2015 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status

The December 2015 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 2015 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 2015 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 2014 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 last year's request for comment, the electoral commission timetable is as follows:

Nominations: Friday 00:00, 9 October - Friday 23:59, 16 October (7 days)
Evaluation period: Saturday 00:00, 17 October - Friday 23:59, 23 October (7 days)
Commission selection: completed by Friday 00:00, 30 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: Monday 00:00, 23 November to Sunday 23:59, 6 December (14 days)
Scrutineering: Begins Monday 00:00, 7 December

The points have been chosen in part from the comments from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Feedback. More proposals may be added if other concerns arise.

Duration: This RfC is scheduled to last for about 30 days; on or after September 28, 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 there be a change in the methods of publicity for the election?

There was surprisingly little participation in this RFC; either no one knew it was happening, or no one cares anymore, or we've finally got most of the details ironed out. I'm closing this particular section because consensus is very clear, discussion has stalled, and the result is unlikely to change if discussion is extended. Closing as follows:

There is an extremely clear consensus to disallow "ads" of any kind.
There is a clear consensus to include a Central Notice banner of some kind for the election in general (not rotating banners for individual candidates); details weren't decided on, so details will be left up to the Electoral Commission (not part of close, just my suggestion to EC: possibly just do it however we do WMF board election notice?)
There was some interest in having interviews in the Signpost, but (a) there wasn't a clear consensus for or against, and (b) I'm not sure how you'd "force" the Signpost to do that anyway. I do not believe it is a supervote to interpret this as: "Floquenbeam will tell the editor of the Signpost that there was some interest expressed here for the Signpost to do this, but it is left up to the editorial board (or editor, or Rupert Murdoch, or whoever runs the place) to decide whether to do it, and if so, how."

--Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 29 September 2015 (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.

In the request for feedback it was noted by some users that this year's election received less community participation in comparison to years past. Some suggestions have been made to increase community awareness of the elections, including posting a one time central notice and/or permitting a candidate created "ad". Should there be a change in the methods in which we publicize the elections? If so, how should it be done? Mike V • Talk 03:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I dislike the idea of candidate "ads" as my gut feeling is that they will favour those candidates who are better at creating adverts, which is not a relevant skill for being an arbitrator. Independent (i.e. created by someone who is not a candidate or sitting arbitrator not up for election - i.e. someone who will not be on the committee in 2016, and who is not prohibited from taking part in the election) ads advertising (a) nominations and (b) the election would not, in principle, be something I object to. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
i agree entirely-Albert einstein 1110 — Albert einstein 1110 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Interviews with all the candidates in the Signpost is something I would be interested in hearing others' views about. If they happen I'd want them all to be published in the same issue. Thryduulf (talk) 10:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I completely agree that we need to publicise the election better. I don't like ads or interviews - I see them both having the same problems as favoring certain andidates who have skills not really required to be an Arb. Doug Weller (talk) 14:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree completely regarding "ads." However, the skills involved in an interview would seem to parallel those involved in answering candidate questions, which a lot of the voters do already rely on. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

Albert einstein 1110 (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2015 (UTC) — Albert einstein 1110 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

- - - One requires instant responses, the other allows more thought. Doug Weller (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can find an instance where the Signpost did sort of a group interview for recently appointed arbitrators (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-01-15/Arbitration series) but a much more thorough interviewing of all WMF Board candidates in 2009 (Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009 Board elections). It really would require a commitment from the Signpost to devote the editor time to pulling together a series like this. The prep time would be reduced by having set questions and word limits for answers. The bigger consideration is whether to subject arbitration candidates to even more questioning since they frequently face dozens of random questions before the election on their candidate pages.
      - There should be banners on Watchlist pages that the nomination period is open and when the election is occurring but I think this already occurs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with others' positions on candidate-created ads. However, I like the idea of a Central Notice banner. We typically have a banner for steward/board of trustees elections and for WMF fundraisers, if I recall correctly. The banner would be a one-time dismissible and neutrally worded banner at the top of random pages that would be presented to eligible voters to publicize the election in general, not specific candidates. Mz7 (talk) 20:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, "ads"? No, no, a thousand times no. A neutral, general notice banner is fine. Interviews are OK, but really only get one person's POV towards the candidate. I would encourage more and better Voters' Guides, and more publicity for their existance - I'm more interested in hearing the views of individual editors whom I trust (or don't trust) than anything else. I am capable of independent thought, and never vote a "party ticket" according to a voters' guide, but they can heavily influence my vote, especially about candidates with whom I am not as familiar. BMK (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Campaign ads will favour candidates who are willing to use their own photos. They'll end up being more memorable to voters who'll be able to easily attach a name to a face. Although you could argue having candidates who are more open about their identity is a good thing transparency-wise, so I dunno. Alternatively joke candidates could end up winning due to attracting a lot of attention from low key editors who don't give a damn about wikipolitics. Although I do love it when a joke candidate shakes up the status quo in an overly bureaucratic institution, so I dunno. Brustopher (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2015 (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.

How should nomination deadlines be handled?

Closing this section as follows:

There is very clear consensus that the closing deadline for nominations needs to be a "hard" deadline, with no exceptions. Nomination pages must be created and transcluded before the deadline, with zero wiggle room.
There was some mention of what to do if there are not enough candidates, but (a) no one else commented on that, and (b) that isn't very likely. So there is no exception for a lack of candidates.
There was some mention of what to do if there is a site-wide disruption of some kind. No consensus of what to do in this case was settled on, but the Electoral Commission is well suited to make decisions in a case like this.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2015 (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.

During the 2014 election there was some uncertainty in the nomination deadline for Arbitration Committee and Electoral Commission candidates. Due to a perceived ambiguity in the rules, the Electoral Commission discussed the eligibility of two of the candidates and made a judgement call. Going forward, I personally believe it should be best to establish a consensus on how situations like this should be handled. What is considered to be an eligible nomination? Should the candidate complete and transclude their nomination by the deadline? Is the candidate permitted to stand if they create their nomination page before the deadline and transclude it within a set period of time? (24 hours? 48 hours? Longer?) How firm should the deadline be? Is the Electoral Commission permitted to use their collective discretion or should they adhere to the timeline presented? How should the deadlines of Electoral Commission nominations be handled? Mike V • Talk 03:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a firm deadline is fairest to all parties. My first thought about what the deadline should be is that the candidate statement must be completed (determined as the final edit before transition) before the deadline, and that it must be transcluded no later than 12 hours after the deadline. Thryduulf (talk) 10:28, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to see their page transcluded by the deadline, no exceptions at all for any reason except for widescale site downtime. Any candidate statements that are not transcluded at the deadline should be deleted, period. I do not understand why there should be any flexibility on this point. It's pretty disrespectful to the community for potential candidates to be allowed to publicly announce their candidacy after the deadline has passed, and we all know it's just a way to try to game the system. Please stick to the deadline, which should be absolute. Risker (talk) 11:54, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agreed with Risker, nothing more to add.--Staberinde (talk) 16:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was one of those two candidates. I strongly refute as bad faith the claims that it is a way to game the system. It was my fault for making up my mind to run too late. I started the process in time but my internet connection was so slow that night that by the time I had completed it the the time had expired so I withdrew it immediately and completely voluntarily. On noticing the withdrawal the Election Commission graciously extended to me the possibility of reactivating my registration but I preferred to adhere to the deadline. That is how I think it should be - deadline is deadline: complete and transclude before it expires. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Risker, strict deadline, everything done before the bell tolls. BMK (talk) 01:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kudpung, that just because a candidate misses the deadline, doesn't imply they are gaming the system. Often, quite the opposite: they aren't paying enough attention to the system, to be capable of gaming it! :-) That said, I think a firm deadline, no exceptions, is the only way to be correct/fair/etc, and if you miss the deadline, try again next election. *That* said, I think the deadline should be as firm as possible, but no firmer: in cases where there are too few nominations by the deadline to actually fill the open slots, or in cases where the hypothetical widescale sitewide downtime (e.g. malware in the datacenter or somesuch) cause unforeseen problems, I think there needs to be an escape-route. WP:IAR is a good escape route, of course, but in something touchy like arb-elections, planning ahead is better: suggest that, if a supermajority of the sitting arbs and the nominees up for election, agree to make an exception to the deadline (for any reason that a supermajority can agree on), then the deadline-exception ought to be allowed on a case-by-case basis. Thataway, in cases where connectivity issues are at fault, as happened to Kudpung, there is a clear-cut loophole that permits past-the-deadline nominations to count (if arbs and before-the-deadline-nominees are super-majority sympathetic), and an equally clear-cut lack of flexibility outside that specific supermajority-imposed-exception. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 05:33, 8 September 2015 (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.

Should adjustments be made to expedite the election results?

Closing this section as follows:

There is a general consensus (not overwhelming, but it is there) not to have en.wiki functionaries take part in the scutineering.
There is a general desire for scrutineering to take less time, but there is a consensus not to have some kind of deadline.
The idea of having 5 scrutineers, and requiring only 3 of them to certify the results, was brought up by a couple of people, but no consensus was arrived at. While it's tempting to leave this one issue open to get more opinions, no one has commented here since 9/11, so the issue seems tired. Closing this as "continue to use 3 scrutineers, as in previous years."
A couple of other ideas were expressed for ways to speed things up, including:
(a) Selecting/recruiting scrutineers that we are confident will be available when the time comes

(b) Have the scrutineers look at votes as they come in, if that is technically possible.

Neither of these ideas had much discussion, but it is hard to imagine anyone opposing them, so the Electoral Commission is requested to take these measures into account (if technically feasible) to ensure timely scrutineering of votes.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2015 (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.

After last year's election, there were concerns raised that the duration of the scrutineering period was longer than desired. (1, 2) Should adjustments be made in the hopes of providing the election results in a timely manner? If so, here are some suggestions to consider: Should we establish a deadline for the election scrutineers? (e.g. 3 days?) Should we expand the number of scrutineers from 3 to 5 and only require 3 to certify the results, provided there isn't a reasonable objection? Should we permit English Wikipedia checkusers to serve as scrutineers, provided that they aren't standing for election as an arbitrator and are willing to abstain from voting in the present election? Thoughts and additional suggestions are welcomed. Mike V • Talk 03:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My first thought is that a deadline would not be a good thing, as there are too many factors outside the scrutineers control that could affect the speed of their checks (e.g. securepoll malfunctions, waiting for third parties to get back to them, etc). Certification from 3 of 5 is an interesting idea. I'm wondering about a system where any scrutineer could throw up a flag when they discover something needs to be investigated/checked and, then lower the flag when it has been satisfactorily resolved, and the presence of an unresolved flag would prevent certification. That sort of thing would work with 3 of 5 I think. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding en.wp checkusers, I would not be opposed as long as they were a minority of the scrutineers - i.e. up to 1 of 3 or up to 2 of 5. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking from experience on Board/FDC elections, a majority of scrutineers should be sufficient. Historically, there have been issues of one or more scrutineers accepting the role and then becoming unavailable at crunch time. I would strongly urge that scrutineers review the data starting a few days in and do so again on a regular basis, resolving problems as they are identified. This by itself makes a huge difference in the turnaround of the results. There are advantages to enwiki CUs acting as part of the scrutineer team (they shouldn't be the majority), particularly familiarity with the project and its more active users; there are also disadvantages, such as their having to disenfranchise in order to participate at this level. Speaking personally on this point, I would not be willing to give up my vote for the "opportunity" of scrutineering; I suspect that as a group the checkusers and oversighters participate at a much higher rate in Arbcom elections than any other group except past/present arbitrators and candidates. Risker (talk) 11:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've noticed that often the same small group editors participate on the election committees for several years and I hope if an editor is appointed to the committee and then suddenly goes AWOL during crunch time, this would used as a consideration in their future appointment to an election committee. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, finding some way to make certain that the scrutineers are actually available would be very good. Isn't that why results were held up last time (or maybe the time before). I'm not crazy about en.wiki functionaries being scrutineers - I think it raises too many issues that some editors would latch on to. Can more scrutiny be performed on an ongoing basis, as votes come in, instead of waiting to have it all done at the end? BMK (talk) 01:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone actually know how many votes the scrutineers have discarded in past elections? If it's not more than a handful I wonder if such rigorous scrutineer is in fact needed. Calidum 22:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is only a handful, knowledge that there is less scrutiny would most probable encourage cheating. BMK (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thought of a deadline is tempting, but we have to remember that the scrutineers are users for whom en.wp is not their home wiki, and they are doing us a favor by volunteering to help with this laborious process. I can also see the appeal of just letting our own CU team do it, but they work closely with the committee. While I personally would trust them to be entirely fair and honest in carrying out this duty, in such matters even the appearance of a potential for impropriety is to be avoided. So while I'd like to see this period be a short as possible, we shouldn't sacrifice the integrity of the process or act like ingrates towards people from other projects who are helping us to accomplish it. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2015 (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.

Get rid of the default questions?

Closing as follows:

There is a consensus to continue last year's tradition of not having boilerplate questions automatically asked of all candidates.
There is no consensus to limit the number of questions asked by any one user. There was agreement that candidates can simply choose not to answer questions if they desire.
There was some discussion on the talk page about Electoral Commission, or Coordinators, being able to weed out questions. There was no consensus for this.

--Floquenbeam (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2015 (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.

I've brought this up before. Even with lighter participation, candidates are bombarded with questions. Many of them replicate points from the default questions. We have seen some candidates replying to up to 60 questions. These elections create vast amounts of materials, and pretty much nobody reads all of it. Between the user-generated questions, the candidate statements, and the ever-increasing pile of self-important election guides, the default questions are just more noise and I can't see how anyone would believe the answers given to them have any impact whatsoever on the eventual result. It's time to just get rid of them, since we can't really limit user questions or guides. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the previous RfC it was decided to remove the boilerplate questions. All questions posed to the candidates last year were from members of the community. Mike V • Talk 20:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) On the talk page (I think) I suggested the idea of someone (coordinators perhaps) having the power to remove questions that are duplicative or irrelevant, which would have the same effect I think. Thryduulf (talk) 20:41, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The total number of user questions should be limited and the number of user questions per user should be limited. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I especially like the ideas of (a) empowering the coordinators to prune redundancy, and (b) limiting questions to one per user. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:15, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think one question per user is too few, particularly if combined with redundancy and irrelevancy provisions. More complicated (maybe too complicated) but possibly better would be to give a limit of 1 question for every candidate but counted accross all candidates, so with 10 candidates they could ask one question to everyone with no follow-ups, or they could ask ten questions of one candidate, or however they choose. I think though that just removing redundant and irrelevant questions will be better. Thryduulf (talk) 23:28, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, that was actually what I intended, but did not say clearly. In other words, one user may ask one question per candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - One question per user per candidate seems reasonable to me as well. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Although some people do indeed pose some not really necessary questions, I don't think that limiting the number to "exactly one" is an appropriate solution. It has been argued that a candidate who can't answer, or can't find the time to answer, 60 questions is not prepared for the workload at ArbCom. On the other side, two or even three questions, or follow-up questions after the first one, by one user/voter may be relevant, while other users/voters may pose a single question which is irrelevant and totally out-of-scope of an ArbCom election. I think Wikipedia has fared well so far by not establishing absolute numbers in guidelines whenever possible. Also, the candidate is allowed to ignore any number of questions, and a large number of voters do not read all the answers before casting their votes. Kraxler (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, the most useful questions have been from people who asked multiple questions, or who asked the same question of every candidate. Otherwise it focuses too much on complaining about a specific candidate. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 24 September 2015 (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.