selected. isaacl (talk) 15:05, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 I suppose a good place to bootstrap this from is somewhere I can't find yet (checked Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy and Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures). What is the current process for a sitting arb to actually resign? Especially for a future dated resignation, and then in the situation where someone wants to retract their future dated resignation? — xaosflux ^Talk 15:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Xaosflux I also read /Policy and /Procedures looking for this and didn't find anything which is why I decided there was nothing preventing it from becoming part of our election rules. In terms of what the current process is, it has varied from the ones I found. Some have resigned to the committee on the listserv. Others have posted about it on a noticeboard. There was one resignation on the arb's user talk. I didn't see any that were future dated. So would suggest in this election scenario that they can't retract it, though they could I suppose throw their hat back in the ring, which seems like something someone might have done a decade ago to prove there was still community confidence in them but feels less likely in today's culture. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:41, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 the election is only able to select a new appointee, what it can't do is eject a current arb; it seems the only way to get an arb off the committee involuntarily is a 2/3's vote by the rest of the committee. Perhaps future-dated resignations can be handled with a motion, with a 2/3 support, binding that resignation? Assuming it is sometime before 01JAN - letting the election fill for it should be simple. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

So I've been thinking about this all day. And I think if the thinking is that it couldn't be done through elections - and honestly I'm not sold on this but you've sold me some - I think it would take an ArbPol change in which case it's just not practical to do. The reason I'm not completely sold are the RfCs that isaacl mentions are already in place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I think having the election choose a replacement for an announced resignation that takes place prior to the start of the new term has community support, both from the RfC and because I think it's the expected thing to do: fill all vacancies that we know will be present as of January 1. As Xaosflux mentions, it's the resignation process that in theory leaves ambiguity. In practice, I think if the rest of the arbitration committee accepts the resignation (which they should determine in a timely manner after the announcement), then the resignation should be treated as binding. (Technically, arbitrators can only be removed by resolution if they "repeatedly or grossly fails to meet the expectations outlined [in the arbitration policy]", so personally I don't like having a pro forma removal resolution, though again in practice it would probably be fine.) I don't think the arbitration policy was intended to mandate that administrators fulfill their entire term—after all, arbitrator resignations have already been treated as binding, even without any explicit mention of a resignation process in the policy, by virtue of the fact that the community replaced them during the annual election. isaacl (talk) 03:44, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Given that, as far as I am aware, no arbitrator has ever announced their resignation and then not actually resigned I think it would be best to just deal with that situation at the time should it ever happen - probably by 2/3 of the other arbs voting them out should they repeatedly try and act as an arb after resigning. I agree that the status quo is that an arb who resigns effective at any point prior to 1 Jan can have their seat filled at the election. 08:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC) Thryduulf (talk) 08:19, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• I added proposal 5, I think it captures the points of this discussion, if you see anything missing let me know here please. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

  Mainly that I think the proposal is unnecessary as the existing rules already cover this scenario, and so it's over-thinking things. Arbitrators are chosen for their ability to consider their decisions carefully, and so the community takes them at their word that they understood the binding nature of a resignation. Personally I can't see anyone disagreeing with the proposal as written (though I can see a diversion into whether or not resignations should be considered binding), so I'd rather focus on proposals that would change existing practice. As per English Wikipedia tradition, procedures can be established through standard practice; we don't need RfCs to formalize all aspects. isaacl (talk) 02:15, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Isaacl if we think this is useless, I'm fine withdrawing it. This seems to have been last brought up in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012#How should vacancies be handled? it did include in the primary definitions that vacancies include Expected vacancies. @Barkeep49 - putting aside the "dealing with retracted resignations" stuff, do you still see a gap? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Barkeep49: you commented, and retracted, do you have any comments on this still? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:22, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  Well double Gah. I retracted so I could re-post it with a ping that worked. But then I never reposted. For me the 2012 RfC including "expected vacancies" is sufficient - though it would be nice if that language were added to the election decisions list we have annually. I really appreciate your work drafting something Xaosflux. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  I had suggested making the following underlined change: "Any additional vacancies announced before voting begins and taking effect prior to January 1 will be filled by a 1-year term." What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Isaacl I hate edge cases of timing issues. I think so far we all agree on what should happen, but the old RFC's dont seem to explicitly state it. Regarding future dated resignations it seems like the case we are trying to capture is:

  • IFF:
    1. A sitting arbitrator commits to a delayed resignation
    2. Their resignation is prior to Jan 1 of the following year
    3. Their current term extends until Dec 31 of the following year
  • THEN: The election will fill this seat with a one-year term

  Correct?

  If so "Any expected vacancies for the following year, announced before voting begins, and taking effect prior to January 1, will be filled by a 1-year term."

  This seems to be in the spirit of the prior RfC's and practice; so we can add that explanatory text to the existing rules - and if anyone wants to change it they can open a new RfC item. Special ping to @Alanscottwalker: who deal with related closings in the 2019 RFC. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:26, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  "Expected vacancies" technically includes the vacancies of the outgoing tranche, which I imagine is why the current text says "additional". The whole section would probably be less convoluted if more references to the tranches were made, but I think it would be longer, and I know some people don't like that. I suggest a slight modification: "Any expected midterm vacancy, announced before voting begins and taking effect prior to January 1, will be filled by a 1-year term." isaacl (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  +1 on that last one. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  Does anyone else have any comments? Should we update the decisions to date page as proposed? isaacl (talk) 01:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Isaacl I think that last one represents the prior expectations, so let's use that. I'm going to withdraw my proposal for this year, if someone wants to revisit or change that they can submit a new prop. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  I was about to make the change and then realized there is one more complication: in a year where there are eight midterm arbitrators, the first midterm resignation is filled by a 2-year term (as per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013 § Handling of the 8th Vacant Seat). How about modifying the sentence in question to the following: "Any expected midterm vacancy, announced before voting begins and taking effect prior to January 1, that brings the total number of vacancies above eight will be filled by a 1-year term." isaacl (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, no change that the 8th vacancy would be a 2yr to keep the tranches balanced. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

  OK, I have updated the previous decisions page. (Note switching a midterm vacancy to the smaller tranche that is currently up for election doesn't change the balance of the tranches per se, although it does mean everyone elected in the current election will have the opportunity to serve together for two years.) isaacl (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Don't have much to add, my take is that arbs can resign at any-time and the seat will be filled in the next regular election, unless there is a special election (if I recall correctly the ctte can call a special election). But if you want specific language about a 2 step announced (deemed the date of resignation), contrasted with a later effective date resignation, have at it. (Or you can also just say, if an arb wishes to resign, effective when the seat can be filled in the next regular election, they should say that.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Alanscottwalker thanks, the point of this was if a sitting arb today resigns, "effective Dec 1", for example - that their vacated seat shouldn't remain vacant for 13 months when the election could fill it for the entire next year. None of this would have any impact on the special election process if called for (which practically wouldn't be called to fill 1 seat). The gap trying to be patched over is that if they resign before voting with an immediate resignation, we would fill it with a 1-year term for the next year, so this would be equivalent. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:51, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

• @Barkeep49: Seeing this discussion late (seems like the issue has already been resolved), but wanted to add that there is some precedent already for what I believe you're suggesting. In September 2015, Euryalus announced that they would leave the Arbitration Committee at the end of their first year despite having been elected to a two-year term: see User talk:Euryalus/Archive9#Arbcom. WP:ACE2015 subsequently elected one more editor to a one-year term to replace Euryalus; Euryalus stayed on the committee until December 31, 2015, after which Gamaliel succeeded them on January 1, 2016. Mz7 (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  It's great to know that not only do we have an RfC affirming this but precedent. Thanks Mz7. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the info. I was pretty sure it happened before, but I wasn't able to locate the example. isaacl (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks @Mz7. I'll eat my words where I say it didn't happen. Especially that I commented there. Institutional forgetfulness I am. Worm^TT(talk) 08:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Launched

Loaded the CENT and WLN notifications for this, so incoming feedback should start up. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Anyone working on coordination is welcome to list themselves here: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Coordination. If you run for commissioner you will just get "promoted" up to eleccom. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Poll on the Universal Code of Conduct

Earlier this year, at the Administrators Noticeboard, S Marshall proposed holding an en-wiki-wide vote of confidence on the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). Barkeep49 then mentioned that it had been suggested to them running such a vote as part of ACE, and the notion received some support. Since for this to happen it appears to need to pass a proposal here, I intend to propose that happens, but first I was hoping to quickly workshop the wording.

At the moment, I would propose the following wording:

As part of the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections, run two en-wiki-wide votes of confidence on the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). The first of these will be a vote of confidence on the UCoC policy text, and the second will be a vote of confidence on the UCoC enforcement mechanism. For each, a majority of voters supporting will be considered an endorsement and result in no further action; conversely, a majority of voters opposing will be considered a rejection of the current wording and used in discussions with the WMF to give weight to efforts to alter that wording.

In coordination with the 2022 Arbitration Committee Elections, run two en-wiki-wide votes of confidence on the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). The first of these will be a vote of confidence on the UCoC policy text, and the second will be a vote of confidence on the UCoC enforcement mechanism.

This will be implemented by the addition of two questions at the end of the candidate list; the first shall ask "Do you support the Universal Code of Conduct policy text?", and the second shall ask "Do you support the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement mechanism"?

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

This will be implemented by the addition of a separate questions after the candidate question, with two options. The question shall be called "Community survey on the Universal Code of Conduct policy and enforcement mechanism". 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 be given choice of responding "Yes", "No", and "Abstain" to this.

BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal make it clear that this is not "part of" the ACE, but just "in coordination with". As far as the second, the results can speak for themselves, I don't think you need to define an "endorsement"/"objection" cut off - especially as the results won't be binding on anything. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Done, makes sense. BilledMammal (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I think some language about how this will be implemented in the election itself is needed. As far as I understand it, we can only offer a single question on votewiki, so approve/disapprove for this question will need to be intermixed with the candidates themselves? This seems like it might need some consideration so as to not create voter confusion among the many interested, but relatively low information, voters ACE gets. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I've tried to do something but I think something still needs to be added; can we add a dividing section between the candidates and the UCoC vote? BilledMammal (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Looking into the configuration file for securepoll, it appears it may be possible to create separate questions. Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to stand up a media wiki image and test it out, but I'll give it a go later. BilledMammal (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@BilledMammal I think the biggest problem I see with this method, is that it limits participation to those who meet the election suffrage requirements; others may consider this a feature. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:28, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Frankly I was waiting for you to show up with concerns around technical limitations to doing this @Xaosflux. The fact that you're not is quite encouraging as to feasibility of doing this. As to the suffrage issue, fair point. However the reason I thought this a good idea when floated is that ACE has the largest number of participants of any single thing we do and so in that way we'd have the broadest poll we could reasonably conduct on the issue even though some editors cannot participate due to the suffrage rules. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 I'm looking in to that, I think there have been some "Page 2 of different questions" types of securepolls -- so not ready to dismiss on that, yet. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Barkeep49 from what I've gathered so far, this would end up listing these options on the same page with the same options (support/oppose/skip) as the other questions - all on one page. And with the "random" function, would be intermixed. They certainly could be very obvious to see that they are different as the label wouldn't be a username, but would be a position statement --- but it won't be very "clean". I can't test any further right now because securepoll tests are still shut down while they figure out how to log viewing certain parts of the results. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

What you're describing is what I expected it to be and part of why I have some concerns about 2 such parts that wouldn't randomly appear together. BilledMammal seems to have some optimism about multiple questions - at minimum we know they added the ability to have a text box for the UCoC ratification. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

UCoC Vote mockup

I've tested it, and can confirm that we can have multiple questions. In addition, the configuration for the ordering of the questions is different from the configuration for the ordering of the options - so we can have randomly ordered options, but also ensure that the question for the UCoC is below the question for ACE. I've updated the proposed question to account for this.

I've created a basic mockup; I don't know how ArbCom elections usually look like, but it should show that it is possible. BilledMammal (talk) 05:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks good although I think the 2nd question should be "Do you endorse the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines" because that's the official name. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:50, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. Any further thoughts from anyone before I add this to the main page? BilledMammal (talk) 10:10, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

There should be an abstain option. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Done. I plan to add it to the main RfC in 12 hours if there are no further changes recommended. BilledMammal (talk) 04:30, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

It does, but I would note that the requirements are comparable to that required by the WMF for the UCoC Enforcement Mechanism vote; we require 150 mainspace edits, they required 300 edits, we require 10 live edits in the year prior to the vote, they required 20 live edits in the six months prior to the vote. BilledMammal (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

• I don't see why we aren't considering a regular RfC linked from WP:CENT, so Wikipedians can have a reasoned debate?—S Marshall T/C 18:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  You could certainly vote against this idea for that reason. From my point of view, "These 1500 English Wikipedians voted and had this opinion" (a reasonable number to expect from ACE) is far more powerful as a statement than "These 300 Wikipedians debated and had this opinion" (which is the largest number we get from a RfC or Admin election with a watchlist notice). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, the lack of ability to have reasoned arguments as part of an election using the same format as an arbcom election is my biggest issue with the idea. I can imagine many people would like to support with caveats or express support and opposition for different aspects of the code/enforcement mechanism that simply are not possible with strict support/neutral/oppose options. This is important enough to me that I'd be leaning towards opposing the proposal were it presented now. If the opinions of 1500 Wikipedians are significantly desirable then I think it would be better to have a separate discussion that was as heavily advertised as ACE are. Thryduulf (talk) 19:59, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

  Of course, the two options are not mutually exclusive. We can have a reasoned debate as a precursor to the ACE vote.—S Marshall T/C 03:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Election Compass

I have heard people say good things about the Election Compass used for the MCDC and WMF Board Elections. I am curious whether people want to add one to the ArbCom election process. I am happy to volunteer to take on the technical part, it seems like the hard part is curating the statements and adjusting them to ensure they're one-dimensional. Legoktm (talk) 21:03, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Given that candidates are not obliged to opine on any standard set of questions or issues and limited number of questions any individual can ask, it would be hard to assign them a position on issues they don't mention, e.g. what are User:Example_1's views about how ArbCom handled the case regarding user:Controversial_Editor if they don't mention that and nobody asks them? How do you assign User:Example_2's views about that when they recused from the case and say only that they think it would be inappropriate for them to discuss it? IIRC in the 2014 election Isarra's candidate statement had (almost?) no overlap with mine in terms of issues addressed. Thryduulf (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@Thryduulf: sorry, I didn't actually explain the process. Voters would propose a list of statements, with some refining to make sure they're one-dimensional. Voters would then endorse/upvote statements they want to hear candidates' positions on (e.g. see the Board process, you need to hit [expand] to see the discussions). Then candidates would give a Likert scale response to each statement, optionally giving a short 500 character explanation. And then they'll get loaded into the tool, so voters can use the interactive process to identify those they best ideologically align with.

It is a decent amount of work both on the part of voters and candidates, so I'm asking to see if others find it valuable enough to justify that amount of work. Legoktm (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

• I watched all the BOT candidate Q&A videos, rated the answers, and then tried the political compass, and the results from the two were very different. To me this either means the PC isn't designed well, or (more likely) candidate responses on a 1-5 scale to a single statement poorly reflect their complex views. (I voted based on my analysis of the Q&A). Vanamonde (Talk) 07:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Rfc template

I tried adding an {{rfc}} template to this discussion, but Legobot removed it, claiming the RfC is expired despite having been open less than 30 days. I'm guessing it was because it's parsing isaacl's 01:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC) timestamp. I tried to add the 13:49, 1 September 2022‎ (UTC) timestamp, but I guess it wants a signature? Mz7 (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The {{rfc}} template documentation says the bot looks for the first datestamp that occurs on the page after the template; maybe it actually starts looking after the datestamp that ends the initial description after the template? I can try adding a new datestamp to the first proposal. isaacl (talk) 07:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, looks like there's a hidden unicode character of some sort after the year in the timestamp you added (in the wikitext editor, it looks like a red dot; I can see it as well in the quoted text from your original post). I'll try removing that. isaacl (talk) 07:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Just as an fyi, it was U+200E, which is a left-to-right mark. isaacl (talk) 07:56, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Aha! Excellent catch. Thanks for fixing it. :) Mz7 (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Rephrasing the candidates bullet point

Currently, the candidates bullet point is a little hard to read. Another issue I have: things that were never "decided" seem out of place on a page entitled "ACERFC decisions to date". Finally, I do not see the point of specifying that users must be "in good standing". We already talk about blocked/banned users, and I struggle to see what else this could be referring to. If a user's behaviour is bad enough that we need to prevent them from running, wouldn't they already be blocked/banned?

Current wording

Candidates: Registered account with 500 mainspace edits, editor in good standing "that is"/"and is" not under block (as of the time of the nomination ) or ban, meets Foundation's Access to nonpublic personal data policy, and has disclosed alternate accounts (or disclosed legitimate accounts to Arbcom). Withdrawn or disqualified candidates will be listed in their own section on the candidates page unless their candidate page can be deleted under WP:G7. Notes References

Would it be a massive waste of time to propose a clerical amendment to this bullet point to fix the above problems? Something like:

Candidates: Registered account with 500 mainspace edits, not blocked or banned as of their nomination, meets the Foundation's Access to nonpublic personal data policy, and has disclosed alternate accounts either publicly or to Arbcom, as appropriate. Withdrawn or disqualified candidates will be listed in their own section on the candidates page unless their candidate page can be deleted under WP:G7.

Changes (not including refs)

Candidates: Registered account with 500 mainspace edits, editor in good standing "that is"/"and is" not under block (as of the time of the nomination ) or ban not blocked or banned as of their nomination, meets the Foundation's Access to nonpublic personal data policy, and has disclosed alternate accounts (or disclosed legitimate accounts to Arbcom) publicly or to Arbcom, as appropriate. Withdrawn or disqualified candidates will be listed in their own section on the candidates page unless their candidate page can be deleted under WP:G7.

Thoughts? Improvements to phrasing? HouseBlaster^talk 18:20, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Up to the 2012 election RfC, the election RfC approved each aspect of the election process. In a Village Pump RfC prior to the 2013 RfC, the 2012 process was approved as the starting base, and since then the election RfC has discussed changes to the process. Thus legacy wording is contained on the rules page, taken from the wording in the 2012 election. I think removing "good standing" would have to be discussed in an RfC. isaacl (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

An RfC other than this one? HouseBlaster^talk 18:53, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

(continuing response from original post) Whether it would be a waste of time: I'm not sure. I suspect they'll be a lot of debating about what it means: for example, does being under any editing restrictions qualify, and if so, does the number and types of restrictions play a role? Some might prefer to leave it nebulous as an escape hatch for exceptional cases.

This RfC would traditionally be the appropriate one; my personal bias would have been to allow for more time for discussion, but 13 days still leaves some time to attract commenters to weigh in. isaacl (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is open to interpretation, but so is the old version. Maybe I was thinking about this the wrong way: what if we just said editors must be in good standing (in addition to the other requirements)? A user is obviously not in good standing if they are site blocked/banned, and it still leaves some wiggle room.
Personally, I believe that we should leave it up to the voters in the actual election to decide what is and is not a reason to prevent someone from serving on ArbCom. HouseBlaster^talk 19:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I may have been thinking of your question in a different way. I was thinking if it were likely that a consensus would be achieved, or at least significant steps would be made towards a common understanding for future years, thus making the discussion productive. I wasn't commenting on whether or not the current version is open to interpretation. My gut feeling is that it might generate more light than heat, but I'm pretty uncertain about what would happen. isaacl (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Notes

References

Appointments committee vs Arbitration Committee

There is currently a discussion on meta, initiated by the Ombuds commission to formalise the role of an appointments committee (AppCom) which is performed on enwiki by the ArbCom. One interpretation of the proposals in that discussion is that not only should CU/OS candidates have a >75% approval, but the committee apponting them should also. As the discussions there are ongoing, and probably too late to affact this year's ArbCom election, it's unclear whether ArbCom's thresholds will need to fall in line, or arbitrators not meeting the threshold may need to recuse from the appointment discussions.

ping, Faendalimas, JJMC89, Kbrown (WMF), Arbitration Committee - Cabayi (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite a mess. I don't expect that the foundation is going to take up the OC recommendation on that, especially not without a long transition period for communities with longstanding processes. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

as I was pinged I will respond. Our primary problem in this was a process was developed on one wiki we had to deal with, and in the end had to do catch up policy writing for. Our recommendation was just that a recommendation that would be a way forward. A starting point. We do not expect it to just be taken up it needs discussion and tweaking to meet the needs of the communities it will affect. From my own personal point of view well established and functioning ArbComs are not what we are trying to affect we are trying to find a way to have this AppCom function with some level of accountability as your ArbCom here currently has. Although only one wiki currently has an AppCom we could not assume it would stay that way and just make an exception. If it became a possibility we had to assume other wikis may try this path. The 25-30 number in part is to ensure wikis that do not need a CU or OS because they do not have enough people are still in the same position. Our idea with that number is that instead of community vote being set in a way that if you cannot reach the required numbers you cannot have local CUs, note the AppCom just appoints as per your ArbCom does, at least we can keep that line somewhere in the process. Its not about having any impact on an ArbCom such as the ENWP. This was an active situation with CUs being nominated so we had to develop this and get the ball rolling quickly. Our recommendations needed to be discussed, we had to get the ball rolling as the initial issue was brought to us by several stewards. So yes please get involved and discuss it, lets get the policy in a workable form. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 14:48, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Changing the CU/OS appointments committee requirements was not part of any recommendation from the Ombuds. The original revisions from Karen's 15:17, 18 July 2022 (UTC) post came from the Ombuds, but the subsequent changes did not. The Ombuds never had any intention of impacting the process currently used on the English Wikipedia. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Closing requested

I've listed this at Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2022 - if other non-participating closing parties are available, please begin. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Topics to review for 2023

Please place a section below for any placeholder ideas you have for next year's RFC. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

As Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023 is now available for discussion, please use that talk page for any further discussion. Thanks! isaacl (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Tweak EC selection process

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023 § Tweak EC selection process

 – isaacl (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Completing an application

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023 § Completing an application

 – isaacl (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Include rename chain for candidates

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023 § Include rename chain for candidates

 – isaacl (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

• Following up a little from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Feedback; should the official candidate guide include a rename map for candidates? (Old name 1-->Old name 2-->Current name) — xaosflux ^Talk 13:47, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

  Perhaps only "within x years". — xaosflux ^Talk 20:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Equivalent of WP:NOTNOW/WP:SNOW for ArbCom

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023 § Equivalent of WP:NOTNOW/WP:SNOW for ArbCom

 – isaacl (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

In light of a certain candidate's failure to demonstrate that they are remotely qualified for the role e.g. by failing to answer any of the questions asked of them, failing to state almost anything about their suitability for ArbCom itself (including that they understand what ArbCom does), and failing to be on Wikipedia since two weeks before voting opened, I wonder if a WP:NOTNOW/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)

Checking voter rolls for locked users

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023 § Checking voter rolls for locked users

 – isaacl (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

^-- 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)

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)

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)

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)

Length of vote

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023 § Length of vote

 – isaacl (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023 § Inability to sit on the CRC, Ombud, (and maybe the U4C) as a sitting arb

 – isaacl (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Mid-term elections

Moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023 § Mid-term elections

 – isaacl (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

The same way it would determine anything else? Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

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)

@Isaacl then perhaps 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)

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)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion to 2023 page?

Last year I created this talk page in June. Any concerns with creating the 2023 talk page now so discussion can start ramping up for the 2023 elections? isaacl (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023 so it's ready. I suggest that discussion can move there. isaacl (talk) 22:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

just out of curiosity will you move any above discussions clearly within the scope of the new page to there? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

When I asked last year, no one responded, so I didn't do it then. Personally I think it would be a good idea, but I don't want to interrupt anyone's conversations if they prefer to keep watching this talk page for now. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I was mostly asking so I could keep up with following them, at least the last two topics which are entirely recent. But it's not my call so I was just asking. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 23:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to copy #Topics to review for 2023 over personally. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

We should make sure the discussion only happens in one place, so either copy to 2023 and hat here or move to 2023 with a {{moved to}} notice left behind. Possibly worth pinging those who have left comments, certainly in the recently active discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 15 July 2023 (UTC)