The purpose of this request for comment is to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2022 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by the existing rules.

Background: 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 2020 election 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, each of which contains a discussion point for the community. 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 points will be listed in the table of contents below, along with the users who have made statements. Anyone is free to raise any new topics that they feel need to be addressed by filling out the format template below or using {{subst:ACERFC statement}}.

Duration: In order to preserve the timeline of the election (see above), we should aim to close this RfC as soon as 30 days have passed, i.e. on or after 23:59, 30 September 2022 (UTC). The results will determine the structure, rules, and procedures for the election.

Timeline: Per the consensus developed in previous requests for comment, the electoral commission timetable is as follows:

• Nominations: Sunday 00:00, 02 October 2022 until Saturday 23:59, 08 October 2022 (UTC)
• Evaluation period: Sunday 00:00, 09 October 2022 until Saturday 23:59, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
• Commission selection: completed by Saturday 00:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Per the consensus developed in previous request for comments, the arbitration committee election timetable is as follows:

• Nominations: Sunday 00:00, 13 November 2022 until Tuesday 23:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
• Setup period: Wednesday 00:00, 23 November 2022 to Sunday 23:59, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
• Voting period: Tuesday 00:00, 29 November 2022 until Monday 23:59, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
• Scrutineering: begins Tuesday 00:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Use the following format below; post a new proposal at the BOTTOM of the page.

=== Proposal number: Proposal name ===
Neutral description of proposal. ~~~~

==== Support (proposal name) ====
# Additional comments here ~~~~

==== Oppose (proposal name) ====
# 

==== Comments (proposal name) ====
*
----

Proposal 1: Shorten nomination period to 7 days

Reduce the length of the nomination period to 7 days, instead of 10 days.

Since the dates of the nomination period are known far in advance, potential candidates have ample time to prepare their statements ahead of time. Thus a lengthy nomination period isn't needed. This will reduce the amount of time that the community will engage in speculation on the number of eventual candidates. isaacl (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Shorten nomination period to 7 days)

1. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. isaacl (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. I have no objection to this, it's planned long ahead, so one week is sufficient. The elections go on far too long as it is. Worm^TT(talk) 15:15, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yes, the whole thing goes on too long anyway, and this would shorten it without any damage that I can see. Anyone intending to run really should have made up their mind long before the process kicks off. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Shorten nomination period to 7 days)

1. I don't see a reason to shorten the window --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. The window should be long enough for people to make a decision while it is open, and potentially for editors to ask other editors whether they're interested. Per Guerillero I don't see much upside to shortening it, people speculating is up to them.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'm just not seeing the particular need to shorten. As a collateral benefit, the length of "oh no, barely anyone has signed up yet" might ultimately get us more candidates. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Not necessary, more time to participate is usually a desirable thing.. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
5. Why? Also, there are always people who find out later rather then earlier. Debresser (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Shorten nomination period to 7 days)

Proposal 2: Start questions to candidates after nomination period ends

Questions to candidates on the "Questions" page (such as Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Questions) should only be posed once the nomination period is over.

Some potential candidates might feel deterred from announcing early, as without other candidates to discuss, it might result in additional attention focused on them. Opening the official questions page at the same time for all candidates will help mitigate this. isaacl (talk) 01:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Start questions to candidates after nomination period ends)

1. Everyone should have the same amount of time to field and answer questions --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 14:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. isaacl (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. This seems sensible. There should be a level playing field.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Absolutely. As per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Start questions to candidates after nomination period ends)

1. ArbCom is inherently a high-scrutiny role; the idea that people would go out of their way to avoid scrutiny of their candidacies is silly. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't think this will make a difference, as I believe individuals wait to see who has put themselves forward and work out if they need to make up numbers, leading to the pile on at the end, I don't believe it's about scrutiny. When I put my name in, I put it in early, fully expecting to answer questions. I don't like the idea of putting my name in and waiting ages to actually be able to talk to people who want to talk to me about it. Worm^TT(talk) 15:13, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. I'm more likely to favour candidates who nominate early and are keen to engage with questions as soon as they can, and I don't actually see a problem with fielding questions early. Anyone who wants to minimise the attention they face should not run for ArbCom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Start questions to candidates after nomination period ends)

• I agree that prospective candidates understand they will be scrutinized regardless of when their announcements are made. Human nature being what it is, though, for some it is more daunting to stand in a small group answering questions than in a larger group. isaacl (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• The obvious compromise here is not a new rule but a norm: candidates should feel free to wait until the end of the nomination period to begin answering questions, and we should not think less of them for doing so. If they choose not to wait, that's fine too. --BDD (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 3: Striking of votes by sockpuppeteers

Editors who are blocked or banned at the time they cast their vote may not vote using any account, votes that are cast in violation of this rule are struck by the scrutineers and so do not count towards the result. However the 2021 scrutineers noted that where the sockmaster was not blocked at the time they cast their vote the rules do not specify whether every vote should be struck or only the sock's vote (at least one case of sockpuppetry was discovered by the scrutineers last year). Both of the two editors who commented suggested that the status quo is that only the sock votes should be struck (because this would be consistent with how votes for people blocked for other reasons are treated), but that it should be clarified for this year. One editor (me) suggested consideration should be made for striking all-but the latest vote rather than all-but the master's vote. These proposals seek to clarify the situation.

• Proposal 3a: All votes by sockpuppets and sockmasters should be struck

  This would treat newly discovered sockmasters the same as those discovered before the election.

• Proposal 3b: Only votes by sockpuppets should be struck

  This would treat newly discovered sockmasters the same as those blocked during the election for other reasons.

• Proposal 3c: All-but the most recent vote by sockpuppeteers should be struck (whether this is the master or a sock)

  This would treat newly discovered sockmasters the same as people who legitimately cast multiple votes from the same account.

• Proposal 3d: No votes by newly-discovered sockpuppeteers should be struck

  This would allow the master multiple votes as if the sockpuppetry had not been discovered.

As these proposals are mutually exclusive support for one implies opposition to the others. Opposing all four possibilities would leave the situation undefined (which is not desirable) so is not presented as an option here.

All of these proposals are independent of whether any or all of the accounts or the person operating them are blocked and/or given any other sanction going forwards, and impact only their contribution to the Arbitration Committee election. Thryduulf (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal 3a (strike all votes by sockpuppeteers)

Support proposal 3b (only strike sockpuppet votes)

Support proposal 3c (strike all-but the most recent vote by sockpuppeteers)

Support proposal 3d (don't strike any votes by sockpuppeteers)

1. No reason to strike the one vote of the sockmaster, as long as he himself is not blocked. Debresser (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Striking of votes by sockpuppeteers)

• 3d is obviously unacceptable. I'm leaning 3a, but see the wisdom behind the others. I'd be interested to hear from scrutineers what minimizes their burden. --BDD (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Is the intent for 3a to strike votes for just sock masters blocked after the start of the election, or unblocked ones as well? isaacl (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 4: Election commission selection

Selection of the election commission, including reservists, should change from the current method of "most endorsements received" to "balance of support and opposition".

Historically, the selection of the fixed number of commissioners has used the "most endorsements collected" method (see e.g. last year's page). In the 2021 RfC, a proposal to change the method of reservist selection gathered some comments regarding disendorsements/reservations, but these got lost in the general lack of desire to change the selection of reservists specifically. Thryduulf (talk) 10:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Election commission selection)

1. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. isaacl (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Election commission selection) - Option 2

(From discussion section below) Still only collect endorsements, but set a cut-off to those exceeding 50% of the third highest endorsement gatherer.

1. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Election commission selection)

1. Our Election commission elections are delightfully lowkey and I suspect part of the reason for this is the method of "most endorsements". I know in the past I have wanted to vote against certain candidates but doing so through strategic voting, rather than outright opposition, creates less of an ill feeling, in my view, among those who might be opposed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree with Barkeep. Worm^TT(talk) 15:09, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. I see no big deal here, and no good reason to change anything - it's a very temporary position of no lasting importance, so anything that selects a few acceptable candidates is fine. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
4. Ultimately we just need a method of comparing people to determine who should actually get on Electcom, and the one we have seems to work fine. It's also explicitly stated that comments made during the selection process are taken into account upon closure, so if someone is truly opposed to a candidate then they can just post a comment to that effect. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 15:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Election commission selection)

• I agree that having this be a very "low-key election" is a feature, not a bug. The way I see it, the "goals" of ELECCOM election differ from other things: we must fill the slate; we would like to have reservists; we don't want to fill positions with undesirable candidates. The good news with this role is that it is temporary, and by having a panel any reckless actions can be overcome by the rest of the panel -- so the "pass" bar doesn't need to be very high. So really criteria 3 is what is at stake, perhaps something like setting the pass rate to "Candidates who have collected endorsements in excess of 50% of the endorsements collected by the candidate with the third most endorsements" would do? — xaosflux ^Talk 14:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If this method were used, it would produce results consistent with the prior years. IIRC, the only contentious outcome from prior years was that 2020 may have resulted in 3+2 instead of 3+1.

  • 2021: 29/41/37/34/6/35 | Resulted in: 3+2 | Would have resulted in: 3+2
  • 2020: 19/46/14/39/42/25 | Resulted in: 3+1 | Would have resulted in: 3+1
  • 2019: 76/44/84/75/47 | Resulted in: 3+2 | Would have resulted in: 3+2
  • 2018: 42/36/40/46/0 | Resulted in: 3+1 | Would have resulted in: 3+1

  — xaosflux ^Talk 15:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing that you garner less support than others can no doubt be difficult. Having people outright oppose you is a whole together different matter. I think we should avoid bringing that level of unpleasantness to this election where it has historically not been needed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Barkeep49: agree, my suggestion was to still only collect supports but use the amount of supports to dynamically build a cut off. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:10, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 5: Minimum support to be elected

Change the minimum support required to be elected to all terms to 60%. This would remove the reduced 50% support that currently may be used to fill 1-year terms.

User:Xaosflux 14:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support (Minimum support to be elected)

1. (as proposer) Given that arbcom members are granted indefinite checkuser and oversight access (which is retained even after their term expires), I don't think a 50% support showing is a sufficient measure of community support for these advanced permissions. If the community ever takes over the CUOS management, leaving arbcom to primarily be only a dispute resolution committee I wouldn't have this concern. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2. Last year, I wrote It seems obvious that the level of trust required to be an arbitrator is greater than the level of trust required to be an admin. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC). Any step in that direction is good. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:19, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Pppery, it's ludicrous that someone might be an Arb when half of the community don't support them. The bar should be higher than adminship, not lower.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (Minimum support to be elected)

1. The support percentage figure is based on a closed vote and ignores neutrals. Due to these two factors, I feel that 50% + 1 is the right line to draw, to be on the committee, and like the 1 year factor for the first 10%. Looking back on the below 60% arbs, I do not see issues with the individuals, and those I think of as "problem arbs" got over 60%. I'd rather have a fuller committee that can deal with any problem arbs and absorb the loss of a problem individual or indeed any absence than I would a more empty committee giving any potential problematic individual a larger voice. Worm^TT(talk) 15:07, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Agree that having a full committee is desirable, and most anything that sitting arb can do is tempered by the rest of the committee - my relunctance is that because the committee also grants themselves lifetime functionary access, that increased individual support should be attached. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Lifetime functionary access is given to any individual that the committee feel are appropriate under CUOS appointments. Yes, we get feedback and so on, but the hurdle at CUOS is lower than the hurdle at Arbcom. I'm a perfect example of that, I got OS in 2011 (and therefore "lifetime functionary"), but didn't get elected to Arbcom and didn't meet 60%. Functionaries are simply the very trusted community members, and you need to be a very trusted community member to get 50% support at an ACE. Worm^TT(talk) 15:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Looks like you became an OS in 2012 (log), having also obtaining a 100% community support in the community consultation. If this was a 51% support and the committee still appointed you, I'd expect there would have been a lot of drama. We're getting a bit off the original topic, but if arbcom !=CUOS I know I'd be more open to electing more diverse candidates; such a change is certainly beyond the election RFC. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2. Agree with WormTT. Past proposals that have reduced the number of selected candidates (and which I supported at the time) turned out to be bad ideas. We need to maximise the chances of getting enough people on the committee. Also, I don't see any evidence of the 50%+1 threshold having ever caused a problem. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

   Oh, and comparisons to RfA percentages don't make any sense (as we seem to have to explain every year). They're entirely different selection processes, and opposing can mean completely different things. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments (Minimum support to be elected)