Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015

Notices
I've placed notices of the RfC at WP:CENT, WP:AN, WP:VPP, WT:ACN, and WT:AC. Please feel free to post notices elsewhere if you feel it is needed. Mike V • Talk 04:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Question
Maybe I'm being dense, but why exactly do the rules need to be changed/discussed every year? Why can't we just use the 2014 rules unless there are problems with those? --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  20:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We do use the rules from the previous year. Each year we have a discussion to consider changes to the present set of rules. For instance, last year there was consensus to remove the general questions that were used in years past. Mike V • Talk 21:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Prior to 2013, each year the RFC started with a blank slate, and we basically created the ACE rules from scratch, even if we often ended up with similar results. Prior to the ACERFC in 2013, a procedural RFC was held that resulted in a shift, to keeping the previous years rules unless people propose changes, and those changes achieve consensus. Anticipating that there would often be proposals for change, it was specified that we should still have a yearly RFC as a centralized place (both in time and place) to propose those changes. My hope is that eventually we will reach a point where nothing needs to be changed, and we are certainly seeing a year over year reduction in proposals/topics of discussion here, but we aren't there yet. If we ever get there, we could perhaps stop yearly RFCs, but again until then, its a good centralized place for any discussion on the topic. Monty  845  23:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining. Makes sense. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  23:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Question/answer limits
I think the question/answer limits should be tightened so that Arb candidates do not need to spend their entire campaign writing lengthy answers to copy/paste questions which will influence only a small handful of voters. Stifle (talk) 06:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Something that might work would be a requirement to submit questions before the end of nominations. An independent group of people would distil these into a set of non-redundant relevant questions to be asked of all candidates. Any questions submitted after this point may only be asked to a maximum of say 4 candidates, with the election coordinator having the power to remove any questions that duplicate existing ones. Thryduulf (talk) 11:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify, would the coordinators only have the ability to remove duplicates or questions with large overlap, not questions they disapprove of due to other reasons? Also would the coordinators be allowed to ask questions if this situation were to be in place? Brustopher (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the coordinators would have the ability to remove any question that didn't comply with the rules agreed in advance, and also to pause questions pending clarification of intent/discussion with other coordinators (followed by removal or reinstatement as appropriate). What those rules are would be decided based on consensus before the question period opened. I think that if coordinator is allowed to ask questions, but would not be able to act as a coordinator for at least that question, possibly that candidate (the latter may or may not be practical depending on how many coordinators we have) and be required to make it clear they were recusing from a coordinator role for that question/candidate. As for whether they should be allowed, I'd say they should be allowed but they should do so in a restrained manner if at all. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If coordinators are appointed before the close of nominations they should obviously be allowed to recuse regarding a candidate regardless of the outcome of this question. All my opinion of course. Thryduulf (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Historically, the coordinators are anyone who self selects themselves to help coordinate things, and maybe add themselves to the coordinator list. (Though as there is no actual authority from being a coordinator, there was no meaningful difference between someone who helped out, and someone who was a coordinator) Particularly with the creation of the electoral commission, the role of coordinators has become less significant. It would either need to be the commissioners, or just members of the community who have not themselves asked questions.
 * As to the substantive part of the proposal, what if there is a good reason to ask a followup question based on the response of a candidate? What about questions directed at particular candidates, based either on their candidate statement, or personal history? (Bearing in mind the questions will be due under this proposal before all candidates have declared or made statements? Monty  845  17:55, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Follow-up questions and questions in response to candidate statmenets, shouldn't be impacted, as long as they remain relevant and don't duplicate questions already asked of that candidate, as they will be asked only to individual candidates. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Just noting that this section was read when I closed the corresponding section on the project page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Against all
I would like some sort of "against all" option to register opposition to the way the ArbCom functions. Yes, I can just vote "no" on each candidate, but that doesn't send the same message&mdash;maybe I just individually oppose each candidate for individual reasons, and all it does is lower the tally for each candidate, which is very difficult from presenting a tally of people who are specifically voting to reject the ArbCom as it currently exists. After over a decade of observing this process, I believe the elections are essentially meaningless as long as the ArbCom continues to practice secret deliberation. I think it would good for the community to have a way to express this sentiment in the voting process. Everyking (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What about a "reopen nomination"(RON) vote? Any candidate who gets a lower support percentage than RON cannot be elected to Arbcom even if there are still open spaces available. The nomination process would then be reopened for the empty spots. Alternatively someone could run as a protest candidate who promises not to subscribe to the mailing list and abstain on all Arbcom votes. Brustopher (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As stands, you need at least 50%+1 support to be elected. With a RON functioning like suggested above, this threshold would be unpredictable so I'm not sure that's a brilliant idea. I don't think the arbcom elections are realistic way of achieving that aim - a large scale RfC proposing either to disolve arbcom completely or to amend arbitration policy to prohibit in-camera discussions would, if they achieved sufficient community support, be more effective I suspect. Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's a very different route. I just want a way for people to register disgust and disapproval with a simple "against all" option. Presently there is really no way for me to register my opinion through voting. Everyking (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You could stand as a candidate, explicitly saying that a vote for your is a way to "register disgust and disapproval" with the committee as it stands. If securepoll supports it (I have no idea) the number/percent voters who opposed all candidates could be released (perhaps only if this is greater than some chosen figure to prevent individuals being identified, similar to how the number of people watching a page feature works for non-administrators). I have nothing against a RON/Against all in principle, I'm just not sure the specific proposal above would be a good way to implement it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A protest candidacy isn't a good solution. A lot of people might not even know that a candidate is "protesting", but vote simply based on name recognition. Name recognition also means that there are bound to be people who vote against you simply because they personally dislike you. The idea of releasing the numbers of people who voted to individually oppose every candidate isn't so bad, but how do you know if they voted that way just because they didn't like any of the candidates? Everyking (talk) 02:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What if the protest candidate were to run under an alternate account with a name like "Arbcom Protest Candidate" (of course disclosing their original account in their statement). That way people's personal views on the user would become less relevant and it would be near impossible to miss the fact that it's a protest candidacy.Brustopher (talk) 00:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC) (signed a few hours later)
 * I don't think it would take that long (maybe 20 seconds?) to click "oppose" for all the candidates. There generally aren't that many. Though for the record, I do agree that Arbcom should go about its business where everyone can see it except in extreme circumstances. --Jakob (talk)  aka Jakec  20:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the point here is not just to oppose all candidates, but to make a public protest against the way Arbcom runs. People who oppose everyone blend into the background of oppose votes against specific candidates. Based on all the above comments I think the best way to register such protest would be to run as an abstentionist protest candidate, and keep the voting rules as they are. Brustopher (talk) 21:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Why was this discussion closed? Obviously there was no consensus on my suggestion, but closing the discussion makes it seem as though you are trying to stifle it (which is odd, since nobody has even commented in several weeks). Everyking (talk) 08:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Because the RfC was always scheduled to close on 30 September, and the proposals on the main page were all also closed on 30 September regardless of whether there was consensus or not and regardless of when the last comment was. Thryduulf (talk) 11:20, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It wasn't presented as a formal proposal. I was floating an idea to see if it would gain traction. It was just a discussion. Also, I think it's ridiculous to say there's a "consensus against" my idea when it wasn't presented as a proposal and only a few people commented, and nobody (except arguably yourself) expressed clear opposition to the idea. Everyking (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Move this page
The process discussion begins now September; the commission October; Nominations/Vote November; - so the page title at Cent, etc. is non-descriptive, or even misleading (on another matter, consider also a banner for this discussion, now, if what you want is more involvement) but, even if no banner now move this page to describe the actual time period people should know about, and be involved in. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I should have said, please. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)