2023 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 16:38 (UTC), Sunday, 15 December 2024 (Purge)

Thank you for participating in the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.

2023 Feedback and discussions

Irrelevant content from last year

Does someone want to take a few minutes to correct the dates and remove some of the content which is irrelevant to this year's elections? The results table, for example. Pinging @SuperBowlfan123: who copied it at first. (Not too concerned, however. I might run eventually, though.......) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattdaviesfsic: What ? - FlightTime (open channel) 15:06, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do accept my apologies, I pinged you by accident! Sorry about that. (Although my main point still stands.) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 15:14, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mattdaviesfsic: No problem. No need to apologize. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 15:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disqualifying blocks and bans

Per WP:ACERFC2023#Blocks and bans which disqualify candidates it needs to be clarified partially blocked/topic banned users are eligible to stand as long as their block/ban does not prevent them from submitting their candidacy. The RFC did not specify an exact wording so we need to pick one. The current relevant wording is a list of requirements:

An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who: [...]
(ii) is not subject to active blocks or site-bans,

My first suggestion is to change that item to:

(ii) is not subject to active blocks or bans which prevent fully submitting their candidacy, including site-wide blocks and bans.

It's likely that someone else will have a better suggestion though. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The most recently revised wording in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections/ACERFC decisions to date is that is not prevented from submitting their candidacy by a block or ban. Personally I'd just update this page to match (and if there is no objection I'll do it). isaacl (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tranche shift

Just thought this was interesting: 2023 will be the third year in a row that eight vacancies are all eligible to be filled with two-year terms. See WP:ACE2023#Vacant seats. Basically, if an arbitrator resigns from the Committee during the first year of their two-year term, and if they are also in the tranche that has exactly eight arbitrators, then their seat will swap over to the other tranche—see WP:ACERFC2013#Handling of the 8th Vacant Seat. Last year, one seat from Tranche Beta moved to Tranche Alpha because of the resignation of Donald Albury, and this year, that seat will move back to Tranche Beta because of the resignation of SilkTork. Mz7 (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately I don't recall having to force the tranche size (e.g. if we have multiple mid-term resignations). — xaosflux ^Talk 12:29, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Expressing opposition publicly

are users allowed to express opposition publicly (i.e. on enwp pages) before the voting begins?
are users allowed when the voting is underway?
are users allowed after results are finalised?
if yes, is there a page designated for public expression of opposition to candidates?

RZuo (talk) 14:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo Please see WP:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Discussion. You may post your support or opposition to any candidate there. RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo Please keep in mind the general requirements that all discussions are covered by Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. You may also publish your own voter guide and link it to the template for all the election pages (guides must follow the rules). — xaosflux ^Talk 18:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Late resignation

Just noting, we are aware that Opabinia regalis has resigned, as this was an expiring term there is no impact to the current election cycle. For electcom, — xaosflux ^Talk 16:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting instruction error?

I entered the voting page and read: Discuss the candidates. You may read and engage in discussion of the candidates here. It links to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates/Discussion - shouldn't it link to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Discussion? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing description

"has made at least 10 live edits (in any namespace) in the one year prior to 00:00, 1 November 2023"

Does this mean 10 non-reverted edits or 10 edits that are the current version of a page. A.FLOCK (talk) 12:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither. It means 10 edits that have not been deleted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates' English skills

I read the candidates' blurbs and found three of them to be free of grammatical and stylistic blunders. Interesting that two candidates used the pluperfect where a simple past was called for: I'd have expected the opposite mistake to be more common, as the perfect tenses generally seem to be in decline. The one non-native speaker failed to use a present perfect where appropriate, but otherwise wrote well: I would excuse that and say four candidates demonstrated clear, professional editorial skills. Yes, the arbitration job is not an editorial job in the narrow sense, but still -- should poor editors be promoted to oversee editors? Wegesrand (talk) 14:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is of course a decision that any voter can make with their vote. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:49, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arbs don't oversee other editors' editing. If an editor doesn't have the necessary skills to edit in English, an admin or the community would deal with it. As Xaosflux points out, you're free to use this as your own yardstick, but I can't imagine why we'd need to require arbs to be among our best writers/editors. They already need too many other skills that are more important to doing the job. Valereee (talk) 16:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

+2, while someone could propose additional candidate requirements during next year's RFC, I suspect any sort of grammar skills test would be rapidly snow opposed. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point in the election, discussion of the candidate qualifications can be held at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Discussion. isaacl (talk) 17:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw this.

Hopefully, Special:Diff/1187867848 solved the problem. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:10, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it isn't even that easy, given that the surprise (bullet point 1) is over? ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where to place questions on the questions to candidates pages

The consensus seems to be that new questions to candidates should go at the bottom, but the only thing visible about location in the editing window is "below the line". As there is a line between the instructions and first question it is reasonable for people to assume that's where they are meant to go. This should be clarified and consideration should be given to an edit notice. Thryduulf (talk) 19:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As it's the same general convention for English Wikipedia talk pages (minus a few rare exceptions), personally I wouldn't favour having an edit notice. isaacl (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf sorry, not seeing where you are getting lost?

When the page first starts, there is a horizonal rule (e.g. Special:PermaLink/1184683656) - so "below the line" is where to put the first question. Once the first question is added it is obviously an ordered list, so it should be fairly easy to assume that you append new ordered entries to the end of the list. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:29, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting lost, but given that in just the couple of days I've had the pages on my watchlist multiple people have independently top-posted their question, it seems that the correct positioning is not obvious to everybody. Thryduulf (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Thryduulf thanks, do you think improving the on-page text would work (and would be much more manageable then edit notices) - something along the line of changing the Add your questions below the line using the following markup... to include a "at the bottom of the page"? — xaosflux ^Talk 22:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps just Add your questions at the bottom of the page using the following markup:. (I was just going to boldly make a change, but since you asked...) Much like on talk pages, anyone can just restore the desired order, as Maxim did on his questions page, but having a simple direction won't hurt. isaacl (talk) 23:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to boldly fix that for next year here: Template:Arbitration Committee candidate/preload/questions. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:18, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure; we can still change the message for this year, right? I don't think it will have a undue effect. isaacl (talk) 23:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think I prefer "bottom of the list" rather than "bottom of the page". If that would be confusing when there aren't any questions we could add a hidden comment along the lines of "replace this comment with the first question". I don't think changing the message for this year will have any undue effect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The usual approach for other discussions with lists is to have a blank placeholder item. Since the copy-and-paste instructions include a # character, this may lead to a blank item before actual ones, but that's not really a big deal (someone can remove it later). Personally I think if the commenter is someone who doesn't know English Wikipedia talk page conventions yet, saying "bottom of the page" is more likely to attain the desired result. isaacl (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My thinking for "bottom of the list" was we don't want them added below categories. I don't know how much of an issue this would be in actual practice though. Thryduulf (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, the individual candidate question pages don't have any categories. If ones were added, they can be placed higher up on the page, which I believe is common for discussion pages (I suspect that any categorization of talk pages and the like is happening mainly through templates). isaacl (talk) 20:30, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just do it manually on each of the pages. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voting eligibility

SecurePoll tells me I'm not eligible to vote, which apparently is because I don't have 10 edits in the recent year. My opinion is, for that criteria, editors should be allowed to reach those edits during the voting period rather than the cutoff being before voting starts. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 20:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As voting eligibility is determined by the RFC pre-election this is not something can be changed for this election. You (or anyone else) is free to propose changing the rules for in next year's RFC (September). Proposals can be collated in advance Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024. Thryduulf (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scrutineering delays

Answered in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Coordination#Any updates on the scrutineering process?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We are past two weeks since the scrutineering has started, the longest since quite some time. Any comments on why it is taking so long? Ian P. Tetriss (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Follow ups for 2024

MMS mobile warning

If phab:T296349 is still open include a note about it in the MMS. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility improvements at voting page

The voting page now has two links to "here", which is recommended against from an accessibility standpoint. Currently:

Discuss the candidates. You may read and engage in discussion of the candidates here.
Give feedback on the election. Please give feedback on the election here.

Proposed (assuming that these links aren't coded up to change each year):

Discuss the candidates. You can read the candidate statements, discuss the candidates and ask questions.
Give feedback. Please give feedback on the election.

Not married to any of the wording, or the inclusion of extra links. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely did not click on the link to this page, realizing it was a Talk page for all ArbCom Elections - I mistakenly thought there might be a broad Talk page for the 2023 election, that wasn't specific to any one candidate. In fact, I mostly clicked out of curiosity, musing that it seemed an unnecessary thing to include. I'd consider sticking to the actual name of the page for any text links to it, such as Talk: Aritration Committee Elections sitting solo at the bottom of the template box or under its own header near the bottom, with a note to the effect of: Visit this page to give feedback on the election process and your suggestions for making it more accessible to all voters.

Also on the subject of Usability & Accessibility, I would be very in favor of reviewing the entirety of the process for next year, from the terms of readabilty/reading level. I know that I'm not the only one in recent years, to bring up the dense language that makes the tech side of Wikipedia seemingly inaccessible to many, but when I'm trying to learn more about any administrative process it seems like a paragraph takes an hour. Even the WP:ABOUTACE page does little to simplify the descriptions. My reading level is well above HS and it's a slog to get through a lot of this instructional text and the candidate materials, especially with the use of so many abbreviations - for example, took me a minute to figure out the distinction between ACE and ArbCom. One of the main reasons I haven't voted until now is that it was clear the time commitment for me would be a lot, because I am likely to want to read a bit of in-depth information on each candidate and just getting through a single old case being cited in a question can take an hour or more.

I would consider both a short list of abbreviations being visible or linked on the yearly election page, and a concerted effort to bring the reading level of the text at least down to a solid Associates of Arts Degree level (or other non-US equivalent). A little moderation on the Candidate Questions page is also worth considering. For example one question was not just inappropriate to the venue but included very reductive and marginalizing language about other groups of editors; something that on any other page would've triggered administrative actions. I don't think such a question should be allowed to clog up the page, nor should candidates be responsible for addressing that behavior while trying to address genuine questions. Obviously you want to be extremely cautious to never alter the content of a question or an answer, but on Wikipedia we know how a lack of moderation can lead to vandalism.

I'll probably have a few more suggestions as I get through more pages, but I hope these are helpful. One of the reasons I still feel like such a n00b here, after more than a decade as an editor, is because every time I try to dive deeper into the admin or tech sides of Wikipedia (or Wikimedia) I am so quickly overwhelmed with too much information while still struggling to finding the answers I need to be even a casual editor - doing anything more has literally felt out of my grasp, and I'm a pretty capable administrator with an IT background. I'd love to see a sustained effort to at least make the elections and leadership information more accessible for the average person. CleverTitania (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@CleverTitania we have a process for removing inappropriate questions, if there is one you would like to challenge please post at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Coordination. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:01, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link rewords should be simple to do for next year, no RFC needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:45, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding updating some of the information pages, etc - in general if you are providing clarity, improving wording, etc WP:BOLD is fine - go for it. If you are looking at changing the rules of the election, a RFC is needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:00, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Instructions to scrutinizers

Resolved

– Link added. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Coordination/Instructions for scrutineers says They should pass on any appropriate data to the enwiki CheckUsers listed above but there is no such list. This should probably get turned into "They should pass on any appropriate data to an enwiki CheckUser". — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 2023-12-12T16:41:30 (UTC)

@RoySmith: perhaps just link to Wikipedia:CheckUser#Contacting_a_checkuser? — xaosflux ^Talk 18:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that works. RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done — xaosflux ^Talk 15:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scrutineering may take quite some time and run in to holidays

May want to reconsider the election schedule. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The other alternative is to have active enwiki checkusers act as scrutineers. The timeline isn't particularly the issue here, it's the ability to make the time commitment to carry out this task throughout the election, rather than after everyone has voted. SecurePoll elections can be scrutineered in real time (give or take), but quite understandably stewards aren't going to invest the additional hours to do that; they have plenty of other things to do. The question would be more whether we can find 3 enwiki CUs who don't want to vote and have not expressed an opinion. Risker (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An informal discussion on the Functionaries list would seem to be a good way of finding out whether it is likely that three such CUs are likely to exist and willing to volunteer. Only if it seems reasonably likely would it be worth investigating whether the community would be happy with them taking on the role.

While it is possible to see who has voted, and so whether they have upheld that part of the bargain, it would need to be decided in advance what action(s) should be taken if they do vote or otherwise express an opinion on candidates during the election. Could other CUs verify whether they had taken any inappropriate actions? While I trust none of the current CUs would abuse this position, I see these questions as a hope for the best but prepare for the worst type situation. Thryduulf (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I like the concept of off-project scrutineers. There's a fairly small circle of people who wear the CU/arb/crat hats on enwiki, with many of those people wearing multiple of those hats. Bringing in people outside that circle is a good thing. I don't see any reason we couldn't start ACE a week earlier to leave more wiggle room at the back end. If we end up moving away from a rigid calendar-based CUOS appointment cycle, that would also make it easier to start ACE earlier. RoySmith (talk) 02:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unavailable scrutineers

While 3 scrutineers and possible alternants are invited, in some cases there may become a shortage of scrutineers. Should solidify that "a majority" of the scrutineers are sufficient for certification. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For this year, we have been notified that one of the scrutineers is not currently available, and there are no alternants. As such, the election commission has determined that certification may complete with a majority of the scrutineers certifications. The other scrutineers is welcome to add their certification after the fact. For the election commission, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: the final scrutineer became available and completed the certification. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scrutineer's opinion: I think being able to (if needed) to certify ACE by a majority call is useful even when there is an alternate. If the alternate scrutineer has to step in, they'd have to catch up with all the work the rest of the scrutineers already did (and more or less check the full election). Otherwise, they can't really be certain that what they're certifying is, in fact, correct.

This is generally okay when one of the scrutineers becomes unavailable at the start of the scrutineering. However, when the unexpected unavailability happens near the end of the process, calling the alternate in would generate an even longer delay, which is definitely not desirable.

Of course, I'm not running the ACE process at enwiki, so feel free to ignore what I said above, but since I scrutineered several ACEs in the past, I'm voicing myself here. Martin Urbanec (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Martin - we'll likely codify this in our rules next year. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tool to determine eligibility

Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Feedback#Tool to determine eligibility the coordination instructions for 2024 should include a request to add the election to the tool. Obviously this cannot be done until after the RFC determines what the eligibility criteria are. Thryduulf (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rethinking scrutineering

I'd like us as a community to rethink how we approach scrutineering and how useful the current approach (which hasn't changed in over a decade) actually is. I'm personally not convinced that closely examining each and every vote is a worthwhile use of community time, both because of changes to the threat model (IPs and UAs have become less useful as identifiers since scrutineering was first established and each user only has a single IP+UA saved) and because the practical threat seems fairly low (a bad actor would need to game hundreds of edits across dozens of accounts to make any difference...and they don't even know who will be running until late in the year). Yes, I was around for Edgar, and that was a) the exception that proves the rule, and b) still wasn't enough accounts to have meaningfully changed the results. I think we should consider, for example, only checking a random % sample of the votes — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralNotability (talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Without having fully thought through this proposal, my initial reaction is that any change from "100%" should be to "meaningful% + anything suspicious". The most recent time anything related to this was asked (WP:ACERFC2022#Proposal 3: Striking of votes by sockpuppeteers) the community response suggested a very low tolerance towards anyone attempting to unduly influence the election, regardless of how likely that attempt was to have any meaningful impact. Thryduulf (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Specifying how to sort results

Oddly enough, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Election/Rules doesn't seem to say how we determine who wins. We've got:

A minimum 50% support is required to be elected for a 1-year term, and a minimum 60% support is required for a 2-year term.
Successful candidates with the lowest support percentages are given the 1-year term if any.

but nowhere does it actually say:

The 8 candidates with the highest percentage are the winners.

It's kind of implied by the other two, but we really should be explicit that it's percentage (as opposed to total support or net) that you sort on. Sorting on either of those other columns this year would have given different results. And doing "sort by net, subject to a 50% cutoff" would technically have met the rules as written. RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I guess we want something like

select username into two_year_terms from results where percent >= 60 order by percent limit 8;

select username into one_year_terms from results where percent >= 50 and percent < 60 order by percent;

but I'm not quite sure how to get the limit on one_year_term computed properly. RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find where it is specified, but in practice the allocation of seats is:

Place the candidates into three lists, all sorted by support percentage with the greatest first.
1. List 1, all those candidates who got >=60% support
2. List 2, all those candidates who got >=50% and <60% support
3. List 3, all those candidates who got <50% support
Load list 1 and, starting from the top and working sequentially, allocate the two year seats until either there are no more candidates in the list or no more two year seats.
Append list 2 to the bottom of list 1 to produce list 4
Load list 4 and, starting with the highest place candidate who has not yet been allocated a seat and working sequentially, allocate the one year seats until there are either no more candidates in the list or no more seats.
Append list 3 to the bottom of list 4 to produce list 5
Publish list 5 as the results.

Thryduulf (talk) 19:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The election page has always specified that the arbitrators are appointed on the basis of support percentage. In 2019, the year after the introduction of the 50% threshold, I updated the procedure to specify that candidates are appointed in decreasing order of their support percentage (as per common understanding), and provided more details on how the seats are filled (that year there were three mid-term replacement seats that were one-year only, so I wanted the procedure to explicitly cover this circumstance). The current version can be seen at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023 § Vacant seats. It's one of the procedures that as far as I know has been established by implicit understanding during discussion of the election RfCs, rather than an explicit proposal. (I have not, though, gone back through the history of all the annual RfCs to see if it had been more explicitly stated once upon a time, when all the rules were approved each year.) isaacl (talk) 20:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Past tense

Regarding these edits: I know some previous election pages have been modified in this way to place the election events in the past. I feel, though, that it's a waste of time. I don't think a significant portion of editors are confused into thinking that the election is still ongoing—the status header at the top is clear. I think editors coming back to this page later on will want to consult a snapshot of what people read at the time, and not a past tense version. I appreciate this can still be seen in the history, but since I don't see a use for the past tense version, personally I would prefer just leaving the contents as they stood during the election. isaacl (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]