Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Feedback

__NEWSECTIONLINK__ Thank you for participating in the Arbitration Committee Elections. Please consider leaving feedback below.

Clearer summary of implications
i wasnt aware until today that elected members become checkusers. Arbitration Committee has no mention of this implication either. it's only implied by Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight ("While most current and some former arbitrators hold CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions") and some sentences after long passages on CheckUser.

i always had the impression or assumption from real life that arbitrators are third-party members of the public (maybe like a jury or lay judges), and not members of law enforcement or judiciary. i thought they're users elected to exercise independent judgement of sysops' and checkusers' actions, but didnt know they would become the checkusers themselves.

you could probably do a survey to see how many voters are aware. i've already voted in 2021 and 2022 elections. i became aware because only by chance i noticed a user was checkuser but i had no memory of a checkuser election of that user, then i dug further to find out the appointment logs on meta.

all implications of successful election should be made more prominent and communicated to voters.--RZuo (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * That is a good idea. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe the main purpose of giving them CheckUser rights is so that they can check up on the CheckUsers (i.e., to deter and detect any abuse by CUs). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * They can also use it to verify any Checkuser evidence that is relevant to a case or other Arb business. Similarly having Oversight permissions allows them to see and take into account any evidence that has had to be Oversighted. Thryduulf (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @RZuo technically, "being elected" doesn't make them a CUOS - it's just that the committee decides who is and who isnt a CUOS and have always decided that their members should be. — xaosflux  Talk 10:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Archival of election material
all material that has been used in elections should be archived. i raised this concern previously https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)&oldid=1187066048#Why_can_election_material_be_deleted_after_elections%EF%BC%9F. you can see the result of deletion of election material, a red link in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:ACE2022&oldid=1124416539. this is bad for scrutiny of election and detrimental to integrity of election. RZuo (talk) 07:22, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

False Claim in Ballot Instructions and Remedy
I am aware the issue below has been raised in the past. Like the Monty Hall problem, I believe it is easily and commonly misunderstood.

The ballot instructions include a false claim: “A 'neutral' vote does not affect the outcome.” (See also fix at end.)

A "neutral" vote for any single candidate is one of three mutually exclusive choices presented to the voter, each of which uniquely affects the probability of that candidate winning, and therefore affects the outcome of the election.

Definitive counterexample, with candidates A, B, and C, and 5 voters:

Candidate A is supported by 3 voters and opposed by 2, yielding 60% support.

Candidate B is supported by 2 voters and opposed by 3, yielding 40% support.

Candidate C is supported by 1 voter and opposed by 1, yielding 50% support (while 3 voters are neutral).

Consider any one of the 3 voters who initially chooses to give C a neutral vote. When that voter changes their vote for candidate C from "support" to "neutral" to "oppose", the percentage of support changes from 67% to 50% to 33%, respectively. As a result, candidate C changes from 1st place, to 2nd place, to the 3rd-place winner. It cannot be said that the voter's choice of a "neutral" vote for candidate C does not affect the outcome of the election, when that vote leads to a unique outcome.

Accurate Model

An election chooses certain candidates at the exclusion of others. It does not merely report the absolute scores of individual candidates.

More formally, the election receives as input ballots from N voters each with 3C possible combinations of markings, and outputs an ordered list of winners. When we speak of the outcome of the election to the individual voter with respect to their choices, we must adhere to the correct mathematical model to make true statements.

Easy Mistakes

I. Default Fallacy

A default choice is still a choice, otherwise it could not be changed (but it can).

''II. Magic Formula Fallacy''

It is irrelevant whether "neutral" appears in either formula: support / (support + oppose), or the simpler formula: support - oppose. Why? Because a "neutral" vote still results in a distinctly lower score than "support", and a distinctly higher score than "oppose".

Quick proof by counterexample: Consider a rating ballot “Good”, “Fair”, “Poor” with scoring formula: (0 x “Good”) + (-1 x “Fair”) + (-2 x “Poor”). Notice “Good” is completely ignored (i.e., absent). Nonetheless, a “Good” vote helps a candidate win.

''III. Null Ballot Fallacy''

Whether casting all "neutral" votes has the same effect as not submitting a ballot, tells us nothing about whether the choice to give an individual candidate a "neutral" vote has no effect at all.

Harm Done?

Suppose voter 1 supports candidate A and opposes candidate B, while voter 2 support's only candidate B. If voter 2 leaves the default "neutral" vote for candidate A, rather than "oppose" A,  their preferred candidate B loses the election. This result is akin to a violation of the later-no-harm criterion.

By telling the voter a "neutral" vote has no effect on the outcome, this could discourage them from making a definitive judgement call as to whether they support or oppose the election of each candidate.

But whether or not it can be proven that voters are harmed by the instructions, they can be, and I think it is not a good idea to make false claims in Wikipedia election procedures, regardless.

Possible Remedy

An example of a true statement we could make:

Please use the radio buttons to indicate which candidates you “support”, “oppose”, or hold a “neutral” position, regarding their election. Candidates receiving a higher percentage of support are elected. A “neutral” vote leaves the percentage of support for a candidate unchanged.

Filingpro (talk) 07:11, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * The remedy seems like a good change, but I think this is the type of change that would need to be made through ACERFC. QuicoleJR (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Which "Talk" or "Project page" do you recommend posting an RFC, if I were to post one? Filingpro (talk) 03:19, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It would need to be part of WP:ACERFC2024. The talk page can be used to hold draft proposals in the meanwhile. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note next year I plan to propose that the "Abstain" option that was used in 2013 be restored, in place of the "Neutral" option. isaacl (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Filingpro rewording for clarity can certainly be considered. Keep in mind this election process is not like most political elections, in that the purpose of the election is multi-faceted and the goal is not the same as many political elections. Though counted simultaneously the first goal of this election is to determine for each candidate if they are acceptable or not (>50% "support"), it is certainly possible that there will be less acceptable candidates then committee slots (unlike most political elections where the primary goal is to fill all of the open spots - it is even possible that NO candidates get elected). The secondary goal is to fill the open slots with the candidates with highest support %'s. So, given the first goal ideally voters will give their opinions on all candidates - however the neutral position is available as a "skip". — xaosflux  Talk 10:55, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Tool to determine eligibility
This is not so much feedback on this specific election--as I've already voted--but more a general question and comment about the elections process. In the past Wikipedia elections had a link you could go to to verify that one qualified to vote in the election--had enough edits overall, enough edits relatively recently, etc. For example, for this election some of the requirements include having made 150 mainspace edits overall and 10 edits within the last year. The tool I've used in past elections would have allowed me to enter my username and be told "you have 317 [or whatever] edits; you need 150 edits; on this ground you qualify, etc." Even if I'm confident that I qualify in any given election, it was still useful to use this tool to get solid confirmation. However I can't seem to find this eligibility verification tool this time around. Does anyone know where the link is or did it go away? Dash77 (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dash77 you may be thinking of this tool? It is a volunteer run external tool, so not sure if we could get on it, but someone could look in to it. We do publish the eligible voters list in advance (c.f. Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_209). — xaosflux  Talk 02:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Xaosflux Yes that is definitely the tool I was thinking of. It seems that the present election is not on there yet. Yes it would be great if this election could also be put on there, but part of my concern was just finding the link for the tool and sorting out what was going on, so I definitely appreciate your providing the link. Probably the reason I couldn't find the link was precisely because the current election isn't on there. Thanks again! Dash77 (talk) 02:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The tool seems to be run by Pathoschild, who is not very active on en.wp but seems responsive to queries on Meta. The 2011 and 2012 arbcom elections are in the list so there is no immediately obvious technical reason why next year's elections can't be included (it's likely too late for this year). Thryduulf (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's easy to add new events to the tool. Feel free to message me anytime to add one (or the tool is open-source if you want to submit a pull request). — Pathoschild (talk) 05:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Ooh, good idea. Another advantage of this over simply ctrl-f’ing the eligibility list is that you can see the individual criteria (for example, if you aren't eligible, you can see why in terms of each individual stat or how close you are to being so). — Frostly (talk) 02:57, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Difficult to find
I was late to vote (I had trouble deciding whom to vote for), but when I tried to get it done before midnight UTC, there was no obvious link to the ArbCom voting page. Even a search did not directly reveal it: I had to try a few permutations of what I thought was the name, which led me to the template for ArbCom elections, which allowed me to find the current voting page. I can only wonder how many people who wanted to vote couldn't because they could not find the page, & weren't as persistent as I was.It would have been much, much simpler even if there was a single link at Community portal. -- llywrch (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Llywrch the election was advertised anywhere that T:CENT is (which includes the Community portal page you mentioned), it was also at the top of the WP:WLN, and finally a personal invitation was sent to every eligible voter (here is yours: Special:PermaLink/1188394142). Perhaps you could ask over at Wikipedia talk:Community portal to give T:CENT more prominence on that page. — xaosflux  Talk 00:13, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Good interface improvements
I like that after casting my ballot, the confirmation page now restates my vote on each candidate. It's a nice reassurance that my browser hasn't glitched and submitted, say, a full slate of neutral votes. Altamel (talk) 01:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Remove SecurePoll + Push the elections 1-2 weeks earlier
I mean, that’s pretty much it. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 15:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * @Illusion Flame if you want to propose this for the RFC next year, I highly suggest you make it as 2 distinct proposals unless there is a special reason they need to only occur together. (I expect the timeline one to be coming up one way or another). — xaosflux  Talk 16:46, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, they are definitely two separate proposals and I plan to propose them for the RfC next year. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 17:01, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In which case I suggest you post them at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024 where the proposals can be discussed and workshopped in advance of the next RFC. Thryduulf (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ...why? jp×g🗯️ 21:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Reformat questions to all candidates
Have a page dedicated to questions to be asked to/answered by all candidates, similar to how it's done in the steward elections. Candidates will still have their own pages for individual questions, but having one page to post a question to all candidates on would make it easier to compare answers. Giraffer (talk·contribs) 15:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)


 * But harder to think about an individual candidate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think this would be an improvement. It would make it harder to track how many questions a given person has asked a given candidate, and harder to track questions that duplicate ones asked by someone else. I also think this would encourage lazily asking questions to all candidates, whether it is relevant to all of them or not. Thryduulf (talk) 23:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)