Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016

2016 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status

• The December 2016 Arbitration Committee Election results have been posted.
• Please offer your feedback on the election process.

This is a request for comment about the upcoming December 2016 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election.

Purpose of this request for comment: To provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2016 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Background: In the case of proposals that change existing rules, or that seek to establish new ones, lack of consensus for a change will result in the rules from the 2015 RFC remaining in force. Some issues are not covered by the existing rules but will need to be decided one way or another for the operation of the election, in those cases it will be up to the closer to figure out a result, even if there is no clear consensus, as they have had to in the past.

Structure: This RfC is divided into portions, each of which contains a discussion point for the community. The standard RfC structure will be used, in which any user may make a general statement that other users may endorse if they so agree. The points will be listed in the table of contents below, along with the users who have made statements.

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

• Nominations: Friday 00:00, 7 October – Friday 23:59, 14 October (7 days)
• Evaluation period: Saturday 00:00, 15 October – Friday 23:59, 21 October (7 days)
• Commission selection: completed by Friday 00:00, 28 October

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

• Nominations: Sunday 00:00, 6 November – Tuesday 23:59, 15 November (10 days)
• Setup period: Wednesday 00:00, 16 November to Sunday 23:59, 20 November (5 days)
• Voting period: Monday 00:00, 21 November to Sunday 23:59, 4 December (14 days)
• Scrutineering: Begins Monday 00:00, 5 December

There is one topic from last year that was raised on the talk page. Anyone is free raise any new topics that they feel need to be addressed by adding them as level two headers.

Duration: This RfC is scheduled to last for about 30 days; on or after September 30, it will be closed, and an uninvolved editor(s) will determine the results of the RfC. The results will determine the structure, rules, and procedures for the election.

---

Use the following format below; post a new statement at the BOTTOM of the section in which you want to make a statement. Endorse by adding a hash symbol (#) and your signature.

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

;Users who endorse this statement:

#~~~~

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

Points of discussion

Should the names of candidates appear in randomized order, and if not, how should they be ordered?

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 by Od Mishehu

I think that the user names should appear in Alphabetical order. It's the only consistent order that makes no appearance of showing preference. The problem with a randomized order is that it makes it difficult to simply go down the list of candidates, one page at a time. And those who are worried about the potenial prejudice of alphabetical order, I think it's preferable to the possibility that the user who does the randomization may use his/her own prejudice to sort the candidated in an order which will give results the randomizer prefers – even if we give the precise algorithm to be used, there is no way to know that it actually was used, nor that the user didn't repeat the process until (s)he approved of the results. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tryptofish

I don't much like alphabetical order, because it tends to advantage or disadvantage candidates based on whether their usernames come early or late in the alphabet. In the past, "randomized order" has consisted of re-randomizing the order every time the page is viewed. That way, no one appears at the top every time. I think that's the way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Per Floq's request on the talk page, I'm ranking the various proposals here in order of my personal preference.

1. Randomized every time the voting page is viewed (ie, the existing system) is my first choice.
2. Randomized once, but then presented in that random order every time. I see some merit to other editors' comments that it can be confusing to voters when the order keeps changing, so this seems to me to be the fairest solution, but I do not find it that confusing.
3. Alphabetical order is my third choice, because I think that it gives an unfair advantage to candidates whose usernames come first alphabetically.
4. Ordering by date of declaration of candidacy is my bottom choice, because I think that it gives an unfair advantage to candidates who rush to enter their candidacies, and that is not something that we should encourage. Sometimes it is better to consider carefully before entering.

--Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

After seeing Nabla's comments, it occurs to me that I was talking just above about the actual ballot/voting page. For the page that lists the candidates, with information about each one and links to their questions pages and such, I'm fine with having it in alphabetical order, which (I think) is the existing system. And where Hobit asked if it is possible to randomize the ballot page every time, yes it is, because that is how it has been done in the recent past. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

And about the new comment, that there is a danger of someone using the randomization process in an intentionally biased way, I think that gets taken care of if there is an automatic randomization every time the ballot page is viewed. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nabla

Alphabetic order is a poor-man's randomised order. Randomised once and stick to it is good to avoid gaming the alphabetic order; when used the process of randomly choosing needs to be public and clear. Re-randomised on the fly is good for the voting page, but may be confusing for (lists to) statements and discussion pages, so those may need to be randomised. I bet someone can devise a clever use for the "Random page from category" feature, for election pages. – Nabla (talk) 08:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Clarification, by talk page request:
  • For ballots/voting page
    1. randomise the order every time the page is displayed
    2. randomise once
    3. alphabetical order
    4. other

    Note that I feel each option as... Options 1 and 2: "positive"; option 3: "neutral"; option 4: "negative".

  • For declarations, etc.

    Looks like I was the only one to consider that aspect, so feel free to ignore that part. Still I woud rate that as:

    1. randomise once
    2. alphabetical order
    3. randomise the order every time the page is displayed
    4. other

    With 1 and 2 "positive", 3 and 4 "negative"

    – Nabla (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Hobit

I like the idea of randomization, but I feel that we really want to pick an order and stick with it to make things easier on the voters, so randomizing each time seems unwise. I'd probably prefer that order be either A) Alphabetical (to make it easier on the voters) or B) something at least partly under the candidates' control, such as "order people filed to run". Hobit (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Following up on Tryptofish's list in order from favorite to least favorite:

• Alphabetical--order doesn't matter much and it makes it easier to find someone.
• Consistent arbitrary order. Random is fine, though I like my order-of-signing up.
• Random each time—seems like a lot of work and I'm not even sure it's actually possible. Plus it makes it _really_ annoying to find things.

Frankly, I think it doesn't matter much. The folks at the top might be subject to more scrutiny, but given we have the "no" option rather than just neutral, I don't think that necessarily helps all that much. Hobit (talk) 03:16, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Nick-D

Randomisation is a good idea in all forms of ballots, including here, to avoid donkey votes influencing the result. Is it possible to randomise the order for each individual voter? – this would be much superior to having a single "random" list. Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Tazerdadog

My preferred solutions are as follows: Best

1. Order Alphabetically
2. Randomize Once, then stick with that order
3. By date of candidacy
4. Rerandomize each time

Worst

I find the donkey vote argument to be unconvincing, and a consistent order makes it easier to follow one or more voting guides.

Tazerdadog (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

Should we continue or modify the practice of notifying eligible voters by mass message?

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.

---

Last year, most eligible voters received a message that looked like this on their talk page, informing them of the ongoing election. The voter turnout in 2015 was subsequently remarkably higher than in 2014. Should we continue the mass message for the 2016 election? Mz7 (talk) 03:04, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Statement by Mz7

I am interested in knowing the impact on resources the mass message took. I think greater participation is better, and this certainly accomplished it. However, I noticed that some users who hadn't made any edits for several years were getting notifications. I'm looking for an example, but such editors are unlikely to see or respond to the notification, so it seems like an unnecessary action. We could limit the mass message notification to only those who have made edits within a certain time frame: say, the last year. Mz7 (talk) 17:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Draft

Here's a rough draft of a revision of the mass message, based on comments below:

Hello, {{subst:BASEPAGENAME}}. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee Elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December, to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

Mz7 (talk) 17:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this! Depending on how the message is distributed, there could be an issue of it being given to an editor who, in fact, is not eligible. For that reason, perhaps it would be better to change: "You are eligible to participate in the 2016 Arbitration Committee Elections. Voting is open..." to: "Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee Elections is open...". The eligibility criteria come right after that, so each editor can assess that for themselves. (Also the blue link for the 2016 elections goes to the 2015 page.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for catching the 2015 link. I've also made the change to the opening sentence. Mz7 (talk) 22:42, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks great to me! Thanks again for working on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Opabinia

This doesn't directly answer Mz7's question, but people thinking about both the mass message and the voter eligibility issue below might be interested in the data I compiled during last year's election, which is summarized here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:09, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on getting too involved in this RfC, but some of the comments below made me double-check the sequence of events last year. The original proposal for the mass message was to notify everyone who'd been active in the preceding 3 months, and it ended up going to all eligible voters. In retrospect that was the obviously correct thing to do, IMO – if you're eligible to vote, you're eligible to be told you're eligible to vote. If you want to change the voter pool, you should be focusing on suffrage requirements, not message recipients; we should not be implicitly creating subclasses of "desirable" voters by selecting a subset to receive the message. So I oppose that element of WTT's suggestion below.

On a related note, the message should go out earlier than it did last year, so those notified have an opportunity to participate while the candidates are most active in answering questions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:18, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Worm That Turned: That I agree with – last year there were north of 100k messages distributed, yielding 2674 votes, of whom 273 (~10%) had not edited in the previous three months. I just think the place to look is at voter eligibility, not "message eligibility". I'm also surprised how many people apparently have the "email me about talk page messages" option on. Yuck! Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:36, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Worm That Turned

I'd like to see a mass message of every unblocked editor with over, say, 500 edits, who has edited in the past 12 months. It should be higher than the voting threshold, but should cover a very significant portion of the community. Worm^TT(talk) 15:41, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: The idea was not to so much to create pools of desirable and undesirable voters, but more thinking who might find the message useful. If you've not edited in over a year, I don't think you should be dragged back with a talk page message (and associated email) to vote for the dispute resolution committee, eligible or not. Similarly the majority of users will never pass the 500 mark, and if they're not going pass that mark to they shouldn't (hopefully) need to ever know of Arbcom's existence. Worm^TT(talk) 19:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Tryptofish

I pretty much agree with Worm That Turned. I think we should continue the practice, but raise the threshold from what it was last year. Also, the message itself needs to be revised. Last year, it began: "You appear to be eligible to vote..." That is unhelpful. Either someone is eligible, or they are not. If it's too unreliable to determine eligibility, then that sentence should be deleted, and a new sentence like "The eligibility requirements for voting may be seen at..." should be added later in the message. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Carrite

I thought the mass message, despite vocal misgivings from some old hands, worked out very well and generated rational and predictable results with voter participation greatly increased. That said, I would say that there needs to be a caution about not voting multiple times for multiple accounts since some people may "qualify" more than once. Carrite (talk) 17:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

I also agree with Worm That Turn's suggested threshold for notification. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Doug Weller

This is probably better than my suggestion below. I agree with Worm That Turned as to who should get it. Tryptofish is right about the wording, I always found it weird, still do when I see it on a talk page where it's the last post to an editor. And yes, Carrite's right, warn people about one vote per person, not per account. Doug Weller talk 18:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Commemt from Varun

I had a look at the last years mass message, it was a plain message with a line "you seem to be eligible" which is wrong either one can be eligible or not eligible so my suggestion would be to revamp the whole message and put in a colourful box like we have those WikiProject Invitations the message should look attractive and draw attention to the elections VarunFEB2003 10:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Commemt from Nabla

When it comes to warning those that feel it is useful, I think a site wide notice is probably enough; if you are not active enough to see that then you probably are not active enough to care to vote. Still I am not against a mass message, and increased participation is generaly a good thing (if we also allow for good information, but that is not a problem here). If sent it should go to all eligible voters, and only those, as much as possible. This should not be a way to create different kinds of voters – any problems, e.g. editors inactive for years getting warned, are a question with the eligibility rules and should be handled there, not here – Nabla (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Vanamonde93

I was not planning on getting involved here, but I did want to say that I am entirely in agreement with Opabinia Regalis that those voters that are eligible to vote should get a notification. If we are unhappy with that set, then change the eligibility criteria: for instance, I think it's quite reasonable to say that voters should have been active in the last X days. Once we have chosen an electorate, however, I would consider notifying a subset to be skewing the election (I understand that that is not the intent, and I very much respect those proposing this, but still). Vanamonde (talk) 07:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment from Nick-D

Yes, this clearly worked well. Nick-D (talk) 08:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

Should we modify the voter eligibility criteria?

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 by Doug Weller

I'd like to see the eligibility criteria set a bit higher. Last year it was "(i) has registered an account before Wednesday 00:00, 28 October 2015 (ii) has made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday 00:00, 1 November 2015" (and not blocked). For instance, the number of edits required, whatever we decide it should be, should probably be in the last 12 months. I don't know though if that's technically possible. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

User:Hiding makes a good point. Doug Weller talk 20:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement

I agree with this. We sent a lot of notifications last year to users who hadn't been active for several years. (I think I saw some notifications to users who hadn't edited since '09.) To save resources (notifying only those that would actually see it), we should set an activity restriction if possible. Mz7 (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like there's a specific format to responding to this RfC. I've reformatted Doug's statement to match it. Mz7 (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

The question appears to have been about voter eligibility. I thought it was talking about notifying editors by MassMessage. Creating appropriate section header and striking !vote for now. Mz7 (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

1. Steward elections have required this for years, that is, 600 edits globally, and 50 edits in the past 6 months. If someone's been gone for years, they shouldn't be able to be canvassed to vote. --Rschen7754 06:28, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
2. Absolutely. I feel a !voting user needs at least 1,000 edits to know what the heck they are !voting on and why. And they should have been active recently enough to know the score on the usual scheme of things here. Softlavender (talk) 09:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
3. One of the reasons for requiring a minimum number if edits is to prevent sock-puppetry voting – that is, a single person voting with 2 accounts. However, an easy way to get around that, right now, would be to abandon your account after you vote, disappear for a few months, and return with a brand new account. If you can keep away from your old issues for a while longer, you may get away with having 2 eligible accounts to vote with – and with your abandoned account, use a public internet place near where you live (a library Wifi, an internet cafe) which you would never use your new account at. Requiring a minimum number of recent votes gets around that issue. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
4. Not exactly endorsing. I'm putting my comment here, but that is somewhat arbitrary. Overall, I favor inclusiveness, so I don't want to restrict it very much. I oppose discounting edits made in the past, for the reasons given in the oppose section. The main factor that I would restrict is how recently the account was registered. October of the current year is too recent. Users need to be around longer than that, to really understand how things work. I'd say the account should have been started at least 6 months in advance. That would also address the socking issue, because most socks will not have enough foresight to plan that far in advance. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
5. German Wikipedia has required 400 edits. I think 500 overall edits (in all namespaces) and 100 edits in the past year would be rational criteria, then MassMessage all of them per Opabinia regalis. The voters should have demonstrated that they really care about the project, the community and its fate. Only citizens are allowed to vote in General Elections, not tourists and mere residents. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:35, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
6. Support both increasing the minimum number of edits required, and a minimum number of recent edits. I'd suggest 500 total mainspace edits, as well as 100 ones in the last year. Calidum ¤ 21:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
7. Support requiring a few edits – say 10, no more than 50 – over the last year, or two. I bet most editors which have ever been quite active, can not take a look at WP "as readers" and not hit the edit button once in a while to fix a sentence, add or request a citation, and so on. Also requiring that accounts are more than a few days old would be good, but no more than 6 month required. – Nabla (talk) 08:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
8. Support – should at least equal the requirements for voting for steward, which isn't terribly high. Jonathunder (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Users who don't endorse this statement

1. I've been on an extended wikibreak and just come back. I hate to think I'd be disenfranchised. The old point for blocking newer votes was to stop gaming of the system. I don't see the value in restricting older, less active users. They're not likely to game the system. I don't know that they'd need notifying, but they should at least be eligible to vote. Old timers could have a different perspective that proves useful. At worst, I figure a candidate who attracts support from less active users as well as the active base probably has a better mandate. Hiding T 15:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
2. I believe that every person who has edited enough to be a "member of the community" should have the right to vote, with the only exception being sockpuppets. That will give a much more representative view of the community. The last thing I want is for the choice to be made by "the right sort of people". Worm^TT(talk) 15:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
3. No rationale for this. Do we want to discourage even more editors, most of which had prior Wikipedia experience, from returning to Wikipedia? SSTflyer 04:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
4. This would disenfranchise lots of semi-active editors and editors on wikibreak for no particular reason. Hut 8.5 10:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
5. I oppose an activity requirement. Editors like myself can be aware of recent decelopments and take an interest in the future health of wikipedia while not at the moment contributing actively to article space. AlasdairEdits (talk) 11:00, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
6. We shouldn't disenfranchise temporarily inactive users, nor users in good standing who have just returned from a long break. BethNaught (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
7. As noted above, editors can be inactive in that they are not performing any edits yet still be aware of issues and developments on-wiki. We should not disenfranchise editors from having a say in the governance of the wiki simply because they do not contribute significant content. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
8. Basically per Hiding, WTT and Hut. I for one pay a lot of attention to Wikipedia (too much actually) but don't have a massive number of recent edits. Hobit (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
9. Per Hiding, WTT, Hut and BethNaught. I don't support requiring recent edits. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
10. In my view, if you have the potential to be dragged in front of ArbCom, you should have the ability to vote for them. Stadscykel had the unfurtunateness to get dragged in front of them in only about 150 edits, so last year's eligibility makes sense to me. Tazerdadog (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

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.

Should we warn the candidates about the risks involved?

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.

---

Outing, legal threats, general defamation off-wiki including things such as fake FaceBook pages, attack threads at various forums, an article on Encyclopedia Dramatica, etc. These things happen to non-Arb members of course, but not everyone is aware of the risks. Doug Weller talk 13:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the standard WP:CUOS2015 text? "Applicants must be aware that they are likely to receive considerable internal and external scrutiny. External scrutiny may include attempts to investigate on- and off-wiki activities; previous candidates have had personal details revealed and unwanted contact made with employers and family. We are unable to prevent this and such risks will continue if you are successful." --Rschen7754 06:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with that text then and I agree with it now. Definitely should be included. Worm^TT(talk) 15:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a risks disclaimer most definitely should be included. In a way, it's damn scary to run for ArbCom. You might add not just "unwanted contact" but identity impersonation, anonymous attacks on business or social media pages, etc... Montanabw^(talk) 20:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. There is no downside to providing the information. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Apart from the fact it may give people ideas and lead to more of that sort of thing... Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (spiel) 20:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

If you are replying to me that WP:BEANS is in fact a downside, I really disagree, because the beans have already been spilled. We won't be giving anyone any ideas that they don't already have. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

Should we modify the candidate eligibility criteria?

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 by Softlavender

I'd like to see the eligibility criteria for candidates set higher. Last year it was "(i) has a registered account and has made at least 500 mainspace edits, (ii) is in good standing and not subject to active blocks or site-bans." My personal preference is that the candidates should (i) be an administrator; (ii) have the qualifications of a "Senior Editor": that is, 24,000 edits and 4 years of service. Softlavender (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement

Users who don't endorse this statement

1. 24K edits is much too high and rewards people who are obsessive or use automated tools --In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 14:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
2. Just noting that I wouldn't pass that criteria, and I'm sure other arbs, past and present, wouldn't. Worm^TT(talk) 14:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
3. To the contrary, I'd like to see a non-admin elected some day. Altamel (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
4. Too high of an edit count needed, and I'd like to see a non-admin be an arb. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
5. I don't think the edit count is too high at all, it is well in line with Wikipedia:Service awards. But I do think that non-arbs should have a shot at it. It's tough to be elected if one isn't an arb, but there are several people I can think of who are not admins but would be good ArbCom members. Montanabw^(talk) 20:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
6. We don't suffer from a lack of too many candidates. SSTflyer 04:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
7. I'd be happy to see the bar for candidates raised a little higher – I can't think of any situation in which someone with only 500 mainspace edits has any chance of being elected – but the suggested threshold is far too high and there's nothing necessarily wrong with a non-admin being elected to ArbCom. Hut 8.5 10:28, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
8. I'm certainly against any requirement of candidates to already be admins (in fact, I supported Pgallert), although probably anyone who has a reasonable chance of getting into ArbCom would also pass an RFA. And I think that 24,000 edits is a bit excessive. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
9. Not convinced that edit counts are an useful measure of anything once you get past a certain point (say 10,000). Nor am I convinced that passing an RfA is in any way a requirement for being an arbitrator, given that arbitrators are already elected. Further, we don't need to give administrators such privileges at all. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
10. The point of the eligibility criteria is no to decide who is qualified to be an Arbiter, that ultimate question should be left up to the voters. The point of the eligibility criteria is to weed out candidates with so little experience that they have no chance of being elected, and don't even realize it. Its to filter out non-serious candidacies so the voting list is manageable. 500 edits does that well enough. Monty₈₄₅ 14:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
11. I agree with other editors, who say that non-admins should at least be considered. It comes down to letting the community decide. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
12. Suggestion is too high by a factor of 2. I don't really think this is necessary in any event, as this sort of winnowing takes place through the election process. So far, for example, there have been a grand total of zero non-administrators voted onto Arbcom in the history of the institution. By this example, we don't need rules to say "Must be an administrator" since all but the most exceptional non-administrators aren't going to win election anyway. Similarly, we don't need to ban new editors since they won't be elected whether they run or not. A very low standard as we have been using to knock off a few troll candidacies is an idea with merit, however. Carrite (talk) 17:11, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
13. This is setting the bar way too high, and there have certainly been Arbs who would not have met that standard (and maybe still don't). Anyone voting in the ArbCom election is going to review the candidates' histories anyways, and anyone with a low edit count will likely be dismissed in one's mind. — Jkudlick • t • c • s 17:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
14. Appreciate the sentiment that its important Arbcom members are well familiar with Wikipedia and have a wide and lengthy range of experience. However the edit count suggestion is too high, and from experience on Arbcom there's no absolute necessity that a Committee member also be an administrator.-- Euryalus (talk) 06:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
15. Definitely not. I cannot see it at all likely that anyone would be elected with 500 edits, and i trust the community to find the appropriate level as it votes. As for requiring that they candidates be admins ~ we don't need anything that exacerbates the feeling of two classes of editors that too many seem to experience. Happy days, Lindsay^Hello 15:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
16. Snow way, besides the voters can withhold endorsement based on any criteria (e.g. doesn't have 20K edits) if they really want to. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:26, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
17. Noting that if this proposed criteria were in effect last year it would have excluded one of our most productive arbitrators. Also I agree with Carrite and Euryalus, specifically there is no need to be an admin to be an arb.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

    Productive? Clearly not, or I'd have more edits! ;) Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:11, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

Should the term of office be extended from one year to two?

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 by bluerasberry

I would like to see the office of arbitrator associated with fewer and narrower responsibilities, and for it to be a position with less stress.

Part of the stress of the office is the hype around the election. These elections consume the time of hundreds of the most experienced Wikipedia contributors, and I think the weight of all the attention and labor which goes into the election contributes to making the positions seem more weighty than they actually are. As part of an effort to make the arbitrator office less stressful both for the people serving in the role and the community of stakeholders depending on these services, I suggest considering increasing the term of elected service from one year to two. The depth of review that goes into these elections is sufficient to evaluate any user for more than a one-year term. Having longer terms allows arbitrators to get to know each other better and to foster a culture of practicing what arbitrators do. The main reason why I think terms should be extended is to encourage the people who would vote to engage in other activities than watching the election, like mediating existing conflicts to avoid arbitration.

Perhaps 2016 is not the year for a term extension, or perhaps it is. I hope that eventually terms can be extended. Whatever the case, I did not see anyone proposing term extensions in the past few years of these comment pages. In 2015 there were about 1000 votes, and I would like to estimate that each vote represents an hour of valuable volunteer time. In my view, the community here does not get a good return on its time investment by spending 1000 hours doing this every year, and extending the term of office would be one way to redesign the position to avoid calling for that much time without measurable loss of accountability or quality in arbitration. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Normally, the term is two years already. Elections are every year, with approximately half the seats up for election. Arbs are seated for a single year when they are elected to fill a partial term. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Tryptofish I was confused, thanks. I do not know what I want then. I wish elections would not happen so often. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

No worries! I wish disputes would not happen so often. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

In 2006, the ArbCom decided decided 116 full-fledged cases. In 2016, it is on pace to decide four or five. That doesn't necessarily reflect fewer disputes, and of course the arbitrators also have other duties, but in a way you are getting your wish. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. And counter-intuitive, at least for me. It does not feel that way to me, but of course I'm not a reliable source, and perhaps I'm wiki-jaded. But maybe the community is getting better at ending disputes before they reach the Arb-able stage. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: If you haven't already, see my post here, and the comments on its talkpage. That was written in 2012, but the trend has continued since then. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Newyorkbrad: No, that was new to me, and also very interesting, thanks. Given that what we are discussing is getting off-topic for an RfC about the election process, I'm going to reply further at your user talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

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.

Should we ban voting guides

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.

---

It's perhaps a little late to propose this, but I suggest that we no longer permit people to publish formal voting guide sand not link to them from an of the election pages . They encourage mindless voting, and amount to lobbying, of the exact sort we prohibit everywhere else in WP. The candidates have the right to be judged individually by everyone who votes, and the tolerance we have had for voting guides strikes me as being much too similar to party politics. I deliberately haven't looked back to see what effect they might have had in the last election, or whether the results matched the consensus of the voting guides; whether or not they supported my own preferences; they are wrong in themselves. We have for many years tried to prevent the formation of parties in WP, though there do tend to be consistent alignments about specific issues. But there are no general blocs, and I think that anything that might lead to them is detrimental to the spirit of open participation. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Probably with a COI, I disagree with this suggestion. There has been some analysis of the guides' effects, and it basically comes down to no individual guide having that much correlation with the actual results, but an average of all the guides ends up being fairly predictive. One can argue chicken-and-egg: perhaps the guides as a whole have an influence, or perhaps they just mirror the existing views of the community. In any case, I think that there is no real evidence that they do harm. I believe very few editors mindlessly vote according to a particular guide, but that the better guides provide an additional venue for airing opinions, and the lousier guides are mostly ignored. Editors really are not naive, and they do vote per their own thoughts for the most part. One thing I started to do in my guide a few years ago, and that I highly recommend, is to offer the candidates a space to respond to what I said. Last year, a few of them did. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:47, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hell no. If I am unfamiliar with a candidate's work, but multiple users who I am familiar with and respect have written a guide on the candidate, I can quickly get an idea of if there are any issues that require my judgement. Tazerdadog (talk) 03:05, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would not be appropriate to ban voter guides. It is important that we have as open a discourse about the election as possible. We should be very reluctant to restrict what editors can say about the election in their own userspace, beyond enforcing the core site wide policies. (And even then, we should give editors some more rope than we otherwise might for those policies that aren't black and white in terms of enforcement) As such I would strongly oppose that portion. As for the inclusion of voter guides in the template, I would tend to say we should continue to allow it, but I don't see a very compelling case either way, and so I guess I would say I'm neutral leaning oppose on that question. As for timing on this question, voter guides wont be an issue at all until nominations start, so there isn't really a problem with discussing it now, other than the idea we should have all the discussions at the same time during the month of the RFC. Monty₈₄₅ 04:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I would not object to modifying the template that links to the guides, to include a statement that they are not "official" (or is that already the case? I don't remember), but I don't think it is necessary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose – I suspect (although this is impossible to test) that a voter is likely to look at 1 or 2 voting guides, see what comments (s)he tends to agree with, and vote based on this. For example, if the most a voting guide says about a specific candidate is "Oppose, not an admin", then if the voter isn't opposed to non-admins getting in, (s)he will ignore that comment. By taking away the voting guides, we would be making things harder for voters. And any correlation between the guides and the results can easily be explained by a claim that the authors of the guides are a reasonably representative sample of the voters. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

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.