Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Election/Rules

Formatting
As the main text of this page is in a quote box with a green background (a holdover from when the text was included within the annual elections page), it has slightly smaller text. I propose removing the quote box so that the text will be easier to read. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Isaacl I changed it to 100%, does that solve your primary concern? — xaosflux  Talk 00:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of the green background or the box (though the text size was the most significant legibility issue), thus personally I'd still prefer getting rid of the quote box. isaacl (talk) 02:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the box sort of suggests that this should not be casually edited and that is a good thing, I don't really care about what box type or color it is though. — xaosflux  Talk 02:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think the comprehensive citations sends that message effectively. isaacl (talk) 02:58, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

B/locked candidates
Hi, I was reading WP:ACERULES and I'm not very sure how blocked candidates are dealt with. Candidates: Registered account with 500 mainspace edits, editor in good standing "that is"/"and is" not under block or ban" but Blocking policy applies normally, but a candidate shouldn't be disqualified for being blocked (except for sockpuppetry) after nominating themselves. Aren't they both contradictory statements to each other? &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 11:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)


 * @CX Zoom to become a candidate, you must not have an active block at the time you submit your nomination. If you subsequently gain a block, it will not disqualify you. Would prevent someone trying to eliminate a candidate by getting them blocked (or if an admin by blocking them) - possibly over something trivial. Locked users would be incapable to submitting a nomination as they can't log on. Becoming locked does not necessarily disqualify you either. (You can get a lock for being hacked for example, then you could overcome it). Does that answer your questions? — xaosflux  Talk 12:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps in the "Candidates" section this should be clarified as being at the point of nomination. — xaosflux  Talk 12:48, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it answers my question. The remedy that you just suggested should be clearer to understand. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 13:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @CX Zoom - updated; note, the prior rfcs appear to have settled the block issue - but it still appears that getting banned may disqualify you even after nomination (though I suspect that would depend on the type of ban, a single editor IBAN would likley not). Further on locks, as these are not controlled by the English Wikipedia, they are mostly out of scope. (If someone gets locked for massive multi-project disruption, they could still also just be blocked and/or banned locally). — xaosflux  Talk 13:30, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Wording of candidates bullet point
Is there any reason that we have the phrasing editor in good standing "that is"/"and is" in the candidates bullet point? Can we just pick one (preferably "that is" because there are multiple additional criteria)? I know the footnote says there was a transcription error, but from the page history it appears copy edits and the like are fairly common, without a formal decision in an ACERFC to do so. I am not being BOLD because it looks so out of place that I feel like I am missing something. Am I? HouseBlastertalk 01:52, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Proposed page move
Based on discussion at, I propose moving the page to Arbitration Committee Election/Rules. Feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Sure, keep a redirect, update the ACERULES shortcut. — xaosflux  Talk 17:26, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't see any harm from a move, but I don't really see any benefit either. If it is moved do leave the redirect and update the shortcut. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and BOLDly ✅ this to save the time needed for a formal RM; feel free to revert if there are objections. HouseBlastertalk 20:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Great work
This has matured greatly over the past decade and it requires dedicated work by volunteers doing solid low key work. Thank you. --Tznkai (talk) 03:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)