Points of discussion[edit]

Statement #1a by Rschen7754[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #1a:[edit]

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #1b; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #1b below)

1. As proposer. --Rschen7754 04:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. I support this because our "Voter Guides" are traditionally almost exclusively done by others but more so, because they are placed separate from candidate statements. If within their statements, candidates would like to write guidance on anyone or anything, do that there. There is no reason to give candidates multiple places to talk about themselves, others, and their ideas during the election, and every reason to keep all that together for the sake of informed voters. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Massive support. Either be a candidate or make a guide. Candidate-written guides take value away from the ones written by non-candidates. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:32, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   We could possibly consider just not listing these articles on the ACE banner template. I'd make a formal proposal, but I'm not seeing a particular mood for it here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:28, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. Tharik^Rish 17:29, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support for same reasons others have stated, above.Truth Is King 24 (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1b Thryduulf[edit]

Any editor may write a voter guide.

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #1b:[edit]

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #1a; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #1a above)

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

Statement #1c by Izno[edit]

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

Rationale

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

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

Users who endorse statement #1c:[edit]

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #1a and 1b; to "oppose" this statement, endorse one of the earlier two statements above)

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

Users who object to statement #1c:[edit]

1. I don't think this necessary and I don't see the mechanism of enforcing it. Also it's wrong to say this propoasl is "mutually exclusive" to 1b (permalink). It's not. – Ammarpad (talk) 20:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC) Addendum: To not leave room for any doubt, I am specifically opposing the part of the proposal that says: A candidate who writes a guide must declare that they are a candidate in that guide. I am not opposing the first part, Any editor may write a voter guide as that's impossible for me while I am supporting the proposal in 1b. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   I crafted it deliberately to be in opposition to 1b per my rationale. If you do not think this is necessary, add your support (as you have done) in 1a or 1b. As for enforcement, I think multiple other questions below cover that (in which I assume you have left comment already). --Izno (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   I am sorry if my comment offended you, but for two things to be "mutually exclusive" one must preclude the other in all forms. To support 1c, would mean automatic oppose for 1b and vice-versa (but that's not possible here, because that would lead to nonsense conclusion. Read both proposals again.) This is not a matter of personal opinion. If you give me two options and say they are "mutually exclusive" I'd expect them to be so in its universal meaning not bespoke or adhoc definition you want to give it. Your proposal is not mutually exclusive to 1b, because it also partly proposing what 1b is proposing. So in essence it's impossible for me to oppose it (me doing so here is kind of weird, but that's is caused by the proposal I have clarified that with addendum.), because by supporting 1b, I am already implicitly supporting part of 1c. If I oppose 1b, I must implicitly oppose part of 1b. Just above this proposal, we have example of mutually-exclusive proposals 1a and 1b. You can see how they differ from 1b and 1c. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:25, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   The way I read 1b and 1c is that 1b allows candidates to write guides without restriction, and 1c stipulates that candidates must identify themselves as candidates within their guide, Both of these conditions cannot be true at the same time (we cannot enact a restriction while simultaneously having no restrictions). If both statements pass, what exactly have we asserted? To make consensus clear, we should support only one statement or the other (or neither). CThomas³ (talk) 16:11, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks, that's another possible interpretation of what he means, which is also not exactly what mutual exclusivity stands for. The wiki article is not that good, but at least it lays the foundation. – Ammarpad (talk) 10:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   I was not offended (a little annoyed, but not offended), just editing from mobile and accordingly terse (laptop hard drive died, but is now replaced :^).

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

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

Statement #2a by Thryduulf (guides)[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #2a:[edit]

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #2b; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #2b below)

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

Statement #2b by Thryduulf (guides)[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #2b:[edit]

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #2a; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #2a above)

1. This stuff is already too political without allowing options to silence dissent. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #3 by Thryduulf (guides)[edit]

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

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #3.1:[edit]

1. This is a reasonable role, regardless how the "decisions regarding guides" are actually made (if any are; both are matters for statements above this one). I liken this to other "patrolling" functions that are performed at various pages by clerks and whatever. One does not have to be the maker of the decision to implement the decision.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is fine, and seems to logically sit within the remit. We can assume that logical section will be taken (as opposed to removing small parts to flip the meaning) Nosebagbear (talk) 08:24, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Or to just render it meaningless. "This ... seems to ... sit within ... small ... meaning". >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:28, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. This is the minimum necessary to ensure that guides meet the rules. Thryduulf (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. -- Calidum 16:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. – Teratix ₵ 03:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. A poor second, though, to not linking guides in the first place. I think voter guides linked from the templates / process pages are a terrible idea. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
8. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
9. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:29, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
10. Yes, but only if the content of the guide is outside policy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
11. Tharik^Rish 17:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
12. Yes, but only if the guide material is clearly outside of policy, and is to be restored if community consensus is against the removal. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
13. Izno (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
14. Tamwin (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
15. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
16. P-K3 (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
17. This seems self-evident; content in the guides needs to be policy-compliant, including with all our behavioral policies; theoretically any administrator is still able to enforce policy in this manner, but explicitly giving the commissioners the authority isn't a bad thing. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
18. If someone writes an attack piece this is the only remedy. Banedon (talk) 22:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
19. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
20. PaleAqua (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Users who object to statement #3.1:[edit]

Users who endorse statement #3.2:[edit]

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

Users who object to statement #3.2:[edit]

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

Users who endorse statement #3.3:[edit]

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

Users who object to statement #3.3:[edit]

Users who endorse statement #3.4:[edit]

Users who object to statement #3.4:[edit]

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

Users who endorse statement #3.5:[edit]

Users who object to statement #3.5:[edit]

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

Users who endorse statement #3.6:[edit]

Users who object to statement #3.6:[edit]

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

Users who endorse statement #3.7:[edit]

1. I'll say it: I believe the community is perfectly capable of policing itself. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:17, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Election commissioners should not have arbitrary powers of censorship. Guide issues should be referred to binding discussions closed by a bureaucrat. Election commissioners can do that referral. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. In general our existing administrative policies are sufficient to deal with disruption without having to specifically sadle commissioners with enforcement. 3.1 is probably fine though. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:41, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #4a by Thryduulf (guides)[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #4a:[edit]

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #4b; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #4b below)

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

   Certainly JW 1961 Talk 21:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC) Wrong section. sorry JW 1961 Talk 21:06, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #4b by Thryduulf (guides)[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #4b:[edit]

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #4a; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #4a above)

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

Statement #5a by Thryduulf (guides)[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #5a:[edit]

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

Statement #5b by Thryduulf (guides)[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #5b:[edit]

1. This is already true for all pages. No need to make it doubly true here. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Unnecessary. 5a, as currently written, is in fact the status quo. It is true that 5b is also the status quo, but this is because 5a is not written as the negation of 5b. PJvanMill)talk( 17:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #6a by Thryduulf (guides)[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #6a:[edit]

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

Statement #6b by Thryduulf (guides)[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #6b:[edit]

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

Statement #6c by Thryduulf (guides)[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #6c:[edit]

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

Users who DO NOT endorse statement #6c:[edit]

1. Why would we do this? There are candidate pages for discussion of the candidate. "Voter guides" added to official templates and the like by random users are a truly terrible idea. It amplifies the voices of self-selected users, some of whom may be pursuing an undeclared agenda, or one that is known to some but not declared openly. Example: if an editor is topic-banned from Elbonian Politics, they may produce a voter guide based on the support or otherwise of candidates for the Elbonian nationalist agenda, and unless you're familiar with the editor, this payload will be smuggled in unchallenged to what seems on the face of it to be an officially endorsed document. Let people write voter guides and link to them from their user pages, but the candidate pages, which are actively curated, should be the place where people read about the candidates and make their choices. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. In my opinion "the other Guy" makes a good point. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:41, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. These are basically user-space essays, if a user doesn't want their guide in a category I really can't see that we should force them to have it in one - leaving them to CSD it as the nuclear option. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Xaosflux, that strikes me as a support for 6a rather than 6d. Do you see a difference there? --Izno (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   There are a lot of competing ones here (and I don't see 6d?) to summarize my current support: I don't think we should put the guides in the ACE banner anymore, I do think the guides should be in a category, I do think the category should be on the ace banner, I think that inclusion in the category should be at the discretion of the guide author, I think that exclusion from the category can be at the discretion of commissioners or uninvolved community review at somewhere like AN. — xaosflux ^Talk 11:23, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks for saying that so well Xaosflux. This is my !vote as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. Would-be private guides exist (I've written one in the past). Banedon (talk) 23:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:28, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #7a by SchroCat[edit]

Completely deprecate guides to candidates

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #7a:[edit]

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #7b; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #7b below)

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

Statement #7b by SchroCat[edit]

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

Rationale

This is the status quo

Users who endorse statement #7b:[edit]

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #7a; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #7a above)

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

Statement #8a by SchroCat[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #8a:[edit]

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #8b; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #8b below)

1. Strongly agree. I've always thought this was inappropriate. At most, there could maybe be a single link to the user essays sub-category for these (which is, I think, or certainly should be sub-sub-categorized by year, so can be linked to directly for voter guides pertinent to this year's election). I think that would be a good compromise, making them findable without promoting them by name. See also WP:VESTED. While it's about WP:OWN-related behavior in mainspace for the most part, the central principle holds: no editor's views are magically more important than another's. See 6b, above; the central theme of it, of "disputes about what is and is not an official guide" is off-base, in that there is no basis on which to give any user essay "official" imprimatur of any kind.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Who decides which guides to advertise, anyway? I'm with SMcCandlish on this: best to have no imprimatur. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per SMcCandlish and Javert2113; replace with a link to Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2020 voter guides, with a short introduction to the concept of "voter guides" that does not name any specific guide. PJvanMill)talk( 17:21, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Link to the category per PJvanMill. SQL^{Query me!} 20:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree and support link to category as per PJvanMill above. However, I sure hope those guides listed in that category are well reviewed to follow rules against polemical statements and similar prohibited behavior. --Ian Korman (talk) 02:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   Izno and Rosgill have made me reconsider; I'd rather be neutral on this issue. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC) — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:53, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

6. If the inclusion of the guides in the ACE banner is replaced with a general link, eg a link to Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2020 voter guides as User:PJvanMill suggests, then I support this. There should be some pointer to somewhere that links the guides. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. Absolutely. Adding them amplifies the voices of self-selected users and prioritises the views of the most motivated (and likely the most wiki-politically active). It implies a level of endorsement of individual opinions that has no place in the formal process of the election. I have no idea why we started doing this, but it has always been a terrible idea and is doubly terrible given the current fractious nature of almost every dispute: it's an open invitation to partisans to flood the zone with bullshit, basically. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
8. They are and have always been nothing more than user opinion essays so treating them like a special subclass was never useful. As time has gone on, the officially unofficial or unofficially official (Which is it? I don't even know anymore.) status has become more problematic. Eliminate the ambiguity and delink them. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
9. It was never a good idea to include them there. It's time to stop. DGG ( talk ) 22:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
10. Link to the category per above. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:22, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
11. Weak support, I think these may be useful - but shouldn't be so prominent; linking to the category sounds like a good compromise. This probably needs to be a different statement - but one thing that came up last year was about the category as well and who should be allowed to manage the population of the category - for that I'd say only the guide owner (as these are hosted in userspace) should be allowed to add the category to "their" guide. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:31, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    @Xaosflux: who can add guides to templates and categories is the #6 set of statements in this section. Restricting it to guide authors is #6a. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

12. Agree. I also question that we should call them "guides", as they are not. When I have looked into them, most people actually vote in a different direction to the consensus of the guides. They are, mostly, simply reflections of a person's opinion - essentially personal statements. They provide little actual value, other than to satisfy curiosity as to what some individuals think of other individuals. "Voter opinions" would be a more appropriate name. I think many of us on this page enjoy reading them, but few of us would be guided by them. SilkTork (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
13. Tharik^Rish 17:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
14. I've never liked this idea much and would be happy to see the guides removed from the template. Editors should of course be able to express their opinions on candidates, but we don't have to hand certain ones a megaphone. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
15. I’ve not minded them on the banner but I appreciate why this could be problematic. Linking to the category or something similar would suffice in my opinion. CThomas³ (talk) 16:29, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
16. Yes. There is no sensible reason why these should be advertised. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
17. Yes, link to category per SMC, Javert2113, and PJvanMill. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 21:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
18. Yes, please. Let people write their guides, I guess, but advertising them on the ACE banner has always been giving these guides far too much prominence and weight. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
19. I think a category strikes the right balance; advertizing these on the banner is giving them too much prominence, decentralizing them completely is too much, per those supporting 8B. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
20. I can get behind this. Looking at voter guides seems like something for people with too much time on their hands and too much capacity for drama. Banedon (talk) 23:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
21. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (Striking my !vote here) Partial Link to category sure, link to individual guides no. PaleAqua (talk) 16:39, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #8b by SchroCat[edit]

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

Rationale

This is the status quo

Users who endorse statement #8b:[edit]

(this statement is mutually exclusive with statement #8a; to "oppose" this statement, endorse statement #8a above)

1. Perhaps some kind of disclaimer should be added at the top of each voter guide (if that isn't already the case), but I'm strongly opposed to any measures that would hinder easy access to these voter guides. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. If we allow user guides at all, we should be transparent about them. Posting them in such a visible way ensures they can be seen and problems corrected. -- Calidum 16:11, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. This is inherently unfair. Guides written by those with the most user talk page stalkers will get more influence than those that don't. --Rschen7754 00:22, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   What's the "this" you think is unfair? It doesn't have a clear referent.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

   I read it as "this" = "Removing links totally and leaving it up to people to find the guides via individual user talk pages". Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. If there is no link at all to where to find the guides, then I oppose - but see 8a above. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:49, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. Johnbod (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. I think I land here, or in the compromise category link position. My observation over the past few years (I've been keeping tabs with a "meta" guide) has been that the guide consensus tends toward the vote results. (I do not know if that is predicting or kingmaking or what mixture of both as is likely.) People are writing reasonable guides for the most part, I think (I suppose I view it as prediction). I also share Rschen's concern: if Iridescent should decide to write a guide and link it on their talk page, that's going to influence a whole lot more people than if I do. (No, you can't have my influence, even if you wanted it.) --Izno (talk) 02:51, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. No need to hide content you don't like. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:02, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
8. I find the guides really useful and I'd like it to remain easy to find them, for myself and others. Hobit (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
9. I think I agree with Boing! said Zebedee's caveat; failing to centralize guides can lead not only to disparities in their influence, but could also make it easier for someone to write personal attacks or otherwise inappropriate guides that fly under the radar for an extended period of time. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per Rschen and also the really twisted logic being applied here - which is that reduced visibility to guides will "fix" the issue with guides, if anything, that makes the guides less transparent and susceptible to contain aspersions and factual errors. No way. --qedk (t 愛 c) 12:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per Chris troutman and Hobit. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
12. These are important to inform people about the candidates. This makes the information much more accessible, leading to a more informed voter population. I also agree with Lepricavark, Calidum, Rschen7754, and Hobit. Tamwin (talk) 23:14, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
13. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
14. I oppose if there is no category link per much of the above. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 21:07, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
15. Don't see a problem with the banner, it helps to inform voters. P-K3 (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
16. Helps inform voters, issues can be addressed in a less nuclear fashion. Martinp (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
17. I think this should just be a link to the a category, see my longer response in the other section. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
18. Can see the bias concern mentioned above going to strike my 8a vote. PaleAqua (talk) 16:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1 by Wugapodes[edit]

Show withdrawn or disqualified candidates on the candidates page.

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #1[edit]

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

Statement #2 by Wugapodes[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #2[edit]

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

Statement #3 by Wugapodes[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #3[edit]

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

Discussion of statement #3 by Wugapodes[edit]

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

Statement #4 by Ivanvector[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #4[edit]

1. Candidates who exit the election after it is already in progress can be noted somehow, with a withdrawal/disqualification statement and a collapse perhaps. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. I am pretty sure this jives with #2; maybe it's a larger subset. --Izno (talk) 13:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. In accordance with my comments for statement #3. isaacl (talk) 15:07, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. per IV. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1 by xaosflux (nomination timing)[edit]

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

Rationale

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

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

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

Statement #2 by xaosflux (nomination timing)[edit]

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

Rationale

This is in opposition to statement #1 above.

Users who endorse statement #2 (nomination timing)[edit]

1. ~~~~

Statement #3 by Nosebagbear (nomination timing)[edit]

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

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

Users who endorse statement #3:[edit]

1. I could also support this (as my 2nd-choice preference in this section), though it seems unlikely, and I think that per WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY such an exception could already be made. It's a general principle even in real bureaucracies that if you attempt to comply with a deadline rule but the office, court, or whatever to which you had to submit something was shut down just before and through the deadline time, due to some emergency, that you can validly complete the process, in a very timely manner, when it becomes possible to do so again.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Extended Wikimedia server issue. -- KTC (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. As a second choice to statement #1. Candidates really shouldn't be leaving it so late that a server issue makes a significant difference, but if one were to last a significant time (>12 hours say) then the deadlines should be adjustable to account for that. Thryduulf (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Thryduulf, second choice. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
5. This is how I understand statement 1 and my endorsements of that and this statement should be considered equivalent. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice to #1. If a candidate is too clueless to get their nomination done by the deadline, leaving enough time to sort out any technical problems, they don't deserve to be considered for ArbCom. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
7. Second-choice preference, per Wugapodes above: I believe the two to be functionally equivalent — I should hope we're not penalizing people for server-side circumstances outside of their control. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 12:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
8. Second choice to #1. – Ammarpad (talk) 08:31, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
9. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
10. As proposer (it was initially unclear if we were automatically counted) Nosebagbear (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support, first choice. Some candidates will wait to the last second, but candidates need to determine if they have the time and energy to be an arb. I'd rather have someone who gave serious consideration and nominated at the end of the nom period than someone who rushes in without thinking of the consequences. I'd hate for someone's nom to be rejected because of a WP server problem. Z1720 (talk) 15:02, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
12. Tamwin (talk) 23:17, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
13. Support, people should actually nominate themselves but shouldn't be disquailified by circumstances beyond their control Asartea ^Talk 13:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
14. Seems reasonable. P-K3 (talk) 12:20, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
15. first choice above 1 Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 15:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #1a by xaosflux (renamed accounts)[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #1a:[edit]

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

Comment:[edit]

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

Statement #1b by xaosflux (renamed accounts)[edit]

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

Users who endorse statement #1b:[edit]

1. Is there any actual problem being solved here? No vanished users voted in the previous election, so preventing them from voting in this one is rule creep that accomplishes literally nothing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:31, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Pppery, unless there is indication of a particular problem, this seems unneeded. Nosebagbear (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree with the arguments of both previous editors. Moreover, if we can keep vanished users' admin privileges indefinitely, then we should allow them to be able to vote as well. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per above. Seems like a solution in search of a problem. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 20:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statement #2a by xaosflux (multiple accounts)[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #2a:[edit]

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

Statement #2b by xaosflux (multiple accounts)[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #2b:[edit]

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

Statement #3a by Altamel[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #3a:[edit]

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

Statement #3b by Altamel[edit]

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

Rationale

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

Users who endorse statement #3b:[edit]