Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020

Commission selections

 * See Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Electoral Commission. Possibly enforce a "no voting" week? —  xaosflux  Talk 00:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Review vacating the 2014 "per the checkuser policy" process for arbcom, as the checkuser policy is not really in play. — xaosflux  Talk 00:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
 * At the least, move the timing of it up maybe (to after nominations are locked in, but prior to the end of voting). — xaosflux  Talk 14:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Resolve the seat and term amendments per this thread.
 * Skip additional Arbcom approval for any current CU/OS. — xaosflux  Talk 02:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

General complaints and improvements

 * General complaints, notes and improvement opportunities.


 * Comment from myself: should there be a public notice to people when the nomination period begins? For the better part of the nomination session there were only three candidates and provides a sense of worry in the common-sense non-authoritarian department of things. I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk)  22:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * A watchlist notice has been up since the nomination period began. The influx of nominations before the deadline happens every year. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I think this was sort of lost thru getting it into wrong feedback page but... If somebody cares... Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Feedback's last section could get some helping hand, I guess. &mdash; regards, Revi 03:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Last minute noms are normal - everyone is waiting to see who else will run. I do it myself. It has probably nothing to do with publicity, more than enough people are fully aware of what Arbcom is and will nominate themselves if they want to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
 * One other person and myself, at least, ran into an issue when saving our votes. Perhaps the message on the ballot encouraging one to keep a record of one's vote (currently in the fine print about voting again) could be more prominent, and point out the possibility of things going wrong when trying to save them? It might help keep people from being caught off guard by things like this. (While neglecting proper record-keeping is ultimately a matter of user error, I don't think it would hurt to provide a reminder.) Thanks! —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜Talk｜Contributions 06:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * currently the message says:

Election main page • Report problems or issues

Instructions
 * Use the radio buttons. Please use the radio buttons below to indicate your preference for each candidate with "Support", "Oppose", or “Neutral”. A “Neutral” vote does not affect the outcome in any way.
 * Vote in a single sitting. Voting must be done in a single sitting.
 * You may change your vote by starting over. After your vote has been accepted, you may change your vote any time before the close of voting. To do so, reuse the voting interface and a fresh default ballot page will be displayed. You will need to complete the process again from scratch. For this reason, consider keeping a private record of your vote. Your new ballot page will override the old one.
 * Discuss the candidates. You may read and engage in discussion of the candidates here.
 * Give feedback on the election. Please give feedback on the election here.


 * Do you have something specific to suggest on this? — xaosflux  Talk 12:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about something like the following, in place of the third bullet point:


 * You may change your vote by starting over. After your vote has been accepted, you may change your vote any time before the close of voting. To do so, reuse the voting interface and a fresh default ballot page will be displayed. You will need to complete the process again from scratch. Your new ballot page will override the old one.
 * Consider keeping a private record of your vote: In case you decide to vote a second time, or you run into technical issues when voting, you will need to re-enter your votes from scratch; the form will not preserve them.


 * It could probably use some wordsmithing, but should give an idea of what I'm suggesting. —&#123;&#123;u&#124;Goldenshimmer&#125;&#125; (they/their)｜Talk｜Contributions 00:49, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * On Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020 or similar, make a very specific section for "voter eligibility' to be the link target, burying it in the other section isn't UX friendly. (Shouldn't require RFC for this). — xaosflux  Talk 15:29, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Review Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Feedback. — xaosflux  Talk 12:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn candidates

 * See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Candidates and Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019. Some ability to remove new editors who didn't quite understand the process. Wug·a·po·des​ 03:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Election guides/Voters guides

 * Can candidates write election guides? --Rschen7754 19:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If so, should it be highlighted in some way that the author is a candidate? Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Should there be a right-of-reply on election guides? WormTT(talk) 09:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Probably. The comments in some guides are not only vindictive, but are also extremely blockworthy lies and personal attacks. Why should writers of such stuff be allowed to comment in such a manner with impunity? This makes ACE even more sordid than RfA. At least at RfA the candidates and/or their supporter have the right of reply. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Alternatively or additionally, should (serious) concerns about election guides be discussed with the commissioners first? Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What role do the commissioners have regarding the content of election guides? Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Should only the guide 'author' be able to add their guide to the official template? — xaosflux  Talk 12:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * IMO yes. Voter guides are in user space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What about the category? Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What is a difference between voters guide and the candidate discussion page? If someone writes a statement on every candidate on the discussion page, should they be encouraged to publish a voter guide instead?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That is something that really needs discussing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Voter guides have been a tradition, but are they really necessary? As on RfA, thoretically the onus should be on the voters to find out for themselves what they like and don't like about the candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * In RfA, the !vote is public and thus it is easy to read and evaluate the rationales of other editors. Moreover, there is only one candidate in any given RfA. In the current ArbCom election, the voters will be asked to evaluate 23 individual candidates; few people have the time to perform their own in-depth analysis of each candidate. Thus, the voter guides serve a very useful purpose. Lepricavark (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I seriously think, as I have for years, especially at RfA (and long before I ran myself), that the onus is on voters to do their own research. If they don't have the time, they shouldn't be voting. But you expect the candidates to spend 30 hours or more answering the user questions and pile on with more. The official guide should provide enough stimulus for voters to go look up the candidate analysis on X-tools, contributions, articles created, admin logs, block log, and details (if any) on the candidate's user page.
 * There is, again as on oppose votes at RfA, no guarantee whatsoever that voter guides are truthful, accurate, and appropriate. Some of them are character assassinations to such an extent and out of all proportion that they would be instantly blockworthy PA anywhere else. It's no better than the voters at RfA who vote 'as per' and don't come back and change their vote when the 'as per' has changed theirs. There are a few good examples of this.
 * RfA and Arbcom elections are supposed to examine the candidates' suitability for the job, not destroy all the other good work they may have done. If I thought it were true, just for for example, that despite your 141,555 edits, you were a lousy editor, unless you were to run for admin or arb, how could I inform the entire community of my opinion of you? You may wish to bear that in mind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Can we get rid of the guides? (or at least the advertising of the guides on the main Election page). In many cases they are thinly disguised attack pages against individuals and groups and stuffed full of personal attacks that should be discouraged. Would it take an RfC to get rid of them - because I think it would be a benefit to the process. - SchroCat (talk) 08:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The most recent consensus about the guides is from an RFC (circa 2017 I'd guess, but I haven't checked) that guides are acceptable and that they can be added to the template, but guides to guides may not be advertised in that way. We could change that, but not for this year and not without an RFC consensus. If you have specific concerns about any current guides then I would suggest bringing them up with the commissioners. Thryduulf (talk) 09:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Do you (or any passing reader) happen to have a link to that RfC? (The links in the green box the top are to RfCs from 2012 and 2014, which is long enough ago to test the consensus again) I'm sure lots of people have their own lists either on or offline, but for the central page to 'advertise' them is odd - I've never understood why people need to be told how to vote by someone they don't really know, particularly when there is an official guide. - SchroCat (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * those 2012/2014 RfC's were the last time this was changed. The 2016 RfC had a non-supported proposal to ban guides.  It certainly can be revisited for next year. —  xaosflux  Talk 10:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination timing
Follow up from Special:PermaLink/925896065. When exactly does the self-nomination "occur"? (e.g. When a page is made, when the page is transcluded to the candidates page, when some attempt is made, even in error, to try to nominate?) This really is only an issue for situations when someone is literally trying to nominate at the last minute like in the example above. — xaosflux  Talk 00:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Why have users been permitted to nominate themselves this year after the cut-off date? What do we have election commissioners for? This needs to be cleared up before the next election. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * To be fair, this was raised as a potential disqualification, and the commissioners did review it and make a ruling, so the commissioners did address the issue. Agree, it can be improved! —  xaosflux  Talk 15:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * the issue was the nomination page was started before the deadline, completed on the deadline (23:59), but transcluded after it (00:00). With no definition of which of these actions counts as the nomination point it is not possible to state with certainty whether the nomination was made in time. A decision needed to be made, and the commissioners made it, but it needs to be sorted for future years. My personal preference would be to say that the nomination must be correctly transcluded at /Candidates before the end of 23:59 in order to count, but that's just one persons opinion others may hold a different view. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * As a completely unscientific point of consideration, a comparison of edit summaries used (or not used) when creating the candidate statement and when transcluding that statement onto the candidates page it seems that of the 2019 candidates very roughly half used an edit summary that was clearly more significant, dramatic or attached more significance to the event when transcluding than when creating. All of the others used summaries that did not indicate one was clearly more significant than the other. None seemed to regard creating the statement as the clearly more significant event when considering edit summaries alone. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I remember this closure by on 30 September in the 2015 RfC:"There is very clear consensus that the closing deadline for nominations needs to be a 'hard' deadline, with no exceptions. Nomination pages must be created and transcluded before the deadline, with zero wiggle room."
 * Was it overturned in a subsequent RfC? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The AC:RFCs between 2016 and the current election are silent on this particular issue. The current EC has decided on the marginal timing issue for one candidate this year so no need to rehash that outcome with less than 2 days before voting starts - that would be punitive. Stick it in the list for RFC 2020 - or hold an emergency RFC after the current election is over if it is considered necessary to facilitate any of this for the emergency election stuff that is being discussed. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You know, it sucks getting old and having your memory fail you. I had a feeling that we'd dealt with this a while ago, and I kind of sort of remembered that I'd participated in the discussion rather than close it, but I guess I didn't look back far enough.  I thought the result had been to have to EC just deal with it as it came up.  As you can tell from my comment above, I closed it that way because that seemed to be the consensus, not because I agreed with it.  But if I'd remembered, I'd have pointed to that closure. Sorry.  In any case, the whole reason we have an EC is to make these calls quickly.  And this was just about as borderline as you can get. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , there is a big difference between getting old and not remembering and being such a highly engaged user that one simply does not remember everything. I think perhaps you and I might suffer from a bit of both ;) That said, you are a competent RfC closer and there is a very big difference between a  'very clear consensus'   and   'seemed to be the consensus' .  This is important because I think this is something that should be cleared up before the next election. As  suggests, maybe it ought to be on the RfC 'to do' list.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Mandatory emergency elections / Minimum number of arbitrators
The last RFC produced a mechanism to hold emergency elections but placed the decision to hold them into the hands of the Committee. Should there be a mechanism to trigger emergency elections automatically if certain criteria are met? Basically, my question (and something to discuss) would be whether the community should instate a minimum number of sitting arbitrators (e.g. ArbCom should always have 8 or more members) and whether falling below that threshold should trigger emergency elections to fill the Committee (back to 8 or back to 15 or something in between). Regards So  Why  14:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This is important. There needs to be a fail-safe in case a quorum is not reached. Needs discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * this probably shouldn't wait until next year if it is a concern, as the situation could arise well before this get listed. My understanding is that currently ArbCom (and theoretically Jimbo Wales) can "call for an election" to provide for an emergency election. I don't think an automatic emergency election-initiation system would be a good idea (as it could lead to an infinite election cycle), but perhaps a set of conditions (such as "the current committee now has <n members") could be used to allow the community to request an election through an RfC process?  —  xaosflux  Talk 15:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There was a proposal to make this change at the 2019 RfC, here, which was withdrawn because it would require amending ArbPol. That amendment process was initiated at the village pump, but it was archived before it reached the requisite 100 votes, see Village pump (policy)/Archive 154. – bradv  🍁  15:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If there are fixed conditions like "if (arbcom < n members) then emergency election to refill to full", I don't think an infinite election cycle is a serious concern since it would only be triggered again if the conditions are met again. And failsafes like requiring a certain time between emergency elections, not allowing emergency elections X months before a regular election or not triggering new emergency elections if the reason for the lack of arbs is candidates missing the quorom could further minimize this already low risk. But requiring an RFC before elections would mean the Committee could stay incomplete or worse unable to function for a much longer time, possibly for a full year, if the community decides against emergency elections. I proposed this for the next RFC phase because it needs to be finetuned to work as intended but I'm not against having a separate RFC to address this question in particular. Regards So  Why  15:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "holding an election" does not guarantee that anyone will actually run in it, or that anyone that runs will be elected. So at the least, a throttle on how often such a process can occur would be useful. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed but those parameters can be decided upon in advance. But with a throttle and other conditions pre-decided, the actual triggering should not be left to the community or the remaining ArbCom members to decide. There are plenty of scenarios imaginable in which either group might not be inclined to call for such an election,. For example if a "cabal" of arbs managed to drive their "rivals" off the Committee, they would be unlikely to want new people to replace them. Regards So  Why  15:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There are too many possible scenarios, that's the problem. 's 'cabal' is one of them. This year has been a bad year for the Committee, due to infighting and dissent with some members leaving possibly because they couldn't get their own way, and the Committee having to arbitrate on some difficult issues while possibly ending up lacking the required skills or leadership.This might change with this new election (although it would be improper at this stage to speculate on the result) but nevertheless the fail-safe parameters need to be worked out and put to the community for approval. Let's not forget that this year over 20 admins - for better or for worse - threw their toys out of the pram in en.Wikis greatest constitutional crisis and challenge to the WMF's authority, and not all of them have asked for them back. That's a lot of admins to loose and the same could happen if Arbcom went on strike. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Admins handing back their tools could happen again for any reason or no reason and it might or might not have anything to do with arbcom's action or inaction. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Precisely,, and many, if not most ,Arbs are admins. If they were to go on strike, the possibility is real, and even if this year's event was the first of it's kind, it could conceivably be precedent setting. It might presage some significant way the en.Wiki works.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This comment by Bradv is not getting the attention it should: . If it required changing the policy in 2019, it will require changing the policy in 2020, so simply adding it to the list of things to discuss isn't going to achieve anything. If this is a big problem then you need to convince either next year's committee and/or 100 editors that a change to the policy is required. I was not convinced that the change proposed this year was required, so I did not add my name to those endorsing. As a potential member of next year's committee I'm not opposed to it but I also have not been convinced of the necessity. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
 * There have been a couple of times the Wikipedia communites have been able to overturn WMF action/decisions,, but this year's upheaval kinda sets a new level of precedent. I think major issues (such as the FRAMBAN, but not confined to that particular department of the WMF) are going to become more commonplace. The relations between the WMF and its communities are on a self-destruction course, and it going to be up to the Arbcoms (or their equivalent) to represent the volunteers - the Committee is the only bridge between Wikipedia and the WMF and I see it as a frayed rope-bridge over a vast chasm in the jungle. These are reasons why the Committee should always be up to strength as often as possible, because there are always likely to be abstentions and/or recusals during cases. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

10 live edits

 * Revisit the "10 live edits" component - it has proven to be very challenging to report on due to the large size of the electoral roll and the massive edits made project-wide. — xaosflux  Talk 19:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I knew that sooner or later this would be brought up. No only is it a lot of work for the election commission,  (I can't remember why when site-wide canvassing was introduced but there must have been a compelling lobby for it at the time), but I am not convinced that it has enhanced the quality of the voting any more than the additional publicity of RfA did. Many users probably don't do any systematic research of the candidates and simply pile on. They may not even understand what they are actually voting for. It may sound like a good idea, but ramming internal politics down the throats of the vast majority of users who are here to provide article content could even be counter-productive. I'm not convinced that several thousand voters do a better job than several hundred who know what they are voting for (or against).  Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * this seems to have lost some context? It sounds like you're talking about advertising the elections rather than the suffrage requirements? Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm deliberately talking about both because they directly affect each other. There's the context. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Reviewing the franchise is absolutely fine but the reason has to be far more substantial than computer says no. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The creation process got more efficient, as this was the first year on this new requirement it certainly won't hurt to discuss if it helped/hindered. Right now there are ~39,500 eligible voters. —  xaosflux  Talk 13:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * (Just for the record there are more like 41,000 now that the list was recompiled.) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * And counting...sigh. — xaosflux  Talk 01:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If, for the sake of argument, the community decided to increase the minimum votes in year to, say, 100, that would need to be agreed well before the usual timeframe of the annual RFC, wouldn't it? Leaky caldron (talk) 15:45, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * it could be done at anytime, but not necessarily. If someone proposed a large voter eligibility change, keep in mind that the eligibility to participate in the RfC is not restricted - so unwanted proposals could still be defeated.  You could propose "Must have 10000 edits" to be a voter - but it would still have to gain overall consensus support to go in to effect, and those without 10000 edits may very well oppose it. —  xaosflux  Talk 15:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The point I am attempting to get across is that the higher the minimum edit requirement the longer the period needed to achieve that number by those editors who are genuine low volume contributors. If the purpose of the minimum 10 was some sort of anti-sock counter measure then it was a one-off the purpose of which is now known to all sock-masters unable to vote this year. So it may not successfully prevent abuse next year because determined SMs will game the minimum edit count throughout the year. Leaky caldron (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * the minimum edit requirement is not an anti-sockpuppetteer counter measure. Its purpose is to restrict voting to those currently actively engaged with the English Wikipedia. Actively editing sockmasters are currently engaged with the project (albeit not in a manner we would like them to be), so a minimum edit count is the wrong tool to prohibit their voting. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We had a ~20% decrease in participation from last year. I'm curious how much of that was driven by this change. I'd love if someone (else) did some math on that. On a practical level I thought had indicated that the setup is fairly open to change now. That is if we decided to go from 10 to 15 or 10 in mainspace that it would be much more straightforward than this year to make these adjustments. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * a "non-social" problem we had this year was in creating the proper queries to generate the electoral roll, once the solution finally emerged it should be fairly easy to reuse if the "number of edits" constraints are adjusted to some other number next year. I say this is non-social as we tried our best to avoid exposing these problems to the voters, while still being transparent and striving for a high degree of accuracy. —  xaosflux  Talk 00:09, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Apologies as I did indeed know you were active in the efforts with cyber and Joe to get an active voter roll. I think you all balanced transparency with not over sharing well and appreciate your efforts to set us up for success not only this year but into the future.  Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:29, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are correct the script is fashioned that one simply needs to adjust the values at the beginning of the script to crank out the appropriate list. You could tell the script to consider activity requirements to be 147 edits to the main space and template space within the last year up to y date. —  CYBER POWER  (Merry Christmas) 01:24, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it not be an easier and less intensive process to tell everyone only accounts with 10 or more edits *should* vote, allow all accounts *to* vote, and then after voting has concluded run a check on only the accounts that have voted, and throw out the votes of those accounts that did not meet the requirement(s)? Fish +Karate 21:11, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , nope. Getting that list programatically can be quite a pain.  I'd rather just run my finished script, and wait for 6 hours, and then we have our eligible voters, and spam victims. —  CYBER POWER  (Merry Christmas) 01:50, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Fish +Karate 10:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I think it would be bad to waste peoples time letting them vote just to throw it out. — xaosflux  Talk 15:04, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Users with multiple accounts

 * May editors use multiple accounts to meet the voter requirements when no single account suffices? (e.g. Meeting the registration criteria with one account, but the number of edits criteria with another account?) This requires issuing a whitelist/"manual ballot" as it would not be technically distinguishable. (Came up in 2019 here). — xaosflux  Talk 14:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Mass message

 * Don't message users with  in their user name --DannyS712 (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Or "Renamed user"... — xaosflux  Talk 02:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Ideally, those users should not receive mass messages of any kind, not just ACE notifications, so wouldn't it better to establish consensus to have a bot place all those talk pages in the opt out category for mass message? (and possibly also add at the same time). Regards  So  Why  Mobile  20:54, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that this makes sense in a larger context than just ACE. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:01, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * agree - and in which case this doens't need to wait for the 2020 ACE RfC, feel free to propose it at WP:VPR now, assuming there is support drop a request at WP:BOTREQ and someone will likely pick it up. — xaosflux  Talk 21:04, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As some on the voting page have asked what issue this is in response to, could and/or  provid some context? Granted "Vanished/Renamed user" accounts are supposed to be not participating in the project at all but did the 2019 ArbCom election have an actual problem with such accounts? Thanks in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it was just brought up as another batch of accounts that shouldn't be eligible - think some people noticed because they used to watchlist the other user's page - and noticed the notices going to the disappeared accounts. — xaosflux  Talk 21:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Questions to candidates

 * Should there be a limit to how many questions one person may ask a candidate? If so, what should that limit be? Should follow-up questions be included or excluded from that limit? Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What things other than questions, answers to questions and clarifications to questions should be permitted on candidate question pages? Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I believe Question Time is something that should be significantly examined and overhauled. While I am thick skinned, as can be seen, I am sure that the general lack of interest in running in these elections is that potential candidates of the right calibre are not prepared to expose themselves to questions that are overly personal, irrelevant, impertinent, prolongations in ACE space of personal vindictiveness, general expressions of anti-trust in admins and arbcom members, blatant personal attacks, 'have you stopped beating your wife?', and downright trolling.
 * Like RfA, which has similar reasons for the lack of candidates, although answering the questions is theoretically optional, it's considered poor form not to answer, and also considered poor form if the candidate wishes to defend themselves against lies and trolling. This is however the dark side of Wikipedia culture - these elections are the venues where all good faith and good behaviour goes out of the window, and participation that conflicts with our pillars and policies is permitted with impunity - indeed encouraged.
 * Many questioners ostensibly do not read the the candidates' statements, paste the same question(s) to every candidate however irrelevant to each candidate, and many questioners simply basically repeat what other questioners  have already asked (sometimes as often as 4 times or more).
 * That said, some questions are of course perfectly reasonable and relevant and it's a genuine pleasure to respond to them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I got 43 questions, you have had 37, I think that is already more than enough. Have you calculated the time it took you to answer them all? Many questioners seem to think that the question is required in order to get their vote; I would possibly pass on such a question because one vote out of a turnout of 2,500 voters is not going to make much difference. I have some suggestions:
 * 1. Up to 15 users can ask questions.
 * 2. There is a limit of two questions per editor.
 * 3. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed.
 * 4. One Follow-up question relevant to a question you have already asked is allowed.
 * 5. No new questions after voting has begun.
 * 6. Answering questions is strictly optional.
 * Probably not strict enough. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I took the liberty of fixing your numbering for ease of reference, feel free to revert if you disagree. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Another outrageous attempt to narrow down and whittle away at the community's ability to examine and scrutinise candidates for the most significant representational / dispute resolution body we have. It is as simple as this - if you don't want the job don't apply. If you want the job but do not want to answer the questions don't answer them - the community will judge your stance. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The proposal to discuss this issue at the next year RfC is perfectly legit. If you disagree with the proposed solution you will have all the chances to oppose it next year.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Who is that aimed at? Me? What about saying something to the 2019 candidate who has already made up their mind? They did not need to proffer their view here for 2020, in the middle of the current election, did they? Or is this section only for people on one side of the debate? Only for Admins., or what? Leaky caldron (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with everything Kudpung suggests (number 5 especially), but as Ymblanter says the purpose of this page is to list things that will be discussed next year. At that time the community will have the option to support or reject any or all of this (and any other proposals). Last year there was a mass-mailing people could sign up to to get a talk page message when the RfC opened, which worked well. I don't have time now to figure out how to set that up for this year, but I will later if nobody beats me to it. Thryduulf (talk) 09:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Two users proposed to discussed something (I agree that the level of detail is excessive, but the proposal itself is not unreasonable). You said this is a non-existent problem. I remarked that since there is a clear disagreement, it has to be discussed. If the community thinks in 2020 that the problem is nonexistent, there will be clear consensus not to do anything.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:53, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This page is literally nothing more than a list of things to discuss ahead of the 2020 elections. Anyone is welcome to post suggested topics here (including 2019 candidates, including non-admins), as long as they understand that this is nothing more than suggestions for what to discuss in about 10 months. What is not welcome is attacks on anyone for making suggestions or on their motives for doing so. I do not know if I support limiting the number of questions, I merely think the community should explicitly decide whether they want a limit or not. I do think that there needs to be a restriction on what things other than questions can be posted on the questions page though - there are plenty of other venues for statements of opinions about policies, candidates, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. No problem with that. So why are you trying to curtail my participation when someone has already commented in support of the notion? Is this only for those in broad agreement? Who is the 2nd user to propose to discuss something? I see the original suggestion then I see what looks very much like a set of suggested rules. I have simply suggested that nothing needs to be done - so that can also be discussed. Don't jump on me and attempt to shut me down because I happen to have responded against the point for discussion. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What is not acceptable is Ymblanter suggesting that I should not be entitled to respond to a proposition until 2020! Or should I raise a separate section saying no changes to questions are required? Leaky caldron (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is mainly with the manner in which you disagreed, but as this is not a discussion (it is a list of things to include in a future discussion) the only objections that are not pointless here (any supports and opposes here are not part of the RfC and will be ignored) are objections to discussing a suggestion. I suspect Ymblanter read your first post as such an objection, but it contained no justification for not discussing it, hence their response. Thryduulf (talk) 10:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and then we went straight into ABF. I suggest we all stop at this point, the proposal is clear, is made in good faith, and anybody is welcome to follow up in 2020.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * ABF? Really? In which case YOU are the one who assumed it because I had the temerity to repudiate a "discussion" by someone when this section is apparently not yet a discussion. If you had treated me and the other party evenhandedly there would be no issue, but the fact is clear for all to see - you allowed one diatribe to go unchallenged and within minutes you challenged me. Obviously, I'm not an admin or candidate, so a very easy target for you. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

, whether or not this discussion is taking place during an ACE, it's got nothing to do with the current  election where you have already  had your say. didn't suggest anything of the sort. That's the second time in this thread that you have failed to understand the verb and noun - this is not the debate, it's a think tank; 'Collating questions for next year when they are thought of so they don't get forgotten is the entire point of [this] page'. Nor has in any way attempted to prevent you from commenting. It's a shame your comments sometimes come across as defensive-accusatory, combative, and borderline personal attacks. If you do not understand what this talk page is about and if you've got nothing new to offer at this stage, you may wish to wait until until the proper RfC starts. Otherwise you are of course as welcome as anyone to list any new suggestions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:58, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a think tank and I have provided my thoughts which I will be happy to elucidate at the appropriate time. In future, please do not speak to me in that condescending tone. I require no lessons from you about the correct us of English Grammar. My boys Grammar School was as equally notable as yours, thanks. Leaky caldron (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Election admins
New proposal:
 * Allow the EComm to approve election admins who will have access to pre-election setup on votewiki. Election admins may preform technical work, as WMF Staff does, but are not commissioners and may not make election "decisions".  Election Admins must be current local CU or OS, as they may gain inadvertent temporary access to private data. —  xaosflux  Talk 02:10, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * for those unfamiliar with votewiki, what does this mean or where could we find more information? Wug·a·po·des​ 21:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * things like setting up the page text, loading in the electoral rolls - all the "pre-election work". — xaosflux  Talk 22:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What is your reasoning for replacing staffers with a new role? -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Having more volunteers available ahead of time may provide more flexibility, vs waiting for a WMF employee to be available; side affect more community autonomy. — xaosflux  Talk 00:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I can certainly concur with you, . Thank you. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Gender diversity
Pretty much everyone agrees that having a diverse committee is a good thing, but every committee to date has been heavily male dominated. An absolute prerequisite to having more women and non-binary people as arbitrators is to have more stand as candidates, yet in 2019 I believe at least 20 of the 22 candidates were male. Is there something that can be changed about the elections to attract more non-male candidates? (I'm not sure if this is the best place to deal with this question, but it doesn't seem like the worst place either). Thryduulf (talk) 13:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)


 * While I firmly believe there should be less gender gap, - and in an ideal world no gap at all - this is a feature of human society in the whole world. It's not just a Wikipedia issue and there is very little Wikipedia can do to force a change. There are however things that can be changed (see 's cmments in the thread above) that would attract more candidates in general, which would then attract more women - and the same goes for RfA. There is just a possibility that users would be more inclined to vote for women, but I'm not a sociologist. The WMF is very careful to employ only women in the top job and aims as near as possible for a 50/50 gender balance among its senior staff, but we do not have the same selective employment policies as a salary-paying corporation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Failsafe for scrutineers / election commission
Based on the post made by at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019, next year's RFC might want to include some discussion on how to handle a situation like that, i.e. if one or more scrutineers (or members of the election commission for that matter) become inactive. Should the rest decide alone (potentially only one person) or should there be "standby" scrutineers / election commission members to take over? Regards So  Why  19:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, how long should we wait before we consider the scrutineer / election committee member inactive? Regards So  Why  20:52, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * At WP:ACERFC2015 there was a proposal to have 5 scrutineers, 3 as primary and 2 as backup, similar to how the ElectComm works. Might be worth reviving that option. Primefac (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * , last year I had chosen to select 1 or 2 reserve scrutineers in the event the one of them couldn't do the job for whatever reason. This seems like a reasonable way to ensure we have 3 active scrutineers. —  CYBER POWER  (Merry Christmas) 01:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We could simply appoint 4 scrutineers and require only 3 scrutineers to certify results thereby creating some type of redundancy. Mkdw  talk 20:43, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How would that be any difference to 2 out of 3, except with 4 you can have a tie if they ever need to agree on something? -- KTC (talk) 19:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * In this scenario, would one decide not to certify until one of the others became inactive? Or would all four do the work and the "slowest" would have done it in vain? Regards So  Why  19:10, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That all being said, it is often hard to get enough stewards to even have 3. --Rschen7754 19:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Fail safe could be to just codify that: if a scurtineer becomes unavailable and the other 2 are in agreement, the results can still be considered certified. — xaosflux  Talk 19:48, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, stewards might be more inclined to volunteer for it if they are just a backup and know that they are unlikely to actually have to do it. Regards So  Why  07:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Expedite scrutinizing
This might be a separate heading. Per WP:ACERFC2015 1.3 regarding the length of the scrutineering process, there can be few institutions in the modern world which take nearly as long to deliver it's results as the voting period itself. While there is "no rush", it seems that we are beholden to an unnecessarily glacial process when surely a more effective mechanism can be devised. The election of Gregory X brought about changes in the Conclave and I for one would like us to look again at ways of speeding up our process. Leaky caldron (talk) 07:00, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Agreed that this is something separate to be revisited, so I put it under its own heading. I'm interested in what ideas might be offered up to expedite the process while still making sure that the process itself is completed accurately. One way I can think of is doubling the number of scrutineers and assigning half of the election to each sub-group consisting of three scrutineers, effectively halving the workload. However, as Tony's post linked in above section demonstrates, the work seems to have been completed by 8 December 2019 by those scrutineers that were active which does not seem unduly slow. Regards So  Why  07:37, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm curious. Why is the software not tabulating the votes? — Ched (talk) 08:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * AIUI the delay is not in tabulating the votes, it is in verifying which votes are valid. Thryduulf (talk) 10:46, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * This - unlike an election people might be used to for governments, companies, etc - a large part of the "voter identification" is done post-balloting, especially the parts related to preventing ballot stuffing/double voting. — xaosflux  Talk 15:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm broadly in favor of faster results but just want to point out our voting period is 21 days. I expect we'll have results well before Dec 23. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * "2 Voting period (from Tuesday 00:00, 19 November 2019 until Monday 23:59, 02 December 2019, UTC) → eligible voters can vote on the candidates, using the SecurePoll system". There is no period mentioned in relation to the "3  Scrutineering period (immediately following the voting period)". Where is the reference to 21 days? Leaky caldron (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The "Voting period" is 2 weeks - not sure where the 21 came from? Voter scrutineering can't be completely done until the voting period ends. (It can be started during the election, but invalid/double/etc votes could come in all the way to the last min). —  xaosflux  Talk 15:24, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * That's my mistake. For some reason I'd internalized that voting period was three weeks long. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * from a "RfC" component - in order to change part of the process a specific change needs to be proposed, "do it faster" isn't something that can just happen as there is no failure condition for not meeting it. Do you have some idea for what could be changed? — xaosflux  Talk 15:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * As with every suggestion contained within the RFC2020, I thought the purpose was to create an opportunity for discussion at the relevant time? Leaky caldron (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * For sure, but it certainly helps if you have some specific ideas on the how to get the discussion going. — xaosflux  Talk 15:38, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * About scrutinizing deadlines: why not have a soft deadline for it? Say 5, 7, or 10 days, 2 weeks -- however long it's taken in the past. In the event the scrutinizers find they can't make the deadline, they report it back with an estimate for how much more time they need. Repeat if needed (hopefully not!) until they are done. The idea is not to force the scrutinizers to do a rush job, but to give everyone/anyone waiting on the results an idea when the results will be announced. -- llywrch (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
 * we could try to set a service level objective and use it in the ask for steward volunteers, but we don't normally have a huge pile of stewards lining up for this job. — xaosflux  Talk 00:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I wasn't asking that they stick to a deadline. Think of my proposal in these words: "It will take X days to complete this step; so don't start nagging us if it's finished yet. If it takes longer, we'll let you know, & if we finish before this time, we'll also let you know." I understand very well the nature of volunteer labor. I just want a good-faith estimate when this will be done. And if the schedule slips for some reason -- work, personal life, binge-watching Dark Shadows, or computer problems -- keep us informed. -- llywrch (talk) 03:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Xaosflux probably has better knowledge than me, but AIUI task 1 (ensuring all the votes are valid and discounting the ones that aren't) takes 99% of the time, task 2 (each scrutineer signing off the results) takes seconds, task 3 (getting someone at the WMF to lock the result as final) takes a minute at most, and task 4 (publishing when everyone has signed off) takes a few minutes at most. If I'm right on this then there isn't going to be any real benefit from what you suggest. Especially as we've already had updates that 2 of 3 have completed task 1, and in previous years the notification to the WMF that tasks 1 and 2 are complete and task 3 is needed has been done publicly. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on available data, we can assume that task 1 takes about a week (considering that two stewards had completed it by 8 December). I sympathize with Llywrch's proposal of asking scrutineers to inform the community if the process takes significantly longer than usually, just to avoid unnecessary inquiries. I also think it should go without saying that one informs the community in case something comes up that threatens to delay a speedy tabulation but oftentimes the nature of such occurrences means that one usually has more important things to worry about than some website. Regards So  Why  10:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Cheap, quick, or good. Pick two. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:27, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am so stealing that formulation. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's an old project management maxim. isaacl (talk) 22:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

ACERFC will open on 1 September
You all previously commented on this talk page regarding proposals to be discussed during this year's ACERFC, and I wanted to give you a heads-up that the RfC is scheduled to start in a week, on September 1, in case you want to add topics for discussion. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 23:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am aware. I will again be offering my services to generate voter lists to match any requirements for this year.  I will also offer to be an electoral commissioner again. — CYBERPOWER  (<span style="color:\#FF8C00">Around ) 23:40, 25 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping. Reading over the entire discussions above, as I still use the encyclopedia on a daily basis, I am still very much concerned about how it is run and managed, so I hope the points above will be addressed and I will be coming  out of retirement  to  comment on them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * can't believe it's been a year already - where did the time go? — Ched (talk) 06:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , it got sick with COVID-19 and went into quarantine. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 13:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * think this should be on the WLNotice (though not for at least an hour when the datacentre work is done) - we did last year I think? — xaosflux  Talk 14:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I don't think we did, else I would have added it to the ACE watchlist template. I looked for a notice from last year. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 14:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm looks like you did? — xaosflux  Talk 14:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , and now I feel like an idiot. :p I'll add it to the ACE watchlist template. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 15:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Endorsing statements without opposition statements
I've been reading some of your proposed RfC statements, and I have to say that to someone closing this RfC, it will be hard to gauge if your statements have consensus or not, as some of your statements can only be endorsed without any opposition. If you wouldn't mind adding ==== Users who oppose statement #n: ==== to statements without opposition statements, or re-frame them like has done to make them mutually exclusive. That way the closers of the RfC can better gauge the consensus on such statements.— CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 11:52, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * yea, I was just thinking about that as well - will update further. — xaosflux  Talk 11:56, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't love the idea of dragging in an "oppose" section, will go for the opposite statement that can be endorsed. — xaosflux  Talk 11:59, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I like this option, I'll go through and add these sections. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I added a sentence to the instructions for users adding statements. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 14:35, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind, I've added a new section to provide mutually exclusive options to your statements. This allows for users who support some but oppose others. If there's a better way of doing this let me know. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 03:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ditto above. Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 08:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. I forgot that the instructions require us to set up an "auto-opposed" alternative to whatever we're proposing. However, I have found the excessively formulaic nature of this problematic in addressing some of the more complicated multi-part proposals with a bunch of enumerated line items. So, I also resorted to creating some "opposed/object to" response sub-sub-sections, because there's no other way to directly address problems with certain sub-proposals (e.g., when they are literally not possible under policy, or have other logic flaws that make them auto-failures).  It seems that the desired procedure is to create a new "Statement #69.7.b" or whatever that directly contradicts the original, problematic "Statement #69.7" fragment.  Over time this could result in a huge forest of confusing options and counter-options.  I'm not sure how to resolve it best, and am amenable to re-doing my responses to those problematic proposals however it's decided they need to be done (or having someone refactor them into some other format if I'm not around – I'm proprietary about my meaning/intent, not my layout).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't add them initially as I thought they were covered by 3.7 but I realise now they aren't necessarily. However we now have a mix of statements opposing 3.5 and supporting 3.5b which is the same thing in two places. Thryduulf (talk) 11:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, those should definitely be merged in one way or another. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 14:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's perfectly fine with me; I added those in a rush and I didn't know what people would be fine with. I've now merged the 3.xb !votes into the "oppose 3.x" sections. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sounds good.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Refactored
I spent some time refactoring the page to make it easier to navigate and participate. If people think I went too far (or not far enough) feel free to fix it or let me know. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:57, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Can I add another option to open question?
I'm interested in a middle of the road option for Guides 1 (something to the effect of "A candidate writing a guide must clearly indicate they are a candidate in the guide"), but it's not obvious to me that I can add that now. How bold is this page? --Izno (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * certainly, it is a discussion :D — xaosflux  Talk 19:23, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Line in the lead
There's a line in the lead that says "Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse." Maybe I'm dense, but I can't figure out what it means and would like to remove it. Does anyone know of a reason to keep it around? — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, this is a relic from a time when people just wrote one statement per topic. Now of course this is absolutely not the case. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 22:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Withdraw Proposal
I'd like to withdraw Meta Statement #2. Could you close it with the correct formatting? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know that there's some kind of official correct formatting but I've gone ahead and closed it. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 03:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! :D &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 05:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I personally don't think we should withdraw any statements that have seen endorsements, which this one has. — CYBERPOWER  (<span style="color:\#FF8C00">Around ) 12:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It was endorsed only by the proposer. * Pppery * <sub style="color:#800000">it has begun... 14:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , My bad. I thought there was a second one.  But my point still holds true generally. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 17:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I would generally agree though I think it can sometimes be appropriate for a proposer to close as a SNOW fail. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I just didn't want to waste anyone's time. People made compelling points I had not previously taken into account, and no one else supported the proposal. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Gathering more input
As the proposal to require a minimum of 15 supports for a proposal is looking likely to pass, but there are instances of mutually exclusive proposals with both options having fewer than that number of supports, I've left messages at WP:AN, WT:AC and WP:VPP trying to encourage more editors to express their opinion in the RfC. If there is anywhere obvious I've missed, then posting it there too would not hurt. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that this is only a major issue if there isn't a status quo (since in effect if both fail, it's as if the proposal hadn't existed). However, in some cases, such as if 1 proposal passed to change how we ordered candidates, and then none of the proposals on how to do so reached 15, that would be a nuisance. Though I assume IAR would have us pick the one with the most consensus (since we had to choose something) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I've said every time this issue has been raised - and I say that to acknowledge it is an issue - that it's appropriate for the closers to apply judgement as how to approach those situations. I would expect sometimes it means that some sub proposal is accepted. Other times I would suggest it means that the overall consensus is was weaker than it first appeared. The idea with that proposal was not to create an overly beaurocratic procedure or obstacle to change. It is to make sure that a small number of people can't make changes that have widescale implications - dozens of people visit this page and hundreds vote in the election (the widest scale of participation we get for any single thing). This makes the dozens a form of Wikipedia elite and that should be taken into account. This is a method to do that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That may have been your intent, but that is not what you actually proposed. You proposed (and people supported) a simple threshold that all proposals must meet, that does not take any other factors into account. Thryduulf (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It might be helpful if the proposals where this problem exists were identified. Otherwise those of us who haven't participated need to weed through what is a bit of a morass. Doug Weller  talk 07:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Guides 2a/2b*; Guides 4a/4b; Guides 6a/6b/6c; Withdrawn candidates 1/2/3/4*; Nomination timing 1/2*; Voter suffrage 2a/2b*; questions to candidates 4*. The ones I've marked with* are arguable in that there is a status quo but it's unclear what it is and/or neither option receiving consensus really doesn't make logical sense. Thryduulf (talk) 09:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Even with / without the "15" rule, closing needs to take in to account all of the competing arguments for an issue, not just the enumerated statements - RfC's are a discussion, not a vote. For example the "guides" section is HUGE, I put most of my discussion points in a sub section of 6c, but I'd expect the closers to read that in incorporate it to related sections as it applies.  This could also be used in any "counting" exercise, if a "25a" and "25b" each had 12 participants, but there are 20 unitque participants that spoke to the issue in either section - there are still 15 editors participating... —  xaosflux  Talk 14:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Closing in progress
I've grown considerably tired, and have a headache. So I will close the remainder of the RfC tomorrow.— CYBERPOWER  ( Message ) 03:12, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not surprising. We need a better format next year. – bradv  🍁  03:33, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , indeed. I didn't see the point in participating due to the complexity. I'm sure others felt the same <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 06:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you think would have helped reduce complexity or what did you find most off putting? — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:09, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry folks, I know participating in this RfC was a headache. I copied the page from the format last year – clearly it needs to change. Perhaps we could ask for proposals a week before the RfC starts and reformat them to be as easy to navigate as possible before it goes live. Best, Kevin ( aka L235 · t · c) 20:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Getting the initial proposals lined up a week ahead of time would be a good idea. Another improvement would be to model it after the usual RfC format, with Support/Oppose !votes, rather than this arcane statement system. – bradv  🍁  20:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This feels like a last remnant of an election that had a huge number of candidates for a huge number of seats coming off a very charged time in the community. I'm not sure we need to make large changes to the process in response. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with having the proposals made in advance of the request for comments starting (as I mentioned during this RfC). Another suggestion I have is to break it up into multiple RfCs. Changes to the voting system, for example, can be discussed earlier in the year to give more time for broad feedback. isaacl (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, I'd have participated more too if we had a more user-friendly page structure. Strict proposal/per person limit would also be quite beneficial. – Ammarpad (talk) 19:45, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

RfC is now closed
This RfC was quite a beast, so I kept it to the points at hand without diving too much into my decision making process. Please let me know if there is a problem, or have questions.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 14:51, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for closing this. Would you mind giving a rationale for the "Questions to candidates" consensus? It seems similar to Candidate Guides 8a/b where endorsement and opposition were numerically about equal. However the candidate guides statements ended with no consensus, while the questions to candidates ended with a consensus against the status quo. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:36, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , when I was reading the arguments for the section regarding questions to the candidates, the arguments advocating for the limit seemed a little more convincing to me in terms of argument strength. This is because those advocating for claim that while a candidate is never obligated to answer any question asked them, not doing so can unduly have a negative effect on the candidate as appearing unconcerned, unmotivated, or not serious about the position.  Overloading candidates with questions can and will likely result in one of two scenarios, it will needlessly overwhelm the candidate, or the candidate simply will not have the time to answer all of the questions to a level of satisfaction they wish to answer them with.  Granted a lot of what I just wrote here isn't explicitly argued, it's the take away I got from the arguments.  That and excessive, repetitive question is not only potentially irritating for the candidate, especially if it just becomes a pointed Q&A, but also potentially irritating for the voters that want to maybe ask a question and now have to dig through all of the questions trying to see if it was already asked.  Or they simply don't even bother checking and ask it again.  Keeping it constrained helps to avoid repeated questions, and keeps the questions page manageable for candidates and voters, and leaves the questions being asked to likelier be pertinent ones.  I hope this makes sense.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 21:01, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, thanks! — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:06, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll bite. (There's always next year if I don't like the answers ;):
 * Guides 1c has a significant following, and a few comments in 1b also take a similar view to 1c (5 and 13), and some editors from 1a and b also supported 1c (17 and 28 were in both without a preference, 26 said 1b was their second choice, Alan from 1a's second choice also). Is there a consensus that disclosure is mandatory?
 * Guides 8: I do not think a punt here is the correct direction. A significant portion of users seem to fall into the third non-question group which is "advertise a category but do not link directly". Can you comment?
 * Of course I had opinions on both that match the direction of these questions. ;) --Izno (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Add a ping. --Izno (talk) 15:14, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , So the way that these statements in 1 were structured led me to believe the options were mutually exclusive. Since 1b had stronger support, 1c failed.  It's as simple as that.  I'm not sure I follow regarding part 8.  I left a closer's rationale there. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 13:26, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you left a rationale on 8, but it doesn't speak to either position or relative strengths (and why those strengths) at all, or the third position hanging out in the wings. Out of the ~40 commenters, 8a had 10 users (1, 3-6 [6 again at 8b.4], 10, 11 [8b.17 again], 15, 17, and 19) and 8b had me voting on a middle consensus position. Should that have been asked as a separate part of the question? --Izno (talk) 13:45, 2 October 2020 (UTC)


 * I know I argued strongly against it, but I'm not seeing a consensus in favour of the minimum 15 supporters for consensus (Meta 1a). Please could you explain why you felt the arguments in favour were stronger than those against given that nobody really addressed the "we don't need to enact this to prevent a small number of people enabling a major change because we can already do that" rebuttal to a common reason given for supporting. Thryduulf (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , This one was a bit of a balancing act here, but ultimately the main argument that convinced me is that major changes to a major process should not be implemented by a minor few, even if there is no opposition. Though, I am open to being convinced that this should be closed as no consensus instead, but I felt the support for it to be stronger.— CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 13:58, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The point made by several in opposition to the proposal was that you don't need an arbitrary threshold to do that - determining whether there is enough support for a major change is part of a closer's job anyway without hindering clear consensuses for minor changes or late proposals. That was never addressed by anyone in support. I certainly think no consensus would more reflect the arguments made. Thryduulf (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , let me think it over some more and I'll get back. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 15:00, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , After some serious thinking, I have decided to alter my decision to no consensus. This will retroactively allow several proposals I closed as successful, to once again take effect. — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 18:11, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Close has been updated. diff — CYBERPOWER  ( Chat ) 19:12, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reconsidering. I've not got time right now to look in detail, but I don't imagine I'll have other issues. Thryduulf (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom check
while the RfC closed this section requiring ArbCom to pre-approve commissioners, this certainly doesn't prevent ArbCom from performing any normal operations - including topic banning editors. This list of current commissioner nominees is now fixed - so if ArbCom actually has a secret reason that someone should not be on the commission - they certainly can privately ask any of them to withdraw under threat of a imposing a ban (that I would expect would face a high level of scrutiny from the community). — xaosflux  Talk 15:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)