Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017

2017 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status

• Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now closed. The results have been posted to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2017.
• Feedback on the election may be left on the feedback page.

It is currently 07:51 (UTC), Sunday, 10 November 2024 ()

---

The purpose of this request for comment is to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2017 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. 22:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Background: In the case of proposals that change existing rules, or that seek to establish new ones, lack of consensus for a change will result in the rules from the 2016 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, 6 October – Friday 23:59, 13 October (7 days)
• Evaluation period: Saturday 00:00, 14 October – Friday 23:59, 20 October (7 days)
• Commission selection: completed by Friday 00:00, 27 October

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

• Nominations: Sunday 00:00, 5 November – Tuesday 23:59, 14 November (10 days)
• Setup period: Wednesday 00:00, 15 November to Sunday 23:59, 19 November (5 days)
• Voting period: Monday 00:00, 20 November to Sunday 23:59, 3 December (14 days)
• Scrutineering: Begins Monday 00:00, 4 December

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

Duration: Normally, these RfCs begin on September 1 and last for 30 days. However, these elections are volunteer-run, and this year, the RfC is starting a bit behind schedule. In order to preserve the timetable above, we'll see whether a consensus after 20 days; on or after September 30, an uninvolved editor(s) will evaluate the RfC and determine whether a consensus has developed. 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 #N by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]===
Comment ~~~~

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

#~~~~

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

Points of discussion

Any editor may add new discussion topics as level 2 (==) headers

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.

---

Statement #1 by Mz7

Sample mass message

Hello, {{SAFESUBST:<noinclude />BASEPAGENAME}}. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 20 November through Sunday, 23:59, 3 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Saturday, 00:00, 28 October 2017 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 00:00, 1 November 2017. 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 2017 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page.

The 2015 election was the first ArbCom election in which we sent out a mass message (which looked like this) informing most eligible voters that the election was happening. As a result, voter turnout skyrocketed from 593 valid votes in 2014 to 2674 valid votes in 2015. In the 2016 election, we modified the mass message (which looked like this), sending it only to editors who have edited at least once in the 12 months before the start of the nomination phase (6 November), as opposed to every eligible voter. The turnout was still high: 1942 valid votes in 2016.

Personally, I think we should continue sending the message. The reason I'm starting this discussion is because a few editors commented at last year's election talk page that they didn't like having their user talk page or their watchlists spammed with these messages. However, I think greater participation in the election is a good thing, and the numbers clearly show that mass messages are effective at informing eligible voters that an election is happening. Mz7 (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Users who endorse statement #1:

1. Mz7 (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
2. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC) --- BUT I hope there is some technical means of not sending the message out after one has voted, which is a waste of time. Happened to me. ^{My name is}not^dave (talk/contribs) 07:26, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

   @My name is not dave: Unfortunately, there isn't an easy way to get a list of those who have voted from the SecurePoll system used in this election, so this feature is not possible without manually checking each entry, which I'm sure you can agree is not workable. Mdann52 (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

   @Mdann52: Couldn't a bot check the list and then compile the mass-message list from those who have not yet voted? Regards SoWhy 07:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

3. Yes, please. More voters is a firm positive. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Yes, I think wider participation is good, though I support restricting it to those who have been active in the past year (in fact, I'd like to see eligibility to vote in any one year withdrawn from those who don't contribute Struck after further consideration. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:53, 18 September 2017 (UTC)). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

   I want to add that greater participation reduces the possibility of organized groups successfully pursuing a political platform - when very few vote, it's easier for political canvassing to win the day. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

5. The more participation we get the more accurate the results are likely to be, true we may get some people just choosing randomly from the list of available candidates but I would hope the people voting after reading the statements etc outweighs their affect on the results. Amortias (T)(C) 12:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
6. One of the rare instances where I'm actually a in favour of mass-messaging people. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
7. Wide participation is a positive thing. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 19:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
8. In my personal capacity as a regular community member, Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
9. The more participation the better. I often worry about discussions that only take place among people who happen to watch AN/VP/etc. to know they're happening. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
10. A handful of people may have complained about receiving the talk page invites, but people will complain about everything... including the complaints of other people. I think we are better served if more Wikipedians exercise their right to have a say in the governance of their community. I also strongly agree with Boing! said Zebedee about removing voter eligibility from those who are not contributing. Lepricavark (talk) 23:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
11. Sending notices to people who are eligible to vote to let them know that they can vote is something that was resolved many years ago by most voting systems, hopefully we can catch up with them! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
12. My support is somewhat tempered, however. Basically, I think that more participation is a good thing, so that's why I support. And my recollection is that there had been some kind of analysis that showed that first-time voters voted similarly to long-time voters (but maybe I'm wrong about that?). But it is troubling that disruptive users get such messages, and it is somewhat spammy, which makes me think that a watchlist notice might really be better. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
13. Fully supportive of encouraging more participation and more transparency. Alex Shih^Talk 00:44, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
14. Yes, the more participation the better. SparklingPessimist ^{Scream at me!} 02:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
15. I support this for sure - the community at large should be informed that it's happening so they can voice their opinion. -- Dane ^talk 03:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
16. I support notifying all eligible voters. Encouraging engagement and participation in community voting processes is healthy for the Wikipedia project. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
17. Support with the proviso that notifications are made before the beginning of the voting period. This will prevent users who have already voted from receiving a message. (I distinctly remember discussing this before, but I can't find any record of it.) Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:15, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
18. Support per Dreamyshade. Double sharp (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
19. Information is needed before participation is possible. Small cliques operating and self-selecting in the dark are to be avoided. Carrite (talk) 08:10, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
20. I like the mass message idea, as it helps get more people involved. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
21. I'm also supporting in my capacity as an editor. I have always felt that ArbCom should be based upon the will of the community rather than a smaller interest group. Mkdw ^talk 17:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
22. I do not see how this, with restrictions to active editors, cannot be a good thing. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 17:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
23. The mass-notifications taking up my watchlist was a major issue and if I'm being honest annoyed the life out of me however as noted above we should get wider participation instead of a selected few so despite my groans as a whole the mass-notifications are a good thing. –Davey2010^Talk 18:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
24. Not only would this remind people to vote, but it will only be acted upon by people who care enough about it to follow the link and add their opinion. I see no drawbacks to the mass-invite. Editors who don't know much about it will most likely not vote anyway. But they might become interested and next year show more interest than this current year. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
25. Regardless of whether this particular election measurably benefits, encouraging participation is vital for the ongoing health of our processes. I feel confident that there will be thoughtful, informed votes cast in this election by people who wouldn't have done so had they not been drawn in by the previous years' messages. Layzner (Talk) 19:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
26. Yes. I agree that a wider participation is generally suitable. AsadUK200

    @AsadUK200: Did you mean to put yourself in the endorse section rather than the reject/oppose? Mkdw ^talk 17:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

    I've boldly moved this, as it clearly belongs in the "endorse" section. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

27. I look upon higher participation as a favorable outcome. The spam caused by the mass message is minimal and non-disruptive. AlexEng^(TALK) 07:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
28. Yes, please message us. In general, for any vote, I think it makes sense to message any user who was active since the previous vote of the same type.--RainerBlome (talk) 08:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
29. Yes - reminders are helpful. ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:32, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
30. Agree iff focused on the most active editors. Jonathunder (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
31. I think this communication is useful, however I don't think it is warranted for fairly inactive users and should have a cut off of 1 (first choice) or 3 (second choice) years of inactivity. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
32. An election of this sort can't be considered valid if the persons eligible to vote are not informed that the vote is occurring. Per Gerda Arendt in the section below, I support modifying the statement from "elections are now open" to "elections are open until ...", because it's not otherwise clear when balloting closes. That information is important both for editors like me who probably won't vote immediately for whatever reason, and also for editors who don't come across the notices until some time after the balloting period ends. Notices like this are vital to community function; editors concerned about having their watchlists spammed can very easily set their watchlists to ignore bot edits, and probably should. Furthermore, I don't support suppressing the notices from editors who are deemed inactive by an arbitrary standard but are otherwise eligible to vote. And as for blocked accounts, if an otherwise eligible editor is notified but is prevented from voting because they are blocked from editing at the time, well, tough. Don't do stuff that gets you blocked. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
33. High participation is essential for afair election. The cutoff level last year seems about right to me. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
34. Sure, but Gerda's suggestion on the wording is a good one. As for the question of filtering out recipients who've already voted, it seems better to me to send the messages before voting starts - preferably quite a bit before, so recipients have time to participate and ask questions. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:33, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
35. Endorsing per opinion that high voter turnout is generally desirable. Actually, I got two messages 2015. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:14, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
36. It's important that we include people who don't normally watch the administrative/meta areas of the project. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:49, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
37. Any given electorate should know that an election is occurring. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 20:16, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
38. As a candidate in 2015, I had people phone me as a result of this message. It engaged a lot of people who would not have otherwise known. I strongly support it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
39. Essential to broaden the voter base and prevent the election from being dominated by super-power-users and those with axes to grind. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC).
40. Support: This is a one time message. It is not multiple messages in very short duration of time. Regarding the watchlist spamming: it will obviously done by a bot, so there can be solution for this. We usually have an option in watchlist to "hide edits by bot". I am not saying that everybody should turn it on. What I am proposing is, for this operation only, tweaks should be done somewhere so that edits by this particular bot would not show up in the watchlist (like autopatrolled users, and new pages feed). Once all the messages are sent, honourably revoke that flag from the bot. Everybody remains happy, including the bot. —usernamekiran(talk) 18:48, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
41. One-time heads up messages are good, even those who are somewhat engaged in the process can use a poke from time-to-time. Courcelles (talk) 00:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
42. As well as improving participation, this has had a positive effect on the quality of discussions around the ArbCom elections and the committee more generally by diluting the impact of the group of editors who tend to engage with/obsess over it. Nick-D (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
43. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
44. Ralbegen (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
45. Miles Edgeworth ^Objection! 21:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
46. Support. Kierzek (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
47. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  20:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
48. Zero issues with this; if I don't want to vote, a simple revert of the message takes three seconds. Just as long as it's not going to socks or block/banned accounts, that's the only case I would think it's a waste of resources. Nate • (chatter) 01:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
49. Aiming to involve active editors, but not disturb inactive editors, is best. Maproom (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
50. It definitely improves turnout and high turnout is a good thing. Hut 8.5 18:22, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
51. increasing awareness and the opportunity to participate is a good thing Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
52. Support. It is important that ordinary, behind-the-scenes editors be given the chance to participate. Since they do most of the real work on Wikipedia, they can bring a fresh and rational perspective, unlike the groupthinkers who spend all their time haunting the ANI and ArbCom discussion pages. Biblio (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
53. Support - No question that the information should be distributed to those of us who are not "in the loop" as well.   Aloha27  talk  17:24, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
54. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
55. Providing this only goes to people who are eligible to vote - i.e. >150 mainspace edits and not currently blocked. I'd like to see the currently active filter raised slightly, I'm sure last years test of one edit in the last twelve months will have meant the invite going to a bunch of people who retired or died almost a year ago. Either 1 edit in the last month or ten edits in the last 6 months would strike me as a sensible figure, less active editors could still vote, but are unlikely to notice a talkpage message. It would also be nice if we could exclude sending messages to anyone with the retired or dead templates or publicly identified secondary accounts per Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#NOTIFYϢereSpielChequers 15:10, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

    If possible we should do two versions of the message, one for people who also qualified to vote last year and the other for people who are newly qualified voters. ϢereSpielChequers 08:16, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

56. Yes, largely per WereSpielChequers. As someone who ahs run for Arbcom under the old (pre-message) system and the current one, I can attest the higher turnout is essential in making this a genuinely democratic process. Entirely appropriately, only a tiny fraction of the editor base spend time thinking about Arbcom or checking Arbcom calendar dates; but a much higher proportion are affected by Arbcom decisions including with respect to disruptive editors or long-running disputes. Encouraging a larger voter base helps encourage a greater interest in how Wikipedia dispute resolution works (or doesn't). And that can only be a good thing. Also, a higher voter awareness encourages more detailed and relevant questions, and makes the Q&A session more than just a rerun of recent cases. Keep the mass message, for the sake of worthwhile Arbcom ballots. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
57. StonyBrook (talk) 17:44, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
58. prat (talk) 17:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Users who reject statement #1:

1. I don't think greater participation is a good thing. I am specifically opposed to spamming user talk pages but I generally don't think asking for voters is useful. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
2. I do not believe greater advertising would be beneficial. Users who are likely to give considered choices, with a knowledge of the candidates and why/not they would be a good choice for Arbcom, are the sort of people that should be voting. Editors that aren't aware of Arbcom elections are (generally) not the sort that would be making this considered choice in voting, and would vote purely on a basic impression of the candidate. Keira1996 08:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Looking at some major votes (Brexit comes to mind), I am not convinced that a larger participation results in more informed votes. I remove the messages on pages of users who are not active, messages of 2015 and 2016 (sometimes more than one per year) which claim today "elections are now open". If they seem necessary please find a wording that doesn't grow stale in a few weeks. - I'd prefer a notice similar to the information that an RfA is open, or time for monument images. - Side note: can we we edit supports and opposes separately, please? You see above what happens if not. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Per Keira1996. Asking people who know nothing about the Arbitration process, or that it even exists, to vote does not seem like it would have much of a beneficial effect to me. We can assume good faith that people will read up about the process and the role of the positions (and then read up about the candidates), but I doubt most users who aren't as concerned with governance will go to such lengths. Encouraging people to vote on instinct is bad, especially when they make up a significant proportion of the votes. – Train2104 (t • c) 00:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
5. STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE: I absolutely despise those messages, after having to scrub them from my alternative accounts two years in a row. Modernponderer (talk) 03:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

   @Modernponderer: just FYI you can opt-out of all massmessages per account by adding the page to Category:Opted-out of message delivery. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

   No. This is the only message like that I have ever received despite not having any such opt-outs at all, and while undoubtedly important it is incredibly presumptuous of WP:ARBCOM to think its elections are so important that they take priority over literally everything else in the encyclopedia. Furthermore, if one day there is a truly serious need (Wikipedia itself being in desperate need of immediate donations, for instance), I have a strong feeling opt-outs like that would not obtain community consensus for an override, at least not quickly. In that sense, this issue goes well beyond my personal feelings. Modernponderer (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

   @Modernponderer: Please note that the ArbCom does not organize or run the election process, which is done by non-arbitrator community volunteers, and had nothing to do with the decision to start posting these messages. Newyorkbrad (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

   While that may be true, there seem to be several past and present ArbCom members !voting in the support section for this statement (and none in this one). Modernponderer (talk) 06:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on statement #1

• @Mz7:--Does this message reaches out to sockpuppets and/or sock-puppeteers? That is a strict no for me.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 14:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure about the particulars of the technical implementation, but if I recall correctly, last year a few notices were indeed sent to a few blocked users due to a difficult-to-avoid technicality. The effect of notifying blocked users is nullified, however, by the fact that the scrutineers will strike any ballots made by them. Last year, according to the results, only 8 such votes were struck. I'd like to give User:Mdann52 a ping, as I believe he was the one who set up the mass message and would better answer your question. Mz7 (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
    • @Mz7 and Godric on Leave: Whether I take a role in this years election or not, I'll be happy to fire the bot up again to send out notification again this year - I could probably spread them out a bit more as Cryptic suggests below - I would probably move away from using mass-message this year however (as you lose some control over spacing of messages and throttling these).
    • The main reason used last year to notify blocked users was that some of these were likely to be unblocked, and therefore eligible to vote, before the end of the period. I could look at, if desired, only delivering to users whose blocks are scheduled to expire before the end of the voting period if desired? Unfortunately, with a messaging run such as this, context tends to be lost relating to the delivery - the bot last year purely looked at edit count and account age from memory.
    • On the point of reaching sockpuppets, the frank answer is yes - I've no doubt there are many undetected sock puppet accounts out there, and it would be futile to try and get this bot to deliver to them. If this question relates to detected and blocked socks, I'm sure some arrangement can be reached relating to blocked users being delivered messages. Mdann52 (talk) 19:37, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Complaints about this flooding the watchlist are likely to be exacerbated this year by this recent change in the software. Could the notifications at least be spread out over a couple of days? Or maybe a sitenotice or watchlist notice with css to display only to extended-confirmed users? —Cryptic 17:46, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• @Mdann52: In 2015 some users were frustrated (see Dcs002's message as an example) that they got their talk page message a bit later in the process, after which they felt that candidates couldn't be bothered to answer their questions. If the notification messages are spaced out it shouldn't be for a significant amount of time to allow everyone ample time and opportunity to engage with the candidates. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 19:20, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Cryptic and InsaneHacker: spacing is going to be an issue - too fast and you hit the API limit (and MassMessage cannot deliver the messages fast enough!), too slow and you flood peoples watchlists over several days. This year, I think it will be best to deliver over the space of 36-48 hours, and potentially straight after (or even just before!) the polls open. Again, this is an area where suggestions are useful. Mdann52 (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• Have we considered how most that receive these notices are likely to be pile-on voters? This is hardly beneficial for discussion, and essentially turns it into a numbers game. The users who are likely to do the questioning, reasoning, and considered voting are those who are already going to be aware of the Arbcom Elections -- there is no need to reach out to those. Increasing participation is not in and of itself a good thing, I feel, unless it actually benefits the discussion. Keira1996 01:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I strongly suspect most people, like in real life elections, vote on their gut and for people they like and think represent them. While those of us who are the most active Wikipedians might not like that, I actually think it is a good thing in many ways: we want arbs who have the confidence of the community, and that includes those people who have less than 100 edits a month. While arbs don't set policy, the decisions they make have impact on every editor on Wikipedia. That means giving the person who edits only on Weekends and sometimes skips a few months a voice. They have a right to have their preferences reflected on arbcom, and since it is a secret poll, I think most of them likely won't be joining any pile-ons, but will instead be voting based on their gut. Some might like it, but I don't think that is bad. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Sure, and I'm very much the infrequent editor myself. To clarify what I meant by pile-ons: it's fairly clear through the questions posed and their responses who has the popular support, at least in prior years. I'm hesitant to endorse anything that will bring votes that aren't carefully considered. Keira1996 08:39, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
      • There will always be some votes that are not carefully considered, even among those who would have voted without the mass message. We could hope that some of those new voters would realise that they're not very clear on the candidates yet, and do a lot of reading to try to cast informed votes. I know I would do that, though I suspect that I am very much in the minority. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 04:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Is it possible to instead of sending out a mass talk page message, place a notification on a user's Watchlist, like I had that lead to this RFC? RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I like this idea a lot! Double sharp (talk) 13:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @RickinBaltimore: It's indeed possible, and it's been done for the past few years in addition to the mass message. Administrators can post such watchlist notices by editing MediaWiki:Watchlist-details. Scrolling through the history of that page, a notice was posted in 2014, the year before the first mass message, and that only resulted in a turnout of 593 valid votes. In other words, it doesn't look like a watchlist notice would be an equivalent replacement for a mass message. Mz7 (talk) 22:33, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Speaking as one editor, I´m much less likely to notice a watchlist notification. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:19, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
• Digging a bit the previous editions, I found that such messages have in the past been signed by MediaWiki message delivery, whose user page gives instructions to opt out. Am I correct in assuming that the message delivery process does not obey {{nobots}}, that is, only Category:Opted-out of message delivery gets checked? If so, was that a conscious decision, or just the way it was implemented? I could see a case for making mass-delivery messages go through nobots because they are so much more important, but I strongly lean in the opposite camp (i.e. that someone who slapped {{nobots}} or any default-to-ban variant on its talk page probably doesn't want that kind of notifications).

In any case I think a bit of pedagogy wouldn't hurt: writing about the notification process and its opt-out somewhere on the ArbCom election pages (at the bottom of an obscure page, but somewhere), writing about that special case in the nobots documentation, etc. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 15:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

@Tigraan: Technically, MassMessage is an extension, not a bot, and as nobots is not a standard feature of MediaWiki, this is why it is not respected (AFAIK - it's been a while since I read up on this, and this may have changed). Depending on how this is implemented, and what people think, either, both or neither options could be checked. Mdann52 (talk) 21:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm amazed that people are voting against people being notified that they are eligible to vote in these elections. Most of the arguments are along the lines of "they won't be able to make a good decision about the candidates", which seems outrageous - why shouldn't they be able to make a fair assessment of the candidates based on their election statements? If this is a concern, then can we ask better questions of the candidates? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• There was concern expressed two years ago that the mass-messaging wound up being broadcast more broadly than was originally intended, and that this could have a major impact on the election results. At the end of the day, I think the feeling was that the same arbitrators were elected who would have been elected by the smaller voter group, somewhat reducing the worries that arose at the time. I think the revised distribution that was agreed upon last year was generally accepted as a reasonable one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• As I mentioned in a previous comment I want to be clear that I am new and only created my account today and only came here because I saw the link in the top so I don't really know much about this. What I can say from personal experience is that deliberate and constructive communication is always a good thing and although some will nearly always find a reason to complain about something, keeping people informed should be considered necessary in order to maintain literacy of the topic. As with any other website or forum, not everyone is going to follow along the whole time so I would suggest allowing them to opt in or out if they decide how much communication they want. Maybe a couple different possibilities. One to let them know as the topic progresses if they want that and maybe a separate one that only informs them once at the end of the topic so they know what the outcome is. Billbo T. Baggins (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• Can we please strike the several !votes in a row without any reasoning at all under support? This is just getting ridiculous. Modernponderer (talk) 21:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  No, of course not! Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  This RfC was actually not intended to use the support/oppose/discussion breakup – it just kind of happened. Instead, if another editor had an alternative view, they would submit a new statement with a level 3 header (e.g. ===Statement by Modernponderer===), and if other users "endorse" or agree with the statement, they would sign their name, no need to add any extra reasoning. In other words, users who sign their name under the "endorse" section are merely expressing their agreement with the statement that I wrote. No extra reasoning is required because I already provided it. Mz7 (talk) 22:41, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• It's probably possible to filter the list of users (based on some automated criteria like blocked users, bots, etc.) and to only send it to people in the SecurePoll lists, etc. If there was a ticket in Phabricator with suggested requirements with some advance notice, we can do it. Legoktm (talk) 19:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @Legoktm: The way this has previously worked is that the WMF generate the list of eligible voters, and I merely applied an inactivity sieve to this - in theory, bots and ineligible users should already be removed, as they "should" be filtered out by the WMF script. Mdann52 (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2017 (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 election committee members be allowed to remove questions where appropriate?

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 #2 by Mdann52

A point that was raised last year was about inappropriate questions being asked. Following an internal discussion after we were notified of these issues, it was decided we lacked the jurisdiction to remove the questions (although it was later done in my personal capacity, from memory). Therefore, I feel we specifically allow Election Committee members to remove offensive (eg. WP:POLEMIC-style statements) or off-topic questions from question pages, following discussion among the committee. Mdann52 (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Users who endorse statement #2:

1. Mdann52 (talk) 20:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
2. We shouldn't allow ne'er-do-wells to ask POINTy questions and derail the process. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:33, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Rschen7754 23:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
4. Lets avoid making this a de facto exemption from NPA.TonyBallioni (talk) 00:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
5. On the assumption that those removing the content should be those uninvolved in the process this year (not anyone running in this batch of elections). Amortias (T)(C) 12:24, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
6. Agreed, as long as Amortias' suggestion is used. — Gestrid (talk) 15:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
7. Per Amortias, above, but on balance this seems like a sensible way to keep discussions on track. The "following discussion among the committee" caveat is essential to my support, mind you. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
8. Per Amortias but really I would prefer it be left to the non-committee members running the election (i.e. the Election Commission) if at all possible. I would only like to see the Arbitration Committee involved in regulating questions asked for candidates for election to itself as a last resort, but I agree that that last resort should be allowed. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 22:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
9. I support this up to a point: clearly inappropriate/offensive questions should be removed, but critical questions (even if POINTy) shouldn't be removed, and it's then up to the candidates to decide whether they want to answer them or not. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:08, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
10. Per Mike Peel and Amortias -- only those questions genuinely unrelated to the process should be removed. The moment we start removing questions for any other reason means we enter a grey area where genuine questions may be removed, which is not a good thing for this process. Keira1996 00:38, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
11. Yes, I support this idea very strongly. The Election Committee is set up to have the requisite independence and cluefulness, so I see no problem with that. And the overload of questions actually makes it harder for most members of the community to find the information that they want, so let's at least get rid of the overtly inappropriate questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
12. One could quibble that the bounds of propriety are too subjective, as stated, to support carte blanche. Nevertheless, per Tryptofish: we can depend on the committee's comprise in expecting diligence and sound judgement.--John Cline (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
13. Support per Chris Troutman. Double sharp (talk) 05:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
14. Yes please. Removing obviously point-y questions helps keep the process on-focus. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 07:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
15. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
16. Without a doubt. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
17. Of course. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 17:30, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
18. Pointy and unrelated questions should be removed without a doubt. –Davey2010^Talk 18:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
19. Absolutely, although I think the removal criteria should be intentionally narrowly tailored per above comments, or (perhaps less preferably) some avenue for appeal should be provided. Layzner (Talk) 19:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
20. Vanamonde (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
21. Yes ^{Atsme📞📧} 10:35, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
22. Sounds like a good idea; trust this to be used only when necessary. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
23. This sounds like a good idea which will make the process simpler and more 'friendly' for candidates. I also support Amortias' suggestion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:51, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
24. Per Tryptofish. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
25. This was in fact done last year. I think it's a good idea and is likely to be necessary. I think we can trust the commissioners not to abuse this. Doug Weller talk 18:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
26. Although abuse of this discretionary power should be sanctionable. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
27. Ralbegen (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
28. Yes, support per Chris Troutman, however, Beyond My Ken raises a valid point that there should be some oversight or consensus when it is done. Kierzek (talk) 13:14, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
29. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  20:20, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
30. Making the process less hostile towards potential candidates must be good. Maproom (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
31. It makes sense to have somebody with the power to remove clearly inappropriate questions, and the election committee are the best people to do so. Hut 8.5 18:24, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
32. Support. Of course, it should be obvious that any ArbCom member running for re-election should recuse himself/herself from this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:39, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
33. A good idea. This will keep questions focused and relevant. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
34. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
35. Support. and not only by the election committee, but also by any establshed user in good standing. Blatant harassment, baiting, and personal attacks are often disguised as questions. Unfortunately, the candidates are not permitted to defend themselves, and the lies and attacks are allowed to stand. Such comments should be removed quickly. In many cases, Arbcom elections are more toxic than RfA, and this is not a way of encouraging candidates to run for office. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:22, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Users who reject statement #2:

1. I am concerned with the broadness of the removal criteria, which sounds like it opens the possibility of abuse. Moreover, I don't find the change necessary. Why not simply ignore inappropriate questions? Why do they need to be removed? AlexEng^(TALK) 07:47, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Echoing AlexEng's concerns about vague criteria for removal. Other than blatant trolling, vandalism, and I suppose content which we would remove anyway (personal attacks, outing, ban evasion, etc.) I don't feel it's constructive for the election committee to be deciding what is a valid question or not based on standards defined in this way (basically not defined at all). Although I would trust the committee to make such a judgement, I would prefer if the criteria were more fulsome in advance of endorsing this statement. I would likely reconsider if such criteria were written first. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Instead, I suggest to mark such questions, making it easier to ignore them. For example: "3 out of 5 election committee members regard this question as inappropriate. Candidates are not expected to reply. To make it easier to see which questions were posed in total, the question is not removed." Marking inappropriate questions would even allow for automatically hiding them on the klick of a button. Also agree with Alex, can see no real danger that is not already covered.--RainerBlome (talk) 08:20, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

   I just created an account today and only came here due to the link at the top but I echo the concerns above and only wonder what if any measures will be taken to prevent this being used to remove comments that are merely disagree or don't go along with the popular vote. There should be some very specific criteria for when this can be used such as Vandalism, trolling, etc. It shouldn't be an open ended invitation for anyone to remove a comment they disagreement on their own discretion. Billbo T. Baggins (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC) Strike CU confirmed sock. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

4. Is there a "meh" option? We don't need an RfC to authorize people to remove blatant trolling. If a question isn't blatant trolling, but is just kind of stupid, meh. The job does involve dealing with dumb/inappropriate/annoying questions a lot... Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
5. Strong oppose. How can we be certain that this power will not abused and leveraged to remove questions which are simply inconvenient? I don't trust any proposal which proposes the creation of some new power, but which promises that it will be used only for limited purposes. That same promise was made when "extended confirmed" standard was created, and just as I anticipated, it was quickly expanded to allow virtually unrestricted use. Biblio (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
6. No. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
7. No. From memory the message that was actually removed last year wasn't that offensive. And, bluntly, if you're running for Arbcom you will need to be able to deal with offensive questions and angry people. That doesn't mean that all questions should be treated equally - if someone's question doesn't deserve much a reply then don't give them one, and let the community decide if that was the right course by voting for you or not. Questions from banned users, spammers, outing attempts or extreme personal harassment can be removed under IAR as being disruptive to the process. But otherwise, let's let people ask whatever they like, and Arb candidates can answer however they like too. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:49, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on statement #2

• Mdann52, WP:POLMEC is a redlink. Which page did you mean to link? — Gestrid (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's WP:POLEMIC that was meant. Yunshui ^雲_水 15:39, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that was what I assumed too. I can't imagine it's supposed to be anything else, so I've changed it; hopefully Mdann52 doesn't mind. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 11:46, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the perils of mobile working! Thanks Bilorv! Mdann52 (talk) 20:58, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

If the emphasis is on the second syllable, polmec sounds like Klingon. Neutron (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• AlexEng, they need to be removed because these pages are already incredibly long, just counting the legitimate questions. If we practiced DENY and left them in place, we could easily wind up with an unnavigable mess. I suspect if anything gets inappropriately removed, enough users will be watching to ensure it's restored. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:13, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Possibly readability would suffer, but I'm not convinced the change in policy is a net positive addition. AlexEng^(TALK) 16:34, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I also fear there would be knee-jerk oppose votes for not answering all the questions, however trollish - I've certainly seen RfA opposes for that kind of reason. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• I would like a clear definition of who would be allowed to remove a question, whether one person could do so or whether you would need two or more people to agree to the removal, and the proposed criteria for removal. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• ...Sound of crickets... --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• I agree, this looks like a fine idea, but it needs fleshing out into an actually workable proposal. Courcelles (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Guy Macon and Courcelles: I understand your perspective, but I don't know how necessary it is to formalize the procedures for dealing with inappropriate questions. Some questions are obviously inappropriate and ought to be removed quickly. If the appropriateness is borderline, the elections people can discuss whether to remove them or not. In theory I can understand why question-removals might become controversial and a distraction to the elections process, but in practice we've been holding these elections for more than a decade now and I don't recall many such problems. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

If we have a system that has worked for decades, that's a reason to keep the existing system, not create a new one. Right now, removals of questions are allowed by any editor, with the usual rules about BRD, Consensus, and Dispute Resolution up to and including ANI. If there is a problem that cannot be resolved the usual way, there is the Electoral Commission, which I have been a member of for the last two years. And of course there are always the scrutineers to double check that the electoral commission has not gone crazy.[1]

Consider the Electoral Commission mandate:

"The mandate of the Electoral Commission is to deal with any unforeseen problems that may arise in the [insert year] Arbitration Committee election process, and to adjudicate any disputes during the election. However, members of the Election Commission should intervene only when there is a problem that needs resolving, and either discussion is not working, the rules are unclear, or there isn't time for a lengthy discussion.

In addition, while the Electoral Commission is not responsible for logistics of the election, the Commissioners should also help ensure that preparations for the election—such as setting up the relevant pages, posting notices of the election in the appropriate places, and asking the Office to configure the SecurePoll voting interface—move forward in a timely fashion.

So the Electoral Commission already has the authority to remove a question if the current system isn't working, but so far we have not had to exercise that emergency authority. If we ever do, I fully expect a huge amount of drama from editors who are fine with "to deal with any unforeseen problems that may arise in the Arbitration Committee election process, and to adjudicate any disputes" until it actually happens.

I am very wary of an RfC that changes the above mandate. Do we even have the authority to do that?

Background:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Electoral Commission
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Electoral Commission
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Electoral Commission
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Electoral Commission
• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Electoral Commission

Request for clarification: I keep seeing phrases like "election committee members" and "election coordinators". are these different from the electoral commission or the scrutineers? If so, who are the members and where is their page? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

The scrutineers are definitely separate from all the other titles or groups that you mention. My understanding is that they are stewards whose "home" wiki is not English Wikipedia. There is no "election committee" unless that is what you choose to call the Electoral Commission. There also used be a role titled "Election Administrators", of which there were three, which sort-of evolved into the Electoral Commission. "Election coordinators" is a little more amorphous. There are always persons who take it upon themselves to do the necessary "grunt work" liking setting up this page, setting up the candidate and question pages, etc. In past years these volunteers were called Election Coordinators, and they were separate from the Election Administrators/Electoral Commissioners, who decided disputes that arose. I am not sure whether anyone actually calls themselves an "Election Coordinator" anymore. I hope that clears things up.  :) Neutron (talk) 19:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

And for whatever its worth, I think the removal of disruptive questions is already within the scope of the Electoral Commission's authority, as is the determination of disputes regarding the removal of questions by other editors. As others have said, the authority to remove questions should not be exercised unless absolutely necessary. Neutron (talk) 19:08, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

That is my understanding as well. I was on the Electoral Commission the last two years and all three of us strongly agreed that using that power was to be a last resort. I would like to see more voters who are committed to rejecting any commissioner who doesn't feel that way. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Who elects the commissioners? I don't recall ever being informed of that election. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I posted links to the last five elections above. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2017 (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 prohibit editors with a full year of inactivity from voting?

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

---

Statement #3 by Lepricavark

Based on the suggestion made by Boing! said Zebedee above, I am proposing that we add a clause to the requirements for being an eligible voter. An editor is eligible to vote who: has made at least one edit or logged action between 00:00, 28 October 2016 and 00:00, 28 October 2017. I will leave it to others to discuss whether the number of required edits/actions should be higher, but I believe we should at least institute this minimum requirement to prevent votes from users who are (1) out of touch with community proceedings; (2) stale accounts that are vulnerable to being compromised; (3) former editors with an axe to grind against one of the candidates. Quite simply, if an editor wishes to exercise his rightful voice in matters of community governance, this editor should be expected to demonstrate some involvement in the community. Lepricavark (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Users who endorse statement #3:

1. Lepricavark (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Any activity in a year is a very low threshold. Jonathunder (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
3. Yep. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
4. In principle I'd like no restrictions at all, but after personal experience with folks emerging from lengthy inactivity to resurrect old personal feuds, I think this is reasonable. Vanamonde (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
5. I was considering this myself. This would by far be one of the less restrictive arbcom voter activity policies when compared to other language Wikipedias. If this is the first year doing it, I think activity within a year of the official "election season" is a good cutoff. This could simply be a trial and not done if it doesn't work in the future, but you never get reform of these type of things if you don't try. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
6. Only those who are active should have voting rights, to prevent canvassing, and to make sure that only editors who are "in touch" with the community and who would actually be affected by ArbCom are voting. German Wikipedia's RFA standards (and even steward elections) have a much stricter activity criterion. --Rschen7754 17:07, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
7. Activity is a must. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
8. It seems unfair to allow people to !vote etc who haven't been here for a year or more, Ofcourse not everyone can edit here 24/7 / 365 I get that but simply put if you want to !vote you should be an active member of the community. –Davey2010^Talk 12:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
9. Seems a good threshold to trial; could be removed or raised based on experience. Ralbegen (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
10. A reasonable requirement. Kierzek (talk) 13:17, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
11. Eminently reasonable. Double sharp (talk) 06:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
12. Somebody who isn't part of the community shouldn't be choosing ArbCom members for people who are. The standard here is extremely low, I don't think there will be anyone who can claim to be an active participant in the community who doesn't make any edits at all. Hut 8.5 18:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
13. I'll support this in principle, because I agree that inactive editors can come back to pursue grudges, and it's such an easy standard to meet. But as noted by some of the opposing editors, it's also ridiculously easy to game, just by making one edit. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
14. One current problem with the current rules is the possibility of having your account stop editing, creating a new account a couple months later, and using your first account only for voting in ArbCom elections - which you do from an IP address you never use for your new account. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:41, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
15. Yes. The proposed text includes logins, it's a very, very low threshold and that can prevent users to vote "on demand". Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
16. I agree with the nomination statement. At least one edit in the last year is hardly unreasonable. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:26, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
17. I agree. Bluehotel (talk) 10:13, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
18. StonyBrook (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
19. A good suggestion. It happens too often that people who have lost interest in Wikipedi still come out of the woodwork to vote on various discussions and elections.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Users who reject statement #3:

1. Inactivity is a funny thing. (1) Lack of edits don't necessarily indicate that a user is "out of touch with community proceedings". (2) I'm unaware of data suggesting that "stale" accounts are more likely to be compromised than active accounts. (3) Lots of "former editors" have no axes to grind, while plenty of current editors do. (And sometimes the axe-grinding is understandable and not disruptive to the project). I recognize the good faith in which this was proposed, but the thought that disenfranchising longtime, constructive contributors whose real lives preclude them from editing for twelve short months is somehow preferable to welcoming them back to vote strikes me as unreasonable. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 15:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

   Regarding stale accounts, they may not necessarily be more likely to be compromised, but I submit that it would be easier to get away with compromising a stale account. After all, on an active account, the person who operates the account would likely notice the funny business, but in the case of a stale account that seems improbable. Lepricavark (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

   That might be true. Then again, stale accounts may be less likely to be compromised in the first place. In any event, I think this is a solution in search of a problem. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:19, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

2. While I think the underlying thoughts behind the statement are reasonable, I also believe that Rivertorch makes some good points. My home wiki is a smaller one, and when we have CheckUser elections people sometimes "come out of the woodwork" to vote despite the fact that they haven't been editing (or editing very infrequently). Most of the time these people aren't problematic users, but users in good standing who haven't had time to edit but simply decided to show their support for other candidates who have done good work for the community. I also question how effective this measure will be: If a user is scrupulous enough to lay dormant for an entire year just to vote against people they don't like (or the reverse), then they'll surely notice a statement like this and make sure to make one or two edits to pass the requirement, rendering the whole thing moot. I don't think upping the required amount of logged actions/edits will counter this either since, once again, a user who waits an entire year just to spite-vote will probably be more than willing to edit enough to pass the requirements. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 16:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

   Given that the global CU policy also requires a minimum of 25 support votes, I'm not sure that people who "come out of the woodwork" on your wiki is a good example here. --Rschen7754 17:11, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

   How come? My home wiki only has about 100 active editors, most of which don't participate in the meta side of things. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 17:53, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

   Actually, I don't quite understand why the CU minimum is relevant to my comment whatsoever? Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 17:57, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

3. Is there any actual problem that this solves? Have any of our processes ever been disrupted by a sudden wave of inactive editors casting ballots? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:36, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

   Ivanvector May I point you to my RFA, in which there were multiple folks emerging from lengthy inactivity to cast votes, the nature of which I was far from the only person to object to. Whether that is disruption or the process taking its proper course might perhaps be debated, but I for one believe we may be better off without such the possibility of such things. Vanamonde (talk) 06:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

   I appreciate that reference, thanks. It's kind of a known problem at RfA that inactive users with a grudge pop in to oppose candidacies, but they do that without being notified by a bot. How do they know? My assumption has to be that they're active readers who don't edit much any more. More below, this is getting long for threading. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

   Regarding the RfA problem, I don't want to say anything specific per WP:BEANS, but a moment's thought will probably make clear how an editor with an animus against another can use their watchlist to be notified of a future RfA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

4. Current levels of inactivity should never undermine prior experience. I mean if the returning editor shows a lack of understanding, sure, but it makes no sense to senselessly punish someone because they just chose to return. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 17:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

   I don't think we can draft a workable criterion for establishing whether the returning editor lacks sufficient understanding. Lepricavark (talk) 17:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

   Which goes on to further the point I'm trying to make, this proposed rule is arbitrary and might potentially exclude genuine voters too and that should not happen. Also the fact we're assuming everyone with one edit in the stipulated period will be a genuine voter is also a dangerous assumption. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 12:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

5. Not sure what this really achieves. If we enact such a rule, people who were already planning to appear out of nowhere and vote in the ArbCom election will just click random article and remove some whitespace and become eligible, is there really a difference? If we are worried about inactivity then we need to set the bar a lot higher than one edit, and I would oppose a similar proposal with a higher threshold for other reasons. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  20:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
6. I agree with filelakeshoe. While I usually do not like policy changes without some sort of proven justification, I could get behind a voting requirement for these elections, for the same reason we have them for steward and board elections. But I think it should be a meaningful standard, not something that can be easily gamed. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

   I wish it was stricter too, but perfect vs. good and all that. --Rschen7754 05:44, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

7. Per Rivertorch.--v/r - TP 01:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
8. This seems like a questionably effective solution for a problem no one has shown to exist. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
9. Is there any evidence that this (1 through 3 above) is a problem that needs a solution? Even if this is a reasonable proposal—which others have made a good case that it is not—there should be a problem it solves. --I am One of Many (talk) 02:48, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
10. No evidence that this is an actual problem. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
11. Strong oppose. This is just a way to eliminate the voting rights of those normal people who are not part of the addict class of editors. Biblio (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

    You couldn't be more off-base with your hyperbole. All that the proposal requires at this time is a single edit over the course of an entire year. I understand and accept most of the responses in this section, but you don't seem to grasp at all what this proposal is about. Lepricavark (talk) 20:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

    I read the proposal. I understood the proposal. I considered the proposal. And I made my decision. Wikipedia very much depends on its occasional contributors (in aggregate, they do far more for Wikipedia than do the obsessive and vested drama lovers), and we should not go down the path of disenfranchising them. Everything here eventually seems to go down a slippery slope; the rapid expansion of ECP is a case in point.

    I am not changing my vote, and I need say no more. Biblio (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

    The vast majority of occasional contributors would not be disqualified by my proposal, so your oppose rationale does not actually address what I am proposing. Moreover, occasional contributors who go for a year or more without editing are going to have little to no interest in ArbCom elections. It is unfortunate that you chose to assume bad faith regarding my motives for presenting this proposal. Lepricavark (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

12. Without evidence to show how this is a problem, this just seems to disenfranchise editors who might have interest in the project, but for whatever reason, don't' edit (e.g. real life commitments, preferring to just read, lack of access to reliable sources in their area of interest, etc.)---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
13. Oppose - "solution" to a "problem" that has not been demonstrated to exist. -- Begoon 07:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
14. No. People's motivation comes and goes. That's the nature of volunteering. If you skew the community toward hardcore editors then you are out of touch with reality. prat (talk) 18:50, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on statement #3

• Though I agree in principle, I believe this is the wrong forum for this. This forum is surely for deciding on the practical running of the election, and not for changing the underlying election rules. I think such a proposal would need to go to a wider (RFC?) discussion somewhere, where I would support. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I should add that I reject points 2) and 3), above, as per Rivertorch. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Boing! said Zebedee, I think that this is probably an appropriate forum: its advertised on the watchlists, and has the stated purpose of considering changes to election rules. I also think having a parallel RfC would be distracting at best. Keeping all the activity in one place so it is read in context of the other proposals make sense to me. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

@Boing! said Zebedee: (edit conflict) Surely the paragraph titled Background at the beginning of the RfC allows for changing the election rules?

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 2016 RFC remaining in force.

Changing the underlying election rules have also been proposed at the previous Election RFCs (see here and here), so it's not outside normal practice to discuss these changes here. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 16:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry folks, been meaning to get back on this. While I have to accept that changes to election rules have been and can be made here, I personally don't support something as serious as disenfranchisement being decided by such a small and self-selected set of editors. For that reason, I will personally not take a side in making such a change here - obviously, that doesn't stop the rest of you from going ahead with it, but I do hope I'm not the only one who thinks this way. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:51, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

• The last sentence of the instructions here says "The results will determine the structure, rules, and procedures for the election." This is germane and within the scope of the notice. Jonathunder (talk) 17:03, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
• While I understand the thrust of this proposal I am not sure it would target the editors mentioned. For example if I was an editor that fell under points 2 or 3 all I would need to do is make any edit prior to the 28th October and then I would be able to vote anyway. I am also not sure that being a year away is enough time to be "out of touch", especially if they were very active in community discussions in the preceding years. To have any teeth I feel this proposal would need a longer time away and a requirement of more edits leading up to it, but those numbers are always going to be somewhat arbitrary. AIRcorn (talk) 18:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously so, for any editor who is deliberately gaming the system, but the value in the suggested new rule is to get rid of deadwood, people who just don't edit anymore. Presumably anyone gaming the rule at least comes around often enough to see that an election is about to take place. I's really the same problem as the Admin desysopping for non-activity conundrum, and there's really no solution for it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• I hope nobody minds I bulleted the discussion mini-threads above, to keep things clean. Demoting a sysop for lengthy inactivity is very much a different thing from excluding editors from community processes who haven't edited recently. Sysops performing admin actions is a very good and highly transparent gauge of sysop activity and familiarity with relevant policies, and that's pretty important. Editors editing is not a very good gauge of activity: maybe they're an active reader who only edits when there's a major revision to be made or something important to say, or mostly edits logged out and only creates an account to participate in areas like RfA or edit semiprotected pages, or I don't know what else. I think it's fair to say that if an editor is genuinely inactive, they'll simply ignore the notice or not see it in the first place, unless they're inactive because they have an axe to grind, but elections are the place to grind axes. Anyway it's unlikely that a few such editors can significantly influence this sort of election, if participation is high. I really don't think this is a problem. That being said, I'd be more likely to support an activity criterion based on total number of edits and not on a period of time, as I think volume of edits is a better indicator of intention to be a member of the community than editing recently is. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Ivanvector: Let me sketch out the sort of scenario I am hoping this would address. Editor X, over the course of doing good work in a controversial topic area, makes several enemies, who bear a grudge even if conflict is no longer ongoing. They do not edit regularly; indeed, they may not be interested in editing at all outside a particular topic. Editor X runs for Arbcom. One of said wikienemies notices, and promptly emails all the others, and/or posts on an online forum someplace. In response, other members of this group crawl out of the woodwork to cast negative votes. Now, to folks who work in uncontroversial areas, this may seem farfetched; to those who work on south Asian politics, Arab-Israeli politics, Gamergate, etc, this would be expected. And if we have a method to deter it, we should make use of such. Vanamonde (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I understand that scenario, but that's how elections are supposed to work. Say I find out a candidate is running in a local election in my district who I feel strongly about making sure they don't get elected. Maybe they're a neo-Nazi, maybe they drove over my lawn, maybe they wear a stupid hat, whatever. I'm going out and rallying everyone I know who is eligible to vote to go vote against this person. The security against this is increasing the size of the electorate, not decreasing it (see signal-to-noise ratio). In last year's election there were 1,942 votes, and the gap in net votes between the lowest-ranked elected member and the highest-ranked non-elected candidate was 180 net votes. Which means in last year's election 180 inactive editors would have had to "come out of the woodwork" for the sole purpose of voting against someone for it to have had any impact at all. There are about 197 editors who have edited Gamergate controversy more than twice (some are bots or blocked) out of about 500 total unique accounts; the stats don't show how many have not edited in the past year and/or are blocked. You'd need to get nearly all of them who were reasonably active or about two-fifths of all of the editors who ever edited the page to be worked up enough to protest vote, and while it's not impossible I find it unlikely. I also think it's worth mentioning that the only candidate with a negative net vote was the one whose nomination statement was three words long, and who later stated in response to one of their questions that they weren't really taking it seriously. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

That's not quite an accurate analogy though, is it? As long as I live in a certain community, I have a certain connection to its government, even if I choose to neglect it; and if you manage to rouse me out of my stupor because candidate X once looked at you funny, that's silly, but not wrong. What would be wrong would be for me to return to vote in the same election against the same candidate X after moving to a different town, which is what I see as happening here. In any case, I guess this ultimately comes down to the philosophical question of who we consider to be members of this community; and there may be different but reasonable answers to this question. Thanks for an interesting discussion. Regards, Vanamonde (talk) 05:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll extend the analogy with an anecdote, only because I'm finding this exchange enlightening. In fact there is a neo-Nazi perennial candidate in the district in which I used to live, and even though I've moved away I continue to organize with activists who still live there against this person. Not that this particular individual stands any chance at election, but I personally feel that their life should be made difficult however possible. Maybe that's wrong, maybe I should reevaluate my priorities, maybe neo-Nazis should be made uncomfortable wherever they appear, I guess those are all matters of opinion. I think you're right that there's a debate to be had about who we consider members of this community, but I don't think we'll settle it here, and as long as we haven't settled it I don't think we should arbitrarily restrict who can vote. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:34, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

My response to your organizing against a Neo-nazi is "yes, please keep doing that"; but the pedant in me wants to ask "but you can no longer vote against him, can you?" We're not removing a person's ability to advocate; just to vote, as a residency requirement would do in many (most?) countries where democratic elections occur. Still, I think we can agree to disagree on whether a year's absence from Wikipedia should operate in the same way: I'd be the first to acknowledge that my experience with such folks is influencing me. Vanamonde (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

This individual consistently brings in less than 1% of the vote, so the vote isn't really what matters. He's more of a useful idiot for bigots with larger audiences. But I'm getting off-topic. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:06, 21 September 2017 (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.

While sending mass message, should we exclude that particular bot from watchlist?

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

---

Statement #4 by Usernamekiran

The first discussion here initiated by Mz7 is about whether or not to notify eligible voters by mass message.
As of the time when I am posting this, the consensus is toward "yes, send the message". Some of the opposing voters are concerned about watchlists of "talk page stalkers" being flooded, while others are concerned about ability/competence of "random" editors. Who gets to vote is a different issue, but we can decide/narrow down the criteria for the recipients of this mass message.

The point of this statement is: I think we should send the mass message with a particular criteria for recipients. To avoid the watchlist spamming, we can give the bot some sort of "flag", or access only for this task. Because of that flag, the posting of this message should not be visible in watchlist (similar to auto-patrolled users, and new pages feed). This flag can be (honourably) revoked from the bot after task of sending this message is done. This way, everybody gets happy. Message is sent (to worthy candidates), yet watchlists are not flooded. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:18, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Users who endorse statement #4:

1. The wording is a bit confusing here, but it seems that the user is proposing that the account sending the massmessage be flagged as a bot to avoid spamming watchlists with the ArbCom election notifications. That sounds reasonable to me. Maybe it's already happening? -- Ajraddatz (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Users who reject statement #4:

1. We already have functionality to turn off bot edits in watchlists. It's on this page, third check-box down. Let the users who keep complaining about bot edits polluting their watchlists figure out how to use that functionality, instead of imposing their niche preferences on the rest of us who are used to our watchlists performing a certain way, and (presumably) won't be able to "turn on" watchlist entries from this flagged bot. I occasionally monitor and report bots that are leaving notifications improperly (see current thread at AN about HostBot); this change will hamper that monitoring. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:33, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

   @Ivanvector: Yes. I am on the same page with you. Its not just about watching bots, but I prefer to keep track of every edit in my watchlist. Let it be by IP, or bot. So yes, I am never going to check "hide edits by bots" in my watchlist preferences. And for the same reason, I made it clear that this flag should remain active only for sending this message. If that bot makes any other edit, it should show up in the watchlist. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

   @Usernamekiran: I see what you're saying, but my point is I want to monitor the placement of this notice as well. I think you found the thread about HostBot already: I don't expect bots to malfunction, but it happens. In my role I end up watching a lot of blocked users' pages, and if the bot is placing notices where it shouldn't I'll probably be one of the first to see it, and flag it quickly so that it can be fixed quickly. I won't see it at all if we hide the notices. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

2. I don't see a reason to do this. Per Ivanvector, I suppose. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
3. No need. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
4. I agree with Ivanvector. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
5. No, this would require special software changes for something so minor. The mass-message extension is the best way to deliver bulk messages. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
6. Per Ivanvector. Double sharp (talk) 06:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
7. The MassMessage "account" already has a bot flag which users can choose to hide in their watchlist. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 07:16, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
8. If we're going to spam the talk pages of unsuspecting users, let's do our best to not make it worse for them at least. Modernponderer (talk) 04:20, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
9. I appreciate the intention here, but if we really don't want a mass talkpage message, then let's not do it at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
10. Is it really that time-consuming just to see a bot message on your watchlist? Biblio (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
11. Per Ivanvector, Biblio, etc. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:46, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on statement #4

@Ajraddatz: MediaWiki message delivery's edits are already flagged as bot edits. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 07:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah perfect, so this has basically been done already, save for users who choose to show bot edits. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2017 (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 oppose votes be abolished?

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 #5 by Pgallert

Should we abolish oppose votes? I wonder how many voters can see through the mechanics of the voting system being used, specifically that an oppose vote carries more weight than a support vote. I believe we should abolish oppose votes altogether and determine the exact voting regimen in case this change passes. I know I'm late to the party but I also wonder why nobody brought this up in time. Pgallert (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Users who endorse statement #5:

1. Pgallert (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Why not? Biblio (talk) 21:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Users who reject statement #5:

1. No. It does not allow voters to express disapproval of a candidate (and there have been several clearly unqualified ones in the past). --Rschen7754 21:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
2. Per Rschen7754. Lepricavark (talk) 01:07, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
3. We need some distinction between an outright oppose and a n "I haven't had time to examine all the candidates, so I don't know abut this one". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 02:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
4. For much the same reason we can oppose an RFA. We should also be able to clearly oppose a candidate we think is unfit for this position. ZettaComposer (talk) 17:28, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
5. If we have candidates whom voters think are definitely not suitable for Arbcom then there needs to be a mechanism for expressing that. Also, I don't see how an oppose vote carries more weight than a support vote, given that the minimum Support level measured as Support/(Support+Oppose) is 50%. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
6. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
7. Per Rschen7754 and ZettaComposer. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
8. I don't agree with the reasoning here. Firstly it's incorrect to say that oppose votes carry more weight than support votes since the end calculation does not weigh the votes differently (see WP:ACE2016#Results note 3). Kelapstick's success in 2015 is cited as an example where the election would have turned out differently, and it actually illustrates why I disagree with this statement: Presumably, Kelapstick wasn't widely known which is reflected by the high number of Neutral votes, but of the people who had interacted with him (or read his answers to questions), 66.37% thought he was qualified for Arbcom. Obviously it wouldn't be desirable for someone to get 3 support votes, 1000 neutral votes and 1 oppose and win with 75% support, but that's an extreme edge case and I believe it's desirable to let people who have legitimate concerns voice those concerns by opposing, instead of voting for another candidate to make sure they get more support votes. Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 18:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
9. I strongly oppose this idea. As noted above, users need to be able to register opposition, and to do so in a manner distinct from being neutral. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
10. Being able to oppose candidates is important. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
11. How else is one supposed to express their opinion if they cannot oppose it? NikolaiHo^☎️ 02:51, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
12. No, the current system works fine. If we were struggling to fill spots because hardly anyone made the threshold then fine, but that hasn't been a problem in any recent elections. I also like the way the current system allows a voter to say "none of the above" by opposing everyone. -- Euryalus (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
13. No. Bluehotel (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
14. No. I see no need to make this change. Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:20, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
15. No. Why allow one side of a decision a platform for speech, and the others none? This would be uneven and unfair. prat (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on statement #5

In what way does an oppose vote carry more weight than a support vote? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, that was inexact wording from my side. I should have said A support vote carries more weight if accompanied by opposing all or some other candidates, compared to remaining neutral on other candidates. Assume I'm voting for A and B, and you are voting for C and D. If I'm opposing your candidates (a.k.a. 'tactical voting') and you remain neutral on mine, then A and B stand at 100% and C and D at 50%. Effectively, my vote carried more weight than yours. If everyone is opposing all not-supported candidates then it is fair, but if some apply the 'tactical voting' (without really having something to say against other candidates, just to strengthen their own stance), and some don't, then it is not fair. --Pgallert (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

There's always going to be tactical voting, and it can swing things either way - like, for example, supporting everyone except the one you want to oppose. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

You're right, but with a different voting system certain tactical options can be removed, or at least be made explicit. For instance, giving an amount of "tickets" equal to the number of available positions, and then counting total votes only. Or, someone made the Schulze STV suggestion, but I haven't had enough time to think through if that was a good option. --Pgallert (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

and determine the exact voting regimen in case this change passes that should be done beforehand IMO. I wouldn't support any change of this sort without knowing what's replacing it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Well I thought the principal unfairness (as perceived by me) should go first. If there is no consensus for doing away with the opposes, suggesting a specific system does not make much sense. --Pgallert (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

• Just for interest, if we look at 2016's results at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016#Results, had there been no Oppose votes allowed and the result determined solely by Support votes (which is really all that would be left), we'd have voted in the same set of ragamuffins and ne'er-do-wells ;-) The only difference would have been in the relative placings of Ks0stm and DGG. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
• And for 2015, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015#Results, Kelapstick (who got modest support but a relatively low number of opposes) would not have been elected, Gamaliel would have been elected to a 2-year term rather than 1-year. And Rich Farmbrough, who polled the fourth highest number of opposes, would have been elected for a 1-year term. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@InsaneHacker: I think you just gave a wonderful example why counting the relative support of a candidate is not desirable. --Pgallert (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

It's certainly not a problem-free approach, I'll happily concede to that. But neither is counting support votes only. Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about support / oppose on RfA nominations? Is it different because it isn't purely a numbers game like ACE? Respectfully, InsaneHacker (💬) 05:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

No, RfA is fine imho because there is no minimum or maximum number to be elected. There I find that a well-motivated oppose rightfully counts more than a 'support, why not'. --Pgallert (talk) 08:58, 26 September 2017 (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.