Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013

This is a request for comment about the upcoming December 2013 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election.

Purpose of this request for comment: To provide an opportunity to amend the rules on the on structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2013 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Background: Based on a Request for Comment held in September this year's Arbitration Committee Election RFC will run somewhat differently than it has in previous years. The RFC adopted the close of last year's ACERFC as the default rules for elections going forward. Instead of needing to arrive at a fresh consensus every year on the election rules, the yearly RFC will now focus on proposals that either change the rules, or that deal with issues not previously decided.

In the case of proposals that change existing rules, or that seek to establish new ones, lack of consensus for a change will result in the rules from the 2012 RFC remaining in force. Some issues are not covered by the existing rules but will need to be decided one way or another for the operation of the election, in those cases it will be up to the closer to figure out a result, even if there is no clear consensus, as they have had to in the past.

Structure: This RfC is divided into portions based on whether the question is unresolved or would amend the existing rules, and further divided into sections, each of which contains a question for the community to discuss. The standard RfC structure will be used, in which any user may make a general statement that other users may endorse if they so agree. The questions will be listed in the table of contents below, along with the users who have made statements.

The questions have been chosen in part from the comments from Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Feedback. More questions may be added if other concerns arise.

Duration: This RfC is scheduled to last for about 30 days; on or after 1 November 2013, it will be closed, and an uninvolved editor(s) will determine the result of the RfC. The results will determine the structure, rules, and procedures for the election.

12:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Use the following format below; post a new statement at the BOTTOM of the section in which you want to make a statement. Endorse by adding a hash symbol (#) and your signature.

Statement by User:USERNAME
Comment ~


 * Users who endorse this statement:



Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

=Unresolved Questions=

Statement by User:Monty845
We can't use last years day of the week/date combination, so to keep the days of the week the same, and to get us to the same time of month, I propose that going forward we use the 2nd Sunday of November as the start time for the nominating period. The rest of the schedule will follow based on the lengths used last year. Monty 845  00:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Timeline:
 * Nominations: Sunday 00:01, 10 November - Tuesday 23:59, 19 November (10 days)
 * Fallow period: Wednesday 00:01, 20 November to 24 November (5 days)
 * Voting period: Monday 00:01, 25 November to 23:59, 8 December (14 days)
 * Scrutineering: Monday 00:01, 9 December - ??? (whenever the Stewards are finished)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) Monty  845  00:10, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems a reasonable way of standardization to me. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I believe the American Thanksgiving falls in the fallow period, so should be fine; that being said, make sure that SecurePoll is good to go before the holidays... --Rschen7754 01:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * These comments were moved to talk page per initial protocol and have been restored per consensus to allow threaded discussion
 * American Thanksgiving falls on the 28th this year, which would be during the voting, unfortunately, to push the voting back until after would compact the time for scrutineering and completing the Arb appointment paperwork. Monty  845  01:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Meh. Well, I suppose this is the only option then... --Rschen7754 01:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * FYI Thanksgiving this year, is the 28th. So it would lie in the voting period under this plan. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) NE Ent 09:24, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) To avoid any issues in future years, it might be better to explicitly state the start date and days for the standard and change the header from "Timeline" to "2013 Timeline". That's just nitpicking though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Thanksgiving Day is a movable holiday in the US (4th Thursday in November), and it falls on the 28th this year (during the proposed voting period). But I don't see this as a major problem.  If people do feel the conflict is an issue, we could extend voting by a day.  —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) The voting period is long enough that the presence of a holiday during it shouldn't matter, even a major one like Thanksgiving. Holidays during shorter periods would be a different matter. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments

 * I strongly urge you to move this a week earlier. And at what point will you be deciding who the "election committee" are nominated, voted for, and appointed? That was part of last year's rules, which we're doing again.  Remember if you're going to have Jimbo doing the appointing of this "election committee" then you have to ensure that the closing date is one when he will actually be around; in fact, Jimbo's availability is one of the biggest wild cards in this entire process.  He is routinely "delayed" and almost never responds to emails.  Risker (talk) 11:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I didn't include a schedule for the commission here, because last year provides less guidance on it. There is a discussion on the talk page about it. As for the main schedule, I'm not really inclined to move my proposal forward, its basically the schedule that, even with the voting delay, worked last year. However, anyone is welcome to propose an alternative schedule. Monty  845  14:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would extend the fallow period a couple of days. 5 days isn't really all that much time to answer the questions or construct a voting guide in time for the opening of elections given that a large number of candidates don't nominate till near the end of the nominations period. NW ( Talk ) 19:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by User:Monty845
Last year there was an early vacancy creating an 8th seat up for election and it was decided the seat should be filled for a 2 year term, which would effectively switch its tranche. There is another vacancy this year, whether we fill it for 1 year or 2 years, the tranches will remain in balance. As vacancies occur somewhat frequently, I suggest we adopt a policy of always filling the 8th seat for a 2 year term even if that means it pings between tranches regularly. (RFC2012 already covers what happens to seats beyond 8) Monty  845  00:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) Monty  845  00:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:07, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) —  ΛΧΣ  21  04:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) I think I probably opposed proposals like this in the past, but ok.  It doesn't really matter if its 8/7 or 7/8, as long as it doesn't get back to 9/6 or anything like that.  Neutron (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it may be 9/6 now... --Rschen7754 21:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh! Well. But it still should not go to 9/6. If Monty means by "RFC2012" what I think he means, then as of right now, with NW having resigned a seat that does not expire until the end of 2014, the upcoming election should be for 8 two-year seats and 1 one-year seat.  If we are changing things so that the "class" elected in 2013 has 8 full seats, NW's seat is one of the other 7, so it gets filled with a one-year replacement.  Am I correct Monty?  Neutron (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Correct, going forward fill any seats up to 8 for 2 years. 9+ fill for 1 year terms. Just anticipating that the 8th seat will continue alternating tranches with vacancies. Monty  845  04:24, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) In past elections there has been a shortage of good candidates; better to have the lower ones have only 1 year, with the option of continuing if they want to at the end. --Rschen7754 05:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Altamel (talk) 23:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Generally agree, but if the proposal to have one-year arbs spring into a two year term by resignation of another goes forward, I'd prefer to elect all seats, including the ninth and up, for two years, to eliminate timing of resignation problems.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4)  Rcsprinter   (post)  @ 19:45, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Risker
All seats should be filled at the end of the election, provided there is a sufficient number of candidates who meet the requisite vote requirements. All appointments should be for 2 years. Risker (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Rationale: Despite all the theoretical mathematics, the reality is that almost every year one or more arbitrators resigns. Filling their seat with a 1-year candidate has not changed that outcome. It is now normal to re-elect more than half the committee each year. There is no evidence that "balancing" the tranches will lead to a different outcome, as the resignations are unpredictable human variants that cannot be mathematically determined. Risker (talk) 05:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm going to add something here. Generally speaking, new arbitrators take about 3 months to really get into the swing of things, learn the ropes, and how to make use of the various resources that have been developed over the years; if they decide to run again, they're busy organizing their new candidacy by mid-October. This is a complex role that requires considerable investment of time and energy on the part of the arbitrator (and the rest of the committee) to learn and then be productive. One-year terms mean that the extensive investment doesn't pay off efficiently. Risker (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. — ΛΧΣ  21  05:19, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Me too. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:49, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Makes sense. Hut 8.5 09:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) NuclearWarfare has resigned from the Arbitration Committee, bringing the total number of vacancies to three - which, with the six expiring terms, means we will be electing 9 new members instead of 8. I still think that Risker's proposal works - elect 9 members to 2 year terms. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 15:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) I agree with everything that Risker said. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I decided to come back and add to my earlier comment, by way of a mild "oppose" to the statement just below, about trying to keep the tranches in balance. It seems to me that we have been having such an epidemic of Arb burnout that it's more important to prevent the membership from dwindling to an unmanageably small number. I don't mean to say that the benefits of tranches don't matter, but I'd rather see a decision in some future election to revisit the issue and balance things out then, based on circumstance at the time, because we are now deciding only for this year. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's not quite correct, we are actually deciding for 'until there is a consensus to change it' rather than just this year - see the "Background" paragraphs at the top of this page. Thryduulf (talk) 10:33, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but that's a distinction that doesn't change my reasoning for coming to the conclusion that I did. I really was aware of the "Background" and, while I worded that comment a bit carelessly, there's nothing to prevent "a consensus to change it" next year. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The correct response to the problem of vacancies on ArbCom would be to have a system for filling vacancies (due to burnout or any other reason) when they occur instead of waiting until the next annual election - like almost every "offline" elected body has. However, it would probably be a mistake to try to get consensus on a specific system in the four days that remain in this RFC.  Neutron (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) Per not bureaucracy and let's keep it simple. If the numbers of "tranches" (not sure what structured finance has to do with the committee) get out of whack, a future annual RFC can address the issue then. NE Ent 01:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree. We're talking about this every year and can adjust if need be.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. The system needs to be as simple and self-operating as possible. The elections have effectively topped up the number of arbs to the maximum level (now 15). No reason why this shouldn't always be the case (it's for this reason that the minimum 50% support/oppose rating should be dispensed with ... it's so artificial, anyway, when hardly any arbs ever gain the support of 50%+ voters). Tony   (talk)  05:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Last year 14 of 22 candidates got ≥ 50%, in 2011 it was 10 of 17, in 2010 it as 13/21, 2009 it was 14/22 and 2008 13 of 28. So it is factually inaccurrate to say that "hardly any arbs ever gain the support of 50% of voters". Thryduulf (talk) 08:19, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Last year, three of the 21 candidates gained the support of more than half of the 824 voters: Newyorkbrad, with 70.1%, NuclearWarfare, with 55.1%, and Worm That Turned, with 54.1%. The previous year was similar—I can look it up if you want. Tony   (talk)  10:51, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * One of you is talking about 50% of all votes, the other is 50% of support+oppose..... KTC (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I thought my meaning was very clear: "hardly any arbs ever gain the support of 50% of voters". But this was criticised soon after as "factually inaccurrate". Tony   (talk)  12:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was talking about 50% of Support+Oppose, because that is the metric used to deterime who is elected. In rereading Tony's comment I see now that I did misread it, but now I'm perplexed about what relevance that comment has to do with this statement? Thryduulf (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is not relevant at all, in this section. (Otherwise I would have a lot to say about it, and already have, in my comment on Richwales's statement in another section).  Neutron (talk) 20:14, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It is highly relevant: the proportion of voters who support each candidate is a measure of their support for the them. This S/S–O formula is a significant POV distortion: the formula operates to inflate the apparent voter support figures. The 50% "floor" is based on a moralistic argument that if at least half of the voters don't support a candidate, they should be ineligible. This is not based on real voter support, but a confabulated ranking system. Tony   (talk)  00:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * But this section is about how long the terms should be. Neutron (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The notion of tranches is a relic from the ancient history of Arbitration Committee elections that has no place in 2013. --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Neutron
Since the above two statements are partly in conflict with each other (and I am not sure everybody realizes it), I am presenting the other side of the issue addressed by Risker. I propose we retain the status quo on this subject as established in past RfC's, such as WP:ACE2011/RFC, where this issue was last fully discussed. Specifically, let's keep the "tranches" or "classes" as close to "in balance" as they can be (8/7) by electing eight arbitrators for two-year terms and any additional vacant seats (created by resignations) for one-year terms, as in the past. For this election, thus far, there would be one one-year term, to replace the one year that will remain on NW's two-year term as of 1/1/14. (My numbers assume the adoption of Monty's proposal that one empty seat "switch" to a two-year term so that this year becomes the "8" year instead of the "7" year. Any additional resignations before the "cutoff date" from among those elected in 2012 (the "7", in other words) also would be elected for one-year terms.  I think the best reason for keeping the "tranches" in balance is that each election would continue to have the same impact on the ArbCom as the one before.  Consider the extreme case in which all of the "7" were to resign before the election.  Under Risker's proposal we would then elect 15 arbs for two-year terms in 2013, and if there were no resignations in 2014, there would be no election at all.  Now imagine that some big controversy occurs in 2014 and the voters want to "make a change".  There would be no opportunity to do so.  Milder versions of this would occur if the balance got to 10/5 or 11/4 (which obviously is more likely than 15/0), but I still think that would not be a good situation. So, the short version: Keep the classes roughly even at 8/7, by filling "extra" vacancies with one-year terms.  Neutron (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1) As proposer.  Neutron (talk) 23:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I'm not worried about a minor imbalance, say only electing 6 next year as a result of Risker's proposal, but there is a small enough pool of seats that randomness could substantially imbalance the tranches if we don't cap the number of 2 year terms.  Monty  845  01:09, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) The point of overlapping terms is to have a balance of experience and freshness. The tranches should be as even as possible to get the most benefit from this. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Yep.  Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Yes, the tranches should be kept as balanced as possible. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:54, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Rschen7754 00:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) Altamel (talk) 21:56, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 04:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Changing from Risker's above. I didn't think of this at the time, but whilst the extreme example of all 7 resigning isn't likely it is completely possible (and likely) for 2 or 3 from the same tranche to resign over a couple of years which would throw out the balance. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) —  ΛΧΣ  21  21:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Neljack (talk) 07:13, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Od Mishehu
Fill any vacancies now (beyond the 8) by 1-year terms. Should any of the 2-year-term arbs resign during the first year (beyond the first, when the size of arbcom is odd), fill in with a 1-year arb (if any remain). So if at least 7 of the arbs elected now make it to the end of next year, we have no extra vacancies to fill next year.


 * 1) Rationalle: I believe that this gives us the best of both proposals. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * See extended question/comment about this proposal here. Neutron (talk) 22:23, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

=Proposals to Amend=

Statement by User:Richwales
The three types of vote in last year's AC elections were "Support", "No vote", and "Oppose". I would like to propose a rewording: change "No vote" to "Abstain". I am concerned that some voters may be confused by the current headings and could accidentally misread "No vote" as meaning a " No " vote — i.e., some people might end up voting to abstain on a given candidate, when in fact they had meant to oppose that candidate. The nature of this problem is such that we can never know how many (or how few) people actually made this mistake; the best approach, IMO, is to make the voting procedure as unambiguous as possible, so as to minimize the likelihood of confusion and erroneous votes. If, for whatever reason, people think "Abstain" will be bewildering (!?!), an alternative wording might be "No opinion" — but, in my opinion, "No vote" has simply got to go. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 00:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) As the proposer. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 03:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Though I was sure tempted to make a column saying "No vote" and put myself in it :P --Rschen7754 01:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Less likely to result in confusion. Monty  845  01:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) An improvement. Jehochman Talk 02:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) —  ΛΧΣ  21  04:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) Works for me.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) NE Ent 09:38, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 10) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Thryduulf (talk) 10:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Yes (how did we miss this obviously good idea?)-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  17:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Absolutely, a commendably sensible proposal. -- Cactus.man   &#9997;  17:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 14) Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 15) Makes sense  Liz  Read! <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 18:11, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 16) Perfectly sensible. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 17) Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 18) Sure - I previously thought "no vote" was strange wording reminiscent of "no bid" for British bridge players instead of "pass." Collect (talk) 15:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 19) I am the person who actually proposed "No Vote" in the first place, see WP:ACE2011/RFC.  The problem I was seeking to address at the time was that in previous elections, some people had been interpreting the election results (and in some cases "reporting" the results) as if the formula was Support/(Support+Oppose+Neutral) instead of what it really is, (Support/Support+Oppose).  ("Neutral" had been the "default" in 2010, changed to "No Vote" in 2011, now apparently to be changed to "Abstain", but it all means the same thing.)  My first proposal in that RFC included a statement that the "default" option, whether called Neutral, Abstain or No Vote, or something else, would continue to "not count" for any purpose.  In the 2012 voting instructions, this concept was expressed as:  "Selecting "No vote" for a candidate has no impact whatsoever on their chances of election."  (See here)  I assume that a similar statement, with "Abstain" replacing "No Vote", will be included in the instructions for this year.  My second proposal in 2011, which I thought was much less important than the first, was to change "Neutral" to "No Vote."  I thought some people had been reading way too much into "Neutral" in past discussions, and I also thought that "No Vote" would best convey that the "default option" was a nullity, a non-event, it didn't count, it was a blank, etc.  If someone had instead proposed "Abstain" and had made a strong argument that "No Vote" was confusing, I probably would have supported "Abstain" instead.  Nobody did.  Someone is now, and I will support it.  Personally I do not think "No Vote" is confusing, but then again, I'm the one who invented it.  :)  The important thing is to make clear that an "Abstain" vote does not affect the results in any way.  Neutron (talk) 21:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 20) <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 09:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 21) I'm not sure that it is actually likely to confuse people, but as Richwales says we can't know and we are better to be safe than sorry, considering that there is a perfectly serviceable alternative. Neljack (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 22) Clearer. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 23) "No vote" could be confusing to some who are unused to this system of voting.  Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 10:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 24) "Abstain" works here. "Not voting" would work, too. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 25) Seems reasonable. AQFK (talk) 12:49, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 26)  —  C M B J   04:58, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 27) Intothatdarkness 14:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 28) As long as the fact that it's made clear that an abstain doesn't affect the vote count, per what said. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 15:13, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 29) Koi Sekirei (talk) 06:16, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 30) Absolutely. VanIsaacWS Vex<sup style="margin-left:-7.0ex">contribs 09:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 31) Stfg (talk) 12:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 32) No opinion or neutral works for me. Steven Zhang (talk) 02:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 33) A good, common-sense suggestion. Fully support. OakleighPark (talk) 04:27, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 34) "Abstain" is better and a more clear word than No vote.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:29, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 35) I agree, seems sensible.  TheGeneralUser  (talk)  21:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by User:Monty845
Last year, some of the commissioners took an active and ongoing role in the day to day operation of the election, for example moving followup questions to the candidates from the main question pages. While we didn't give clear guidance on what we wanted the commission to do last year, I Think it would be better if the commission tried to stay as hands off as possible, stepping in only when there is a problem that needs resolving, and either discussion isn't working, the rules are unclear, or there isn't time. As the only appeal is to the commission, it would be better to keep the commissioners as uninvolved as possible until needed. Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  01:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  01:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Absolutely - if the communtiy can handle it internally, it should. They should only get involved if either there isn't time for the community to make an official decision, or if the community fails to do so. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:50, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Od Mishehu. Thryduulf (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by User:Od Mishehu
In the last arbcom elections, one of the candidates (YOLO Swag) claims that in a previous election, when this user also ran for ArbCom, the user was blocked during the elections to force him/her to withdraw (Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidates/YOLO Swag). Although I have no intention of judging User:Gwen Gale, the blocking admin, it does appear from the block log that the block in question is questionable. I think we need to have a standard to prevent the appearence of what YOLO says happened.

My proposal is simple: A block of any candidate, from the time the user declares it officially until the end of the elections (or until the user resignes, if (s)he does), for a period of over 12 hours, may be done only by a sitting arbiter not running for re-election. If any other admin feels the need, they may make a 12 hour block and ask for it to be extended.


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Users who oppose this statement:
 * 1) Running for ArbCom should not be used as a shield. If someone commits a blockable offense, then should be blocked regardless of who they are or what they're running for. Besides, YOLO Swag is an extreme case, not likely to repeat itself (unless he runs again). YOLO Swag is an account that exists solely to troll ArbCom elections and make personal attacks. By all rights the account should have been indeffed as a V.O.A., and thus isn't a good case for building policy around.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  06:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) per Sven. --Stfg (talk) 12:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) It's not practical to allow eight or fewer people to be the only admins allowed to block a set or subset of people.    K rakatoa    K atie   05:11, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Sven, and questionable blocks can be appealed anyway. No need for extra rules.  Yinta n   21:27, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by User:Monty845
I think a better approach is to state unambiguously that a block occurring after a candidate has nominated themselves does not impact their eligibility. The only possible exception would be if it were a block for socking, in which case it would be up to the election commission. Admins should still exercise the utmost restraint when blocking a candidate, and should strongly consider starting a discussion first, but we should not make any outright changes to the blocking policy for candidates. Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  14:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  14:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed. I would go further - a block for checkuser-confirmed sockpuppetry should be pretty much the only grounds for the actual involuntary removal of a candidate (though few sockpuppeteers identify to the foundation). Being a candidate for arbcom should not shield an editor from blocks, if blocks are justified - I would not want to open up such a loophole. But even a bad block of a candidate can taint the candidacy irretrievably. Asking admins to be careful is not unreasonable. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 14:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) One minor technicality: if someone gets blocked for socking, they become ineligible for failing to disclose alternate accounts, so the exception for socking here is unnecessary. I'd support this proposal anyway, though. Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with your "technical" claim about the exception: If the candidate started socking after making his/her statement, then the user didn't fail to disclose alternate accounts. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) This would hopefully be a rare enough situation that we shouldn't need hard rules on it, but this seems reasonable. Od Mishehu's proposal, by contrast, would seem to make running for arbcom an attractive means of dodging blocks for vandals and disruptive editors, which is a pretty absurd.  In addition, a system where arbcom candidates aren't blocked for policy violations that new users would be blocked for stinks of cabal-ism. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  00:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Per all the above. —  Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 20:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Yes. Socking might have to be handled differently in that it could affect the legitimacy of the election, and a candidate who is banned during the election ought to be disqualified (I believe this has happened), but a rule that running for ArbCom makes the candidate exempt from blocks is likely to lead to abuse. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 09:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) —  ΛΧΣ  21  21:39, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) -- Let the voters decided. NE Ent 01:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Risker's proposal would disqualify candidates who are blocked without regard to whether the block was justified and whether the community still trusted the candidate. It would also, I believe, put the blocking administrator in a unfair position. Since their actions would have such major consequences, there would almost inevitably be questioned raised regarding whether it was done to prevent the candidate from taking up their seat. Neljack (talk) 07:22, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Risker
In the past several years, candidates have been identified who were operating undeclared alternate accounts, who were socking abusively, or were blocked during the course of their candidacy for other violations of policy. Candidates who are subject to a block for abusive use of socks/alternate accounts during the course of the election, and any candidate who is subject to a block at the time the results are released, are not eligible to assume a seat on the Arbitration Committee.


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) I looked at the support above with shock and dismay. The Arbitration Committee should not be populated by banned or blocked users, by sockpuppeters or others who have abrogated the community's standards.  Yes, care should be taken in blocking candidates. Care should be taken in blocking any editor. But it should be clear to candidates from the beginning that they must be on their best behaviour, and that they will not be appointed if they are blocked at the time of the results.  Risker (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Does this mean I can (theortically) block every candidate in the election around the time the result are to be announced so that no one can be elected? Candidate should certainly not get a blank check to mishaviour as a result of standing for ArbCom, however I think this proposal may go too far in the other direction. Editors shouldn't behave in such a way that they ends up being blocked, but say why is being blocked for as little as say a few hours just right around the time of the result so much worse that they are disqualified than if it were to happen the day before? Tough balance to strike... :/ KTC (talk) 22:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
 * KTC, I'd say that was good reason for having you desysopped on the theory that your account had been hijacked. ;-) The candidates don't know when the results will be released; if the stewards are efficient, it could be mere hours after the close of voting, or if they're less diligent it can be 10-15 days. It worries me a bit that we're more concerned about administrators making bad blocks for poor reasons than we are about potentially electing candidates whose blocks are deserved. Risker (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I would rather use the criteria from the WMF Board elections, but I suppose this will do rather than making yet another proposal. --Rschen7754 10:09, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by 74-whatever
There are two fundamental issues here. First, rogue admins trying to abusively influence the election by banning/blocking candidates they dislike (potentially but not necessarily as a means to favor candidates the rogue admin does like). Second, rogue candidates trying to abusively win content-disputes (e.g. on the Abortion article) by virtue of their caste-status, as untouchable candidates. Together, these boil down to variations on the wheel-war. Analysis of existing proposals, in these terms:


 * 1)  User:Monty845 has the most popular proposal to date, but it fails to solve the rogue-candidate issue, and in fact almost guarantees that some candidate will go rogue:  "Admins [of the lower-caste non-candidate type] should still exercise the utmost restraint when blocking a candidate [of the high-status higher-caste type]..."
 * 2)  The originating proposal, by User:Od Mishehu, is worse with respect to rogue candidates:  only an arbcom-caste admin can block a rogue candidate freely, normal lower-caste-admins can temp-block for up to 12 hours, after which they must request help from a higher-caste admin.
 * 3)  The third proposal, by Risker, suffers from the opposite difficulty:  any rogue admin can spoil an ArbCom election.

My proposal is extremely drastic, but I believe it solves the rogue-admin problem Risker's proposal invites, and the rogue-candidate problem (plus in some ways the more subtle institutionalized caste-system) problem that the proposals by Od Mishehu and Monty845 invite. I propose:


 * 1)  Candidates, having announced their intent to run for a particular office in a particular election-cycle, may no longer edit article-content on *any* wikimedia wiki.  No exceptions, no mercy if they cheat, they must immediately (and permanently until the election they announced for previously is over and done with) renounce their candidacy.
 * 2)  They may also take no admin-actions.  Ditto.
 * 3)  They may post on talkpages, both for articles and for users, and thus they may suggest content-edits, or request admin-actions, but may not take such actions themselves.
 * 4)  This drastic set of restrictions will only leave candidates open to just four kinds of blocking/banning, by my count:  WP:PUPPET, WP:BLPTALK, WP:COPYVIO, and WP:NPA.
 * 5)  Any candidate, who violates any of those four, or even *appears* to violate any of those four and is banned/blocked thereunder, is not be allowed to be seated (their election is overturned even if they were already seated by the time the violation was caught).
 * 6)  To counteract the rogue-admin problem, if a candidate is banned for one of those four, and officially appeals their ban, so as to clear their name and continue their election campaign, we use a one-hour-jury.

That is basically it. Candidates will not be able to go rogue, without ceasing to become candidates. Rogue admins will have almost nothing to block candidates *for* in the first place. The details of how the jury-process work are unfortunately complex. Everything must be made as simple as possible, but no simpler. Sorry about that. Hope this helps. Please ping me on me enWiki talkpage if you need something. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:10, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1)  When the appeal is initiated, an uninvolved admin will use a securely-written app which PRNG-selects twelve random peer-admins (skipping all those admins involved in the block-incident, plus all candidates announced as running for election, as well as currently-elected members... skipping of course admins that are themselves currently banned/blocked... and other common-sense avoidance of WP:COI).
 * 2)  The jury must be convened within thirty minutes of the candidate requesting an appeal, to avoid unduly harming their election-chances; the PRNG algorithm is designed to find 12 jury-members in 5 minutes, based on quick response from their talkpage.  If the 12 seats are not filled in the first 5 minute call, 24 more PRNG-requests are sent, with the leftover seats filled first-come-first-serve.  Then 48, and so on.
 * 3)  Once the twelve PRNG-selected admin jurors are seated, there is a 500-word statement by the blocking-admin, and a 500 word statement by the candidate.  Jurors can use any tools at their disposal, including off-wiki tools and asking others for assistance, to investigate further.  The jury must vote to confirm, or vote to overturn, exactly thirty minutes after being seated (no earlier and no later and no abstaining).
 * 4)  To prevent gaming the system, and using a long series of sacrificial-rogue-admins to repeatedly block a candidate, if a candidate is blocked, and overcomes the block via jury-appeal per above, they cannot be blocked again, except by unanimous vote of all currently-sitting ArbCom members, until after the election they announced themselves for is decided.  (Yes... this means problem #2 is not *fully* solved by my proposal, in the worst-case-scenario... but we have to trust somebody at *some* point, or shut of the wikimedia server-farm and go home.)
 * 5)  Finally, note that my proposal does not in any way even attempt to solve the institutionalized caste-system problem; the jury is composed of admins, the candidates are given special treatment, and anons like myself are not even mentioned, except by exclusionary language.  Such is life.  Maybe next election that can be rectified.  And if you  read this far, then I truly thank you, for improving the wikiverse.


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * Users who oppose this statement:


 * 1) With all due respect, but this feels like a solution looking for a problem. A drastic solution for a virtually non-existent problem, even.  Yinta n   21:35, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Sven Manguard
I believe that it is in the best interests of the project if Jimbo is removed entirely from the ArbCom process. Jimbo should not be appointing election personnel, should not be formally confirming the election results, and should not be able to appeal or amend ArbCom decisions. For the sake of this RfC, only the first two are under consideration; i.e. that Jimbo have no role in selecting election personnel and no role in officially confirming the results.

Despite his founding Wikipedia, he is only one person, and a person with a history of making very bad decisions with his founder privileges (Commons, anyone). He should not be a step above the project's highest elected body, and should not have undue influence, or the appearance of undue influence, over it.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  06:59, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Endorse the first paragraph.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Endorse the first paragraph as well.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Endorse the first paragraph. Tony   (talk)  05:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Couldn't agree more.  Yinta n  21:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose Jimmy often seems to have more of a clue than arbcom generally. We need more mechanisms to hold arbcom accountable not less. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
Until that time that there is a truly independent appeals process, Jimbo should be able to intervene in ArbCom decisions.

The ArbCom process as it exists is imperfect, but it is also the final formal dispute resolution process. In practice it is often also the first effective process, and one then has to take serious that this isn't always going to be perfect. In some cases such imperfections may lead to problems that require an ad hoc, "cut the red tape-like" intervention, similar to how in the US a governor or the President can issue a pardon. Jimbo is at present the only person who has the authority to intervene in ArbCom decisons. It's not a good idea to remove that authority from him before implementing a system that makes his role in ArbCom redundant. Count Iblis (talk) 19:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) I endorse this. Thryduulf (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree here. Collect (talk) 12:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Support.  There is no recall-with-teeth for ArbCom members, save appeal to Jimbo.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree with the Count. Neljack (talk) 07:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per my above comment.  Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:28, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by TenOfAllTrades
Members of the Arbitration Committee occupy posts which demand the highest levels of trust of any position on the English Wikipedia project. Sitting Arbitrators have access to
 * personal information about editors who come before them, which may include everything from email addresses to real names to personal health information volunteered by editors;
 * checkuser data, which may imply or identify editors' home addresses, work addresses, employers, or legitimate alternate accounts;
 * the ArbCom mailing list and its archives, which may include any or all the above – current and historical – as well as the confidential deliberations of the Committee; and
 * just about any other darn thing that gets punted to the ArbCom as part of one dispute or another.

In addition, sitting Arbitrators carry tremendous responsibilities, as
 * the final arbiter of user conduct and of content disputes (no, not explicitly, but by choice of remedies and bans);
 * the final avenue for appeal of bans and extended blocks (and especially for such blocks involving confidential information);
 * the principal route by which certain sensitive permissions (e.g. CheckUser and Oversight) are granted; and


 * the principal route by which advanced permissions (particularly adminship) may be involuntarily removed from an editor.

I am sure neither of those lists is exhaustive. It should be apparent that successfully assuming the post of Arbitrator demands significant trust from the community, and that trust comes in two important flavors: trust in the candidate's judgement, in their ability to reach fair decisions and to communicate their reasoning effectively; and trust in the candidate's discretion, in their ability to maintain confidentiality and to use their tools only as needed to carry out their duties.

When we appoint administrators – individuals who will be working entirely in the open, with their every action clearly and publicly logged, with only inadvertent access to private information, with their actions subject to rapid review by hundreds of other administrators and the entire remainder of the community on a public noticeboard – we don't pass candidates who poll less than about 70% (and even then, subject to bureaucrat discretion). If a third of the editors evaluating an RfA candidate express doubts about the candidate's judgement or readiness to assume the responsibilities of adminship, we don't give them the mop. We're willing to say that if a sizeable minority (30%) have enough qualms, it is better to do without a candidate for a while than to risk promoting someone who hasn't yet earned a firm foundation of community trust. Looking at the appointment of bureaucrats, the threshold is even higher, commensurate with the increased level of trust and responsibility.

...And then we have the Arbitration Committee. Candidates rejected by more than a third of editors have been seated in every election; candidates rejected by 40% or more of the voters have been seated in most. It erodes confidence in the ArbCom as a whole when it is known that new Arbs can be seated with the support of only a thin majority of voters. (And not of total voters&mdash;only the fraction of voters who reviewed their candidacy to the point of being able to cast a yea or nea.) In our other appointment processes, we are willing to respect the concerns of large minorities, recognizing that the qualms of a large minority should be respected in order to foster trust in our appointed tool-users. That we fail to employ similar caution in appointing members to our single most important, most sensitive body is harmful and unsustainable.

I therefore propose: In order to be eligible to be seated on the Arbitration Committee, a candidate must receive the support of a minimum of 70% of non-abstaining voters. This is the same (effective, if unofficial) standard imposed on candidates for adminship; we should as a minimum be no less picky about who we seat on the ArbCom.


 * Users who endorse this statement
 * 1) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC) (as proposer)
 * 2) Noting that we require an even higher threshold for lesser officials on Wikipedia - this is quite a conservative proposal. Collect (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Users who oppose this statement
 * 1) The ridiculously high demands that have turned RfA into a military-grade obstacle course should be changed, not copied to other elections.  Yinta n   21:42, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) As long as there exists the possibility that people will support/oppose based on factors other than an individual candidate's suitability for the post then 70% is too great. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Boing! said Zebedee
Voting from a pool of candidates to fill a number of seats is very different to RfA which simply assesses whether one specific candidate is acceptable for the role, and so RfA pass levels are not relevant here.

In an election with n seats, we cannot assume that each voter assesses each candidate independently of all the rest, casting each vote on a one-by-one basis regardless of the total number of seats to be filled, and that every vote is thus an acceptance or a rejection of each candidate's qualities individually.

In reality, voters will often rank the candidates, saying Yes to their top n candidates and No to all the rest, even if they think some of the rest would be good enough - they do it simply to maximize the chances of their favorites. So a No vote is not necessarily a rejection of that candidate's qualities or trustworthiness - it can just mean "Candidate is fine, but I like others better".

The actual vote percentage that each candidate gets can also be changed simply by throwing more candidates into the election, even though that obviously does not alter the qualities of the existing candidates at all. With more candidates, votes from those who ration them will be more thinly spread, and the Yes percentages will go down.

So, as the quality of each individual candidate is not the only variable that determines the percentage of Yes votes they get, we cannot deduce that a 70% Yes vote means 30% of the voters do not trust that candidate for the role.

(Besides, if we up the threshold to 70% we just would not fill the seats - we'd have filled only 4 out of the 8 last year, for example.)

So I propose leaving the Yes threshold as it is.


 * Users who endorse this statement
 * 1) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Ditto my comments from last year when the exact same thing was proposed. --Rschen7754 18:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Not necessarily for all the same reasons, but yes, it should be a majority and no higher.  There is a big difference between open-ended selection processes such as RfA, where there is a no fixed number of "seats" and the candidate has no opponent (other than "Oppose"), and an actual election in which there are other candidates.  Neutron (talk) 21:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Neutron. Thryduulf (talk) 05:01, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) In the real world, this is the practical approach. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 6) Per the above.  Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 7) I agree fully with the statement. This is an election where the candidates are running against each other for a limited number of seats, not a simple community approval where votes are based on whether the person would do OK. The barrier at 50% is reasonable to prevent candidates who lack community confidence from being elected, but since oppose votes are legitimately used to bolster the other candidates chances, we should not set the bar higher than that. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  08:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 8) JamesBWatson (talk) 11:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 9) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 10)   K rakatoa    K atie   05:24, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 11) Which are very good reasons to dispense with any arbitrary requirement for a floor (a whim of Jimbo from years back when he played a role in selecting candidates and "fixing" the election if not enough candidates got across that 50% line). Why build potential failure into the electoral system? It's a competition, right? The best eight candidates take up positions. Tony   (talk)  05:40, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 12) Makes perfect sense.  Yinta n  21:44, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 13) Neljack (talk) 07:24, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Count Iblis
The work load for each Arb is too high, this leads to few editors putting themselves forward as candidates. Also, it leads to sitting Arbs resigning, there are other negative effects like Arbs not spending enough time to look deeply into a case. If there are 30 Arbs then one can conduct cases with only a fraction of the Arbs, instead of hearing a case with more than ten Arbs as is done now, one can let 3 or 4 Arbs who have enough time available handle a case. The procedure for deciding whether or not to hear a case should then be modified, one can think of a subcommittee consisting of a few Arbs that decides whether or not a case should be heard. Count Iblis (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754
We should keep the number of arbs at 15. The fewer people who know private information, the better. --Rschen7754 20:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) There is no reason to change the size of the Committee.  The reason stated by Rschen is not necessarily my reason, but the result is the same.  Neutron (talk) 21:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't even know if 15 people ran last year. --Rschen7754 21:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 22 people ran last year, 14 got ≥50% support. Thryduulf (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) . Been there - 15 is fine. Allows for us to do other things like write for example. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by 74-whatever
Strongly agree with Rschen7754 that restricting access to privacy-encroaching details should be minimized. (There are also wikimedia server-farm admins with such access, so the number is higher than 15.)

That said, picking a permanent number like 15 inherently limits the number of active editors that wikimedia projects can have. Sooner or later, the backlog on ArbCom would become too great. Alternatively, the members of ArbCom would be forced to make snap decisions on cases, to keep the backlog down -- a much worse outcome, methinks. I am also therefore strongly in agreement with Count Iblis.

Propose the number of ArbCom members be set at a minimum of 15, which is roughly one for every 100 very-active-admins at present, and also roughly one for every 5000 active editors right now (based on 5+edit/mo metric). Furthermore, propose that as the number of active-editors grows, a new seat should be added to the upcoming-at-whatever-point-the-5000-mark-is-crossed ArbCom elections. Thus, for example, if wikimedia were to suddenly grow by 20k net-gain in active editors the day after the December 2013 elections are finished, there would be 15+4=19 seats (because 20k/5k=4 seats added) at the following election. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

=Selection of Election Commission=

Statement by User:Floquenbeam
I don't like the whole idea of Jimbo picking the Election Commission (EC). For scheduling reasons (he is often not available, and doesn't always act in a timely manner), and for political reasons (I'd like to see him always moving toward less influence, not more). The problem is that not using someone widely trusted to make a selection requires an election for the EC, which is silly and redundant and a time sink itself. I propose we just "volunteer" last year's EC (whoever among them is willing; Happy-melon, MBisanz, and Avi appear to be active, Lord Roem not) to review those volunteering to do it this year and pick three plus a spare. They seem a clueful bunch, I trust them to choose another clueful bunch. In the future, part of the job description of a commissioner will be to select the next year's EC.


 * (adding to my statement after SPhilbrick's 16:57, 1 October 2013 comment because for some dumb reason discussion isn't allowed on this page;) I still like the basic idea of this proposal, and don't think that some of the problems Sphilbrick and Happy-melon mention are a big deal, except for one glaring problem HM brings up that (being an idiot) I hadn't thought of; this essentially prevents a previous year's volunteer doing it again. So I suggest we tweak this proposal so that (a) previous year volunteers who want to do it again should do so, barring complaints from the Community, and (b) previous year volunteers choose any remaining empty slots. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1) Floquenbeam (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems reasonable. Other choice would be crats, but that is another can of worms. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  16:16, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) No issues, but perhaps they should be notified of this before we volunteer them? XD --Rschen7754 16:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Support for the gang of three, not so thrilled about the proposed process. Wholehearted support for the three candidates listed. While I like the simplicity of having the group choose the following year's team, I'm nervous about the perception. I would prefer that we find some mechanism other than self-perpetuated bureaucracy. (I trust it is obvious that Jimbo needs to be consulted, although I am fine with getting a sense of the community first)-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  16:57, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) They did a good job, but I oppose self-perpetuating organizations, and this would be precedent for next year. Get three respected admins, set in advance, to close a selection discussion. And it is not obvious that Jimbo needs to be consulted. Were he more active, and positively so, on specifically en.wp, I'd oppose his involvement anyway, but I'd see more of an upside to appointing him.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Happy-melon
I don't think that Floquenbeam's proposal is the best way to select EC members (although I agree that Jimbo selecting them is not very effective either). It has two main problems: firstly it's not very wiki-like, and secondly it actively discourages re-election which acts as a brain drain. Speaking as someone who has made comments to the effect of "I'm happy to help if people are happy to have me, but equally happy to be replaced by fresher blood" in every set of elections since 2009 (and ended up helping each time), I'd be fully prepared to make the same statement again, but I would be greatly discouraged from doing so if it were to cause a conflict of interest in the rest of the selection. I think the amount of turnover we've had in the EC (or election administrators as they used to be) is about right: it can be a quite fiddly role requiring some technical and policy skill, but it's also pretty low-maintenance and not particularly arduous.

I'd prefer to keep the EC process as low-key as possible, and I don't really see why a new mandate is required every single year (or why the mandate needs to be a formal election with clear winners and losers). Especially since the pool of people eligible to become ECs (foundation-identified users who can be granted access to private data but who are not Arbs or candidates) is relatively small. Rather, each year check how many current ECs are happy to reprise their role; have a defined process for recalling anyone who the community thinks acted inappropriately last year (but only if they don't step down in advance; I have confidence that any of the users we've had as EAs/ECs in the past four years would do so if they thought they had been overly controversial); seek replacements for any vacancies from the pool of identified users. Having the clear recall process is important to prevent any perception of "job for life", but equally keeping the fanfare surrounding the selection to a minimum is the best way to stop it becoming a "hat" at all. In short, I don't think that this is a part of the process which needs to be excessively tightly codified. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 22:36, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1)  Support, especially the staying as low-key as possible (but in a manner that safeguards privacy), plus the other key idea that any replacement mechanism should be dramatically better than how effective Jimbo is.  Will submit the weasel words that Some People Consider this a very difficult problem to solve properly.  74.192.84.101 (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Support, and Jimbo should remain distant from the whole electoral process. Tony   (talk)  05:30, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by MBisanz
I see HM's concerns with retention and un-wiki process, but I don't have a problem doing this task if people think it's a good idea.  MBisanz  talk 01:19, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by User:Neutron
I propose that for this year, we extend the terms of last year's Election Commission/Election Administrator's for one more year, if they will accept. It seems from the statements above that Happy-Melon and MBisanz have effectively accepted already. If Lord Roem does not, Avi moves into the third "regular" spot, if he will accept. Then, again for this year only, I would ask the three members to select an alternate. A more permanent and "wiki-like" method would be discussed and adopted next year. Neutron (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1) Neutron (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Avi
As I responded on my talk page, I'd be happy to serve in this way if requested. -- Avi (talk) 21:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by User:Monty845
I suggest we see if we can find a crat willing to close it, failing that, just have it closed by an experienced uninvolved editor. Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:57, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) A crat, or a few crats, even. --Rschen7754 01:30, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Rschen. Crats have a 90% trust rate—higher than any other position in the movement, including stewards. Tony   (talk)  05:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 4) Neljack (talk) 07:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 5) I agree that one bureaucrat (or even better, three) would a good option because of their level of trust. -    t  u coxn \ talk 22:18, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by Deskana
I'd be happy to be involved in the election commission too, if I am needed and wanted. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 12:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by WJBscribe
Ditto Deskana above. If you want 'crats, you should have penty to choose from (definitely enough for a panel of 3!). <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by User:Floquenbeam
I think it would be best to have an EC in place when nominations start, but it would be putting the cart before the horse to start selecting an EC before this section of the RFC ends. So this is an accelerated schedule:
 * Whoever closes this RFC closes the EC section a little early, on 28 Oct 2013 (four weeks instead of 31 days).
 * Once this section of the RFC is closed, people volunteer to be on the EC in the next four 4 days, between 00:01 29 Oct and 23:59 1 Nov 2013).
 * People can comment on them during this period, and for a few days after that (until 23:59 5 Nov 2013).
 * Whoever we get to choose the EC (whether my suggestion above succeeds or not) does so between 6 Nov and 9 Nov 2013, so when nominations open on 10 Nov 2013, there's an EC in place. (if it's still Jimbo doing the choosing, then we might get our EC a little later, but hopefully relatively soon after nominations start).


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1) Floquenbeam (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) Conditional support: I'd like to see the EC appointed even sooner. The most important task they have is setting up the SecurePoll for the election, and based on my personal experience outside of Enwiki, this is a much, much bigger challenge than meets the eye, because it requires direct developer support from the WMF.  In fact, I'd suggest someone create the bugzilla now, if we are not going to change the voter criteria.  Risker (talk) 14:27, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Statement by User:Monty845
Proposing an accelerated schedule:
 * EC Nominations open October 12
 * EC Nominations close October 19
 * EC Comment period ends October 28

As this is mostly a question of scheduling, we probably don't need more then a week or so of discussion on it. The EC wont be able to do much before the RFC here is done anyway, so under this schedule they should be in place and ready to go about the time it closes. In future years I would suggest having the nominations open Oct 1, stay open 2 weeks, and then 2 weeks of discussion. Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  17:47, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Given the late date, and the level of participation, it looks like we will need to just default to the other proposal at this point, absent a third schedule being proposed and rapidly gaining support. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:43, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) I think this is a better way of having the EC appointed just in case we need it. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
 * 2) This seems the better option. --<span style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#ff55ff 0em 0em 0.8em,#55ffff -0.8em -0.8em 0.9em,#ffff55 0.7em 0.7em 0.8em;color:#ffffff">Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 19:27, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Simplifying or streamlining the general questions?
There is a talkpage on which the general questions to be asked of the candidates this year are being discussed. On that page, I had asked whether the question set should be simplified, either by streamlining and updating the questions, or at a minimum by reducing the complexity of the formatting of the questions. As that page does not have many watchers, it was suggested that I cross-post here. Input on this would be appreciated. (COI note: I'm a sitting arbitrator and a veteran of three of these elections, two of which used variations on the proposed question set, though my term does not expire this year.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:52, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I suggest that, if anything, too few questions are asked of the candidates - and note that I posted on my ACE2012 page evaluations specifically based on answers to questions. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:01, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the questions should be made less substantive or less intellectually challenging. I just think it's possible to ask them in a way that is less convoluted, has less duplication, and most especially, doesn't involve the formatting complexities of dealing with sub-questions and sub-sub-questions in wikitext. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure -- avoid the "a, b, c, d subsections" -- but that does not mean we should ask general stuff expected from a candidate in a school election <g>.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:17, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * My starting point would be something roughly like this. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Much better; and could there be a discouragement in the instructions to voters against asking questions that are outside the ambit of ArbCom? In previous elections, people have asked, for example, about attitudes to paid editing or copyright. This is not relevant to judging parties' behaviour ; it's not a fair burden on candidates, and bloats the text for voters (who tend then to ignore it all). Tony   (talk)  09:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)