Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020

< Wikipedia:Requests for comment
(Redirected from User:Izno/ACE RFC notes)

2020 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 19:41 (UTC), Friday, 26 April 2024 (Purge)

  • Thank you for participating in the 2020 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
  • You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.
Shortcut
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
After having looked at this RfC, I have made the following determinations regarding this year's elections.
  1. There is strong consensus that any editor may write a voter guide, regardless of if they're a candidate or not.
    • In the event of any dispute about the content of said election guide, the electoral commissioners are empowered to make binding decisions for the purposes of ensuring a fair election and compliance with acceptable uses of election guides. Within that purview the electoral commissioners can:
      1. Remove content from guides, including (partially) blanking a guide
      2. Add official commentary to guides
      3. Remove a guide from the official templates and/or categories
    • Candidates do not have an explicit right of reply to comments about them made in election guides.
    • The content of election guides must comply with all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including but not limited to Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility.
    • Any editor may add guides to official templates or categories for guides.
    • Editors are allowed to have an online guide to candidates in their userspace.
    • User guides to the candidates will be advertised on the ACE banner.
  2. There is consensus that, unless the candidate pages can be deleted under WP:G7, that all withdrawn or disqualified candidates will be listed as such on the candidates page.
  3. There is consensus to enforce the nomination deadline, and only consider an application as complete if both the nomination page has been created, and the page has been properly transcluded to the candidates page prior to the cut-off time as recorded by the server, regardless of technical problems. Candidate directions should suggest not attempting to perform this activity very close to the cut-off time, so there will be time to recover should any user or technical errors occur.
  4. Vanished or renamed users carrying the name "Vanished" or "Renamed" are excluded from the eligibility to vote.
  5. Voter eligibility requirements must be met from the same named account by the eligibility deadlines.
    • A voter must have made 10 live edits in any namespace within 1 year of November 1, as well as meet all remaining suffrage requirements, to be consider eligible to vote.
  6. The requirement of the elected Electoral Commissioners to be confirmed by the Arbitration Committee is repealed.
  7. The process to elect electoral commissioners will happen in two phases. The first phase will be a one week RfC drafting period where candidates may nominate themselves. Comments/endorsements will not be allowed during this phase. After the draft/nomination period ends, the RfC will be opened and the voters may comment/endorse the candidate.
  8. Any editor may only ask a limited number of questions to the candidate, and may ask a reasonable number of follow-up questions. In the event of a dispute about what constitutes a reasonable follow-up question, Electoral Commissioners have final say in resolving the dispute. There is consensus to impose the same limit as on RfA, the limit on questions will be set at 2.
  9. The Electoral Commissions decisions on content disputes is final. Content explicitly permitted on questions to candidates page is:
    • Questions to the individual candidate
    • Responses to questions by that candidate (including answers, requests for clarification, etc)
    • Reasonable follow-up questions
    • Responses to requests for clarification
    • Short responses to answers by the person asking the question (e.g. thanks)
  10. Content explicitly prohibited from questions to candidate pages is:
    • Statements of policy, philosophy, opinions or other general comments
    • Analysis of candidates, questions or answers
    • Endorsements or disendorsments of candidates
    • Reference to other candidates, except as necessary context for a question, answer or clarification request.
    • Personal attacks or aspersions
    • Adverts for voter guides or similar pages.
  11. If inappropriate questions, questions in excess of any limit, any content prohibited by above and/or other disputed content is added to the questions to candidates page it may be removed by Election Commissioners, and nobody else, with the exception of the author of said material.
  12. ArbCom candidates will be listed in a random order, and that order will be made static once a given user loads the candidates page for said given user.
  13. The poll will continue to feature Support, Neutral, and Oppose options for each candidate.
  14. In the event of technical issues beyond the control of the coordinators, editors, or the electoral commission, the electoral commission has the authority to adjust the elections timeline accordingly to ensure a smooth elections process.
  15. The sentence "To avoid any potential conflicts of interest, current arbitrators may not serve as members of either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee while serving as arbitrators." will be added to the instructions for candidates page.

Closed by: —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:50, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this request for comment is to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2020 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. 03:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

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 2019 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.

ACERFC decisions to date [prior to this 2020 request for comment]
  • Election: There will be 15 arbitrators, seven seats on "Tranche Alpha" and eight seats on "Tranche Beta" from the 2019 elections.[1] A maximum eight 2-years term are up for elections each year,[2] with the eight seat switching tranche if necessary.[3] Any additional vacancies which open before voting begins[4] will be filled by a 1-year term.[2] A minimum 50% support is required to be elected for a 1-year term, with a minimum 60% support is required for a 2-years term.[5] Successful candidates with the lowest support percentages are given the 1-year term if any.[6] If there are more vacancies than candidates with the required minimum, the extra seats will remain unfilled until a special or the next regular election.[1] Vacancies arising between elections will remain unfilled until a special or the next regular election.[7]
  • Special Election: An interim special election which is called by the Arbitration Committee in accordance with the Arbitration Policy shall be conducted on an abbreviated timeline.[8]
    • Electoral Commission: The previous Election Commission shall be reappointed unless they are unable or unwilling to perform the job, in which case members of the current functionaries team who are not arbitrators or WMF staff will be asked to volunteer without the need for confirmation. The Election Commission is empowered to resolve by majority vote situations unforeseen in the previous election RfC that may prevent emergency or interim elections from being held.
    • Nominations period: One week.
    • Voting period: As soon as possible after the close of nominations.
    • Terms of office: To the end of the year.
    • Number of vacancies: Up to the size of the committee authorized in the previous election RfC.
  • Candidates: Registered account with 500 mainspace edits,[α] editor in good standing "that is"/"and is"[β] not under block or ban, meets Foundation's Access to nonpublic personal data policy,[γ] and has disclosed alternate accounts (or disclosed legitimate accounts to Arbcom).[9][10] Withdrawn or disqualified candidates will be listed in their own section on the candidates page.[11]
  • Electoral Commission: A RFC to appoint 3 Electoral Commission officials who will solve disputes and problems during the election.[12] Open to anyone who is over 18, meets Foundation's Access to nonpublic personal data policy,[γ] and otherwise be eligible to vote.[13] Appointments to the Commission should be confirmed by the Arbitration Committee per the CheckUser policy.[γ][δ][13] Officials will not be allowed to assess private matters and/or have access to voter data, and/or related permissions, and will instead defer private matters to the current ArbCom and/or the WMF as needed.[ε][14]
  • Timeline:
    • ACE RFC: (30 days of September)
    • Electoral Commission RFC: 7 days nominations, 7 days evaluation, selection by 7 days after close of evaluation.[ζ][13] (October)
    • Nominations: 2nd Sunday of November (10 days)[15]
      • Nomination is hard deadline for creation and transclusion of nomination statement. How to handle any site-wide disruption is at the discretion of the Electoral Commission[16]
    • Fallow period: (5 days)[15]
    • Voting period: (14 days)[15]
    • Scrutineering: No deadline for releasing or announcing the results.[17]
  • Guides: Allowed but with some strong suggestions.[18] Must be allowed reasonable visibility.[19]
  • General Guide: Wikipedia:5 Minute guide to ArbCom Elections created and advertised.[20]
  • Voter Suffrage: A voter needs 150 mainspace edits by 1 November, 10 live edits (in any namespace) within one year of 1 November, and to have registered an account before 1 October,[21] not currently blocked at the time of voting.[22][23]
  • Voting System: Voting system of (Support/Abstain/Oppose) will be used[24] with percentages calculated via Support/(Support + Oppose).[25] Secret ballots[26] via SecurePoll will be used.[η]
  • Scrutineering: 3 functionaries[θ] from outside en.wiki as scrutineers.[27]
  • Ordering: The order of candidates are software randomised on the candidate page, and on the ballot.[28]
  • Warning: Potential candidates are warned of risks from standing for election with message similar to that on WP:CUOS2015 to be incorporated into the candidate instructions page.[29]
  • Questions: No standard questions for every candidates.[30] No limits on the number of questions, but candidates are not obligated to answer every questions.[31] Electoral Commission (as a group not individually) have the discretion to remove offensive (eg. WP:POLEMIC-style statements) or off-topic questions from question pages, following discussion among the Electoral Commission members,[32] but has no authority to reword questions to the candidate.[33] Any candidate that feels a question should be removed/reviewed should contact the electoral commission to review the question, and not take action themselves.[34] While other editors can obviously remove clear vandalism, egregious personal attacks, etc., the determination of what is inappropriate or off-topic is clearly to be left to the Commission.[32]
  • Advertising: Traditional notices posted to various community noticeboards,[35] watchlist notice and/or central notice banner[36][37] for election in general (not individual candidates),[36] Mass Message - eligible voters, have edited last 12 months before nominations,[38] but excluding blocked users where the block duration extends past the the elections, globally b/locked accounts, bots, and accounts in Category:All Wikipedia bots, Category:Wikipedia alternative accounts, Category:Wikipedia doppelganger accounts, and Category:Deceased Wikipedians.[39] Extra care should be taken in wordings of advertising to make sure it's neutral.[40]
  • Blocking: Blocking policy applies normally, but a candidate shouldn't be disqualified for being blocked (except for sockpuppetry) after nominating him/herself.[41]
  1. ^ Transcription error from 2011 to 2012 election. De facto since. Consensus against proposed changes in 2016.
  2. ^ Changes during transcription from 2010 to 2011 elections.
  3. ^ a b c WMF's requirement.
  4. ^ Not in practice.
  5. ^ WMF's policy
  6. ^ De facto community evaluation from start of nominations.
  7. ^ De facto since 2009.
  8. ^ Stewards de facto since pre-2012

References

  1. ^ a b 2019#Number of arbitrators
  2. ^ a b 2013#Length of terms
  3. ^ 2013#Handling of the 8th Vacant Seat
  4. ^ 2012#How should vacancies be handled?
  5. ^ 2018#Percentage support needed for appointment
  6. ^ 2012#How many seats should be 2-year terms, and how many 1-year terms?
  7. ^ 2019#Runners-up to step up to fill vacancies
  8. ^ 2019#Procedures for emergency elections
  9. ^ 2012#What should the requirements be for candidates to run for the election?
  10. ^ 2014#Disclosure of Previous/Alternate Accounts of the candidates
  11. ^ 2019#Withdrawn/disqualified candidates
  12. ^ 2012#How should we deal with unforeseen problems?
  13. ^ a b c 2014#How should the selection of the election commission be conducted?
  14. ^ 2019#Electoral commission's scope of purview/access
  15. ^ a b c 2013#Schedule
  16. ^ 2015#How should nomination deadlines be handled?
  17. ^ 2012#Deadline for releasing the results
  18. ^ 2012#How should voter guides be handled for the election?
  19. ^ 2014#Should voter guides be included in the official template?
  20. ^ 2018#Write a short general guide to voting
  21. ^ 2019#Voter activity requirements
  22. ^ 2012#What should the requirements be to vote in the election?
  23. ^ 2011#What should the requirements be to vote in the election?
  24. ^ 2013#Voting procedure: proposing change "No vote" to "Abstain"
  25. ^ 2012#What should the method of voting be?
  26. ^ 2012#Secret balloting?
  27. ^ 2015#Should adjustments be made to expedite the election results?
  28. ^ 2016#Should the names of candidates appear in randomized order, and if not, how should they be ordered?
  29. ^ 2016#Should we warn the candidates about the risks involved?
  30. ^ 2014#The standard questions
  31. ^ 2014#Should there be a limit to the number of questions posed to candidates?
  32. ^ a b 2017#Should election committee members be allowed to remove questions where appropriate?
  33. ^ 2019#Questions to candidates must be phrased neutrally
  34. ^ 2019#Dealing with possibly inappropriate questions
  35. ^ 2012#Advertising
  36. ^ a b 2015#Should there be a change in the methods of publicity for the election?
  37. ^ 2016#Should we continue or modify the practice of notifying eligible voters by mass message?
  38. ^ 2018#Mass message
  39. ^ 2019#Mass message
  40. ^ 2014#Should the site notice be changed when voting begins?
  41. ^ 2013#Blocking candidates

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 September 30, 2020. 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: Saturday 00:00, 3 October – Friday 23:59, 9 October (7 days)
  • Evaluation period: Saturday 00:00, 10 October – Friday 23:59, 16 October (7 days)
  • Commission selection: completed by Friday 00:00, 23 October

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

  • Nominations: Sunday 00:00, 8 November – Tuesday 23:59, 17 November (10 days)
  • Setup period: Wednesday 00:00, 18 November to Sunday 23:59, 22 November (5 days)
  • Voting period: Tuesday 00:00, 23 November to Monday 23:59, 6 December (14 days)
  • Scrutineering: Begins Tuesday 0:00, 3 December

Use the following format below; post a new statement at the BOTTOM of the section in which you want to make a statement. New statements must also have an opposing statement, or the option to oppose the statement. Endorse by adding a hash symbol (#) and your signature. 

===Statement #N by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]===
Comment ~~~~

==== Users who endorse statement #N: ====

#~~~~

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

Overview of statements
No. Statement summary Author
Voter guides
1a Candidates in the election are not allowed to write voter guides. Rschen7754
1b Any editor may write a voter guide. Thryduulf
1c A candidate who writes a guide must declare that they are a candidate in that guide. Izno
2a In the case of dispute about the content of an election guide, the election commissioners are empowered to make a binding decision for the purpose of ensuring a fair election Thryduulf
2b There should not be any specific rules regarding disputed content in election guides. idem
3 How may election commissioners enforce their decisions? idem
4a Candidates have the right of reply to comments about them made in election guides. idem
4b Candidates do not have an explicit right of reply to comments about them made in election guides. idem
5a The content of election guides must comply with all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including but not limited to Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Casting aspersions. idem
5b There should be no explicit requirement for election guides to comply with policies and guidelines. idem
6a Only guide authors may add guides to official templates or categories for guides. idem
6b Only election commissioners may add guides to official templates or categories for guides. idem
6c Any editor may add guides to official templates or categories for guides. idem
7a Completely deprecate guides to candidates SchroCat
7b Editors are allowed to have an online guide to candidates in their userspace idem
8a User guides to the candidates will not be advertised on the ACE banner. idem
8b User guides to the candidates will be advertised on the ACE banner. idem
Withdrawn candidates
1 Show withdrawn or disqualified candidates on the candidates page. Wugapodes
2 Show withdrawn or disqualified candidates on the candidates page unless their questions page can be or has been deleted under WP:G7. idem
3 Do not show withdrawn or disqualified candidates on the candidates page. idem
4 Do not show withdrawn or disqualified candidates on the candidates page if they withdrew/were disqualified before the start of voting. Ivanvector
Nomination timing
1 The self-nomination will only be considered completed if both the nomination page has been created, and the page has been properly transcluded to the candidates page prior to the cut-off time as recorded by the server. xaosflux
2 A self-nomination may be considered completed if the candidate makes any effort to complete the process prior to the cut off time. idem
3 Same as #1 but Election Commissioners may make an exception if they confirm a technical issue on the side of Wikipedia. Nosebagbear
Voter suffrage
1a Exclude users with usernames beginning with Vanished user... or Renamed user... from eligibility to vote. xaosflux
1b Allow users with usernames beginning with Vanished user... or Renamed user... eligibility to vote. idem
2a For purposes of determining voter eligibility factors related to tenure, edits, or edit timing all required factors must be met using the same named user account. idem
2b An editor may combine tenure, edits, or edit timing from any number of named user accounts to meet eligibility requirements. idem
3a Regarding the ten edits within one year of November 1 requirement, drop the requirement that those edits remain live. Altamel
3b Besides the other suffrage requirements, a voter must have made 10 live edits (in any namespace) within one year of 1 November to be eligible to vote. idem
Electoral commission
1a Repeal the "Appointments to the Commission should be confirmed by the Arbitration Committee per the CheckUser policy." requirement. xaosflux
1b Require the Arbitration Committee to confirm members of the election commission. idem
2a During the RfC to select the Election Commissioners, editors may express their endorsement of a commissioner at any time. idem
2b During the RfC to select the Election Commissioners, endorsement of a commissioner will not be accepted until the second week of the RfC. idem
3 Commissioner nominations will be accepted during a drafting period before the RfC is publicized. Endorsements of candidates may only be made during the public RfC phase. SMcCandlish
Questions to candidates
1a Impose a limit to the number of questions any editor may ask of a single candidate. This limit includes follow-up questions. Thryduulf
1b The same as 1a except the limit excludes follow-up questions idem
2 Do not limit the number of questions any editor may ask of a single candidate. xaosflux
3a Establish criteria for acceptable posts on a candidate question page. Thryduulf
3b There should be no specific rules about what is and is not acceptable on questions to candidates pages idem
4 Who may remove inappropriate questions to candidate question pages? idem
Candidate listing order
1a Candidates should be listed in a static order Floquenbeam
1b Candidates should be listed randomly on the candidates page and randomly reshuffled each time the page is refreshed. idem
1c Candidate order should be randomized by viewer but not change between refreshes. SMcCandlish
1d Candidates should be listed in a sortable table. idem
2a The preferred static ordering should be alphabetical order. Floquenbeam
2b The preferred static ordering should be chronological by order of transclusion of their statement. idem
2c The preferred static ordering should be something besides that described in #2a or #2b. idem
3a The order of candidates on the voting page (i.e. the ballot) should be the same as the order of the candidates on the WP pages. idem
3b The order of candidates on the voting page (i.e. the ballot) should still be randomized idem
Voting process
1a Editors will vote for candidates they support; the ability to vote against candidates will be removed. SMcCandlish
1b The voting instructions page should clearly explain the implications of the double-voting mechanics. idem
1c It should be made very clear to voters that neutral votes do not count. PJvanMill
1d It should be made clear to voters that an oppose vote on one candidate benefits all other candidates, and a support vote on one candidate makes it more difficult for all other candidates. idem
2 Voters will be able to select "Support", "Oppose", or "Neutral" for each candidate. L235
3 Voters will be able to select "Support", "Oppose", or "Neutral" for each candidate. However, only "Support" votes will determine the election. SMcCandlish
4 Voters will be able to select either "Support" or "Oppose". Wugapodes
5 Voters will be able to rank candidates in order of preference using the Schulze method. EllenCT
Deadlines
1a In the event of significant technical or other issues affecting the election, the election commissioners may adjust affected deadlines. Thryduulf
1b Once deadlines are set they may not be altered. idem
Metaproposals
1a At least 15 editors need to support any statement at the Arbitration Committee Election Request for Comment for it to be closed with consensus. Implement this decision for this year. Barkeep49
1b Same as 1a, except implemented next year. idem
1c There will be no set minimum number of people who must support a proposal for there to be consensus. idem
2 Starting in 2021, users are strongly encouraged (but not required) to limit the amount of RFC proposals they make. MJL
Notifying candidates of new prohibition against multiple roles
1 A sentence advising that sitting arbitrators may not also serve on the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee will be added to the candidate information page. Newyorkbrad

Points of discussion edit

Guides edit

STATEMENT 1B PASSED
Any editor may write a voter guide.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 00:27, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #1a by Rschen7754 edit

Candidates in the election are not allowed to write voter guides.

Rationale

This is a conflict of interest. Openly disclosing this conflict of interest and declining to support oneself in the guide does not resolve this and does not prevent more insidious forms of canvassing. (For example, if I was running in the election and used my guide to oppose Newyorkbrad, nobody would take me seriously. But I could use my guide to encourage voters to not support candidates who are on the "bubble" between being elected and not elected and thus improve my own chances - and this would be very difficult to prove or rectify.) Rschen7754 00:07, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #1a: edit

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #1b; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #1b below)
  1. As proposer. --Rschen7754 04:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I support this because our "Voter Guides" are traditionally almost exclusively done by others but more so, because they are placed separate from candidate statements. If within their statements, candidates would like to write guidance on anyone or anything, do that there. There is no reason to give candidates multiple places to talk about themselves, others, and their ideas during the election, and every reason to keep all that together for the sake of informed voters. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Massive support. Either be a candidate or make a guide. Candidate-written guides take value away from the ones written by non-candidates. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We could possibly consider just not listing these articles on the ACE banner template. I'd make a formal proposal, but I'm not seeing a particular mood for it here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. TharikRish 17:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support for same reasons others have stated, above.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1b Thryduulf edit

Any editor may write a voter guide.

Rationale

This is the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #1b: edit

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #1a; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #1a above)
  1. There is no policy basis on which to prior-restrain any editor from writing a user essay about a WP-relevant matter, absent topic-related sanctions against that editor (and a topic-ban from discussing ArbCom elections would surely also equate to a topic-ban against running for ArbCom in the first place). We do not prohibit in law real-world candidates for office from endorsing or opposing other candidates for that office or for other offices. This is not a "conflict of interest" as that term is generally understood in law, in ethics, or on Wikipedia. And to the extent there's a conceptual/philosophical one, it is already very obvious; no one will be confused into thinking that a candidate's own voter guide is studiously neutral and disinterested. Nor is it even a reasonable expectation that anyone's voter guide be neutral and disinterested, by the very nature of what a voter guide is.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. While it is a conflict of interest for a user to both run for a seat and write a guide, the conflict is so apparent it should be a non-issue. -- Calidum 16:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think we can trust voters to be critical of a voter guide written by a candidate, so there is little concern there. I see no good reason for this restriction. PJvanMill)talk( 16:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prior restraint is generally not a good idea. Even if the writer of the guide is the candidate themselves. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. It should be immediately apparent if the author of a voter guide is running for a seat. Perhaps as a general courtesy there could be some sort of template to this effect - "the author of this guide is running" - that could be placed on such pages (but it would not be mandatory to do so). Leijurv (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think this is a better approach. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SQLQuery me! 21:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Any editor may write a voter guide. Of course. The question is really "where can they publish it". Maybe guides should be classified by the sort of author: involved; uninvolved; etc. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Voters will be able to discern between guides by candidates and guides by non-candidates, and assess their neutrality accordingly. – Teratix ₵ 03:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. May? Yes. Should? No. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I think it would be bad form for a candidate to write a voter guide. But I think the only harm it's likely to do is to their own chances, as it would be sure to generate some opposition. I don't think there's any need to prohibit it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agreed with several above. If a candidate wishes to create a voter guide, I see no policy-based reason to disallow it. The candidates who wrote a guide last year did not receive enough votes to meet the 50% threshold, so perhaps the takeaway is that doing so isn't necessarily in the candidate's best interest, but that's up to the individual running. CThomas3 (talk) 23:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. One more, if someone wants to write a voter guide, that's yet an additional piece of evidence for their own candidacy. Also "the bubble" is very hard to determine. I like the template suggested by Leijurv. --GRuban (talk) 13:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. We shouldn't silence candidates from saying what they think about other candidates - some voters may even find additional value in this; I'm fine with requiring some sort of declaration that "I'm a candidate in this election". — xaosflux Talk 13:33, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. per Boing! said Zebedee power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Of course. Whether it actually helps or hinders a candidate to do so questionable, but let voters decide. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:32, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. If you think your chances hinge on voters' guides, you deserve to lose. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Euryalus (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I don't find the arguments to ban this convincing. However, I would advise against it: you'll have to work together with some of the people that you may have advised to vote against - and that's not a great start of the relationship. effeietsanders 05:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. If editors find it inappropriate for candidates to write guides, there's a simple remedy: Vote oppose on candidates who do so. (I would, as I would not trust the judgment of someone who does not recognize the obviously inappropriate nature of doing so.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Most voters who actually read the guides will probably not support someone who both wrote a guide and is running themselves for the reasons outlined by Effeietsanders but that is indeed for the voters to decide. Regards SoWhy 09:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. There's nothing a priori improper about a candidate writing a voting guide, although several editors having stated that they will likely hold this against any such candidate may make this point a bit moot. signed, Rosguill talk 18:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Per Seraphimblade here. Nomader (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Everyone should be entitled to write a guide. Just as everyone else is entitled to ignore what that guide says. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:11, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Second choice to 1c. We shouldn't limit any editor who wants to write an essay on their opinions, including voter guides. Whether they should do it is a different matter, but that is for the candidate to decide. In my voting, I would consider a candidate writing a guide for that year (no matter what the content) a negative point / something which would make me feel opposing would be better. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 13:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27. I do not think we should forbid it directly, even though I would find it bad form Asartea Talk 12:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Per Wugapodes and Boing. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Mainly because I don't see any reason to change things. Banedon (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1c by Izno edit

Any editor may write a voter guide. A candidate who writes a guide must declare that they are a candidate in that guide.

Rationale

I don't think I agree with the assertion that it will be obvious that a guide by a candidate is necessarily by a candidate, which seems to be one of the reasons for 1b. We have multiple ways to navigate and review election materials. But similarly, I am not happy with a total ban as in 1a, for commentary already made in 1b.

I'd rather it be obvious to the closer that the requirement here is a requirement rather than the earlier suggestions above, hence a separate proposal. --Izno (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #1c: edit

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #1a and 1b; to "oppose" this statement, endorse one of the earlier two statements above)
  1. As proposer. I thought of it after, but this option neither precludes nor requires a standard header or disclaimer (i.e. via template) that can be added by anyone --Izno (talk) 20:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my oppose notes on the earlier statement. — xaosflux Talk 01:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Iff 1b passes. I'm still making up my mind on 1a vs 1b, so if I end up supporting 1a this will be a second choice to that. Thryduulf (talk) 01:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Prefer this to 1b. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:34, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First choice. This bit of transparency is sufficient for candidates to make up their own minds about what they want to do (or not) in regards to guides. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Because the voters can't figure it out for themselves? Chris Troutman (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Yeah, declaring candidacy would be good. If they don't declare it, that would be helpful information though about their moral character :) effeietsanders 05:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I don't think voter guides are a good use of people's time, but this is the best of a bad lot. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. (This statement isn't actually exclusive with 1b, unless 1b gets re-written to be clarified) - however, 1st choice, as least problematic compromise. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Second choice to 1a, as I said for 1a, any 'voter guide' musings by a candidate should just be in their candidate statement, but to the extent we allow them another soapbox to stand on, that separate 'voter guide' should identify them as a candidate. (I also agree that 1b and 1c are not mutually exclusive, so this is no endorsement of the parenthetical, which is not actually a part of 1c). Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. First choice. As proposer. By all means let us have an abundance of caution and an avoidance of any possible doubt; the more so if it can be done simply. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. We expect editors who have a conflict of interest to declare it, even where it may be obvious to some that they do. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 04:47, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Tamwin (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. First choice (second choice is 1b). Following on from my thoughts in my vote for 1b, which apply here also, transparency seems better. A small notice at the top of the page should do, which will help a voter have the understanding that it was written by a candidate. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. P-K3 (talk) 12:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I don't see this as mutually exclusive with 1b, but this is a good idea for any advertized guide. For !voters less familiar with all the candidates, this may prove useful. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Don't see this as exclusive with 1b. Neutral on 1a vs 1b, but if 1b would like to see this requirement. PaleAqua (talk) 16:23, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who object to statement #1c: edit

  1. I don't think this necessary and I don't see the mechanism of enforcing it. Also it's wrong to say this propoasl is "mutually exclusive" to 1b (permalink). It's not. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Addendum: To not leave room for any doubt, I am specifically opposing the part of the proposal that says: A candidate who writes a guide must declare that they are a candidate in that guide. I am not opposing the first part, Any editor may write a voter guide as that's impossible for me while I am supporting the proposal in 1b. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I crafted it deliberately to be in opposition to 1b per my rationale. If you do not think this is necessary, add your support (as you have done) in 1a or 1b. As for enforcement, I think multiple other questions below cover that (in which I assume you have left comment already). --Izno (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry if my comment offended you, but for two things to be "mutually exclusive" one must preclude the other in all forms. To support 1c, would mean automatic oppose for 1b and vice-versa (but that's not possible here, because that would lead to nonsense conclusion. Read both proposals again.) This is not a matter of personal opinion. If you give me two options and say they are "mutually exclusive" I'd expect them to be so in its universal meaning not bespoke or adhoc definition you want to give it. Your proposal is not mutually exclusive to 1b, because it also partly proposing what 1b is proposing. So in essence it's impossible for me to oppose it (me doing so here is kind of weird, but that's is caused by the proposal I have clarified that with addendum.), because by supporting 1b, I am already implicitly supporting part of 1c. If I oppose 1b, I must implicitly oppose part of 1b. Just above this proposal, we have example of mutually-exclusive proposals 1a and 1b. You can see how they differ from 1b and 1c. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The way I read 1b and 1c is that 1b allows candidates to write guides without restriction, and 1c stipulates that candidates must identify themselves as candidates within their guide, Both of these conditions cannot be true at the same time (we cannot enact a restriction while simultaneously having no restrictions). If both statements pass, what exactly have we asserted? To make consensus clear, we should support only one statement or the other (or neither). CThomas3 (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, that's another possible interpretation of what he means, which is also not exactly what mutual exclusivity stands for. The wiki article is not that good, but at least it lays the foundation. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not offended (a little annoyed, but not offended), just editing from mobile and accordingly terse (laptop hard drive died, but is now replaced :^).

    Yes, I was going for the Cthomas3 interpretation. If you are bothered by the boilerplate, you are free to make it clear that this option is exclusive of the laissez faire 1b in a way which does not make you seem offended by the misuse of exclusive. My biggest issue is that the question presented in 1a/b isn't binary and probably should not have been presented as such. For my part, the framing deliberately uses the "anyone can write" to put it in obvious contrast to 1a while the second sentence is to put the option in obvious contrast to 1b, as explained in the rationale. I did not feel comfortable editing 1b to say "anyone can write without any limitations" or similar, not least because a) some people had already supported 1b with proposed limitations, and b) several questions below propose limitations in some fashion.

    I could feasibly have had a separate question for a place for limitations of my sort (hinging on 1b passing), but I thought that would be a waste of time to split that question to somewhere else on this page, especially when others had proposed the same limitation as in 1c. --Izno (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
STATEMENT 2A PASSED
In the case of dispute about the content of an election guide, the election commissioners are empowered to make a binding decision for the purpose of ensuring a fair election and compliance with acceptable uses of election guides. Such decisions are to be based on core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, Arbitration Committee Election RFC decisions and their own discretion.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 00:30, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #2a by Thryduulf (guides) edit

In the case of dispute about the content of an election guide, the election commissioners are empowered to make a binding decision for the purpose of ensuring a fair election and compliance with acceptable uses of election guides. Such decisions are to be based on core Wikipedia policies and guidelines, Arbitration Committee Election RFC decisions and their own discretion.

Rationale

Last year there was such a dispute but it was unclear what the process was and who had the the ability to make decisions about what was and was not an acceptable use of the guide. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #2a: edit

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #2b; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #2b below)
  1. Weak support; prefer alternative like AN or CRATS. I can see this being a reasonable compromise, though I am not at all convinced this could not be handled by existing bureaucracy, such as WP:ANI, WP:AN, or perhaps as a new WP:BUREAUCRAT role. The power to censor other users is a dangerous one and demands a high level of trust, but the Election Commission has a very low barrier to entry, and is subject to very little scrutiny (the Commission election RfC attracts far less community input than an RfA or RfB). Regardless, this authority should not be within the jurisdiction of WP:ARBCOM or its creature WP:AE, since sitting Arbs are going to be up for re-election, which could potentially give one a vested interest in unfairly going after someone else's voter guide if it isn't flattering to that Arb or compatible with that Arb's views on something.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support. The election commission's job is to ensure the smooth running of the election, and imo that necessarily includes resolving disputes about guides. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, disputed guides (disputed by who?) should be able to be labelled and classified as such. This should not be a discretion of commissioners, but referring to a consensus decision-making discussion to be closed by a bureaucrat might be a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Thryduulf. – Teratix ₵ 03:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, someone needs to have the power to adjudicate any such disputes, and the election commissioners are the obvious choice. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'd be okay with AN as well, but I have no issue with the election commission taking this up. CThomas3 (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Definitely an Election Commission job for me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:36, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support only if they maintain official sanctioning (i.e. in the ACE template). If they're purely in userspace they should be outside the remit of the EC.
  10. Support.TharikRish 17:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support without limiting the right of others to take appropriate action. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. per Thryduulf. signed, Rosguill talk 18:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Izno (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Per Thryduulf. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I'm astonished this isn't obvious. I'm a tad worried that if we keep writing out "the EC has the power to do X", it will become implicit at some point that the EC doesn't have the general power to take arbitrary actions within policy (i.e. not contradicted by other policies) related to the election. However, since this seems to be necessary... Tamwin (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Per Thryduulf. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. P-K3 (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Firm support; someone needs the authority to handle disputes over guides; the commissioners are on the spot, so to speak, and at least in theory have the trust of the community to handle the election well. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:14, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2b by Thryduulf (guides) edit

There should not be any specific rules regarding disputed content in election guides.

Rationale

This is the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #2b: edit

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #2a; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #2a above)
  1. This stuff is already too political without allowing options to silence dissent. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
STATEMENTS PASSED
The following statements passed:
  • 3.1 Removing content from guides, including (partially) blanking a guide
  • 3.2 Adding official commentary to guides
  • 3.3 Removing a guide from official templates and/or categories
—CYBERPOWER (Around) 00:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #3 by Thryduulf (guides) edit

Election commissioners may, at their discretion, enforce their decisions regarding guides by:

  • 3.1 Removing content from guides, including (partially) blanking a guide
  • 3.2 Adding official commentary to guides
  • 3.3 Removing a guide from official templates and/or categories
  • 3.4 Protecting a guide (at any level of protection)
  • 3.5 Deleting a guide or one or more of its revisions
  • 3.6 Taking administrative action against a guide's author. Such action may not extend beyond 1 week after the posting of results, but may be shorter.
  • 3.7 None of the above

Rationale

These are supplements to Statement 2a and as such if that statement fails to gain consensus all of these statements will automatically fail. Each statement is independent and one passing does not mean another does or does not pass. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #3.1: edit

  1. This is a reasonable role, regardless how the "decisions regarding guides" are actually made (if any are; both are matters for statements above this one). I liken this to other "patrolling" functions that are performed at various pages by clerks and whatever. One does not have to be the maker of the decision to implement the decision.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is fine, and seems to logically sit within the remit. We can assume that logical section will be taken (as opposed to removing small parts to flip the meaning) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Or to just render it meaningless. "This ... seems to ... sit within ... small ... meaning". >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is the minimum necessary to ensure that guides meet the rules. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Calidum 16:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. – Teratix ₵ 03:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A poor second, though, to not linking guides in the first place. I think voter guides linked from the templates / process pages are a terrible idea. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Yes, but only if the content of the guide is outside policy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. TharikRish 17:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yes, but only if the guide material is clearly outside of policy, and is to be restored if community consensus is against the removal. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Izno (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Tamwin (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. P-K3 (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. This seems self-evident; content in the guides needs to be policy-compliant, including with all our behavioral policies; theoretically any administrator is still able to enforce policy in this manner, but explicitly giving the commissioners the authority isn't a bad thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. If someone writes an attack piece this is the only remedy. Banedon (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. PaleAqua (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who object to statement #3.1: edit

Users who endorse statement #3.2: edit

  1. For the same reasons/observations as in my comment on 3.1. Noting Nosebagbear's concern below, I would qualify this support as being limited to necessary notices and the like, not any form of editorializing.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It would be pretty crazy imo to allow commissioners to make changes to guides but not allow them to explain why. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Endorsing with the understanding that this "official commentary" will be clearly marked as such and almost impossible to be interpreted as part of the guide itself. PJvanMill)talk( 16:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Endorse with SMcCandlish's caveat. – Teratix ₵ 03:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, if commissioners are to have the power to alter voter guides, they need to be able to explain why - but limited as per User:SMcCandlish. (I also, to some extent, share the concerns voiced below). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sure, per PJvanMill. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:41, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. TharikRish 17:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. With both above caveats: The "official statements" should serve only to explain the action taken, and should be clearly formatted and marked so that no one could misinterpret it as being part of the guide. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per SMC, with same limitations. (For example, to enforce 1c if it passes.) --Izno (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. With SMC's limitations, of course. Tamwin (talk)
  11. With the limitations set out by SMC and PJvanMill. They should be only official statements which cannot be confused as being part of the guide. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per SMC, with the same restrictions. --Danre98(talk^contribs) 20:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. P-K3 (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Per Boing and Seraphimblade; I note Nosebagbear's concern below, which is well-founded, but explanation of administrative actions is often required, and explicitly allowing it in the guide seems reasonable. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:35, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Conditional support where such notices are clearly marked with who made them and restricted to commenting on explaining changes that they made as covered by other statements. PaleAqua (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who object to statement #3.2: edit

  1. The ability to add content is far more powerful than removing unacceptable content. This seems a potential massive dispute zone. I firmly advise against it Nosebagbear (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No way, Jose. I don't believe that the role of an election commissioner includes speaking as some kind of voice of the community in regards to the evaluation of individual candidates. If they have to make changes to guides, they can explain these changes in edit summaries and on the talk page. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No thanks. Commissioners should not be able to speak as the voice of the community at-large, especially in terms of adding material and their oars into the election guides of others. Better to have such changes be explained, as Lepricavark notes, in edit summaries and on talk pages. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. How would the EC decide what is "official"? Anything that is even remotely controversial can potentially cause one huge mess. Banedon (talk) 22:55, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. No this should not happen JW 1961 Talk 21:02, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #3.3: edit

  1. For the same reasons/observations as in my comment on 3.1.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Guides that break the rules should not be promoted as official guides. Thryduulf (talk) 11:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, the commission should be able to remove guides that do not comply with policy or with election rules. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Certainly, they must be within policy, if not, they can be removed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TharikRish 17:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. We should not be steering voters toward guides which violate policy. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:50, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Peacemaker. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Only for guides which do not meet applicable policy/guideline and only until such guides are compliant. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. But this should be a last resort; editing the guides should be preferred. Tamwin (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. P-K3 (talk) 12:09, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Danre98(talk^contribs) 00:26, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Seems reasonable. Should be last resort and if the guides become fix issues should be allowed to be restored. PaleAqua (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who object to statement #3.3: edit

Users who endorse statement #3.4: edit

Users who object to statement #3.4: edit

  1. Page protection is, necessarily, an admin role, and we already have an established process for page protection, and a policy about when/how/why it can be employed. There is no guarantee any particular Election Commission will include any admins, much less be composed entirely of admins, nor that any/all admins that are included will not be WP:INVOLVED with regard to the particular editor whose guide is under discussion or with regard to the subject of the material in the guide under discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Logically an admin role (no need for admin ECs) and one where INVOLVED seems potentially tricky to involved. Also, seemingly no need for something akin to discretionary sanctions as opposed to our regular RFPP Nosebagbear (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This would effectively limit our Commissioners to the administrative corps. And that's not fair to those who aren't. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Javert. – Teratix ₵ 03:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per everyone else - we already have effective mechanisms for handling protection should it be required. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This can be done by the ECs making a request at RFPP, and not all (or any) ECs might be admins. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. TharikRish 17:44, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This should be undertaken, if necessary, as a normal administrative action by any admin, and not be a special area for election commissioners. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:51, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RFPP where necessary. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per SMcCandlish and others. Protecting candidate guides shouldn't be a special function of the electoral commission at all; any protection of these pages should follow the protection policy. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Nah. If page protection is needed, a request at RFPP should be good enough. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:22, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. P-K3 (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. This should be an admin role following existing practices. PaleAqua (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #3.5: edit

Users who object to statement #3.5: edit

  1. Obviously, if someone posts a voter guide that would be a candidate for speedy deletion, it can be deleted independently of this proposal. I see no reason why guides should be treated differently from any other content with respect to deletion, which this proposal is suggesting. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For the same reason I object to 3.4.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There is no reason for a guide to be deleted outside of existing deletion processes. (It's worth noting here that although I proposed this list of actions I did so only to ensure that each action that could logically be taken was explicitly considered rather than as a desire to see that pass). Thryduulf (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Extra steps are just bureaucracy. Outside of our established processes, there is no reason for this extra power of deletion to exist or occur. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my objection to 3.4. – Teratix ₵ 03:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Same as 3.4. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. TharikRish 17:45, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. We already have existing deletion processes. If someone believes that a guide should be deleted entirely, MfD is thataway. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. CSD/REVDEL processes are sufficient. I am not entirely certain the MFD process is, given the length of the election. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. CSD and revision deletion is good enough for voter guides if they are needed. Izno's point is important to bear in mind, but I would say if a guide doesn't meet one of the CSD criteria then perhaps it does need discussion by the wider community. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. P-K3 (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Existing processes deal with this and 3.3 should be available for guides that shouldn't be listed. PaleAqua (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #3.6: edit

Users who object to statement #3.6: edit

  1. For the same reason I object to 3.4; also agree with Nosebagbear's additional concern, below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC); revised: 11:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. For the same set of reasons I objected to 3.4, with extra focus on "guides are not under discretionary sanctions, nor do they need to be". Blocks around an election are akin to censorship and should therefore only be undertaken by a proper ANI discussion. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree with Nosebagbear that these kinds of blocks should only be imposed after sufficient community input. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If Commissioners are so empowered, this effectively removes the power to sanction users from the community for a limited period of time (our admin corps aside). Moreover, it gives Commissioners administrative powers, perhaps to those who have not passed RfA. That's not acceptable. I'm probably too hung up on process, but for admin powers one should have to pass RfA. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Nosebagbear. – Teratix ₵ 03:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Same as 3.4. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. TharikRish 17:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. As with protection, if an editor is engaged in conduct which merits a block, that should be undertaken as a normal admin sanction by any admin, and not specially reserved to election commissioners. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per other admin items above. --Izno (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Seraphimblade Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Too far. P-K3 (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:22, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Again this should be handled by existing processes and admins. PaleAqua (talk) 16:31, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #3.7: edit

  1. I'll say it: I believe the community is perfectly capable of policing itself. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Election commissioners should not have arbitrary powers of censorship. Guide issues should be referred to binding discussions closed by a bureaucrat. Election commissioners can do that referral. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In general our existing administrative policies are sufficient to deal with disruption without having to specifically sadle commissioners with enforcement. 3.1 is probably fine though. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

STATEMENT 4B PASSED
Candidates do not have an explicit right of reply to comments about them made in election guides.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #4a by Thryduulf (guides) edit

Candidates have the right of reply to comments about them made in election guides.

Rationale

Last year it was argued that some comments in election guides were vindictive or misleading but it was unclear whether candidates had the right to respond to such comments. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #4a: edit

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #4b; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #4b below)
  1. Absolutely, a right of reply, by way of a link to their right of reply in their own space. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If editors wish to have unilateral control of their essays, they may link to their external blog, but I specifically oppose granting an exception to WP:UPOWN for candidate guides. Adding links to relevant commentary on a guide (as SmokeyJoe suggests) is normal for essays and should not be restricted. Candidates (and other editors) should at the very least be able to add "See also" links pointing to other perspectives on the particular guide. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. TharikRish 17:50, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Of course. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. How would banning this even work? Who can possibly monitor what the candidate is saying on any of a multitude of possible forums, e.g. Twitter? Banedon (talk) 22:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly JW 1961 Talk 21:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Wrong section. sorry JW 1961 Talk 21:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #4b by Thryduulf (guides) edit

Candidates do not have an explicit right of reply to comments about them made in election guides.

Rationale

This is the status quo. Candidates may comment on talk pages of guides but the guide author is not obliged to respond or add their comments to the guide itself. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #4b: edit

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #4a; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #4a above)
  1. There is no mechanism by which to deny "right of reply" via the candidate's statement page, on the talk page of the guide, etc. But there is no policy basis for a unilateral "right" to inject their own statement into the other editors' guide, or require that editor to address their concerns in that guide, over the objections of that guide's author, per WP:USERPAGE. However, per WP:EDITING and WP:OWN, every editor has the editorial prerogative to at least edit that page once; User A's userspace pages are not, by policy, totally immune to edits by Users B or C. If the user in whose userspace the guide exists reverts that change, though, then it should not turn into an edit war, but be taken to talk, to dispute resolution, or some other mechanism. As Pppery says in another subsection, these pages are not somehow different from other internal content and are already subject to extant processes and standards.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think an ability to force injections into the actual guide (as opposed to the Talk Page), is asking for trouble. I'd be more inclined to suggest they reply to it on one of their own pages or even their Q&A page. Perhaps we should require guides to have footnotes linking to responses? Nosebagbear (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Candidates can reply on the talk page or elsewhere, although they would be wise to consider that they may do their candidacy more harm than good by being overly defensive. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think we shouldn't require this (that said, if I were to write a guide, I would at least include a note linking to their response.) —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SQLQuery me! 21:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 4a is a thoughtful idea but I just don't think it would work out very well in practice. --Rschen7754 00:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Talk page comments are sufficient. – Teratix ₵ 03:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Candidates can post responses on the guide talk page, just as it's always been done. Voters are perfectly capable of judging those responses and any discussion that might follow. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I don't think we need to be introducing point-by-point refutations of a voter guide. Talk page comments are sufficient. CThomas3 (talk) 00:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Replies in the guide's talk page or in the editor's own userspace are sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Candidates have plenty of places that are their platforms. I don't think they need a right to reply to guides. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I prefer status quo. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Candidates can already reply on the guide's talk page, in their own userspace, and in response to any questions asked about whatever is in the guide during the question phase. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Existing channels are sufficient. signed, Rosguill talk 19:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. -- P-K3 (talk) 18:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Per SMcC. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Euryalus (talk) 07:12, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I agree that candidates may/can be encouraged to reply, or questioners may ask on, questionable statements in guides, and that guides need not provide a right of reply in the guide. --Izno (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. The alternative would be a mess. Tamwin (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I think allowing candidates to reply in the guide itself would just make it confusing, and also the writers of voter guides shouldn't have to reply. Talk page should be fine. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Candidates can say what they like on statement pages, talk pages, etc; inviting them to comment directly on guides, which is what this may be read as, is a recipe for disaster. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:40, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Not unless whatever is said about them are patently untrue or outright defamation, which can be policed by the EC. Banedon (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. There are other places that candidates can respond. PaleAqua (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

STATEMENT 5A PASSED
The content of election guides must comply with all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including but not limited to Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Casting aspersions.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #5a by Thryduulf (guides) edit

The content of election guides must comply with all relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including but not limited to Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Casting aspersions.

Rationale

This should be obvious, but there were accusations last year that some guide authors were not doing this. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #5a: edit

  1. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, this is already a requirement of all pages, and there's no mechanism by which to make these pages exempt. The apparently procecurally-required counterproposal below this one is not actually possible to implement, if its wording is interpreted strictly, even if anyone thought it was a good idea. That said, I think the one below this is inteding to implying a statement in the election rules that voter guides must be policy-compliant (since it's claiming this is the status quo). I don't think it's necessary to make that kind of big production out of this. If some voter guide is violating the behavioral or other policies, we already have ANI, AN, etc. to deal with the matter. No new WP:BUREAUCRACY/WP:CREEP is needed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It is a shame that this needs to be explicitly stated, but last year shows that it unfortunately does. Thryduulf (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Obvious, and shouldn't be required, but I don't think that it'd hurt to write it down. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Should already apply, can't hurt to explicitly state it. SQLQuery me! 21:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Yes, but saying it is bloat. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per WP:UPOWN which already applies and already says essentially the same thing. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes, it's worth stating explicitly. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Obviously. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Obviously. And it's a shame it needs to be spelled out, but there is so much ill spirited comment in those guides with impunity that more should be done to sanction the authors. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yes, of course. Schazjmd (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Should not be necessary but after last year apparently is. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. TharikRish 17:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. All pages on Wikipedia are subject to those policies. Guides are not a special exception. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Euryalus (talk) 07:13, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I agree that this is status quo but also agree that it apparently should be spelled out. --Izno (talk) 15:19, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yet another thing that we shouldn't need to write out, but I don't think stating it explicitly would hurt. Tamwin (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Yeah. Although this should be very obvious already, clearly stating it won't hurt. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Should be obvious; has sometimes not been treated so. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Very obvious. Banedon (talk) 22:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Given PaleAqua (talk) 16:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #5b by Thryduulf (guides) edit

There should be no explicit requirement for election guides to comply with policies and guidelines.

Rationale

This is the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #5b: edit

  1. This is already true for all pages. No need to make it doubly true here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Unnecessary. 5a, as currently written, is in fact the status quo. It is true that 5b is also the status quo, but this is because 5a is not written as the negation of 5b. PJvanMill)talk( 17:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

STATEMENT 6C PASSED
Any editor may add guides to official templates or categories for guides.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #6a by Thryduulf (guides) edit

Only guide authors may add guides to official templates or categories for guides.

Rationale

Last year there were disputes about this. Thryduulf (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #6a: edit

  1. As to "category", deferring the template response to the later section. — xaosflux Talk 11:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If the guide author doesn't want to link their guide to these templates, why should the opinion of someone else take precedence? It would force the author to delete their guide, which is kind of silly. On the other hand, if the author has already written a guide they want to add to the template, they shouldn't need permission - EC can remove the guide if it violates any rules, and if it doesn't violate any rules then I don't see why the EC would say no, at which point it's just bureaucracy. Banedon (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #6b by Thryduulf (guides) edit

Only election commissioners may add guides to official templates or categories for guides.

Rationale

This would prevent disputes about what is and is not an official guide, and would ensure only those guides which met the requirements were included in official templates and categories. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #6b: edit

  1. SQLQuery me! 21:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, but a poor second to not linking them at all. Voter guides linked to the process pages are a terrible idea. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #6c by Thryduulf (guides) edit

Any editor may add guides to official templates or categories for guides.

Rationale

This is the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #6c: edit

  1. There's no policy basis to prevent WP:GNOME categorization and template maintenance. I'm one of the gnomes who fairly often goes around making sure user essays (of all sorts) are properly tagged and categorized as such, and have done a lot of subcategorization work on them (including, in previous years, for ArbCom election voter guides, now that I think back on it!). If someone wants to object to their page being categorized or templated (e.g. because they are still drafting it), that's a WP:USERPAGE matter, and no gnome or Election Commission member should editwar with them about it. But per WP:EDITING and WP:OWN, there is no policy basis on which to object to a non-author properly categorizing and templating the author's userspace essay once. The onus is really on the "anti-categorizer" to provide a sane rationale for why their page should be exempted from standard operating procedure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If a page meets the requirements to be on the template/in the category then there is no reason to disallow anyone from adding it. If a user does not want their guide publicly advertised then they should make it somewhere other than Wikipedia. Thryduulf (talk) 11:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There's no need to add extra bureaucracy with regard to voter guides. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per above. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. "May" does not mean "should". WP:IAR applies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I don't see any need to restrict it, especially if the election commission has the power to remove problematic guides. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per SMcCandlish above. CThomas3 (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per SMC. --Izno (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Sure, per Thryduulf. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. TharikRish 17:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Along the lines of Boing! said Zebedee, we don't need to limit the addition of guides this way, provided that the election commission has the ability to remove anything inappropriate. signed, Rosguill talk 19:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per SMcC. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per SMC. Tamwin (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. P-K3 (talk) 12:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Sure, but if and only if 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3 above are passing. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Conditional on 3.3, and with restrictions on guides being restored if removed. PaleAqua (talk) 16:37, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who DO NOT endorse statement #6c: edit

  1. Why would we do this? There are candidate pages for discussion of the candidate. "Voter guides" added to official templates and the like by random users are a truly terrible idea. It amplifies the voices of self-selected users, some of whom may be pursuing an undeclared agenda, or one that is known to some but not declared openly. Example: if an editor is topic-banned from Elbonian Politics, they may produce a voter guide based on the support or otherwise of candidates for the Elbonian nationalist agenda, and unless you're familiar with the editor, this payload will be smuggled in unchallenged to what seems on the face of it to be an officially endorsed document. Let people write voter guides and link to them from their user pages, but the candidate pages, which are actively curated, should be the place where people read about the candidates and make their choices. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. In my opinion "the other Guy" makes a good point. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. These are basically user-space essays, if a user doesn't want their guide in a category I really can't see that we should force them to have it in one - leaving them to CSD it as the nuclear option. — xaosflux Talk 11:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Xaosflux, that strikes me as a support for 6a rather than 6d. Do you see a difference there? --Izno (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are a lot of competing ones here (and I don't see 6d?) to summarize my current support: I don't think we should put the guides in the ACE banner anymore, I do think the guides should be in a category, I do think the category should be on the ace banner, I think that inclusion in the category should be at the discretion of the guide author, I think that exclusion from the category can be at the discretion of commissioners or uninvolved community review at somewhere like AN. — xaosflux Talk 11:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for saying that so well Xaosflux. This is my !vote as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Would-be private guides exist (I've written one in the past). Banedon (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

STATEMENT 7B PASSED
Editors are allowed to have an online guide to candidates in their userspace

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #7a by SchroCat edit

Completely deprecate guides to candidates

Rationale

Guides are frequently thinly disguised attack pages against individuals and groups and contain personal attacks; such guides breach WP:POLEMIC. The guides are of questionable use and there is ample opportunity to question the candidates and discuss them - people do not need to be told how to vote by someone they don't really know, who may be working to a different agenda.

Users who endorse statement #7a: edit

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #7b; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #7b below)
  1. As a former guide writer myself, I think their usefulness has passed. -- Calidum 16:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Written guides are often thinly disguised vendettas - and many are. And if they are not vendettas, they are just an excuse , like at RfA, to voice PA and incivility with impunity. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Pretty much. They're just a vector for licensed personal attacks. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Stifle. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #7b by SchroCat edit

Editors are allowed to have an online guide to candidates in their userspace

Rationale

This is the status quo

Users who endorse statement #7b: edit

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #7a; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #7a above)
  1. Sure, badly written guides are often thinly disguised vendettas - but most are not. And with only a private venue to vote there has to be a forum to discuss the candidates and get consensus. --Rschen7754 04:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Most guides are not problematic. A smaller hammer would suffice to at least minimise the issues, while retaining the benefits Nosebagbear (talk) 08:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. There is no policy basis on which to prohibit editors from writing in userspace about anything pertinent to Wikipedia. If a particular user page (of any kind) transgresses a policy like WP:POLEMIC or WP:NPA, then we already have processes for dealing with that. Given the time-sensitivity, I would suggest WP:ANI, which is heavily watched and moves fairly quickly, rather than WP:MFD, which is a much smaller subset of editors and typically quite slow (and also often prone to keep decisions, saying that behavioral ones should have been taken to to ANI in the first place and that the content problem is fixable thus the page should be retained even if it needs revision).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Guides should not be polemics, contain personal attacks, cast aspersions, etc, but those that are can (and should) be dealt with individually without prohibiting those that are not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As I recall, the problem last year wasn't that guides were too harsh as much as it was that some candidates responded poorly to unfavorable evaluation. Quite frankly, any candidate who can't handle a little bit of criticism is too thin-skinned to last long on ArbCom. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per the WP:user pages guideline, which explicitly allows comments on Wikipedia matters in userspace. PJvanMill)talk( 17:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Within reason, it is futile for us to limit the rights of editors — for whom anything Wikipedia related is allowed on their user pages. That undoubtedly includes matters revolving around Committee elections, as well. Thus, I oppose (once again) any change to the current state of affairs. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Of course. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Of course. Editors are encouraged to express project-related opinions in their userspace, and this includes comments on arb com candidates. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Most guides are unproblematic. – Teratix ₵ 03:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yes. In user space. And not linked from templates. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. As a voter, I find the guides quite useful. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. yes Johnbod (talk) 21:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I have no issue with voting guides but they should be in userspace.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:47, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. It's unreasonable to try to ban people from talking about these elections. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:42, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. TharikRish 17:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. – Ammarpad (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I'm quite against the idea of telling editors they should not express their thoughts about the election and candidates. That should be subject to as much discussion as anyone cares to engage in. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:00, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Problematic guides can and should be deleted. We don’t need to eliminate all guides to fix this problem. CThomas3 (talk) 16:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Given the size and nature of the editing community, guides are helpful for voters to determine how to vote for candidates that they have not interacted with personally. signed, Rosguill talk 19:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. No one is required to write one, no one is required to read one - and this userspace writing is within the scope of the project already. — xaosflux Talk 18:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Izno (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Per SMcC (again). Gog the Mild (talk) 15:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Euryalus (talk) 07:14, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. These are valuable to inform people about the candidates in the election. Tamwin (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Prohibiting these would be an overreach, I think; we have behavioral policies for content in userspace, and those are sufficient. Moreover, enforcing the alternative would be impossible; any mention of a candidate in relation to ARBCOM anywhere could be construed as a guide. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:46, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Bear in mind that guides usually endorse some candidates too, so they aren't attack pages. Banedon (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Certainly JW 1961 Talk 21:12, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

STATEMENT 8B PASSED
User guides to the candidates will be advertised on the ACE banner.


Closer notes. Consensus is rather divided on this issue and weighing arguments didn't tip the scales much either in my opinion. By way of no consensus on this subject, the status quo is maintained. The fact that I have declared statement 8b to have passed, should in no way indicate that the status quo is set in stone. So disputes in this area should default to either the coordinators or the electoral commissioners until a clear consensus can be established.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:14, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #8a by SchroCat edit

User guides to the candidates will not be advertised on the ACE banner.

Rationale

With an official guide summarising information about the candidate, why do people need to be told how to vote by someone they don't really know, who may be working to a different agenda or be carrying inherent grudges against, or favouritism for, particular candidates. Officially advertising user guides, which may breach WP:POLEMIC, seems unwise.

Users who endorse statement #8a: edit

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #8b; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #8b below)
  1. Strongly agree. I've always thought this was inappropriate. At most, there could maybe be a single link to the user essays sub-category for these (which is, I think, or certainly should be sub-sub-categorized by year, so can be linked to directly for voter guides pertinent to this year's election). I think that would be a good compromise, making them findable without promoting them by name. See also WP:VESTED. While it's about WP:OWN-related behavior in mainspace for the most part, the central principle holds: no editor's views are magically more important than another's. See 6b, above; the central theme of it, of "disputes about what is and is not an official guide" is off-base, in that there is no basis on which to give any user essay "official" imprimatur of any kind.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Who decides which guides to advertise, anyway? I'm with SMcCandlish on this: best to have no imprimatur. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per SMcCandlish and Javert2113; replace with a link to Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2020 voter guides, with a short introduction to the concept of "voter guides" that does not name any specific guide. PJvanMill)talk( 17:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Link to the category per PJvanMill. SQLQuery me! 20:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Agree and support link to category as per PJvanMill above. However, I sure hope those guides listed in that category are well reviewed to follow rules against polemical statements and similar prohibited behavior. --Ian Korman (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Izno and Rosgill have made me reconsider; I'd rather be neutral on this issue. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC) — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. If the inclusion of the guides in the ACE banner is replaced with a general link, eg a link to Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2020 voter guides as User:PJvanMill suggests, then I support this. There should be some pointer to somewhere that links the guides. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Absolutely. Adding them amplifies the voices of self-selected users and prioritises the views of the most motivated (and likely the most wiki-politically active). It implies a level of endorsement of individual opinions that has no place in the formal process of the election. I have no idea why we started doing this, but it has always been a terrible idea and is doubly terrible given the current fractious nature of almost every dispute: it's an open invitation to partisans to flood the zone with bullshit, basically. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. They are and have always been nothing more than user opinion essays so treating them like a special subclass was never useful. As time has gone on, the officially unofficial or unofficially official (Which is it? I don't even know anymore.) status has become more problematic. Eliminate the ambiguity and delink them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. It was never a good idea to include them there. It's time to stop. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Link to the category per above. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Weak support, I think these may be useful - but shouldn't be so prominent; linking to the category sounds like a good compromise. This probably needs to be a different statement - but one thing that came up last year was about the category as well and who should be allowed to manage the population of the category - for that I'd say only the guide owner (as these are hosted in userspace) should be allowed to add the category to "their" guide. — xaosflux Talk 01:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xaosflux: who can add guides to templates and categories is the #6 set of statements in this section. Restricting it to guide authors is #6a. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree. I also question that we should call them "guides", as they are not. When I have looked into them, most people actually vote in a different direction to the consensus of the guides. They are, mostly, simply reflections of a person's opinion - essentially personal statements. They provide little actual value, other than to satisfy curiosity as to what some individuals think of other individuals. "Voter opinions" would be a more appropriate name. I think many of us on this page enjoy reading them, but few of us would be guided by them. SilkTork (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. TharikRish 17:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I've never liked this idea much and would be happy to see the guides removed from the template. Editors should of course be able to express their opinions on candidates, but we don't have to hand certain ones a megaphone. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I’ve not minded them on the banner but I appreciate why this could be problematic. Linking to the category or something similar would suffice in my opinion. CThomas3 (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes. There is no sensible reason why these should be advertised. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Yes, link to category per SMC, Javert2113, and PJvanMill. --Danre98(talk^contribs) 21:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Yes, please. Let people write their guides, I guess, but advertising them on the ACE banner has always been giving these guides far too much prominence and weight. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I think a category strikes the right balance; advertizing these on the banner is giving them too much prominence, decentralizing them completely is too much, per those supporting 8B. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. I can get behind this. Looking at voter guides seems like something for people with too much time on their hands and too much capacity for drama. Banedon (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    (Striking my !vote here) Partial Link to category sure, link to individual guides no. PaleAqua (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #8b by SchroCat edit

User guides to the candidates will be advertised on the ACE banner.

Rationale

This is the status quo

Users who endorse statement #8b: edit

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #8a; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #8a above)
  1. Perhaps some kind of disclaimer should be added at the top of each voter guide (if that isn't already the case), but I'm strongly opposed to any measures that would hinder easy access to these voter guides. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If we allow user guides at all, we should be transparent about them. Posting them in such a visible way ensures they can be seen and problems corrected. -- Calidum 16:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is inherently unfair. Guides written by those with the most user talk page stalkers will get more influence than those that don't. --Rschen7754 00:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What's the "this" you think is unfair? It doesn't have a clear referent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I read it as "this" = "Removing links totally and leaving it up to people to find the guides via individual user talk pages". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If there is no link at all to where to find the guides, then I oppose - but see 8a above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think I land here, or in the compromise category link position. My observation over the past few years (I've been keeping tabs with a "meta" guide) has been that the guide consensus tends toward the vote results. (I do not know if that is predicting or kingmaking or what mixture of both as is likely.) People are writing reasonable guides for the most part, I think (I suppose I view it as prediction). I also share Rschen's concern: if Iridescent should decide to write a guide and link it on their talk page, that's going to influence a whole lot more people than if I do. (No, you can't have my influence, even if you wanted it.) --Izno (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No need to hide content you don't like. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I find the guides really useful and I'd like it to remain easy to find them, for myself and others. Hobit (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I think I agree with Boing! said Zebedee's caveat; failing to centralize guides can lead not only to disparities in their influence, but could also make it easier for someone to write personal attacks or otherwise inappropriate guides that fly under the radar for an extended period of time. signed, Rosguill talk 19:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Rschen and also the really twisted logic being applied here - which is that reduced visibility to guides will "fix" the issue with guides, if anything, that makes the guides less transparent and susceptible to contain aspersions and factual errors. No way. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per Chris troutman and Hobit. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. These are important to inform people about the candidates. This makes the information much more accessible, leading to a more informed voter population. I also agree with Lepricavark, Calidum, Rschen7754, and Hobit. Tamwin (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I oppose if there is no category link per much of the above. --Danre98(talk^contribs) 21:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Don't see a problem with the banner, it helps to inform voters. P-K3 (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Helps inform voters, issues can be addressed in a less nuclear fashion. Martinp (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I think this should just be a link to the a category, see my longer response in the other section. — xaosflux Talk 19:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Can see the bias concern mentioned above going to strike my 8a vote. PaleAqua (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notes on interaction between statements (guides) edit

  • If statements 6a and 6b both pass then both guide authors and election coordinators may add guides to official templates/categories.
  • If statement 7a passes then statements 1-6 all fail as moot.
  • If statement 8a passes then statements 6a, 6b and 6c all fail.

Withdrawn candidates edit

STATEMENT 2 PASSED
Show withdrawn or disqualified candidates on the candidates page unless their questions page can be or has been deleted under WP:G7.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #1 by Wugapodes edit

Show withdrawn or disqualified candidates on the candidates page.

Rationale

Status quo. All nominees are listed regardless of when or how they stopped being a candidate.

Users who endorse statement #1 edit

  1. Always best to be fully transparent. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:46, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2 by Wugapodes edit

Show withdrawn or disqualified candidates on the candidates page unless their questions page can be or has been deleted under WP:G7.

Rationale

If a candidate withdraws or is disqualified without having interacted with anyone, there's no real point in listing them. Whether the question page is eligible for G7 seems the easiest metric for whether they've actually interacted with voters as a candidate.

Users who endorse statement #2 edit

  1. The phrasing here is a little confusing, but it aligns with "I find it confusing to know if there's a viewing issue or what exactly is happening unless they stay there but I'm happy for them not to be listed if they withdraw before nominations conclude." The latter is close enough to the statement to make this a logical endorse. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agreed per nom and Nosebagbear, though I would add that any removal of the page is good enough reason. E.g., most of the G# WP:CSD could conceivably be applied, especially in cases of utterly inappropriate self-nominations by banned trolls, etc. In answer to the one below, however, I have to say that if someone suddenly withdraws or is invalidated, many of us are going to want to investigate why, and we may even want to do this 5 years later, or whatever. People doing boneheaded things in the 2020 election that get them invalidated or force them to withdraw should remain an easy-to-find record if they re-run in 2021, since their judgment is not likely to have vastly improved in a single year.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with SMcCandlish. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with all of the above. SQLQuery me! 21:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yep, User:SMcCandlish in particular makes a very important point. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per all of the above. CThomas3 (talk) 04:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This seems like a gentle nudge in a good direction. --Izno (talk) 03:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. TharikRish 18:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This will weed out banned socks and the like. Former nominees who had begun the process and interacted with others during it should still be listed for the sake of transparency. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Seems to strike a good balance between transparency and not preserving irrelevant information. signed, Rosguill talk 19:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, we should list everyone who actually did anything Asartea Talk 13:00, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Show these, would be confusing to others who already asked questions or possibly even voted already and wonder what happened to the candidate they were discussing. — xaosflux Talk 13:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support per SMcCandlish Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. -- P-K3 (talk) 13:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Expanding to include other G# also seems reasonable. PaleAqua (talk) 17:49, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #3 by Wugapodes edit

Do not show withdrawn or disqualified candidates on the candidates page.

Rationale

Clutters the page with unnecessary information. If we can't vote for them, why list them?

Users who endorse statement #3 edit

  1. It can be unpleasant for a candidate who has withdrawn or was disqualified to keep a reminder of that fact in place, and since I agree that nothing is to be gained from it, I would prefer to simply remove them without leaving any reminders in place. Debresser (talk) 19:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I would actually leave them in by default, but remove without question if requested by the candidate. That seems equitable. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The point of being listed is assessment of those in the running. If you're not in the running, there's no reason to list you. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per JzG. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I don't see a need to list withdrawn candidates Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of statement #3 by Wugapodes edit

I think withdrawals and disqualifications before the deadline to submit one's candidacy can be removed from the candidates page and possibly archived on a separate page. Once voting has started, I think it may be desirable to keep them listed with an appropriate note, for the record. isaacl (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #4 by Ivanvector edit

Do not show withdrawn or disqualified candidates on the candidates page if the withdrawal/disqualification was confirmed by the Electoral Commission prior to the start of voting.

Rationale

Such candidates will not have appeared on a ballot for any voter and can be safely disregarded with respect to the election. Conversely, candidates who are not withdrawn/disqualified when voting begins appear on the ballot for at least some voters, and record of their candidacy should be preserved with the election information.

Users who endorse statement #4 edit

  1. Candidates who exit the election after it is already in progress can be noted somehow, with a withdrawal/disqualification statement and a collapse perhaps. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am pretty sure this jives with #2; maybe it's a larger subset. --Izno (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. In accordance with my comments for statement #3. isaacl (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. per IV. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Nomination timing edit

STATEMENT 1 PASSED
The self-nomination will only be considered completed if both the nomination page has been created, and the page has been properly transcluded to the candidates page prior to the cut-off time as recorded by the server. Candidate directions should suggest not attempting to perform this activity very close to the cut-off time, so there will be time to recover should any user or technical errors occur.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:22, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #1 by xaosflux (nomination timing) edit

The self-nomination will only be considered completed if both the nomination page has been created, and the page has been properly transcluded to the candidates page prior to the cut-off time as recorded by the server. Candidate directions should suggest not attempting to perform this activity very close to the cut-off time, so there will be time to recover should any user or technical errors occur.

Rationale

Following up from last year when the commissioners had to make a decision regarding incomplete last-minute nominations by reevaluating the 2015 RfC notes. — xaosflux Talk 02:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #1 (nomination timing): edit

  1. A line has to be drawn somewhere. "Completes the entire process" is a much clearer place than what Statement 2 amounts to, which is the extremely arbitrary place "makes some publically visible effort to participate" * Pppery * it has begun... 03:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Pppery nailed it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Deadline is deadline for a reason. KTC (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Exactly per Pppery. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- P-K3 (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Deadline should be taken seriously. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 17:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Deadlines are deadlines, yep, yep. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agreed. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SQLQuery me! 21:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Rschen7754 00:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Which candidate could've made such a mistake? Surely not me... Enterprisey (talk!) 02:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. How else? OrewaTel (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Line, needed, yes. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yes. rchard2scout (talk) 14:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Makes sense to me. CThomas3 (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. No large issue with a statement 3 resolution, but agree with general opinion that people shouldn't be attempting to submit with little time left. --Izno (talk) 03:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Per WP:CIR. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. TharikRish 18:04, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Looks reasonable – Ammarpad (talk) 08:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. I considered #3, but ultimately if you wait until the last second and something goes wrong, well, that's unfortunate. Deadline means deadline. I agree instructions should encourage candidates to get nominations in place well ahead of the deadline to avoid such issues. (Of course accommodations could be made in a truly extreme situation such as a days-long outage, but this is extremely unlikely.) Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. WP:CIR applies equally to election nominations as it does to the encyclopedia in general. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Per Pppery. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support if #3 doesn't pass. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. This one, noting that I also supported the measure that the commission can adjust deadlines if there is a good reason to. — xaosflux Talk 13:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. second choice after 3 Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Candidates should be able to meet deadlines as it expected for hearing cases as well. PaleAqua (talk) 17:51, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2 by xaosflux (nomination timing) edit

A self-nomination may be considered completed if the candidate makes any effort to complete the process prior to the cut off time.

Rationale

This is in opposition to statement #1 above.

Users who endorse statement #2 (nomination timing) edit

  1. ~~~~

Statement #3 by Nosebagbear (nomination timing) edit

The self-nomination will only be considered completed if both the nomination page has been created, and the page has been properly transcluded to the candidates page prior to the cut-off time as recorded by the server. Election Commissioners may make an exception if they confirm a technical issue on the side of Wikipedia. Candidate directions should suggest not attempting to perform this activity very close to the cut-off time, so there will be time to recover should any user or user-side technical errors occur.

Rationale Just to make explicit, rather than potentially implied, that it is reasonable for additional time to be granted if something makes it functionally impossible to submit an application due to issues outside the user's control, while otherwise imposing the clearer cut-offs of statement #1.

Users who endorse statement #3: edit

  1. I could also support this (as my 2nd-choice preference in this section), though it seems unlikely, and I think that per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY such an exception could already be made. It's a general principle even in real bureaucracies that if you attempt to comply with a deadline rule but the office, court, or whatever to which you had to submit something was shut down just before and through the deadline time, due to some emergency, that you can validly complete the process, in a very timely manner, when it becomes possible to do so again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Extended Wikimedia server issue. -- KTC (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As a second choice to statement #1. Candidates really shouldn't be leaving it so late that a server issue makes a significant difference, but if one were to last a significant time (>12 hours say) then the deadlines should be adjustable to account for that. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Thryduulf, second choice. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This is how I understand statement 1 and my endorsements of that and this statement should be considered equivalent. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice to #1. If a candidate is too clueless to get their nomination done by the deadline, leaving enough time to sort out any technical problems, they don't deserve to be considered for ArbCom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second-choice preference, per Wugapodes above: I believe the two to be functionally equivalent — I should hope we're not penalizing people for server-side circumstances outside of their control. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice to #1. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. signed, Rosguill talk 19:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. As proposer (it was initially unclear if we were automatically counted) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support, first choice. Some candidates will wait to the last second, but candidates need to determine if they have the time and energy to be an arb. I'd rather have someone who gave serious consideration and nominated at the end of the nom period than someone who rushes in without thinking of the consequences. I'd hate for someone's nom to be rejected because of a WP server problem. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Tamwin (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, people should actually nominate themselves but shouldn't be disquailified by circumstances beyond their control Asartea Talk 13:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Seems reasonable. P-K3 (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. first choice above 1 Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voter suffrage edit

STATEMENT 1A PASSED
Exclude users with usernames beginning with Vanished user... or Renamed user... from eligibility to vote.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #1a by xaosflux (renamed accounts) edit

Exclude users with usernames beginning with Vanished user... or Renamed user... from eligibility to vote.

Rationale

Such users have purposefully departed from participating in Wikipedia with that account, and as such usernames are afoul of the username policy should not even be editing under such names. This was a carry over from last year about why we were mass-messaging these accounts to vote, but instead of fixing that by suppressing their advertisement a better fix is to simply not include them in the voter rolls. — xaosflux Talk 02:53, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #1a: edit

  1. I support this, since it was a controversy last time. WP:CREEP applies to adding pointless rules that don't solve anything, but solving a controversy is solving something, even if the controversy itself maybe was a mole-into-mountain problem. Hell, most of MoS and many other guidelines are solutions to controversy itself, not to an actually important matter that should have caused a controversy. Anything that repeatedly drains editorial productivity is a problem and should be curtailed, even at the expense of a new rule. In this case, it's a very short one, which virtually no one need read, since its effective implementation would be to just stop "spamming" dead accounts with voting invitations. I.e., it's a rule for voting-setup admins, not for voting editors.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. There is no reason for vanished or renamed account to be used. -- KTC (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. These users have chosen to remove themselves from the community and so there is no reason why they should be eligible to vote in community elections. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. These accounts should not be editing or participating on Wikipedia in any form.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Vanishing is supposed to be quite permanent, so these users should not be voting and any hypothetical votes should not be counted. As this rule does not say anything about what normal users should do, I do not think instruction creep is much of a concern. PJvanMill)talk( 17:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I find the above arguments more persuasive than the counterarguments below. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SQLQuery me! 21:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree with rationale given as well as comments above. --Ian Korman (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Yes. Whilst this is only a minor problem, it is an easy solution. I have no problem with Election Admins having to jump through hoops. I also don't mind Candidates having a hard time. The important thing is that voting must be clear cut and simple. OrewaTel (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Thryduulf. – Teratix ₵ 03:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. GeneralNotability (talk) 12:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Definitely support this, per SMcCandlish and Thryduulf rchard2scout (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I agree with KTC and Thryduulf. Schazjmd (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Izno (talk) 03:07, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Per the rationale. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. If you left, you left. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Euryalus (talk) 22:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. TharikRish 18:07, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:32, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. If you chose to vanish, then vanish. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Yes. Vanishing is a one-way street and is there in lieu of deleting people's accounts. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Per the rationale. CThomas3 (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. As a largely technical measure. Tamwin (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  29. When a user has vanished, they should remain vanished (unless they are they unvanished). Per above pretty much. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Support. per SMcCandlish and Thryduulf Asartea Talk 13:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  31. I agree with this rationale. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  32. These accounts are explicitly not part of the active community. — xaosflux Talk 13:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Agree. This sounds like one of those little bits of minutiae that would have been included in the standards had someone thought of it. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 20:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  35. PaleAqua (talk) 17:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: edit

  • This should explicitly said whether someone is eligible to vote if they vanished after the vote.--GZWDer (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1b by xaosflux (renamed accounts) edit

Allow users with usernames beginning with Vanished user... or Renamed user... eligibility to vote.

Users who endorse statement #1b: edit

  1. Is there any actual problem being solved here? No vanished users voted in the previous election, so preventing them from voting in this one is rule creep that accomplishes literally nothing. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per Pppery, unless there is indication of a particular problem, this seems unneeded. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I agree with the arguments of both previous editors. Moreover, if we can keep vanished users' admin privileges indefinitely, then we should allow them to be able to vote as well. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per above. Seems like a solution in search of a problem. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

STATEMENT 2A PASSED
For purposes of determining voter eligibility factors related to tenure, edits, or edit timing all required factors must be met using the same named user account.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #2a by xaosflux (multiple accounts) edit

For purposes of determining voter eligibility factors related to tenure, edits, or edit timing all required factors must be met using the same named user account.

Rationale

Last year there were questions/requests from some ineligible voters if they may claim and combine actions performed under multiple usernames to meet qualifications. Such allowances would complicate the creation of the voter rolls, and claimed activity across multiple accounts belonging to the same person can be difficult to independently verify. — xaosflux Talk 02:34, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #2a: edit

  1. Statement 2b appears to require a lot of manual work for little benefit. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. What Pppery said. I would add that most all-new-account establishments that come with abandonment of old accounts are due to clean-starting after misbehavior anyway. If you want to change your username, that's a different a relatively seamless process that doesn't affect this (your username becomes a new one and your edits are ascribed to it). And most side-account stuff that doesn't involve abandonment of the old one are for bots (which should not count toward one's edits/tenure), or for very occasional use in particular roles. It's going to be a rare case that anyone gets bot approval or other advanced roles and doesn't also already qualify to vote. I don't see the point in giving suffrage to a handful of iffy cases when it will bog down the Election Commission's normal (and all-volunteer) work.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. KTC (talk) 11:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Pppery. While there might be a small number of people who legitimately use different accounts almost equally it is going to be an extremely small number of them where at least one account is not going to make the threshold individually so the effort is not worth it. Thryduulf (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- P-K3 (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. We can't really track who's who, anyway, at least in any objective sense. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. SQLQuery me! 21:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I am assuming the requirement to vote is "ten edits within one year of November 1 requirement". That seems like a very low bar. Why would have an editor have multiple accounts all with less than 10 edits in that timeframe? I agree with this to support KISS. --Ian Korman (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Thryduulf. GeneralNotability (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – Teratix ₵ 03:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. – Majavah talk · edits 05:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yes, this is how steward elections work. --Rschen7754 06:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Yes, KISS and per SMcCandlish. rchard2scout (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Mostly per not have authoritative links between accounts (these are all handled case by case by demonstrating knowledge of both passwords currently and is a very manual process). — xaosflux Talk 15:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. The bar is 150 total edits and 10 within the year; easy to meet in a single account. Schazjmd (talk) 23:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. per Pppery and SMcCandlish power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. TharikRish 18:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. The requirements are not that onerous. An editor who does not have a single account with 150 edits really shouldn't be voting for arbitrators yet. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. signed, Rosguill talk 19:26, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. This does not appear to be an unreasonable requirement, and is far simpler to verify. CThomas3 (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Izno (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  27. The threshold is very low, if you haven't got an account which meets it then you don't meet it. Hut 8.5 17:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Agree. Unless I'm really missing something, this seems kinda like a no-brainer to me—anything else would invite gaming and lawyering, and we don't need more of that. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 20:26, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2b by xaosflux (multiple accounts) edit

An editor may combine tenure, edits, or edit timing from any number of named user accounts to meet eligibility requirements.

Rationale

This is the opposite of Statement #2a. Note: this would require someone (the commissioners likely) to evaluate such requests on a case-by-case basis and have staffers manually add such accounts to the secure poll rolls. — xaosflux Talk 12:03, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #2b: edit

  1. We need a certain amount of experience and integrity. I see no difference if these were acquired using one account or more than one. Obviously, if there would be problem with one of the accounts, that would disqualify the nominee, so what difference does it make what username he used when? Debresser (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I appreciate the KISS arguments above, but we shouldn't restrict the franchise only for convenience. If there were other concerns beyond expedience I would reconsider. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is a endorse mostly in principal. In theory doing this should be possible assuming alternate accounts are properly linked from user pages. That said I can see that it would only be a small number of contributors that would be restricted by this and unlikely to change the results much. PaleAqua (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

STATEMENT 3B PASSED
Besides the other suffrage requirements, a voter must have made 10 live edits (in any namespace) within one year of 1 November to be eligible to vote.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:40, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #3a by Altamel edit

Regarding the ten edits within one year of November 1 requirement, drop the requirement that those edits remain live. An editor must have made ten edits (in any namespace) within one year of November 1, whether live or deleted, to qualify to vote.

Rationale

Voters should not be disenfranchised just because some of their edits within the past year were to pages that were later deleted. This amendment would ensure that if a voter has met the ten edits requirement at some point before November 1, they are not disenfranchised if later on, page deletions bring the voter below ten edits for the year. This amendment would also ensure that the voter's eligibility does not change halfway through the election, as could happen if some of their edits are deleted after the voting period commences, but before they cast their ballot. Altamel (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #3a: edit

  1. As proposer. Voters should not have their eligibility hinge on an AfD or a self-requested draft deletion. Voters are unlikely to realize a page deletion could impact their eligibility, and deletion processes are not appropriate venues for deciding a voter's qualifications.
    Furthermore, this amendment would clear up problems with timing. Last election, voters had an opportunity to check the voter rolls on November 16 to see whether they were eligible to vote. But because of the live edits requirement, a voter could be eligible on November 16, but become ineligible when they attempt to cast a ballot if some of their edits were deleted in the meantime. I found several voters in the 2019 election who were struck, and had less than ten live edits, yet were on the auto-generated voter rolls. It's possible (though I can't tell for certain) that they were affected by this problem. This amendment would bring the ten edits requirement in line with the other suffrage requirements so that the voter's eligibility is finalized several weeks before the election. Altamel (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Since an editor who would want to game the system can easily do so, this requirement is superfluous. Not to mention that I do not see the problem with inactive users voting. I mean, if they came back to vote, it means they keep an interest, so who are we to deny them their right to vote? Debresser (talk) 19:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't really think the difference matters very much either way, but I agree with Altamel's rationale. Tamwin (talk) 23:23, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #3b by Altamel edit

Besides the other suffrage requirements, a voter must have made 10 live edits (in any namespace) within one year of 1 November to be eligible to vote.

Rationale

This is the status quo. Altamel (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #3b: edit

  1. The requirement for 10 live edits is the bare minimum to determine which editors are engaged with the community. If someone has made so few edits in one year that a deleted page or two will affect their eligibility then, in most cases at least, whether they are truly engaged with the community is doubtful. If you are worried this might affect you then just fix a dozen typos in articles that are clearly notable, or contribute to some XfD discussions, or help eliminate a backlog somewhere, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 19:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree as per Thryduulf above, particularly with the fixing English text part as many wikiprojects being contributed to by largely non-native English speakers could really use some help with that. There are just a lot of other minor quality improvement tasks to help with as well. --Ian Korman (talk) 02:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Thryduulf. And I think 10 is far, far too low anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per Thryduulf and technical reasons presented by Cyberpower. – Majavah talk · edits 05:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 10 live edits is a low enough bar as it is. – Teratix ₵ 06:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I'm inclined to agree with Thryduulf. Given that I would want a higher live edit count, I'm happy for a slight need for a couple of extra edits in return for avoiding the mentioned practicality issues below. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. The bar is already too low. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Would happily increase the number Johnbod (talk) 21:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Indeed, 10 is a bare minimum. --Izno (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. It takes less than an hour to make 10 medium-effort edits. Editors who do not dedicate at least one hour within the past year to editing Wikipedia are unlikely to be sufficiently involved with the community to make an informed voting decision. — Newslinger talk 08:59, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. TharikRish 18:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. 10 is too few, already. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. signed, Rosguill talk 19:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. 10 is probably a bit too low to start with. The people voting for arbitrators should be active members of the community. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Agreed with everyone above. 10 edits to any namespace is already absurdly low. CThomas3 (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Per Thryduulf. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. It is a bare minimum. Cheers! Nadzik (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:28, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. P-K3 (talk) 12:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Keep - this is low enough to ensure that the account is actually in use, but not too high to eliminate those that are actively participating. — xaosflux Talk 19:41, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Given that 10 is low counting just live edits seems reasonable if maybe too low a bar. PaleAqua (talk) 17:59, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do not endorse statement #3b: edit

  1. 10 is too low. Should be raised to 50, maybe 100. Banedon (talk) 23:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I agree we should raise it. Hut 8.5 17:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

  • @Altamel: Are they running the voter roles once for contacting and then again for voting? I always assumed it was the same list? If so, then a logical third choice would be "anyone who was eligible when messaged remains eligible" Nosebagbear (talk) 18:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nosebagbear: In the last election, I believe there were two separate lists for votewiki and the mass message, both generated at the same time, but probably with the same voters. Maybe @Cyberpower678: could weigh in here. So yes, a third solution could be that anybody with 10 live edits at the time they were messaged is eligible. I would tweak that to "anybody who had 10 live edits on November 1 remains eligible." That way, there's less confusion by consolidating deadlines. It's a good solution, but I do hesitate because it would create additional work for the scrutineers, who must then check when deleted contribs were deleted: before or after the cut-off. Altamel (talk) 19:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Altamel, dropping the live edits requirement adds a tremendous burden to generating the list and reduces margins for dealing with issues as the lists are vetted. They are two separate lists, with the mass messaging being generally stricter. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Electoral Commission edit

STATEMENT 1A PASSED
Repeal the Appointments to the Commission should be confirmed by the Arbitration Committee per the CheckUser policy. requirement.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #1a by xaosflux (Commission confirmation) edit

Repeal the Appointments to the Commission should be confirmed by the Arbitration Committee per the CheckUser policy. requirement.

Rationale

The Electoral Commission is not given access to CheckUser tools or data, and is already specifically not be allowed to assess private matters and/or have access to voter data, and/or related permissions, and will instead defer private matters to the current ArbCom and/or the WMF as needed. — xaosflux Talk 02:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #1a: edit

  1. Support per nom and the general reasoning of WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:CREEP. Further support this because ArbCom itself should have no role in who can or cannot be on the Election Commission. Arbs themselves will be up for re-election, producing possible incentive to interfere with some of the community's appointments to the Commission. Separation of powers is important in any system of governance.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Regardless of any other considerations there is simply no need. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree with SMcCandlish. Best to avoid any possible conflict of interest here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. IIRC, this was originally in place as the prior process of setting up the election may have leaked checkuser-like information to the commissioners, however that should no longer be occurring. — xaosflux Talk 14:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Removing rules that are footnoted as "not in practice" is a good thing (I note that the rule is also footnoted as "WMF's requirement", so someone should make sure that the WMF is OK with this statement). * Pppery * it has begun... 14:57, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It should not be the purview of the Arbitration Committee to have any say (outside of standard voting) regarding the appointments to the Election Commission — that is our duty, as members of the community. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. ArbCom shouldn't confirm the appointments to the Electoral Commission since they too will be up for re-election. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 17:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mooted requirement. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. As last time I brought this up. SQLQuery me! 21:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Yep, never want an elected body involved in the electoral process. Additionally, doesn't seem to serve much of a purpose. The only reason this statement changes is if the WMF states they'll require it (which I don't believe they are/will). Nosebagbear (talk) 12:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Yes, if it's no longer necessary (or required by the WMF), drop it. rchard2scout (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Agreed with above. CThomas3 (talk) 04:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Support unless required by the WMF or a ArbCom case requires it 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 18:09, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. TharikRish 18:14, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Even the appearance of conflict of interest can be an issue. Since a substantial number of current arbitrators up for reelection are likely to be participating in any given election, ArbCom is not the appropriate body to choose those who will oversee the election process. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. WTT's case is a bridge to cross later. I have little doubt that if the commissioners need to see private data, they'll need to dot the Is and cross the Ts. --Izno (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I cannot see a reason why this would be necessary, given that the EC no longer has access to private data. The current rule seems like unnecessary bureaucracy. If ArbCom has concerning information about someone running for this sort of position, they should feel free to post it in whatever redacted form is appropriate. I think that's pretty unlikely though. Tamwin (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1b by xaosflux (Commission confirmation) edit

Require the Arbitration Committee to confirm members of the election commission.

Rationale

This is the status-quo.

Users who endorse statement #1b: edit

  1. I believe this is a requirement that should remain in place. For my understanding, historically the Electoral Commission was able to see checkuser level data on voters. Whilst I believe things have been altered so the data should not be accessed by the commission, I am wary that there is a slight possibility that something could change. Since I believe the Electoral Commission should include members who are trusted by the community, and the Arbitration Committee is aware of certain private information regarding community members, I believe this check should remain, though only used in exceptional circumstances. WormTT(talk) 14:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Worm That Turned: if ArbCom wants to ban someone from doing something, that is already within their remit, I'd expect that if the community wanted someone to be an election commissioner and ArbCom wanted to ban them from participating in that area of the project ArbCom would need to have a good explanation. — xaosflux Talk 13:59, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. per above. PaleAqua (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

STATEMENT 3 PASSED
Self-nomination as an Election Commissioner must be done during a pre-RfC drafting process running for one week before the scheduled Election Commission selection RfC. After the self-nomination deadline, the ability to be listed as an EC candidate in the draft RfC will be closed (following the same cutoff-time procedures as applicable to declaring ArbCom candidacy in the upcoming election). After the draft RfC has finalized as to the included Commission candidates, it will then be opened as an RfC. Editors may express their endorsement of a listed Commission candidate at any time during the open period of the RfC to select the Election Commissioners, but may not do so during the drafting phase.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #2a by xaosflux (endorsement period) edit

During the RfC to select the Election Commissioners, editors may express their endorsement of a commissioner at any time.

Rationale

This is the status-quo. — xaosflux Talk 03:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #2a: edit

  1. ~~~~

Statement #2b by xaosflux (endorsement period) edit

During the RfC to select the Election Commissioners, endorsement of a commissioner will not be accepted until the second week of the RfC.

Rationale

Last year it was brought up that commissioner candidates that self-nominated later in the process may be at a disadvantage in collecting endorsements. (Note: in general, commissioners are appointed based on "most endorsed" not as a support:oppose ratio). — xaosflux Talk 03:15, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #2b: edit

  1. Per nomination statement. Thryduulf (talk) 11:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Makes sense to divide the nomination and election processes. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This is a real problem, you basically have to be towards the front of the nomination to get the most votes. --Rschen7754 06:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If there is time in the schedule to allow. I assume there is or it can be made to be so. --Izno (talk) 03:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TharikRish 18:16, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. As a second choice to recommendation 3 - balancing it is beneficial Nosebagbear (talk) 08:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice to 3. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per nomination statement. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Mostly in that if this comes to a week in this statement or a month in the next, I think a month is way to long and may jeopardize the timeline for the election. — xaosflux Talk 17:23, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #3 by SMcCandlish (endorsement period) edit

Self-nomination as an Election Commissioner must be done during a pre-RfC drafting process running for one month before the scheduled Election Commission selection RfC. After the self-nomination deadline, the ability to be listed as an EC candidate in the draft RfC will be closed (following the same cutoff-time procedures as applicable to declaring ArbCom candidacy in the upcoming election). After the draft RfC has finalized as to the included Commission candidates, it will then be opened as an RfC. Editors may express their endorsement of a listed Commission candidate at any time during the open period of the RfC to select the Election Commissioners, but may not do so during the drafting phase.

Rationale

The reasons for #2b, above, make sense, but it would be very confusing to the community to have an open RfC to which they could not respond (other than by trying to become a candidate), and would grossly suppress actual voting/endorsement when that later became permissible. It should thus instead just be a two-part process, with only the voting/endorsement phase being an RfC. In short, do not use two sharply conflicting election procedures for EC and ArbCom, but apply the same principles. PS: The "one month" specifics should be interpreted as a default suggestion; a later discussion could determine a more appropriate time span, as needed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #3: edit

  1. Prefer 1 week nom period over the suggested month but generally agree with the statement and rationale — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    10 days is good too per Ivanvector, but oppose anything longer. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree with the week nomination period as well. CThomas3 (talk) 04:11, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think as first choice w.r.t. to 2b. --Izno (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Good idea. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. 1 week would be a way more logical timespan (there's nothing extra that 1 month really gives us, positively), but first choice to 2b Nosebagbear (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. First choice to 2b. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:28, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. First choice to 2b (with agreement that a month may be a little excessive). Regardless of the lead-in period, though, the starting time should be the same for every runner in the race. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. One month seems unnecessarily long; a week or so should be fine. However, I agree with not making things unnecessarily confusing. Tamwin (talk) 23:28, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Probably the most sensible way to approach this. I suggest 10 days rather than one week to allow some overlap (i.e. two weekends plus a week). A month is much too long: election commissioner is a pretty low drama position, necessary but rarely seriously contested. Last year as I recall the RfC was open for much less than the allotted time before the candidates basically came to a consensus amongst ourselves about who would hold the position, and the RfC was kind of moot. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:38, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. with a strong preference for a week, or other period shorter than a month. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questions to candidates edit

STATEMENT 1B PASSED
Impose a limit to the number of questions any editor may ask of a single candidate. This limit excludes resonable follow-up questions. In the case of dispute about what is a reasonable follow-up question the Election Commissioner's decision is final.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 03:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #1a by Thryduulf (questions to candidates) edit

Impose a limit to the number of questions any editor may ask of a single candidate. This limit includes follow-up questions.

Rationale

Some candidates get asked a bewildering number of questions, some duplicating others. If supporting this statement, please state what you think the limit should be (a specific number or a range). This statement is mutually exclusive with statement #1b so only the one with greatest support can pass (but both may fail). Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #1a edit

  1. First choice. Spamming questions is easy, answering them is extremely time-consuming. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1b by Thryduulf (questions to candidates) edit

Impose a limit to the number of questions any editor may ask of a single candidate. This limit excludes resonable follow-up questions. In the case of dispute about what is a reasonable follow-up question the Election Commissioner's decision is final.

Rationale

Some candidates get asked a bewildering number of questions, some duplicating others. If supporting this statement, please state what you think the limit should be (a specific number or a range). This statement is mutually exclusive with statement #1a so only the one with greatest support can pass (but both may fail). Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #1b edit

  1. Generally think this is a good idea. While the contrary views is #2 below are not unreasonable, I think that they fail to take account of the fact that (perhaps uncommonly) some editors can make real pests of themselves when they have a bee in their bonnet, and more importantly that these pages exist for all of us to read, not really for a single editor to get "satisifaction" from a single candidate. Having to plow through piles of increasingly pointed Q&A, which often wanders into argument and posturing, not actual question-asking (much less pertinent question-asking) is a drain on a large number of other editors' time. Number: Just tie it to the number permitted at WP:RFA, since it works for that similar selection process and has been refined over many years (including with rule verbiage that address attempts to WP:GAME around the limits).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Exactly per SMcCandlish. Thryduulf (talk) 11:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Agree with SMcCandlish regarding rationale and procedure (copy limits imposed at RFA). While it is true that the questions are optional, it is also true that the refusal to answer unhelpful questions may nevertheless be held against the candidate by some voters. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Calidum 16:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I agree that a user should not be allowed to ask too many question. Follow-up questions excluded, logically. The number should be 3, since any more than that is probably more an indication of issues of the one asking them than of the candidate. Debresser (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Copy RFA. PJvanMill)talk( 20:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Endorse, excessively repetitive questions are not helpful, and usually degrade into thinly-veiled arguments. ST47 (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Excessive questioning is irritating, both for candidates and voters wanting to read candidates' answers without needing to trawl through walls of text. RfA's limit works well. – Teratix ₵ 06:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. RFA's number seems reasonable, but under this, what is considered a reasonable follow-up and who decides? Commissioners? --Izno (talk) 03:18, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Izno: The statement covers that: "In the case of dispute about what is a reasonable follow-up question the Election Commissioner's decision is final." Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh hey I'm blind. --Izno (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. TharikRish 18:20, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Second choice to 1a. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I'd go with 3-5. WP:RFA's limit isn't unreasonable, but given that ArbCom is higher stakes and involves more complex policy determinations, I think a higher number would be better. Tamwin (talk) 23:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Edit: Now second choice to #2. Tamwin (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. P-K3 (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Seems fair. It isn't reasonable to expect that candidates will answer vast numbers of questions. Although it isn't compulsory to answer questions I think there is at least some expectation that the candidate should try to. Hut 8.5 17:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 19:53, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. This seems a reasonable, middle-of-the-road solution to the problem, and more stringent measures can be adopted later, if needed. — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 20:30, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2 by xaosflux (questions to candidates) edit

Do not limit the number of questions any editor may ask of a single candidate.

Rationale

This is the status-quo, candidates are not obligated to answer editor questions. — xaosflux Talk 13:46, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #2 edit

  1. If you can't handle the question answering then ArbCom is going to overwhelm you. Also, the questions are ultimately optional. --Rschen7754 04:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To add: guides like User:Rschen7754/ACE2014 and User:Lar/ACE2010, which asked similar questions to fairly evaluate candidates, could never have existed if there were question limits. --Rschen7754 00:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is perfectly reasonable not to answer a question, though it is wise to present a simple, even boilerplate, rationale for not doing so. In part it is the answers to questions that are imortant, but a further part is how the candidates handles the pressure of the election/selection process. That indicates how they might perform on the committee if selected. Fiddle Faddle 16:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per above. I can't really condone or endorse any change that limits the rights of voters, of whom questioners are a part. And, in the end, one is not obligated to answer the questions they are asked. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Pretty much per Rschen7754. Candidates are free to ignore or decline questions but we shouldn't prevent them being asked. Nor should candidates be treated as such delicate flowers that asking them multiple questions will be overly debilitating. Arbcom is (or should be) about responding to many different people with many different opinions and queries. It's part of the job. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. As above, if you cannot handle a barrage of questions (not all of which will be asked in the best of good faith), you are not well suited for ArbCom. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per above, and limiting community speech in this manner on a matter of site-wide concern is a bad idea. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I don't see a need for this. Voters should be allowed to ask as many questions as they want, and the candidates should feel free to decide which ones to answer. – bradv🍁 23:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Basically per bradv above. CThomas3 (talk) 14:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per above. Enterprisey (talk!) 08:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Tamwin (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per Bradv. Have any candidates taken issue with the number of questions asked by an individual editor? If not I'd rather not add this as a rule. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. With the caveat that candidates should be free to not answer questions if they don't want to. Banedon (talk) 23:13, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

STATEMENT 3A PASSED
Content explicitly permitted on questions to candidates page is:
  • Questions to the individual candidate
  • Responses to questions by that candidate (including answers, requests for clarification, etc)
  • Reasonable follow-up questions
  • Responses to requests for clarification
  • Short responses to answers by the person asking the question (e.g. thanks)

Content explicitly prohibited from questions to candidate pages is:

  • Statements of policy, philosophy, opinions or other general comments
  • Analysis of candidates, questions or answers
  • Endorsements or disendorsments of candidates
  • Reference to other candidates, except as necessary context for a question, answer or clarification request.
  • Personal attacks or aspersions
  • Adverts for voter guides or similar pages.
In the case of dispute about whether something is or is not permitted, the Election Commissioners' decision is final.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 03:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #3a by Thryduulf (questions to candidates) edit

Content explicitly permitted on questions to candidates page is:

  • Questions to the individual candidate
  • Responses to questions by that candidate (including answers, requests for clarification, etc)
  • Reasonable follow-up questions
  • Responses to requests for clarification
  • Short responses to answers by the person asking the question (e.g. thanks)

Content explicitly prohibited from questions to candidate pages is:

  • Statements of policy, philosophy, opinions or other general comments
  • Analysis of candidates, questions or answers
  • Endorsements or disendorsments of candidates
  • Reference to other candidates, except as necessary context for a question, answer or clarification request.
  • Personal attacks or aspersions
  • Adverts for voter guides or similar pages.

In the case of dispute about whether something is or is not permitted, the Election Commissioners' decision is final.

Rationale

There was dispute last year over what was acceptable to post on a candidates' question pages. This proposal limits it to just questions, answers and things needed to support them. There are other appropriate venues (e.g. candidate discussion pages and election guides) for everything else. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #3a edit

  1. Generally support this idea, but it may need revision. E.g., people are apt to make "statements" of policy, etc., in the course of asking a question. So, this should more clearly pertain to just making such a statement without it being part of/pertinent to a [permissble] question. Probably some other stuff like that, but I do have confidence this can be copyedited between this first draft and actual rule language that is imposed, so I'll support it now, because the amount of grandstanding and off-topic blather and civility violations on Q&A pages has long been a problem and needs to be curtailed.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse subject to any copyediting as noted by SMcCandlish. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Generally endorse like above editors. The candidate questions pages are for exactly that, questions for the candidate. They should include only what's part of a question-and-answer conversation. PJvanMill)talk( 17:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Yes, question pages are for questions and answers. ST47 (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes. I have chaired Candidates' Debates for election to public office. Given half a chance some people will use it as an opportunity to make a blatant campaign speech. Unfortunately you cannot stop covert 'campaigning hidden in a question' but you don't have to make it easy. OrewaTel (talk) 01:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Agree. Unfortunately, it has been my experience that some editors (a small minority) need clearly defined limits/norms set. Hopefully, this is just more of a reminder to be civil. --Ian Korman (talk) 09:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I am not really a fan of some of the questions I've seen. Bees in bonnets, as earlier. That said, basic grasp of argument and fallacies no doubt goes some way... Which I suppose most experienced users will have demonstrated elsewhere on wiki. --Izno (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes, and should be stricter. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per CMcC and IanK. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per Stifle. DGG ( talk ) 22:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Absoulutely. P-K3 (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. It's a question page. Non-question things shouldn't be there. Banedon (talk) 23:14, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Makes sense to prevent non-question content on question pages. Although the candidate is definitely allowed to post "Statements of policy, philosophy, opinions or other general comments" in response to questions. Hut 8.5 17:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #3b by Thryduulf (questions to candidates) edit

There should be no specific rules about what is and is not acceptable on questions to candidates pages

Rationale

This is the status quo. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #3b edit

  1. This is micromanaging. If there are problems with the questions being asked, take that up with the questioner, don't make rules for everybody to stop the actions of a few. Lev!vich 00:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Endorse in spirit. Obviously WP:NPA and similar policies still apply, but in general we shouldn't be placing a ton of restrictions on question content. In general I think we should follow Justice Stewart when it comes to inappropriate questions. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Notwithstanding pre-existing prohibitions of NPA etc, I don't feel these restrictions provide gains in excess of their flaws. Candidates should be prepared for a broad series of questions, some of which will require premises. I also don't want a barrage of "litigation" over edge cases. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. As with #2, third-party management of voter/candidate interactions is not required. – bradv🍁 23:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. With the caveat that sitewide policies (NPA, casting aspersions, etc.), still apply to such pages, as they do to every page on the project. Above and beyond those, though, there should not be any special rules. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'm not sure we need to codify specific rules on candidate page content. Inappropriate content can be challenged with the usual process. CThomas3 (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I think the contrary position above is overreaching. Content on question pages isn't exempt from behavioral policies; I think that is sufficient. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:37, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

STATEMENT 4.3 PASSED
If inappropriate questions, questions in excess of any limit set by statements 1a or 1b, any content prohibited by statement 3a and/or other disputed content is added to the questions to candidates page it may be removed by Election Commissioners, and nobody else.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 03:11, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #4 by Thryduulf (questions to candidates) edit

If inappropriate questions, questions in excess of any limit set by statements 1a or 1b, any content prohibited by statement 3a and/or other disputed content is added to the questions to candidates page it may be removed by Election Commissioners, and:

  1. The candidate
  2. Uninvolved editors
  3. Nobody else (i.e. Election Commissioners only)

Rationale

This was again disputed last year. Options 1 and 2 are mutually exclusive with option 3 but not with each other. This statement is not dependent on statements 1, 2 and/or 3 passing as some questions may be inappropriate regardless. Thryduulf (talk) 10:55, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #4.1 edit

  1. Never try to knock a hole in WP:EDITING policy without a crucial reason.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. But they should generally not act for content that is debatable - point it to an election commissioner or wait for someone uninvolved to take action. Thryduulf (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. May? Yes. Should? Probably not. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Actually a plus - it gives us a chance to check the judgement of our candidates. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #4.2 edit

  1. Never try to knock a hole in WP:EDITING policy without a crucial reason. And we already have a community norm that way-off-topic or grossly policy-violating posts can be removed by anyone (or moved to the talk page – we do that a lot at WP:RFA, and that might make a good proposal variant for this and some similar proposals on this page).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:27, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No reason to prevent someone uninvolved removing clear violations if they see them first. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Scott and meatball:DefendEachOther — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. If they're blatant, let anyone remove them. I feel confident no-one will succeed in doing it without anyone noticing. Disputed cases can be, well, disputed. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TharikRish 18:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I think the candidate should probably leave it to somebody else. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. The commissioners are human; allowing additional oversight from uninvolved users cannot be a bad thing when many hours may pass before something is brought to a commissioner's attention. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:39, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #4.3 edit

  1. Commissioners need something to do, and are more objective than random users (who may be familiar with the candidate) or the candidate themselves. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:38, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. The election commissioners are the best choice here, if the content is at all contentious. Candidates or voters should not "clerk" the election pages, leave it to the commissioners. This does not preclude reverting vandalism or removing content that requires revdel or oversight in the usual ways. ST47 (talk) 21:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I have concerns about anyone having the ability to remove any post at all from an election session. But I know from bitter experience that unless someone has that power then Trolls and Children can disrupt an election. Further, covert friends of a candidate can spam an election. Restricting the power to remove posts to Commissioners makes a lot of sense. I would also like to see the removed posts moved to a garbage page rather than being deleted. OrewaTel (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with what OrewaTel stated above. --Ian Korman (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I generally support the removal of commentary by anyone when that is policy violating (so to some extent, I support 4.1/2). The only concern I have is in excesses of questions being attached to this clause, which is why I am supporting 4.3 also. Should all questions be removed? Or only some of the questions? Seems like a silly thing for editors excepting the commissioners to get in a tizzy over but I assume.... --Izno (talk) 03:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Other options leave the door open for candidates (or close supporters, posing as "uninvolved") to avoid scrutiny by simply deleting questions they don't like. The Commissioners can be trusted to deal with overt disruption on question pages, as they have in previous elections. - Euryalus (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Euryalus. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:47, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. In cases of dispute, the preservation or removal of comments should be at the discretion of only the commissioners, to preserve the neutrality of the election. Blatantly inappropriate material (personal attacks, vandalism, etc) can already be removed by anyone by policy and there's no need to make an exception to that here. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Letting everyone police this seems like it would make things more messy and chaotic. However, vandalism, personal attacks, private information, and other extreme cases that can always be deleted on sight should still be removable by anyone. Tamwin (talk) 08:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. P-K3 (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Banedon (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on statement #4 by Thryduulf (questions to candidates) edit

In the original 2012 request for comments, the mandate of the commission was defined as to deal with unforeseen problems, adjudicate disputes, and as Jimbo continues to shift his role, to ceremonially announce the final results. I think the community needs to consider carefully if it wants to expand the role of the commission from handling exceptional situations to also include monitoring and moderating discussion. Personally I think commissioners should remain above the day-to-day operations as much as possible in order to preserve their neutrality when ruling on out-of-the-ordinary situations. isaacl (talk) 22:45, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To put it another way, the origin of the commission was to deal with situations where time constraints made it impractical to engage in a community discussion to reach a decision. Empowering it to make certain decisions on behalf of the community will expand its scope into directly managing the electoral process, as opposed to remaining in reserve to deal with unexpected circumstances. If the community consensus supports this, so be it, but we should make this decision consciously. isaacl (talk) 00:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The way this question is phrased is problematic: administrators should be allowed to remove and revdel anything that violates sitewide policies (as unfortunately question pages are a target of trolls/LTAs). --Rschen7754 00:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We'd only revdel things that were particularly dramatic breaches - REVDEL policy doesn't allow us to get rid of anything that wouldn't be suitable for an ARBCOm question. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Order of candidate listing edit

STATEMENT 1C PASSED
Candidates should be listed randomly on the candidates page (and any other WP-space pages), using coding magic that randomly reshuffles them each time the page is refreshed – once. It should then be saved to a cookie (when permitted by the browser) or otherwise state-saved to the extent possible and not randomized again for the same user (unless they do something that incidentally defeats this, like switching to another browser, etc.).—CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #1a by Floq (candidate order) edit

Candidates should be listed on the candidates page (and any other WP-space pages) in a static order that doesn't change upon reloading the page (alphabetical order, chronological order, or something else decided in Statement #2a-c below) rather than using coding magic that randomly reshuffles them each time.

Rationale

The current way the candidates change each time the page is refreshed is disorienting, making it more difficult to match voting guide to candidate list; harder to write a little cheatsheet for oneself on who to vote for; harder to go back to follow discussions you've previously read; and harder to debug the pages when something goes wrong. The benefit to the random order, as I understand it, is the bias of voting for the first person listed, but I find it very hard to believe that occurs here, where each candidate gets a yes/no/neutral vote, and there is no limit to the number of each type of vote. I don't think the theoretical (and, IMHO, questionable) benefit outweighs the cost. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:54, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #1a by Floq (candidate order) edit

  1. This is my 2nd-choice preference among the competing options here. Notwithstanding Nosebagbear's comments below, I have to mostly agree with Floq on this. It's not really plausible to me that, given the long amount of time to pore over candidates and shuffle one's votes around, that editors are really going to vote for the first few candidates they see and dismiss everyone else. This just isn't the right kind of scenario for that sort of bias to arise, though it is a real bias in many other (short-term and decide-once) scenarios.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:53, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Agree. List order shuffling is disorientating. First guess recommendation is in order of account registration. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think I land here given the commentary I see in #2c. --Izno (talk) 03:49, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Listing order should be by announcement. If you want the top spot, then you gotta announce early. If you don't, then announce later. It's as simple as that. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:28, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TharikRish 18:27, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose statement #1a by Floq (candidate order) edit

  1. All of the benefits of not randomising the order, given by Floq, are absolutely correct. However. People read top-down, and I feel are more likely to pay attention to statements and Q&As of candidates. If they're bad candidates, that might be a negative for them, but would generally be a disadvantage for good candidates lower down the alphabet. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Exactly per Nosebagbear. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Nosebagbear. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I agree with Nosebagbear. The magic coding gives all candidates a chance at being 'first' and being 'last', and somewhere in between. Fiddle Faddle 16:16, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Nosebagbear SQLQuery me! 21:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree per Nosebagbear. Z1720 (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. per Nosebagbear.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. also per Nosebagbear. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. As above. I agree it's potentially confusing, but I'd rather not open the system to accusations of bias. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:15, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1b by Floq (candidate order) edit

Candidates should be listed randomly on the candidates page (and any other WP-space pages), using coding magic that randomly reshuffles them each time the page is refreshed.

Rationale

This is the status quo.

Users who endorse statement #1b by Floq (candidate order) edit

  1. KTC (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second preference to 1c. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm pretty much 50/50 over 1b and 1c. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. 2nd preference after 1c. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. For the reasons explained above by those who oppose a fixed order. Debresser (talk) 19:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Statement 1c is a much greater technical challenge than the comments endorsing it suggest, because of the way the parser works: it has no access to the username or cookies of the viewer, so any viewer-dependent ordering would have to be done in JavaScript on top of HTML rendered in some user-independent order. I therefore believe it is complexity creep not warranted by its benefit, and oppose 1a for the reasons expressed above. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:09, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. 2nd choice. – Majavah talk · edits 05:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I'm pretty invested in Wikipedia and my eyes glaze over when I get to person 4 on the list. Highly motivated editors participating in this meta-discussion have a different provenance to that of the average voter, to whom randomised order makes a substantial difference as they may only have enough free time, interest or energy to properly investigate a few candidates (and can vote neutrally on the rest). "Random on a per-person basis" is the optimal outcome but per pppery, not the optimal pragmatic method to implement. — Bilorv (talk) 10:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Studies have shown that the order of presentation of candidates on a ballot influences voter response, particularly if there are a large number of candidates. Candidates at the top of the list receive more consideration than those at the bottom of the list. I think randomizing the order of candidates helps balance out this unconscious bias. Liz Read! Talk! 22:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I personally don't see a problem with the status quo. CThomas3 (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. 1c would be ideal if feasible but it sounds like it would be inordinately difficult per Pppery. Order randomization is unfortunately necessary for a fair election. Even being able to manually sort the list at will would bias the outcome. signed, Rosguill talk 19:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I don't see any issue that this proposal is supposedly addressing. In any case, most people probably recognize the issue of bias, it's quite observable in concepts like above-the-fold and studies which show most users don't scroll, or scroll as less as possible. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per QEDK. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. This makes the most sense, especially if we make the table sortable. The order really doesn't matter as long as it doesn't give undue weight to any candidate. SportingFlyer T·C 17:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. First choice over 1c. PaleAqua (talk) 00:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Second choice to 1c. Having candidates randomly listed seems better, as biases around how voters may only consider the candidates at the top of the page mean that if the order is static some candidates may get more votes than others. Having a random order will ensure that all voters are equally seen (as equally as pseudo-randomness can give you). This is second choice to 1c, and this is my vote if 1c cannot be implemented. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I don't mind 1c, but it is vaporware right now. I think we should revisit this for future elections, in the interim the proponents of 1c can get the technical capability developed so that it would be a viable option. — xaosflux Talk 13:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Second preference to 1c. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:16, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1c by SMcCandlish (candidate order) edit

Candidates should be listed randomly on the candidates page (and any other WP-space pages), using coding magic that randomly reshuffles them each time the page is refreshed – once. It should then be saved to a cookie (when permitted by the browser) or otherwise state-saved to the extent possible and not randomized again for the same user (unless they do something that incidentally defeats this, like switching to another browser, etc.).

Rationale

This is one possible compromise between 1a and 1b. It would not be perfect for everyone all the time, and there are multiple ways to approach implementing it (one might be an auto-set Preferences option, and it could maybe also be done with some other "coding magic", depending on exactly how JavaScript works under the hood on this site; some potential variants of this idea might require aid from the WMF developers, by creating a new MediaWiki plugin, and so might be something for 2021). Note: Option 1c is not mutually exclusive with 1d.

Users who endorse statement #1c by SMcCandlish (candidate order) edit

  1. This is my first preference among 1a, 1b, and 1c.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Also okay with this. -- KTC (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First preference over 1b. Thryduulf (talk) 12:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm pretty much 50/50 over 1b and 1c. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. First preference - If we can actually do this, this would be fine with me. (Leijurv's implementation, cookies won't work consistently) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Generally endorse, but object to or otherwise state-saved to the extent possible, as a cookie should suffice; also needs some copyediting. This proposal prevents the first-listed bias of a static order, without the disorienting effects of a change upon reload. PJvanMill)talk( 18:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. A cookie is not necessary - this could be done by sorting the candidates according to hash(viewerUsername + candidateUsername) from lowest resulting hash to highest. Order would be preserved if new candidates are added, the order would not change between reloads, the order would be random per-viewer, no cookie is needed, and the order would not change across different platforms (desktop browser, mobile, different computers, etc) for the same viewer. Leijurv (talk) 19:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Good compromise. Technical implementation per Leijurv SQLQuery me! 21:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support Leijurv's solution if it can be implemented, any random ordering otherwise. ST47 (talk) 21:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. In elections to public office there is a well known bias to early candidates. (This is known as the 'Aaron Aardvark' vote. There is also a smaller 'Zachary Zyggurat' vote.) Re-ordering on every reload is not good. Leijurv's idea is very easy to implement. OrewaTel (talk) 02:00, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support Leijurv's solution if it can be implemented, any random ordering otherwise. – Majavah talk · edits 05:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Support, first choice. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. First choice pending technical ability to implement. Otherwise status quo. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. First choice assuming that this is easily accomplished, otherwise 1b. signed, Rosguill talk 19:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Provided that this is reasonably possible to implement, this would be the best solution. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Second choice to 1b. If this is done it it should be done in a way to minimize introducing bias to the random order. PaleAqua (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. This sounds like a good compromise. I'm not too worried about implementation, as I'm sure we can sort something out, but Leijurv's proposal sounds great to me. Tamwin (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Preferred to 1b, presuming it can be implemented in time. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. First choice (second choice is 1b). Having random order is important, especially with the issues around biases, but also ensuring that the voter is not confused by the changing random order seems like a good idea. Having a randomly sorted list with a cookie to keep it consistent thereafter seems best to me. If it can't be implemented, 1b is my vote. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 14:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. First choice. Changing between refreshing may be confusing and serves no purpose.VR talk 21:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. A good way of dealign with this . DGG ( talk ) 22:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. First preference, assuming the coding magic works. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 19:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about statement #1c by SMcCandlish (candidate order) edit

I'm leery of supporting something that doesn't actually exist and it is unclear how to implement this RfC should this be the "winning" option? @Leijurv: as a pseduo-random idea above, Leijurv do you have a working mock-up of this somewhere? — xaosflux Talk 19:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very much an armchair coder in this regard - I have no idea how to make this work in MediaWiki. Sorry! Leijurv (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So a note to the RfC closer - as this is gaining some support - the closure should be clear about what to actually do if this is requested, but not able to be fulfilled technically (another choice, the status quo, etc?). Keep in mind, it may not even be able to be delivered in the next year, just as if the support was being given to "a magic sorting hat will control the sorting" - may need to be on hold until someone invents magic.... — xaosflux Talk 19:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And that may also apply to 1d, below.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this proposal can be implemented with JavaScript, but not with just templates and Lua. Readers will thus see the proposals change order once after the page loads. People might find this a little annoying, although it'll happen at gadget-speed, not user script-speed. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Were this to be implemented by the community, it would need to do so with JavaScript. For as short a payload as it sounds like it would be, I do not think we should decrease the responsiveness of the site for this election. Were this done in PHP, it might be reasonable but it would be fit for purpose on only one wiki page as well as SecurePoll. I am not particularly a fan of that either (particularly the PHP for wiki page special). Creative suggestions, just not a fan of any possibly technical implementation (and we all know there are better things to work on, both from a volunteer and from a dev perspective). --Izno (talk) 03:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When should the lock-in occur? Candidates have a window where they can continue to become candidates, their listing is currently randomized. If the magic sorting hat is going to be deployed to remember a readers past presentation - at what point should that start happening? For example, if there are 4 candidates on-wiki randomized and remembered - but than a 5th candidate enters - does the magic forget? Or does the implementation of the magic need to wait until after the candidate enrollment period is over? — xaosflux Talk 13:49, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, good question. I'd say the closest to matching the intent of this would be to add new candidates in a random order while keeping the rest the same. e.g. if four candidates were listed B, D, A, C then candidate E could be placed in any position but the others would remain in that order, so you might get B, E, D, A, C then B, E, D, A, F, C then G, B, E, D, A, F, C etc. However I expect that to be very difficult to code (if possible). If so I'd suggest the numbering should be persistent from the start but reset whenever a new candidate is added - i.e. for the entire time there are exactly 4 candidates the ordering would be B, D, A, C but when you get a fifth candidate it is reset, with this new order persisting until a 6th candidate self-nominates. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: The method that I was suggesting above (with the hash) would insert new candidates wherever the ordering determines. The idea is to create a function that scrambles the viewer's username with each candidate's username, one by one, then sorting according to the resulting garbage (which would not be shown, to be clear). If a new candidate were added, their listing could conceivably end up being inserted anywhere in the list, but it wouldn't change any previous candidates locations relative to each other. Leijurv (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a demo of my idea: User:Leijurv/Randomize_List I implemented it as a userscript in JS, here: User:Leijurv/randomizeList.js. Leijurv (talk) 22:46, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Leijurv: relative to each other - of course it could impact "adjacent" ordering -- and wasn't the problem this is supposed to solve that once you looked at it the order would stay the same - so my note card could have "S, S, O, O, O, S" on it that I could use later or something -- that is spoiled by randomly inserting new names in to the list of course -- also I have very little hope that your text-based hashing sort (or actually ANY other new sorts) will be implemented in securepoll, so the order there will still vary and not be a match to the onwiki list. — xaosflux Talk 23:54, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux: I think it is a logical contradiction to wish for the ability to add new candidates without disrupting the order of existing candidates. The new ones could only ever be added to the very end, which would be nonrandom. I think the S/O would become apparent once you don't have the correct number. If the status quo is random on load, isn't this a strictly better option since it at least tries to be consistent for you? I wrote it like this per what Enterprisey and Izno said above about JavaScript being the way, but if you think this can't happen at all then ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Leijurv (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1d by SMcCandlish (candidate order) edit

Candidates should be listed (in whatever order is determined by other proposals here) in a sortable table, so that all of the proposed sorting methods listed in this discussion can be applied at-will by the user.

Rationale

This is another possible compromise between 1a and 1b. It also would not be perfect for everyone all the time (e.g., some user agents won't do table sorting, and the order would still change after a page reload until you re-sorted, unless #1c is also implemented, or something like it, e.g. to more specifically save the state of your sorting choice). This option would make it possible to see at a glance who you're supporting, or who declared candidacy very late in the game, or everyone in alpha order, or whatever you want at the moment. Note: Option 1d is not mutually exclusive with 1a, 1b, or 1c. Note 2: This option is meant to apply to both the candidate list on-wiki and the candidate list on the voting server. Both should be sortable by the same criteria.

Users who endorse statement #1d by SMcCandlish (candidate order) edit

  1. I would like this to be implemented regardless of all other options above.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:49, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This should be implemented where technically possible even if that is not everywhere. Thryduulf (talk) 12:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yes, it seems like a useful addition. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A table would be nice, yes. I like being able to sort candidates and all. It offers useful information at a glance, too. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seems like a good idea. I think account age should be the default sort. What are the other sorts? Alphabetical is obvious. What else? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. The more options for voters to organise the candidates, the better. Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice should implementation of 1c prove technically unfeasible. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:48, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I like this idea, especially if the default sort is random on page load. SportingFlyer T·C 17:09, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose statement #1d by SMcCandlish (candidate order) edit

  1. Allowing sorting allows the order bias to be reintroduced. I worry that a sortable table would raise that possibility that a large number of users researchable would alphabetical sort the table as a first step and reintroduce the bias. PaleAqua (talk) 01:08, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. At the moment there's two sorting methods floating around, and I strongly suspect the alphabetical one is what most would gravitate towards, thereby reintroducing the bias problem. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about statement #1d by SMcCandlish (candidate order) edit

@SMcCandlish: can you clarify this a bit as to where you would want this "sortable table" to exist? For reference, this is the "candidate page" from last year, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates - is this what you want sortable? Moving to a table would likely mean no longer having a table of contents (if you have an actual mock up of what you would want this to look like that may be helpful for illustration purposes). The current "official guide" (this: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Candidates/Guide already is a sortable table). — xaosflux Talk 19:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you are also referring to changes in the listing on SecurePoll please note the only current technical options are: (1) list everything in order, (2) "Shuffle questions on the voting page", (3) Shuffle options on the voting page. Are you looking to invent something new before the election? — xaosflux Talk 19:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be very difficult to produce a custom ToC that works within a page-wide table, so yes, I think it can be done at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates. It would even be possible to use <h2>...</h2> markup within table headings, which should probably result in an auto-generated ToC anyway, though if not it's a simple thing to make a custom ToC template and use id anchors. As for SecurePoll, yes, the idea is to improve the sortability there. If that's not possible this year, it should be doable next year and should be set as an actual goal. On-wiki, there are probably other places we will be providing simpler lists of candidates than at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates – without all that verbiage. If they can be consistent-ized, they could be put into a table-based template, including with add-on parameters. E.g., transclude it into Signpost, or you could make a custom list that included additional data, or one that excluded some kinds of data (even all of it but the usernames), or whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm concerned with this because I fear it is an indirect route to 1a. Most people will probably want to go to alphabetical, because it's cleaner/simpler. The pros for that are conceded by pretty much everyone. Making it very likely that it rapidly shifts to alphabetical brings the same negatives as a direct move to it. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Well, that's nothing to do with my interests in the matter. I would mostly want, early on, to sort by when the candidate declared (for reasons already explained above), but later in the process probably by current support ratio (because in our current system one can strategically vote to influence those trends; see below for proposals to make that no longer possible, but while it remains possible one has an incentive to do it). I don't personally see any utility in an alpha-order listing. Even for a convenience overview, without any analysis I need to do (aided by sorting by candidacy date or support ratio), I would want to sort by my own votes, and have "my" candidates at the top, neutrals in the middle, and anyone I thought completely unsuitable at the bottom.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish: "it should be doable next year" - SecurePoll is very poorly supported, so while that isn't an unrealistic timeline for someone to do the changes, there are 0 resources dedicated to working on it - and asking for resources won't make them appear (c.f. every phabricator task open for more than 10 years). — xaosflux Talk 16:54, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree! Still, if the community wants this, then the ask has to be made; the ball has to start rolling at some point, even if it rolls slowly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:45, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

STATEMENTS REJECTED
A1 has failed.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:58, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #2a by Floq (candidate order) edit

If Statement #1a passes, then the preferred static ordering should be alphabetical order.

Rationale

I believe it's OK to agree with multiple Statements #2a, #2b, etc., as long as you clearly indicate a first and second choice.

Users who endorse statement #2a by Floq (candidate order) edit

  1. Second choice. It's "fair", but we'd lose something meaningful in the context. If 1d (sortability) passes, this quasi-objection would become moot.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:56, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2b by Floq (candidate order) edit

If Statement #1a passes, then the preferred static ordering should be chronological by order of transclusion of their statement.

Rationale

I believe it's OK to agree with multiple Statements #2a, #2b, etc., as long as you clearly indicate a first and second choice.

Users who endorse statement #2b by Floq (candidate order) edit

  1. My 1st choice among these. This sort order is actually meaningful, because it's been observed many times that candidates who squeak in just under the deadline effectively escape a lot of extended Q&A scrutiny and history research that earlier candidates are subjected to, so the earliest candidates are the most vetted.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  10:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per SMcCandlish. Second choice to #2c Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This should encourage users to announce earlier. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice to 2c, which is a good thought (but still ends up somewhat messy). That said, I wonder if this would have a positive or negative effect on turnout for each candidate. There would be less review for candidates toward the bottom of the list, but they also would have fewer voter eyes on them as well... --Izno (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. TharikRish 18:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Statement #2b on candidate order edit

Ordering by transclusion of statement would provide an incentive for a land rush of skeleton applications, which could be fleshed out later or withdrawn. This may or may not be an issue, but the potential effect on the quality of candidate statements is something to be borne in mind. isaacl (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2c by Floq (candidate order) edit

If Statement #1a passes, then the preferred static ordering should be something besides that described in #2a or #2b.

Rationale

I can't think of any, but just to be safe....

Users who endorse statement #2c by Floq (candidate order) edit

  1. The EC randomise (using software / 3rd party website etc.) once and that's the order that's used. -- KTC (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Random order per KTC is my first choice over 2b. Thryduulf (talk) 12:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If 1a passes, then yes, this - but with the order fixed only after the closing time for nominations, as the list will be incomplete for some of the time before then. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. randomised order per KTC. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 11:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. One time random order per above. PaleAqua (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #3a by Floq (candidate order) edit

If Statement #1a passes, the order of candidates on the voting page (i.e. the ballot) should be the same as the order of the candidates on the WP pages.

Rationale

Per the rationale described in #1a.

Users who endorse statement #3a by Floq (candidate order) edit

  1. Just for sanity's sake. This is also part of why 1d is meant to apply to both the the list on WP (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates; last year's full one is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates – convert it to a page-wide table with some basic data columns), and to the already slightly-sortable table on the voting server.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC); revised 05:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think here is where I land with the kind of "static" randomness as in 2c discussion. I am sympathetic to the discussion in 3b... --Izno (talk) 03:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Having the orders be the same if possible sounds good. The same goes for Leijurv's proposal for implementing 1c (again, if we can do that). Tamwin (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 11:16, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #3b by Floq (candidate order) edit

If Statement #1a passes, the order of candidates on the voting page (i.e. the ballot) should still be randomized.

Rationale

Breaking it out separately in case there's a good reason I can't think of to have the ballot be a different order than the candidate list.

Users who endorse statement #3b by Floq (candidate order) edit

  1. The arguments that apply for 1b (status quo) are even stronger for the actual voting, where instead of people "just" finding out more about alphabetically strong candidates, they are more likely to actually cast votes for them. Lots of research on effects of alphabetical ranking in elections. I can see if being possible for people to feel that with all the jumping in and out of the wp-side election pages, the negatives of random outweigh the positives. But I'd hope that some with that viewpoint might feel that the one-off negatives of finding everyone in the election are less significant. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, given that this is "if 1a passes". I prefer 1d (sortable tables with various columns of criteria to sort by), so the editor/voter controls the display.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. PaleAqua (talk) 01:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voting process edit

STATEMENT 2 PASSED
Voters will be able to select "Support", "Oppose", or "Neutral" for each candidate.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:10, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #1a by SMcCandlish (voting process) edit

Editors will vote for candidates they support; the ability to vote against candidates will be removed.

Rationale

The old "double voting" system favors manipulation by axe-grinding editors, and by system-gaming manipulators, effectively giving their votes more power than those of average, good-faith editors.

The system used in some previous elections, including the most recent ones, has permitted both forms of votes simultaneously, which has produced a lopsided and easily exploited result. (A "neutral" pseudo-vote can also be made, which has no practical effect and is basically a placeholder.) Editors who have no axe to grind will vote for candidates they support to fill the multiple open seats, and have little incentive to vote against the very possibility of success by another candidate (such as one with whom they are unfamiliar), unless they actively believe the candidate is incompetent, WP:NOTHERE, or would otherwise be completely unacceptable. This does not describe most editors' views about many candidates, and the uncommon occurrence of a joke or "just got here recently" candidacy is already guaranteed to fail at the election, since such a candidate will not attract votes in their favor. Most of the possible against votes are never cast, which give uncommon, unbalanced power to those that are.

However:

  • Editors who do have an axe to grind can misuse the voting process to vote against anyone they disagree with in a content matter, simply to get back at them and reduce the influence of this "enemy". Such a questionable-faith actor can canvass others of a similar mindset to their own in the content dispute with the candidate, via e-mail and other off-site means, to do the same. They can do all this without even casting a vote for any candidate or otherwise having any interest in the election other than vengefulness, PoV-pushing, and dispute perpetuation.
  • Worse (in being numerically more of a factor), editors who are crafty, statistics-experienced, and "get what I want at all costs" in mindset will realize that the for/against voting system is double voting and that they can spearhead a candidate or two they especially favor by down-voting all others, whether they believe they would be good Arbitrators or not.
  • These tactics can be combined, e.g. to withhold for votes from all sure-to-pass candidates the editor approves of (thereby slightly reducing the lead these candidates have), vote only for one wikifriend (a vote having more proportional weight from having been denied to others the voter would normally support), and vote against everyone else for no substantive reason. Or vote for one friend, vote against someone the editor disagrees with in a content dispute, and ignore all others.

Both of these effects – abuse as a vote-against PoV WP:WINNING system, and manipulation to get more voting power for particular results than normally-voting editors will have – grossly distort and reduce the quality of the election results.

The old system also effectively prohibits the success of a candidate who stands firm on policies and guidelines in controversial topics that attract a large number of heated but not very encyclopedic edits, because such candidates build up an "anti-party" of editors, on content-dispute not Arbitrator-suitability grounds, who are already misusing Wikipedia and its processes to advance their own biased viewpoint, and many of whom are experienced at colluding via e-mail and other channels. We have already had several results where someone was elected to ArbCom with fewer votes for them than another editor, who was denied a seat because of content-based campaigning against them.

Using the same "simply vote for those you support" system as virtually every other election process in the world will obviate all of these problems. Even the ArbCom Election Commission is selected on the basis of most-voted-for, not by a for vs. against ratio (despite against votes being possible). We have no reason to veer into an experimental voting system for the Arbitration Committee itself, especially after that experiment has proven to be a failure.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #1a by SMcCandlish: edit

  1. Now my second-choice preference in this section (I favor the #3 compromise, below).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It's better to follow real-world norms. -- Calidum 16:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Simple is better. Also, Oppose votes are negative and their elimination would improve the process on that basis. --Ian Korman (talk) 09:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. TharikRish 18:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. A sufficient way to vote against a candidate is to not vote for them. DGG ( talk ) 22:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose statement #1a: edit

  1. SMcCandlish makes the misguided assumption that one can only in good faith cast an oppose vote against a candidate one deems incompetent, WP:NOTHERE, or [...] otherwise [...] completely unacceptable. Sure, turning your neutral votes into opposes does give your preferred candidates an advantage - but that is assuming each voter divides the candidates into two groups, "I like" and "I don't like". In reality, a voter can like certain candidates, dislike certain candidates, and be indifferent to the others. The current system lets voters express three different levels of preference rather than two, which is good. PJvanMill)talk( 19:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's completely false. I said and implied no such thing, and even explicitly noted that people might honestly want to oppose because of competence or other concerns. But this good-faith behavior does nothing to obviate the extreme manipulability of this system by bad- and "grey"-faith actors. The cost outweights the benefit, and the desired legitimate result of being able to deny support to someone not suited for the office is already present in a normal voting system: you don't vote for them but for someone else.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish About my reading of your post: it did seem like you were saying that with Editors who have no axe to grind [...] have little incentive to vote against the very possibility of success by another candidate (such as one with whom they are unfamiliar), unless they actively believe the candidate is incompetent, WP:NOTHERE, or would otherwise be completely unacceptable, and I don't see what that was supposed to mean otherwise, but I'm glad we apparently agree that one can legitimately oppose a candidate for other reasons. As to the actual debate: unless your preference among the candidates is completely binary (which is usually not the case), not making use of all three the preference levels you have will, on average, get you worse representation. To vote oppose on people you don't oppose or to vote support on people you don't support is a losing strategy! (nevermind, we're not talking about the average) of course tactical voting is possible, but switching to only support still leaves it possible, and you reduce the levels of preference a voter can indicate from three to two, which is a negative. I really don't see what your concern is, here how your proposal could be an improvement. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 17:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've already said in another post just now that I won't keep going on at length, for BLUDGEON reasons. I don't think I can re-re-re-explain this in another variant set of wording without it being another huge block of text. The fact that the current system is this hard to analyze and keep people on the same page is evidence of how non-transparent it is (i.e., poor as a voting system).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. If an editor has "an ax to grind" with a candidate, then perhaps that is indeed an indication that the candidate is not worthy of that editor's vote, so I see absolutely no problem with the "Oppose" option. It is a must have. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So why is it absent from around 99.999% of real-world voting systems?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Your percentage is much too high but that aside, real-world voting systems are generally abysmal in terms of social choice theory. This can be due to bureaucratic failure, Plutocratic incentives to weight an election by social class (see America's gerrymandering), or simply pragmatic concerns due to the fact that state elections must be held in person and simple enough for all of the many people involved in counting ballots to follow with almost no error. — Bilorv (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A) none of those effects are present here, so the fact that they have negative effects on real-world elections is irrelevant and a red herring. B) You seem to be making the fallacious "X is not very good, so any alternative to it must be better" argument. The fact that world-world elections have problems [ones which don't relate to the question here: whether system 1 has less mathematical integrity than system 2] doesn't in any way suggest that the experiment we have been running in ArbCom elections is an improvement, and it demonstrably is not one. "Simple enough"? Just read through this section and its options and responses to them. If it takes multiple rounds of highly detailed explanation before some respondents here can understand the ways in which the current system is manipulable, then it is the exact opposite of simple. The very fact that only a particular "class" of voting editor would ever figure these things out and make use of them is our gerrymandering, our poll tax.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:48, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. This comes up every year, but despite the dire warnings of how bad the voting current system is, it seems to work fine year after year. I don't see any evidence that any of the theoretical problems suggested in this proposal are actually happening in practice, so no need to fix it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I support single transferable vote or another ranked voting system in which a voter can list as many or as few candidates as they wish in their chosen order. I do not support a "Support/Neutral" (essentially "Support/Oppose") vote. SMcCandlish finds it undesirable that somebody who does not cast all non-neutral votes is diminishing the power of their vote, which is reasonable, but I respectfully disagree. I think many people with less investment than those of us commenting here only have the interest to make fully formed opinions on a few candidates, and it is reasonable to expect that such voters have less power than those who spend the time to research every single candidate. Those of us who do the latter may have to resort to tactical voting.
    I do find SMcCandlish's evidence of off-wiki campaigns of opposition against a candidate compelling; however, I do not see how "Support/Neutral" fixes this. Surely the campaigns would simply switch to voting in support of all candidates except The Ones Who Have Wronged Them. In fact, no system can franchise all voters while preventing off-wiki campaign influence. (Limit the number of "Support" votes to cast and now I ask people to use an RNG to choose who to "Support" out of those not on my Naughty List.) If anyone can explain why this effect would be less strong under "Support/Neutral" then I'm open to changing my mind.
    Per Arrow's theorem we cannot have a perfect voting system but I think the closest we can get is STV and the proposed system is not a step in the right direction (it's towards less nuance in votes, not more). I accept that "Support/Neutral/Oppose" has flaws but in the tradeoff of flaws and appeals I think it is acceptable. — Bilorv (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's worth making a ranked-voting proposal, actually. I have thought of this myself, but I think it's simpler to try to convert the for/[neutral]/against system into a regular flat election (just for or no vote, or for/neutral if you want to put it that way). Anyway, yes in regular ol' voting, collusion is still possible (we call this "campaigning" >;-), but the difference is that if you can only vote for or withhold a vote, there is no an "double-vote" against lever by which one can use one's other votes to precisely tweak the effective power of a particular vote for or against a specific party. The scalpel is replaced with a bludgeon (of just "vote against everyone but my favorite" or "vote for everyone but that jerk I hate"). You have to be pretty desperate go to that route, since it disenfranchises yourself from having practical effect on most other candidates. In the current system, you can mostly spearhead a particular result, but still have some wiggle room to use a few votes for their actually intended purpose of indicating whether you honestly think another candidate or two are suitable. A regular voting system is a volume knob, the current one is a graphic equalizer, by way of analogy (though it's one that has a bit of an effect on the settings of others' equalizers and theirs on yours).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per my arguments on the counter proposal below. Like Bilorv mentioned, there are other systems can be used - but focus on the "system" should stem from the merits of which system support the purpose of the election (as some systems are incompatible with certain purposes). I think this will cause the purpose of the election to change without those merits being fully exlored. — xaosflux Talk 15:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Per PJvanMill. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per my comments in the other section. "Support/Neutral/Oppose" works fine. There may be better systems but "Support/Neutral" certainly isn't one of them. ST47 (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This proposal, and several others below, unduly focuses on the 2% of voters who are voting "tactically". We should be concerned first and foremost about the 98% of good faith voters. For those voters, having an abstain option is important for users they are truly unfamiliar with. "Forcing" them to vote up or down on everyone unknown will inflict far more damage, as now the less-known candidates will be judged by how cool their name is or off vague impressions from a random voter guide, when they'd just be abstained on in the current system. SnowFire (talk) 01:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per my comments elsewhere, the ability to oppose candidates you believe are unfit for the role is important, and that this is distinct from those who you have no strong opinion about. I also agree with SnowFire. Thryduulf (talk) 11:32, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Wikipedian's voices matter, and we already limit them enough in the process, we should not limit them more. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per SnowFire. Or at least, per my perception that strategic voting is something that the 2% partake in, not the 98. --Izno (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Merging oppose votes and neutral votes is not an improvement. – bradv🍁 23:46, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The current system reduces the likelihood of highly divisive candidates being selected. Changing it to a straight up-or-down vote would eliminate that benefit. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. While it is possible to tactically vote, even many of us who know that don't. In any given election, there will be candidates who I believe will make good arbitrators, and vote support for, candidates who I feel are untrustworthy or ill-suited to the role, for whom I vote oppose, and candidates who I do not personally support but would not strongly object to their selection either, and on them I vote neutral (or in essence abstain). The current system allows the voter to express the difference between "I don't particularly care if User:Example is selected" and "I object to User:Example being selected". Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. The system works as it is supposed to, the correct idea would be to have top-K or less preferential voting. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I realise that supporting 1b doesn't oppose this, so I'd argue that there is a benefit in being able to specify between "arbs that I don't want (compared to the list), and arbs who I actively think would be a problem". No bad faith required Nosebagbear (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. The system is not broken and thus does not need fixing. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I regularly vote neutral. I realize that this means my support votes have less power, but sometimes I really don't want to be decreasing someone's percentage. Tamwin (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Every year some candidates run who are clearly unsuitable for the role. In the current implementation an oppose vote subtracts from their percentage, and that's a good thing. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:57, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. per Seraphimblade. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Banedon (talk) 23:17, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Opposes are important to deciding the community's attitude towards a candidate. If a candidate gets 500 support votes and 10 opposes then they are probably well qualified. If they get 500 support votes and 1000 opposes then they probably aren't. Nevertheless under this proposal those two would be equally qualified. It would tend to reward candidates who have lots of friends or who are divisive, just because more people have a positive opinion of them. I usually find there are some candidates who would make good arbitrators, some who would make bad arbitrators and some I don't have an opinion on. The current structure mirrors this well. Hut 8.5 17:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1b by SMcCandlish (voting process) edit

Should Statement 1a in this section not meet with consensus to change the voting system, then at very least the voting instructions page should clearly explain the implications of the double-voting mechanics. In particular, it should make it clear that failing to cast every available for/against vote has the effect of both reducing the weight of the votes one does cast, and increasing the weight of votes by those who do cast all votes that they have available (and casting them as other than neutral, which is effectively the same as a non-vote).

Rationale

Covered in detail under Statement 1a in this section. Note: #1b is moot if #1a or #3 pass.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #1b by SMcCandlish: edit

  1. My third-choice preference in this section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I may support statements 1a or 3 later, but in the event they fail, informing the voters is never a bad idea. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not opposed to ensure that the method is explained, so long as it is in a neutral manner - effectively the current election style is 2 phases that execute at once from the view of a voter: phase 1 is a separate approval election for each candidate; and phase 2 is a selection from within the slate of approved candidates to fill the available slots. I don't think the exact wording above clearly represents that though. — xaosflux Talk 16:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. I was not meaning to suggest that the entire documentation be replaced, just that some information be added about the statistical effects of not using votes strategically. (That is, if we're going to retain this weird-ass system in which people need to be made aware that vote-weighting strategy is even a factor at all, and then have to figure out a strategy about how to weight their votes. I maintain that this is a terrible experiment we should be rid of. There's a reason the rest of the world does not do anything like this.)
  4. More explanations for voters can't be a negative Nosebagbear (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Adding an explanation is good. I wasn't aware of the fact that not voting lends less weight to the votes I do cast, and think that is not fair. I would definitely like to see a proposal to change this. Debresser (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've included two. :-) The point of #1a and #3 are that as long as you can vote for and against, and both of these actions factor directly into the results math (this is the status quo), then the statistical manipulability problem, and the problem of loss of relative voting power if you don't deploy all your possible votes (and do so strategically), are both mathematically not fixable. We have to have either a regular voting system, or a semi-hybrid one in which all the votes are still available, but only for makes a maths difference, while neutral and against are community-advisory. Those would of course, especially in the case of against, have an effect on who does and does not receive the for votes that matter by the time the election closes: If on week 2 the late-coming candidate A has a promising 50:3 support:oppose ratio while early-arriving candidate B has a dismal 50:100, they're clearly not "equal". We would expect it to be more like 150:10 versus 60:300 in short order, following a similar divergence trajectory until closure, and also expect fence-sitters to fence-sit less about other reasonable candidates and support some of them in opposition to dismal candidate B. In a #1a regular (for-or-silence-only) voting system, bad-apple B would never have gotten to a 50:100 ratio to begin with, but would simply have a very low support ratio compared to everyone else better, with the gulf rapidly widening as the election moved on. Anyway, #3 is effectively how the Election Commission selection RfC already operates, though I don't think this is actually very clear to many people. I think that 1a and 3 are not being taken up much by respondents yet because stats stuff is complicated, and especially because they're analogizing this to RfA. They're not comparable processes. ArbComElect is a flat-out election, while RfA is basically an election iff it's a landslide, but becomes a consensus-assessment process any time the results are within a very wide discretionary range. In that event, the Bureaucrats basically serve something like the fused role of a supreme court (on the RfA results only) and an electoral collage at the same time. RfA and ArbComElect are very different.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sure, adding explanation and clarity can only help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. TharikRish 18:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Clarity is good. signed, Rosguill talk 19:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This seems reasonable; encouraging everyone to vote with a full understanding of the system will make it harder for people who understand it better to exploit it. --Aquillion (talk) 01:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. If explained in a neutral ("this is the mathematical consequence") fashion, this is just voter education. Tamwin (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose statement #1b (voting process): edit

not very readable
Instead of saying failing to cast every available for/against vote has the effect of both reducing the weight of the votes one does cast, and increasing the weight of votes by those who do cast all votes that they have available (and casting them as other than neutral, which is effectively the same as a non-vote), which is not very enlightening in my opinion, it shcould simply make clear that "Neutral votes are completely ignored", as that is essentially all that needs to be said (proposed below as #1c) "An oppose vote on one candidate benefits all other candidates, and a support vote on one candidate makes it more difficult for all other candidates" (which I think is obvious, but still propose as #1d). It should be noted that except for wording, #1b is equivalent to #1c and #1d combined. I strongly object to the words reducing and increasing in #1b; voting neutral does not increase or decrease anything, but the voter loses out on some voting power (because a neutral vote is not counted).. What Xaosflux suggests be clarified is something entirely different, and should be proposed as a separate clarification. PJvanMill)talk( 19:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC) (modified 22:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]
  1. Okay, that looks rather ugly now, with all the removed, inserted and quoted text, so let me rewrite it:
    • Because the candidates are selected by ranking them on S/(S+O), an oppose vote on one candidate also has a positive effect on the other candidates, and likewise a support vote on one candidate also has a negative effect on the other candidates.
    • Neutral votes don't do anything.
    • When you vote neutral, you do not only lose out on decreasing/increasing the chances of one candidate, but also on increasing/decreasing the chances of the other candidates.
    • This last bit is what SMcCandlish describes as failing to cast every available for/against vote has the effect of [...] reducing the weight of the votes one does cast, which I find very confusing wording, which is why I object to this (imv not clarifying) clarification and have proposed two other clarifications instead.
    PJvanMill)talk( 22:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It could always be wordsmithed more. I care less about the exact wording than I do about the underlying meaning. As with some other proposals here about other things, I trust that it can copyedited sufficiently in a final version. However, your recapitulation is actually an oversimplification that misses some of the more important factors at play, yet adds unnecessary and often repetitive verbiage. The bare gist of what's missing in your redraft is this: not casting every available for or against vote you have available (either because you used neutral or remained silent) does more to/worse for your effect on the election than just losing out on some of your ability to boost or reduce the chances candidates you favor or oppose (that's the most obvious part), and it does more/worse than allow other voters to have more influence over the course of those same candidates (also fairly obvious). You throw away some of the total strategic effect you can have on particular candidates you most strongly want to win or to lose (that is, you lose ability to boost/reduce chances relative to other candidates, not just as a flat number of votes); and you cede some of your total aggregate effect on the election, at all, to other voters – simultaneously. It's faintly akin to having $5mil but frivolously spending $2mil and poorly investing the remaining $3mil, versus successfully investing $5mil, plus investing it at least as wisely as the $5mil your competitors each have to play with. There are good reasons not all rich people are influential or are as influential as others at the same level of wealth, and not all of them stay rich. One could also produce a gambling statistics analogy about betting on craps versus blackjack as implemented at most casinos, in turn versus selecting one that provides single-deck blackjack [not that any form of casino gambling is a good bet!]. Or a comparison to practical effects of political lobbying at key versus low-influence legislators, and at the right timing. All these statistical problems work along similar lines with non-obvious results that are nevertheless predictable with sufficient careful scrutiny.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:46, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish What you call a strategic effect you can have on particular candidates you most strongly want to win or to lose and the ability to boost/reduce chances relative to other candidates, not just as a flat number of votes, is, I believe, the exact same as what I described as an oppose vote on one candidate also has a positive effect on the other candidates, and likewise a support vote on one candidate also has a negative effect on the other candidates; of course a vote on one candidate does not affect the scores of the other candidates, but it may affect their rankings. And this, I think, hardly needs explaining - the same also holds for the US presidential election, where you have only one vote. There, too, a vote on one candidate makes it less likely that the other candidates will win. This is simply the principle of "one's gain is another's loss". I really don't see what needs to be clarified to voters here. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 17:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We might just be talking past each other, and I've already put in more wording than intended. My gist is that there are multiple loss–gain effects at play, not just the obvious one. And with that, I will back away from the WP:BLUDGEON cliff. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. it should make it clear that failing to cast every available for/against vote has the effect of both reducing the weight of the votes one does cast That isn't clear at all. How does a neutral vote for candidate B, about whom I have no opinion, weaken my support vote for candidate A and my oppose vote for candidate C? My neutral vote for candidate B by definition does nothing. My support vote on candidate A has the same effect as your support vote for candidate A. You may choose to oppose candidate B as well, improving candidate A's chances, but that does not weaken my vote on candidate A, nor does it make my neutral vote on candidate B incorrect. ST47 (talk) 18:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You've answered your own question. If your neutral does nothing then it is the same as not casting the vote. In this system, every vote can be used strategically, e.g. to make a for count more by casting a bunch of againsts toward other candidates, or vice versa. I've gone into this in considerable detail already. Any vote you waste, by not casting it or by making it explicitly neutral (mathematically equivalent actions), have a direct effect on the leverage you can apply with the votes you do cast, and also reduce your total voting power in the election as a whole relative to other votes, and reduce the power of your individual votes for specific candidates you most support or oppose relative to those of voters who do not waste any votes. It's a triple-whammy against one's own enfranchisement. The very fact that it's this complicated and remains hard to understand even after multiple rounds of explanation is itself a demonstration that this system is a terrible idea. In effect, it is an intellectual poll tax that partially disenfranchises a larger number of voters (those who approach this as a straightforward multi-seat election, like for the school board or the city council, and vote honestly without any consideration of how they can game the system). It's taking influence away from them and giving it to narrow subset of voters who take the time to work out exactly how to statistically maximize their relative voting power and manipulate the results, by reconceptualizing votes as value-neutral statistical levers. With canvassing, it's worse. (And it does happen; I've been e-mail canvassed in previous elections multiple times, with information on how to advantage or disadvantage a particular candidate relative to others through careful vote manipulation, including frequent "resculpting" of one's votes over time, e.g. to change support to opposition of any candidate already likely to pass if they are not one's most-preferred candidate, or support all candidates, even if unsuitable, other than one's most-disfavored candidate since other poor candidates would not be likely to make the cut anyway, or a blending of strategies if you really want someone to pass and really want someone else to fail, or want two in particular to pass and don't care about the rest, or what a bunch of seats to remain vacant, or whatever. I looked into the maths behind it and found that it would in fact work. It's how I learned of this problem in the first place. The point being, I was late to the game, and others had long ago already worked it all out.)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per comments above, this is fundamentally misguided. If a user doesn't have an opinion, they don't have an opinion. They shouldn't be guilted into thinking that abstaining is somehow "bad" by the instructions if they truly have no vote to cast for a candidate; they can just cast a Neutral. SnowFire (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. All that's necessary is a single line: "Neutral votes don't count." As I remember, the instructions from last year were very clear about that. The implications of choosing to leave a lot of neutral votes are obvious and don't need to be explained. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Neutral votes don't count. Support or oppose candidates you have an opinion on, leave the rest neutral. This doesn't require further clarification. – bradv🍁 23:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I land here from what I can see. See also comment in 1a. --Izno (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Seems unnecessary because the difference between voting neutral and voting against should be obvious. Banedon (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Bradv. – Teratix ₵ 02:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per Bradv. Also we shouldn't be explaining how to game the system which I worry that 1a does even though well intentioned. PaleAqua (talk) 17:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1c by PJvanMill (voting process) edit

It should be made very clear to voters that neutral votes do not count.

Rationale

This is the status quo. Less confusing and long than SMcCandlish's proposed clarification above, this imparts essentially the same information (not exactly the same; only when combined with the clarification of #1d), which is important information for voters, without putting undue stress on certain effects of this aspect of the voting system. PJvanMill)talk( 19:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC) (modified 22:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Users who endorse statement #1c (voting process): edit

  1. As proposer, PJvanMill)talk( 19:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is the only one that doesn't make it more confusing. ST47 (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose statement #1c (voting process): edit

  1. Banedon (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC) Seems unnecessary because it should be obvious. Banedon (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about statement #1c (voting process) edit

@PJvanMill:, the text that was last used says: 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. - do you have something specific you want it changed to or added? — xaosflux Talk 19:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that seems clear enough; then this proposal is just the status quo. PJvanMill)talk( 20:00, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1d by PJvanMill (voting process) edit

It should be made clear to voters that an oppose vote on one candidate benefits all other candidates, and a support vote on one candidate makes it more difficult for all other candidates.

Rationale

This combines with the (already status quo) clarification of #1c to give the same information as does SMcCandlish's proposed clarification in #1b, but without being confusing and inaccurate. PJvanMill)talk( 22:30, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #1d (voting process): edit

Users who oppose statement #1d (voting process): edit

Statement #2 by L235 (voting process) edit

Voters will be able to select "Support", "Oppose", or "Neutral" for each candidate.

Rationale

This is the status quo.

Users who endorse statement #2 by L235 edit

  1. Parking here for now, will read a bit more in to this, however the proposal above seems to support entirely new types of results that I don't agree with, notably: (a) That all the slots available must be filled (at least assuming there are sufficient candidates) (the "virtually every other election process in the world" is generally for elections that have both only 1 slot to fill, and that are vitally important to their system that the position is actually filled); (b) that candidates that most of the community opposes can be selected, allowing them to inherit ancillary arbcom powers such as oversight and checkuser. — xaosflux Talk 14:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? None of what you said follows. It doesn't say or suggest anywhere that all slots available must be filled. I don't know where you got that idea. One of the alternative proposals (1b) is that, if 1a or 3 do not pass, then the instructions page should make it clear to voters that if they choose not cast all available votes, in a thoughtful manner, they will simultaneously reduce the weight of their votes and lend weight to the votes of more strategic voters. There's nothing mandatory about that, it's just a statistical fact, and is not any kind of functional change. Second: most major real-world elections are for quite a number of seats, and they virtually always operate on a basis of casting for votes, without any option to provide an against vote, ever. E.g., the upcoming US election will ask us to votes on dozens of candidates for dozens of seats, not just the US president and vice president. Depending on where you live, some of them will even be situations exactly like this, one where there are X number of co-equal seats on a body and more than X number of candidates. There is never an oppose or anything like it on these ballots, for any reason. Your point (b) likewise bears no resemblance to anything above. It is not possible for a candidate that "most of the community opposes" to be selected, because they could never come close to getting enough support votes. What actually does happen is that for two candidates who have a lot of support but who are vying for one of the last available seats, the one with less actual support will be elected if the one with more support has garnered more canvassed opposes that have nothing to do with their actual candidacy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: let me expand, please let me know if I'm missing your point? In your proposal, I see you want voters to only vote (support) - and they can vote (support) on as many candidates as they want. I presume that you would declare the top "n" candidates the winners and have them fill up the "n" open slots. If this isn't what you meant, ignore the rest and please clarify for me? If that is what you mean then yes this would fundamentally change the election from placing the "top n candidates that also individually have overall support" to just "top n vote getters". It is currently possible for the community to reject every candidate, or less than n candidates - if they think the candidates are bad choices. It is possible for a person with 0 votes in your scenario to win, in situations where the number of candidates is equal to or less than the number of slots to fill. It is also possible for a candidate that just has a high "number of support" that in the current structure has actually "more opposes than supports" to win, provided they are in your "top n" supported list. — xaosflux Talk 11:32, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As observed below, the current system using a "minimum 50% support" cut-off. In the proposed straight-vote system, if there are 5 seats, and only 3 candidates receive support from 50% or more of voting editors, then two seats remain empty. The only difference is that in the current system "support" is determined by the ratio of for vs. against (it's 50% of the votes cast with regard to the candidate, other then neutrals). In the regular voting system, it's 50% of voters casting a vote in the direction of that candidate.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @SMcCandlish: ok that helps a bit, so in your proposed system will you have a cutoff? Are you assuming that anyone that didn't get a vote of "support" got a non-support from that voter (i.e. voter's can no long "skip" someone). If there are 4 seats, and ten candidate that each got the follow "supports" who would win, assuming there were 1000 voters? A:600 B:490 C:400 D:300 E:200 F:200 G:150 H:100 I:10 J:5. How about if there were 2000 voters (When notably the "A" candidate only got 30% of the voters "supporting" them). — xaosflux Talk 00:45, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, nothing's been proposed to invalidate the current cutoff, so it would still stand (it would just be for minus nothing, rather than for minus oppose). I'm not entirely certain if 50% would be the ideal number. That might require another round of mathematical analysis, playing "what if" scenarios with old data (how would 2019 have worked out under the proposed change?). However, it seems very dubious to me that anyone whom 49% or fewer Wikipedians think is qualified to be an Arb should be considered to have been elected, especially since this is a multi-seat election not something like a presidential winner-take-all election. So, 50% (or 50.0001%, whatever) is a sane starting point. Next, yes, not voting for someone is effectively a vote of non-support. This is simple and how most elections work, but I like version 3 below better, since it retains oppose and explicit neutral as "advisory" responses. That is, they would have the same numeric effect as just declining to vote for the candidate, but would generate informative community data about doubts and strong doubts. In your numerical scenarios, and assuming the 50% cutoff wasn't changed, then in the 1000-voter case, only A would win a seat. This scenario seems unlikely, since the available total votes are not number of voters divided by number of candidates, but number of voters times number of candidates. (And this is better than number of voters times number of available seats, since it implements a form of preference voting, which would remain true under proposals 1a and 3). In the 2000-voters scenario, if those vote totals were the same as in the 1000-voter case, then none of the candidates passed. I don't think that would happen unless, through blind coincidence, the entire field of candidates one year were uniformly a bunch of idiotic flaming asshats. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the replies SMcCandlish if we end up going this way, we should make it very clear to the voters that not voting "support" for someone is actually an opposition, rather than an abstention. — xaosflux Talk 01:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure; one of my proposals here is grounded in the idea that whatever the system is, it needs to be better documented as to what effects casting a vote or not casting one can have. For this particular one, I don't think anyone would be surprised by this, since they're already usually used to regular multi-seat elections like for city councils, and already understand that if 3 seats are available and they vote for 5 candidates [assuming the election permits that], they doing a preference vote, but if they only for 2, they're casting a no-confidence vote against all other candidates and would rather see the 3rd seat vacant (or perhaps just don't care – the election can't read their mind. Heh.).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:42, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, I have never voted in a multiple candidate government election (and I've been voting for a long time) - all of our city councils, school boards, county commissioners, etc are all of the "Seat 1, Seat 2, Seat 3" variety with candidates standing having to enter a specific seat race. — xaosflux Talk 11:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's unfortunate, since it results in it being harder to get career-politician incumbents out of office. Are they running for seats that represent particular neighborhoods or something like that?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    combination of both neighborhood related, and of staggered election cycles. My local city is a council–manager government - the council seats are neighborhood related, and the mayor is at-large. Notably elections that I vote in regularly that use for-against-abstain are for boards-of-directors in companies...— xaosflux Talk 03:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Yes, I think it is essential to be able to oppose candidates that one thinks are unsuitable for the role. I can easily envision seeing a list with none I particularly want to support, and some who I think would be disastrous in the role. And as for #3 below, having "Neutral" and "Oppose" but there being no difference between them seems like nonsense to me. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional: The current "minimum 50% support" rule is designed specifically to reject candidates who might get significant support, but get greater opposition. One thing this achieves is the ability to reject unsuitable candidates if there are fewer candidates than slots - without that, any troublemaker could get elected in a year when there's a shortage of candidates. The requirement for a minimum support percentage, the ability for the community to reject specific candidates, and the ability to fill fewer than the available slots if we don't get enough good candidates, have been built in from the start, and I see no convincing reason why those should both be taken away. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    On the first part: If this were true, it would be a normal worldwide practice to have double for/against (or triple for/neutral/against) voting systems, yet these are virtually unheard of, because they do not work properly. Anyone with a statistics background (either in formal mathematical training, or simply through having managed "contests" of any kind such a tournaments) understand why immediately. (It's remarkably difficult to come up with an alternative to single-elimination, double-elimination, and round-robin tournaments that doesn't turn out of have unexpected biases. There's a good reason the entire world of sports has settled on these, and even the first two still have biases if any byes are required.) One the second part: Then you must think that the Election Commission selection voting RfC is "nonsense", since that is exactly how it works: You have the same three options to record, but the Commissioners are selected on the basis of number of supports, not their support vs. oppose ratio. And it's not even a venue/process in which there is likely to be much of an attempt to abuse the process or skew the results, while for ArbCom there certainly is. This matters especially because, as time and WP's worldwide influence march forward, collusive attempts to "inject" PoV pushers into positions of relative Wikipedia power are growing, and are getting more sophisticated.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's a lot about Wikipedia that bears little relation to normal worldwide practice ;-) I've seen the Oppose format working well in the past, and I remain convinced that it is beneficial. It's not broken, so there's no need to fix it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comparisons to sporting contests aren't really equitable here - the purpose of sporting contests is to determine "who is the best", and someone will always win - our process can still come to a conclusion even if noone wins at all. — xaosflux Talk 01:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Nothing to do with the point I was making, which wasn't about purpose or which results were possible in which system, but just mathematical robustness. I didn't get into it, but I did once develop a multi-phase hybrid of single-elimination and round-robin to eliminate the need for byes when number of participants is not divisible by 4, but it was a whole lot of work, and was still not perfect (there was one scenario in which one participant could still be statistically favored, but it was still much better than having a chart riddled with byes). I'm basically making a point parallel to WP:Writing policy is hard: designing "contest results" systems of any kind (voting, tournaments, gambling, etc., and from a game-theoretic perspective even encryption can be thought of as qualifying) that are entirely or mostly free of exploits and skews/holes, is much more difficult than people tend to expect, with devils in the details, and very similar resistance to change after implementation no matter how bad they are. Organizations (including communities) strongly oppose changes to bad but familiar policies (including laws, etc.), to voting systems they are habituated to (witness the 2016 and 2020 US election seasons, and see also the extreme difficulty of getting any meaningful reform of RfA despite that fact that most editors believe reform is needed), etc.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I don't quite see how changing the status quo in this matter benefits anyone: individuals have to the right to oppose every single candidate on their slate, and such a right ought not be removed: it seems like "nonsense to me", too. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In a normal voting system as I propose here, you also have that right: not voting for all of them equates to voting against all of them. However, #3 below would preserve a clearer distinction (including neutrality) while removing the manipulability flaws of our current freakish for/against double-voting scheme.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but it removes the inability to vote against specific candidates as opposed to just opposing "everyone else" equally. But you know that. And no, #3 achieves nothing. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I've never been convinced that the problems of the status quo are anywhere near as great as some make out, and I also agree with others above that being able to oppose candidates is important. Thryduulf (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per above. --Rschen7754
  6. There is a benefit of opposes so long as there are minimum thresholds. It helps cancel out benefits of greater name recognition Nosebagbear (talk) 18:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I see no good reason to change the voting options. PJvanMill)talk( 18:34, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. I don't see the arguments to change this as convincing. The ability to cast an "oppose" vote allows a voter to differentiate between candidates who they believe should not be on ArbCom, and candidates who they have not formed an opinion on. ST47 (talk) 21:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. It is important to be able to explicitly oppose candidates you think will be unsuitable.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. – Majavah talk · edits 16:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I think the status quo here is fine. If we need to, we can rename 'Neutral' to 'Abstain', since that's the net effect, but we do need to retain the ability to not express an opinion on a particular candidate. CThomas3 (talk) 04:24, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I've never seen evidence that the types of strategic or tactical voting described above are widespread enough to make a difference. A theoretical danger is not enough to create a need for change. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Per Thryduulf. Current voting system works fine. -- Euryalus (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I have no objections to the current system. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. The current system works fine. In contrast to a pure up-or-down vote, it disadvantages divisive candidates who inspire a lot of support while also generating a lot of opposition; those are not people we want on the committee. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I'm opposed to changing the voting system used in this election, as the current system is not broken and changing it will break continuity with prior elections, requiring recalibration of our 50% and 60% thresholds. I'm also concerned that this is being discussed as part of a very large and confusing RfC, and this single matter of critical importance is not getting the attention it deserves. – bradv🍁 23:43, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I don't see a need to change it. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. For now. I honestly think we should drop the "we may select fewer than the number of seats" piece of ACE, instead leaving it to the RFC to decide how many seats will be selected for (i.e., how many seats are on ARBCOM in any given year). Then we can use some other method for selection of candidates. I don't think that's a discussion for this RFC. --Izno (talk) 15:30, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:06, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Banedon (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. I'd support ranked choice voting, or other similar system, but until that is implemented and gets consensus I don't see the issue with the current setup. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Second choice to 5. PaleAqua (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #3 by SMcCandlish (voting process) edit

Voters will be able to select "Support", "Oppose", or "Neutral" for each candidate. However, only "Support" votes will determine the election, as with the selection of Election Commissioners.

Rationale

This is a compromise between versions 1a/1b and 2 above. It would obviate the problems with the old system, be more consistent with the EC half of the elections process, and be more consistent (in end results) with norms of voting and with our expectations of how elections work. But it would still allow voters to use their votes (which can be reconfigured multiple times before voting closes) as a draft checklist with some nuance, and could produce statistics of some analytical value to the community and to candidates themselves.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #3 by SMcCandlish edit

  1. My first-choice preference in this section.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose statement #3 (voting process): edit

  1. This is not really a much of a compromise, as it makes oppose votes so useless that they may as well not be an option, which is proposal #1a. See my comment on #1a for criticism of SMcCandlish's analysis of our current system. PJvanMill)talk( 19:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Someone with a 200/100/200 vote mix should not be treated the same as someone with 200/300/0 vote mix. Nihlus 22:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If we did not have a broken double-voting system, but one in which only the supports mattered, those exact same candidate would not receive those ratios, but something more like 50/150/300 vs. 300/150/50 People on the fence would be less apt to waffle, and would waffle for a shorter time. How often do you go a real-world voting booth and just leave a bunch of people blank because you're not 100% certain?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Often - especially if there are large slates of "should Judge X be retained?" and I haven't had the time to research some of them... — xaosflux Talk 02:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. per both above. Thryduulf (talk) 23:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This renders oppose votes useless and we should not have useless appendages in our voting process. Either make the oppose votes meaningful or get rid of them. OrewaTel (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This seems like a waste, and comparing the arbcom election - made up of secret ballot votes to a public RfC (a discussion) is not helping this argument, RfC's are open to dynamic change as needed and voters can discuss other voters votes with them as needed. — xaosflux Talk 02:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Not yet sure about SMcCandlish's other proposals, but this would make oppose votes pointless. I'd rather have them removed altogether than retained in this diluted format. – Teratix ₵ 06:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. This isn't a compromise at all, it's exactly the same as #1a in effect. Having the option to "Oppose" but having it do nothing is exactly the same as not having it at all - you might as well have the options "Support, Neutral, Blancmange". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. What Boing! said Zebedee said. This is effectively removing all but "Support" votes, and I can't support that. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:26, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Per above.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Has the same practical effect as 1a while resulting in more confusion for voters. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 15:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. How on earth is this meant to be less confusing? ST47 (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per comments above, except an even worse idea. What if the crats decide to take into account the difference between neutrals and opposes anyway? Which if they're being collected, they surely will. If this path is gone down, it'd be better to call them "advisory" votes or the like. SnowFire (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because this is a straight vote with a specific procedure agreed upon by community consensus (namely, this RfC), the scrutineers have no discretion to follow a different procedure. On a minor note, bureaucrats aren't involved in the elections. isaacl (talk) 15:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's assume the most controversial possible case: two candidates on the cusp, one remaining arb slot available, one candidate of whom has 205/50/100, one of whom with 200/125/30. Even if the closers decide to promote the former candidate and not the latter - as this proposal recommends - surely you can see this would cause some strife in the community, as many people (including myself) would say that the second candidate seems more approved of by the votes, despite having 5 fewer support votes. This knowledge would taint the winner's legitimacy. Better to force a Support / Oppose if this path is gone down, where at least there's no debate between a 205/150 vs. 200/155 (if it split that way, which it likely wouldn't - if neutrals separated evenly, then it'd really be 230/125 vs. 262/93). SnowFire (talk) 17:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not speaking in favour of this proposal. I'm just saying the scrutineers have no discretion in reporting the results, and the community is bound by the rules it decided upon by consensus. I agree anyone who feels your proposed scenario is undesirable (I assume you are listing votes in Support/Neutral/Oppose order) shouldn't support proposals that don't distinguish between oppose and neutral votes. isaacl (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    From my experiences in ACE2018: SecurePoll automatically extracts the results from the given criteria (set by enwiki people) - there's no human input to determine who is winner and who is not. We just 'see' the result. — regards, Revi 18:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Euryalus (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Per Boing! et al. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. As with 1a, merging oppose votes and neutral votes is not an improvement. – bradv🍁 23:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. This has the exact same effect as proposal 1a: turning the election into a yes-or-no vote. The "compromise" is that voters are allowed to maintain the illusion of an extra option. The current system decreases the likelihood of very divisive candidates getting elected, and this proposal would eliminate that. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Seems pointless. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 15:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Izno (talk) 15:31, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. This is actively confusing. I don't know how it makes sense as a proposal. Tamwin (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. What Tamwin said. Why allow both "neutral" and "oppose" selections if both have the same effect? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Banedon (talk) 23:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Retaining the "oppose" option purely for analytical value does not make sense to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:01, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of statement #3 by SMcCandlish (voting process) edit

In the real world, there are some processes in place to ensure there is some level of support for someone to appear on a ballot, such as a minimum required number of signatures in support or a nominating process by political parties. Given the extremely low eligibility requirements for arbitration committee candidates, the voting process has served both as an evaluation of qualifications as well as support. Accordingly, some standard beyond highest votegetters is desirable. It can be argued that a different standard might be an improvement (perhaps removing the option to vote neutral would be a better way to gauge community sentiment). However I think some form of qualification standard should remain in place. isaacl (talk) 16:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's another difference with real world voting. Real world votes are typically designed to fill all the available seats, regardless of the absolute level of support for any candidate. ArbCom elections are not like that, they're designed to not fill all the seats if there are not enough candidates with who satisfy a minimum community support (currently >50% Support vs Oppose). As you say, Isaacl, some form of qualification standard should remain in place. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:07, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the other side of the same coin: because the process includes evaluating candidate qualifications, it doesn't require filling seats with those that do not meet community standards. isaacl (talk) 22:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a red herring. Every major real-world US election I've voted in and can remember the details of included some elections exactly like this one, with several co-equal seats (e.g. school boards, city councils, etc.), with more candidates than available seats, and every single one of them worked on a "just for for who you support" basis, exactly like elections (e.g. for president) where there is one seat and multiple candidates, not multiple essentially identical seats. The only difference between those and something like the presidential vote was that in the multi-seat ones you could vote for more more than one candidate. There has never been an oppose voting option in any of them. They are not defective election processes, but this one is, since crafty participants can individually and especially through collusion, sharply bend the results.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #4 by Wugapodes edit

Obviously not going to pass. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voters will be able to select either "Support" or "Oppose".

Rationale

Neutral votes don't count anyway.

Users who endorse statement #4 (voting process) edit

  1. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:39, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Users who object to statement #4 (voting process) edit

  1. Not sure why this doesn't have an oppose section, but oppose. Neutral votes are a necessary option. They are a third choice which is neither support nor oppose. They allow a voter to indicate that they have not formed an opinion with regard to a particular candidate. ST47 (talk) 18:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It depends on what this actually means - I assumed I knew, but now I'm not so certain, see below. If it means voters are forced to choose Support or Oppose for every candidate, then I disagree with it because the ability to not cast a Support or Oppose vote for individual candidates is important. But if it just means you can vote Support, Oppose, or not vote at all for each candidate (and not voting just means Neutral), then I disagree as it's a pointless change. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Call it 'abstain' if you want - but forcing voters to vote for every candidate, regardless if they have researched each person - or abandon their vote all together is a bad idea. If I was in this situation I'd default to "oppose" on anyone I didn't research for sure, since it is also a question of "should this person be an oversighter and checkuser". — xaosflux Talk 19:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per above, this forces voters who truly do not know a candidate and do not care to research the candidate to "guess" and effectively throw some noise into the system. This can potentially be very bad, especially if a less-known candidate for whatever reason does substantially better or worse with low-information, otherwise abstaining voters forced to vote anyway - maybe User:420BlazeIt is actually rather clueful but their name inspires kneejerk opposes from those who aren't familiar with said work. Let such voters abstain in peace. SnowFire (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per everyone above. Thryduulf (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. We should not further limit voter's voice. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per above arguments. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:31, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

  1. If you don't have neutral, then you are either for or against. That a) requires forcing a vote on each candidate to be made, which encourages guesses on candidates a voter is ill-informed on, and b) Is functionally equivalent to the "only supports count". Neutral votes do count, because that's what makes oppose votes have weight. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not necessarily - the voting software could just accept a check in the "Support" box, a check in the "Oppose box", or no check at all. All this proposal is really saying, I think, is that no check at all is the equivalent of checking "Neutral". Or, does it actually mean forcing a Support or Oppose? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Boing! said Zebedee That is also how I interpret this proposal. It is worth noting that although it would be functionally equivalent to our current system, leaving out "neutral" as an explicit option would probably decrease the number of neutral votes/non-votes. PJvanMill)talk( 18:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #5 by EllenCT, quoting Markus Schulze edit

Voting process statement: Voters will be able to rank candidates in order of preference using the Schulze method.

Quoting meta:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2020#Voting System:

Rationale

The Schulze method is a superior Condorcet-style voting system which allows greater fidelity to the will of the electorate.

Users who endorse statement #5 (Schulze method) edit

  1. EllenCT (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This has long been my preference. I am OK if this gains consensus to delaying implementation until ACE2021 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barkeep49 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. IMO ranked choice is a much better system for electing multiple positions at once. signed, Rosguill talk 19:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Per nom statement and Rosguill. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. In principle I support a method that is based on choosing your preferred candidates from the available field, rather than the support/oppose system. The support/oppose is fine for RFA where there's no particular number of candidates who need to be appointed, but when we have a set number of vacancies we should use a 'conventional' electoral method. I don't have a particular preference for Schulze over STV or some other method, but I prefer all of these over the support/oppose Pi (Talk to me!) 13:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Although this is likely to end up as a moral support; I believe the superiority of ranked-choice systems is fairly clear, and we should generally be moving towards it for any election in which there's a fixed number of positions to fill and a larger number of candidates to fill it. I also think it ought to be fairly straightforward to still implement a minimum support threshold (for instance: with seven available spots on ARBCOM, a candidate would need to have more than half the !votes ranking them to place them between one and seven) below which candidates are ineligible to run, and so while that's a valid objection, it's not insurmountable. I recognize that implementing this for the upcoming election isn't realistic, but registering support for it is a worthwhile exercise nonetheless. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:45, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support, though seems unlikely this will pass. PaleAqua (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who object to statement #5 (Schulze method) edit

  1. I like Condorcet method voting systems, including Schulze and Ranked Pairs. However as I mentioned in another comment, given the low eligibility requirements to be a candidate, the vote serves both as an evaluation of qualifications as well as support. I think approval voting is a good fit to determine which candidates are deemed to be qualified. In theory we could add a preferential vote on top of the approval vote, but I'm not convinced there would be sufficient additional benefit to warrant complicating the voting process in that way. isaacl (talk) 21:56, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This appears to change the "50% support" gating mechanism of the election, unless it is clear that you can vote for "noone" and you can not "abstain" from making a decision about anyone (a fairly drastic change). — xaosflux Talk 19:50, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is you could vote for no one either as a first choice or downballot choice to preserve the 50% approval elements. EllenCT do I understand that correctly? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not quite the same thing. With the current system, if 50% of the voters oppose a candidate, they fail to meet the minimum qualifications for support. With a ranked choice voting method, the order of preferences remain relevant, even for those ranked below a "no one" option. (It's part of the point of using a Condorcet method system: you can still register your relative rankings between choices you don't agree with.) Even if 50% of the voters ranked A and B below "no one", the vote can still end up ranking A and B highly, based on the rest of the voters. If we're going to eliminate candidates A and B for ranking below "no one" with 50% of voters, then we are basically combining approval voting with a ranked choice method. isaacl (talk) 23:37, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per Isaacl and also per Bradv on a different proposal to change the voting system. The current system is both simple and not broken so there is no need to change it. Xaosflux's comments are also relevant as Schultz+approval (in any combination or format) is not what is being proposed here. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't feel this method is practical when dealing with seven open seats; it's just too much work for voters. -- Calidum 00:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I am not per se opposed to using a method such as Schulze but I do not think this one has really been thought through sufficiently. --Izno (talk) 20:26, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I'd find it much harder to rank a large number of candidates in order than to decide whether they'd make good arbitrators or not. The current system has the advantage of being very simple and transparent, by contrast the Schulze method requires pseudocode to explain how the results are calculated. Hut 8.5 17:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

  • Would support, but it is much too near to the election for such a tremendous change to be coded, bug-tested, and implemented on the largest wiki with confidence that all voters had time to educate themselves on the new method and that nothing has gone wrong in the code or calculations. I look forward to a separate RfC on this in early 2021 for ACE2021, but not this year. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ivanvector: For the record, the proposal is for using the Schulze method as currently implemented on SecurePoll, and before that BoardVote. The BoardVote extension implementation was used in the 2008 WMF board election, and the SecurePoll implementation was used in the 2009 and 2011 WMF board election, and a number of single language/project votes. There's no new coding required. -- KTC (talk) 14:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @KTC: good to know, thanks! I still think this is probably something that should be discussed more broadly separate from this year's election process RfC, but not very strongly. The support/oppose/neutral format we use is already probably not very familiar to most voters here so changing the format to some other unfamiliar system probably isn't as big a deal. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:26, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Deadlines edit

STATEMENT 1A PASSED
In the event of significant technical or other issues affecting the election, the election commissioners may adjust the deadline of the affected part(s) of the election process, and/or any subsequent parts, by a commensurate amount.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #1a by Thryduulf edit

In the event of significant technical or other issues affecting the election, the election commissioners may adjust the deadline of the affected part(s) of the election process, and/or any subsequent parts, by a commensurate ammount.

Rationale

If, for example, the wiki was read-only for 24 hours during the nomination period or the voting server unreachable for a significant portion of the voting period then the election commissioners may, if they feel it justified, extend the time available so as not to disadvantage anyone for reasons outside their control. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #1a by Thryduulf (deadlines) edit

  1. As proposer. This seems the fairest way to deal with significant issues that would otherwise reduce the time available. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. KTC (talk) 13:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Fine. But let's try to guard against this being weakened over time, okay? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I'm in favour, but I'm also flexible for shorter issues on the nomination period (e.g. 1 hour right at the end would be enough to warrant another hour) Nosebagbear (talk) 18:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yes, I agree. And rather than impose any specific allowed delays, leave it to the discretion of the electoral commission. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Addresses the concern raised earlier.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Z1720 (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Yes, and as an overriding factor of any of the piecemeal components above; the "consummate amount" part is important though. — xaosflux Talk 13:42, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Euryalus (talk) 22:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. TharikRish 18:36, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. signed, Rosguill talk 19:42, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Sigh. Do we really have to write out all of the EC's powers? Isn't it enough for them to have broad power to manage the election and deal with unexpected circumstances? That being said, they should clearly have this power. Tamwin (talk) 23:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Sure. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Asartea Talk | Contribs 12:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Reasonable, if deadlines are to be adjusted they should be adjusted for all. PaleAqua (talk) 18:08, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1b by Thryduulf edit

Once deadlines are set they may not be altered.

Rationale

The election timeline is set by community consensus and should not be adjusted. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statment #1b by Thryduulf (deadlines) edit

  1. ~~~~
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consensus required for ACE RfC edit

STATEMENT 1C PASSED
There will be no set minimum number of people who must support a proposal for there to be consensus. Closer notes: This close was re-evaluated after it was questioned, and because the initial declaration of a consensus was a weak one, the reasons provided in the dispute have convinced me to change this close to no consensus.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #1a by Barkeep49 edit

At least 15 editors need to support any statement at the Arbitration Committee Election Request for Comment for it to be closed with consensus. If fewer editors support a statement it will be closed as no consensus and the status quo will remain. This change will be implemented beginning with this RfC.

Rationale

Looking at the past 3 years, this seems to be the minimum number of supports statements have received when reaching consensus. ArbCom and ArbCom elections have sitewide implications and involve a large number of editors. We should take precautions to ensure that a small number of elite editors cannot radically change the format/rules in a low turnout year.

Users who endorse statement #1a: edit

  1. First choice as proposer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support to avoid niche issues sneaking through. I am assuming that this rule is self-implementing, and itself requires 15 before forcing it on others Nosebagbear (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Makes sense not to effect any changes that lack a minimum of support. Debresser (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think so. But I worry about what happens if this rule itself doesn't get 15 supports. --Rschen7754 06:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Then it should fail. Easiest way out of that paradox. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. There are an overwhelming raft of proposals this year, likely leading to lower consideration. To have significant changes made by tiny groups is not conducive to confidence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sensible and reasonable. I'm assuming that supports for #1A are also considered supports for #1B (the later implementation) should #1A not reach 15? Schazjmd (talk) 23:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support Z1720 (talk) 02:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support as first choice. CThomas3 (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support PaleAqua (talk) 03:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Euryalus (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. TharikRish 18:38, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Makes sense. SilkTork (talk) 00:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. yep. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Nearly there Stifle (talk) 09:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:20, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Per Debresser. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  17. First choice over 1b. Though consensus is not a counting exercise, I think a minimum (15 seems reasonable, but a slightly lower number still seems reasonable) is needed to ensure that its not just a few editors who have their voices heard. Closers should still take into account that consensus isn't a counting exercise. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:18, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support; a small number of users shouldn't be able to change the rules of something as important as this election Asartea Talk 13:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Asartea: They couldn't anyway because assessing consensus is more than just counting noses. Thryduulf (talk) 14:22, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  19. I hear the concerns below, but this isn't a bad safeguard to have; I think it's quite reasonable to say a process as central to Wikipedia as this one ought not to be modified without at least 15 people in support; and I'm not going to get into what this is a safeguard against, per WP:BEANS. I know we don't usually set thresholds for consensus-building exercises, but then again we don't have lengthy RfCs about how to run most of our consensus-building exercises either. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  20. ArbCom elections are important, it shouldn't be possible for extremely small groups of editors to determine how they are run just because they were the only ones who showed up. Hut 8.5 17:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Because ArbCom RFCs, like all RfCs, are not a vote they cannot with or without this proposal. This just adds unnecessary bureaucracy and vote counting, risks preventing a consensus decision being enacted and can lead to logical fallacies ("Do X" and "Do not do X" both failing, sometimes with no or an unclear status quo to fall back on), while bringing nothing to the table that doesn't happen already. Thryduulf (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If a proposal gets, say, four supports and no opposition then someone would be justified in claiming that represents a consensus. It would be interpreted as consensus in the vast majority of areas here. But the consequences of changes to ArbCom elections are far-reaching enough that some sort of safeguard is sensible. I note there's a proposal above to change the voting system, surely a very drastic change, where 12 people have commented. Even if they were all supportive I don't think such a proposal is legitimate unless it gets far more participation. Hut 8.5 08:37, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, which is why any closer worth their salt will consider the amount of participation relative to other proposals on the same page and relative to the significance of the change as part of determining consensus. A 12-0 !vote to change the voting system is unlikely to be consensus but then neither would be 15-0 - I'd be wanting to see something closer to 50 supports at minimum, however a proposal to explicitly allow outgoing arbitrators who are not standing for reelection to serve on the election commission (this is currently not codified either way) supported 12-0 is almost certainly going to have consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Participation Minimum Discussion edit

@Barkeep49:, this might appear as a logical obvious follow-on, but felt it worth noting. This statement could probably use a note that it only applies where there's a status quo to overrule. As an example, in the event that random sorting was overridden, some ordering method would have to be used, even if (as is currently the case) none of the proposals have 15 supports Nosebagbear (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC) As a side note, I particularly like how we have stopped at 15, good work folks Nosebagbear (talk)[reply]

There's always a status quo. In the scenario you're talking about where there is plenty of consensus to make a generalized change (e.g. not randomizing the listing) but not 15 supports for any specific change, I said below, and still feel, that this is not an unusual situation in comlex RfCs. I expect skilled closers to be able to have the judgement to handle that situation appropriately and I would expect only skilled closers to be closing ACE RfCs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is enacted, I strongly suggest it be clarified that having fifteen supporters is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one to establish consensus. I believe most people will understand this, but all the same I feel writing it down will forestall future argument. isaacl (talk) 15:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is important (and is a minor reason for my continuing opposition to this proposal). Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How will this work if proposals "Do X" and "Do not do X" both fail to reach 15 supports? This is particularly important when the purpose of the proposal is clarifying what the status quo is. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, if/when this non-status quo and bureaucratic counting proposal leads to a net excess of less than 15 in support over oppose, the proposal must fail, right? -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1b by Barkeep49 edit

At least 15 editors need to support any statement at the Arbitration Committee Election Request for Comment for it to be closed with consensus. If fewer editors support a statement it will be closed as no consensus and the status quo will remain. This change will be implemented beginning with next year's RfC.

Rationale

Same rational as 1a except that we don't change the rules for this year's RfC now that it's underway.

Users who endorse statement #1b: edit

  1. Second choice as proposer. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SQLQuery me! 21:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Don't change the rules while we're underway, but I do think this should happen for next year. rchard2scout (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support if 1a does not pass. Z1720 (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support as second choice to #1a. CThomas3 (talk) 02:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:35, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Secondarily to #1c. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Second choice to 1a. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1c by Barkeep49 edit

There will be no set minimum number of people who must support a proposal for there to be consensus.

Rationale No change is necessary, closers may user their discretion following our standard closing procedures and methods.

Users who endorse statement #1c: edit

  1. Is there any actual problem that this proposal is solving? * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pppery, way back when rule changes were implemented with a small handful of editors (ex from 2012). Truthfully I brought it forward this year because of how many proposals have already been suggested and I am mildly concerned we could go back into that boat. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm mildly concerned about changing horses midstream, and, honestly, I also fail to see an issue that this proposal might solve. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Ditto the above. Furthermore, "something bad happened 8 years go" isn't a good rationale, while "it's still happening most years since then" probably would be. I think we can trust that the consensus-assessment at these annual affairs has improved since 2012. And, either version of this proposal could easily see multiple directly contradictory proposals "succeed" because they reached the numerical cut-off, while a normal RfC closure consensus-assessment process would have to weight them against each other during the closure, rather than saying they both passed but conflict and thus require a new RfC to settle the conflict.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not suggesting a proposal should succeed just because it passes a numerical cut-off, but that it must achieve consensus in the normal fashion, *and* reach the numerical cut-off. It does not mean that two contradictory 15-vote proposals would both pass - they would be judged against each other by consensus in exactly the same way as we do now. What it does mean is that, say, two contradictory 14-vote proposals would not reach the cut-off for having the consensus judged, and in such a case we'd stick with the status quo. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:19, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I stand corrected then.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:05, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I get the reasoning and support reminding the closer(s) of the participation level in previous years, but setting a hard cutoff seems like a bad idea per the Condorcet paradox and SunirShah's comment at meatball:VotingIsEvil. Quorums have an unhealthy habit of becoming thresholds for implementation, and setting a minimum number of endorsements risks a situation where closers feel fine claiming consensus on statements that meet it regardless of the preference matrix. This is particularly problematic in the case of the ACE RfC which presents multiple options with different and nuanced positions. This makes it especially susceptible to the Condorcet paradox as there may be circular preferences, and the nuanced possibilities make it even more fraught than an actual vote: take the statements under nomination timing as an example. I view statements 1 and 3 as equivalent, but others seemingly do not. I endorsed statement 1 with the understanding that it would be applied as in statement 3, but what if statement 1 gets above the 15 endorsements and 3 does not? Since my endorsement of 1 is contingent on it being interpreted as in 3, should my endorsement of 1 be weighed less? If it is weighed less, how does that affect the threshhold calculation of 1? What happens if weighing my endorsement less drops statement 1 below the 15 required endorsements? We should make sure that closers of ACE RfCs take into account the WP:CONLEVEL of these statements in comparison with previous RfCs, but setting an explicit minimum seems like it will cause more problems than it solves. — Wug·a·po·des​ 07:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I respect the shortcomings you've identified. Bottom line for me is that we need to not go back to having, as in example from the the link I gave above, 3 people forming a consensus. In recent years successful changes have almost always hit 25 or more (45+ was not uncommon last year) supporters. This was the method I came up to address that possibility, in a year where at time of RfC ID'ing we had 56 proposals. In terms of your specific case of where there's consensus to implement a change but not the support necessary on any particular way of doing that, I did think about that scenario and am fine leaving it to closer discretion as that is a frequent case in closing RfCs like this and I would hope anyone closing this would be skilled in making those judgements. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Assessing the consensus is about more than counting the number of votes (pro, anti or total) and the number of people opining about an issue is one thing those closing this RfC should (and will) to take into account without being forced by any arbitrary numbers. A question has been up since the first few days and gathered 15 explicitly weak supports, three strong opposes and a bunch of comments expressing confusion about what is being asked is very different to a question that was posted 48 hours before the close and got 14 strong supports, no opposition or dissenting comments - the latter has consensus while the former probably does not. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I've slept on this, and I have to oppose putting any constraints on the judging of consensus. If we had a wider Wikipedia concern that we need to prevent low turnout consensuses, then I might think otherwise. But even if our consensus mechanism does have shortcomings, I don't think imposing an arbitrary numerical limit would be the answer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Wug. --Izno (talk) 04:10, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 1a/1b could cause significant problems for down-ballot proposals that amend other proposals. signed, Rosguill talk 19:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Standard consensus procedures should remain the norm (mostly per Wug). --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The minimum proposal raises arbitrary bureaucracy -- the usual method will do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:23, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. This sounds like a good idea, but when looking at the actual RfC going on here, would we really want to not do Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020#Notifying_candidates_of_new_prohibition_against_multiple_roles, which is 10-0 supported right now, because it is not 15-0? — xaosflux Talk 13:51, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's fifteen supports now anyway, but I don't personally feel this is a great example, because a request for comments isn't required for every editorial change to the election pages. (The actual guidance for the committee has changed regardless of whether or not it's written in the guidance for candidates.) Candidates are supposed to familiarize themselves with the role they plan to fulfill, whether or not the details are spelled out for them. isaacl (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not great, just the first one I saw - but it would still be bad to close the RfC with a section like that as something like "This proposal (to advertise this new rule) fails as the required quorum was not met" -- Ideally that shouldn't have really been a RfC item, just an FYI item - but some people get very very very picky about anything election related! — xaosflux Talk 03:01, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. P-K3 (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Per Boing, Alan and Xaosflux. – Teratix ₵ 02:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. per Rosguill. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:32, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. per all of the above. OhKayeSierra (talk) 17:12, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #2 by MJL edit

Withdrawn by proponent. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:06, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Starting in 2021, users are strongly encouraged (but not required) to limit the amount of RFC proposals they make. Quality discussion and clear consensus should be preferred to a conversation trainwreck.

Rationale

I feel like a small set of users dominate the topic of conversation every year to the detriment of the wider editing community. While they may have a lot of good ideas, I really would prefer to see more people getting the chance to share their ideas in a less crowded RFC. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #2: edit

  1. As proposer. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who object to statement #2: edit

  1. While I get the motivation behind this, per the comments below this is will (imo) reduce the likelihood that important questions get asked and increase the likelihood of issues with the election that could have been prevented. Thryduulf (talk) 10:20, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. This is about one of the most important things we do as members of this community. Better to have a lively and long discussion than a truncated and useless one. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not sure what this would encouragement would do and I think people should have a chance to promote ideas that are important to them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I think this RfC format can be improved, so lets explore that; especially in the arrangement of competing options on the same topic -- perhaps we ditch the "...by USERNAME" part, because who authored a statement isn't really that important, if it is something they specifically support they will already usually be the first "supporter" as well. — xaosflux Talk 13:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume that the attribution in the heading is an attempt to ensure unique headings to improve the editing experience. I agree though that another disambiguator (such as is already being done in some cases by using an abbreviated form of the proposal category) would be better. isaacl (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Even then it doesn't work because if you make Statement #1 for the candidate order and voting process, they will both just say "Statement #1 by MJL". Something like: "Statement #2a (candidate order)" would work more effectively in that regard. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, glad to see you agree. isaacl (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. This does exactly nothing. Even if it did, I don't believe that having multiple changes from a few editors prevents others from contributing. Furthermore, as Wugapodes notes, the stated author isn't the only person proposing a change. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This is basically advice and not a proposal. --Rschen7754 05:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. TharikRish 18:39, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of statement #2 edit

  • It's probably not obvious, but even though most of the proposals were written by a handful of editors the ideas behind them were usually developed through discussions the previous year. As an example, my three statements on listing disqualified candidates were based on this discussion. Another is the "Vanished user" statements; even though they were authored by xaosflux, it was suggested on the RFC talk page by DannyS712. A lot of the time the authors are just actioning suggestions that were left on the talk page a year ago and may have been forgotten about by the OP. I do agree that threaded discussion and statement endorsements should probably be kept separate to avoid a ForestFire, but the formatting is something we can fix this year through refactoring. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have authored many of the proposals on this page but only one (deadlines) is completely my idea, all but one of the rest are entirely based on feedback left regarding last year's election on the talk page (you'll note I've even voted against some of them). The one exception is content of question pages, which is a combination of feedback left from last year and my own ideas. I chose to add them to the RfC to ensure that (what I feel are) the important questions are not missed and reduce the chance of issues happening in this year's election. Requiring questions to be added by different people seems likely to either result in either questions being missed (and thus issues arising in the election) or an equally long RfC with more authors and more chance of overlapping questions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wugapodes and Thryduulf: Part of my issue is the prevalence of "alternative proposals."
    What I mean to say is, you might make a proposal: "Eliminate arbcom and establish a dictatorship. Rationale: This is a coup." right? Then immediately following that you will have "Don't eliminate arbcom and establish a dictatorship. Rationale: This is the status quo." We really don't need consensus for the status quo. It just kind of is.
    ..Or you might have a statement broken up into two parts and such, or you might see an alternative proposal to delay the effect by a year. Pretty soon, we have way too many proposals to vote in, and I think part of the problem is the limitless structure of the thing.
    If it was one proposal, per person, per topic, per year.. I think we would see less of that. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:05, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Some people like affirming their support for a position rather than opposing a proposed position. Also if there are multiple new proposals in a given area, it becomes simpler to make the current status one choice, rather than having to oppose all of the other choices. To avoid sprawl, I think it would be preferable to set a deadline on when new proposals can be added. (There can be an "ignore all rules" exception if someone comes up with a brilliant new option in an existing area under discussion.) isaacl (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: I understand the concern, but I don't share the optimism. Suppose Barkeep only proposed #Meta1a. If editors would prefer that we implement it next year the only ways we would have to figure that out are (1) wait around for someone else to propose it, (2) hope someone says that in the comments and that others read it and say they like that better, or (3) WP:IAR. The first option is not ideal because by the time someone gets around to suggesting it, it may be too late to demonstrate it has consensus, and we see this all the time in discussions--it's why we have #Commission2a. The second option is not ideal because people are unlikely to read all the comments and may support or oppose based upon the proposal alone and then the determination of our election rules is up to how good our closer is instead of the explicit will of the community. The better alternative is to anticipate the reasonable options and propose them all at once so that people can make informed decisions without biasing the result towards early proposals or leaving substantial decisions to closer discretion.
    The benefits of having a status quo option are (1) everyone knows what it is without having to have participated in last year's drama and (2) closers can demonstrate relative levels of support for the status quo versus other options. Pretend we have a proposal to change the status quo with 40 endorsements; does it have consensus? What if it has 25 opposes? What if those opposes also dislike the status quo but just don't like the particular proposal? If there was an option to endorse the status quo we would see that no one supports it and be able to say that the novel proposal, despite the opposition, still has greater consensus than the status quo and should be implemented.
    Long RfCs are not fun and are a lot of work, but so is designing and implementing an entire electoral system. This RfC seems imposing because policy writing is hard, and while we can (and should) do what we can to make participating as easy as possible, we should not do so at the expense of running smooth and fair elections. I agree that the format can be improved--speaking personally I have been doing what I can to make the process more user friendly and encourage others to do the same--but I don't think limiting proposals will help. This RfC, like the entire election process and encyclopedia, is run by us and the best way to handle a problem is to be bold. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:33, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd prefer if this is shaped in some definitive and binding form. Maybe a limit of at most 2 proposals per person. A non-binding 'advice' would not do harm, but it could be pointless at times. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notifying candidates of new prohibition against multiple roles edit

STATEMENT 1 PASSED
In a recently closed RfC, the community decided that sitting arbitrators should not also serve in certain other positions. ArbCom is currently voting on a motion that would formalize this prohibition as part of the official ArbCom procedures. We should make sure that potential candidates are aware of this new rule before they decide whether to run for arbitrator. Therefore, the sentence "To avoid any potential conflicts of interest, current arbitrators may not serve as members of either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee while serving as arbitrators." should be added to the instructions for candidates page.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Statement #1 by Newyorkbrad edit

In a recently closed RfC, the community decided that sitting arbitrators should not also serve in certain other positions. ArbCom is currently voting on a motion that would formalize this prohibition as part of the official ArbCom procedures. We should make sure that potential candidates are aware of this new rule before they decide whether to run for arbitrator. Therefore, the sentence "To avoid any potential conflicts of interest, current arbitrators may not serve as members of either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee while serving as arbitrators." should be added to the instructions for candidates page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse statement #1: edit

  1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting the ArbCom has now adopted the motion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I don't think this will hurt, though if a candidate who would run afoul of this is not aware of the prohibition, quite frankly I wonder if they are suitable for the role. --Rschen7754 06:48, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  3. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I can't see any downsides to this. Thryduulf (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  5. The more info given to candidates, the better. Z1720 (talk) 22:07, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Sure, this is trivial (see below) to add and doesn't have any downside I can see. — xaosflux Talk 14:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Per Xaos. --Izno (talk) 17:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Xaos. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Trivial change, which explains a arbitration procedure and ensures candidates are aware of this before they make their nomination. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 15:21, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support as avoiding issues, though I specifically note that per NYB, I don't think this motion has to actually carry in order to be added (though it passing would require it to be added) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:27, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Making the rules transparent seems obvious to me and I'm not sure even needed this RfC given the results of the other one. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:43, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  14. -- P-K3 (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Ensuring this reaches 15 supports. – Teratix ₵ 02:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User who oppose statement #1: edit

Discussion of statement #1 (notifying candidates about multiple roles) edit

I don't think this RfC should cover this proposal. We can just update the page via the ordinary editorial process. isaacl (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If people are comfortable with making the change without going through this RfC, that's fine. It didn't seem like the right sort of thing to do unilaterally, but since it reflects the results of another RfC that already closed, it shouldn't be a controversial change either way. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:09, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: thanks for letting us know, this is more 'informative' for potential candidates so we certainly can include it in their "information" area - if possible do you mind dropping a note here or at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates (if this is closed) when the adoption is complete (or rejected?) — xaosflux Talk 22:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm holding off from voting, since given we are now implementing 15-person minimums I didn't to risk it being felt that a failure to find 15 people who read to the bottom should hold-off from what is a critical notification (like any other eligibility requirements). We might want to ask the Ombudsmen to add it to theirs at the right time (they could also check CRC for us as well, at the right time, though it's nice to think they're aware of the prohibition) Nosebagbear (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: assuming that is implemented, it really won't be an election "rule", if passed (outside this RfC) and say an Ombudsman wants to run for ArbCom - we're not looking to actually stop them from running - but they would have to resign their ombudsman role to accept the arbcom appointment; conversely it would just be a notice that if elected and then later someone wanted to become an ombudsman they would need to resign arbcom. Baring any new ideas brought up here why to actually not inform candidates - this doesn't really need to "pass" for someone to include it in the "Caution" section of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2020/Candidates. — xaosflux Talk 13:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding To avoid any potential conflicts of interest, current arbitrators may not serve as members of either the Ombuds Commission or the WMF Case Review Committee while serving as arbitrators. (ref to Special:PermaLink/977567458) to the notes at WP:ACECANDY will be trivial. — xaosflux Talk 17:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2020&oldid=1174682990"