Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Wikipedia proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The purpose of this request for comment is to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2023 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by the existing rules.

Background: In the case of proposals that change existing rules, or that seek to establish new ones, lack of consensus for a change will result in the rules from the 2022 election remaining in force. Some issues are not covered by the existing rules but will need to be decided one way or another for the operation of the election, in those cases it will be up to the closer to figure out a result, even if there is no clear consensus, as they have had to in the past.

Structure: This RfC is divided into portions, each of which contains a discussion point for the community. The standard RfC structure will be used, in which any user may make a general statement that other users may endorse if they so agree. The points will be listed in the table of contents, along with the users who have made statements. Anyone is free to raise any new topics that they feel need to be addressed by filling out the format template below or using ((subst:ACERFC statement)).

Duration: In order to preserve the timeline of the election (see below), we should aim to close this RfC as soon as 30 days have passed, i.e. on or after 23:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC). The results will determine the structure, rules, and procedures for the election.

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

• Nominations: Monday 00:00, 02 October 2023 until Sunday 23:59, 08 October 2023 (UTC)
• Evaluation period: Monday 00:00, 09 October 2023 until Sunday 23:59, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
• Commission selection: completed by Monday 00:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

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

• Nominations: Sunday 00:00, 12 November 2023 until Tuesday 23:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• Setup period: Wednesday 00:00, 22 November 2023 to Sunday 23:59, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
• Voting period: Tuesday 00:00, 28 November 2023 until Monday 23:59, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
• Scrutineering: begins Tuesday 00:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Use the following format below; post a new proposal at the BOTTOM of the page.

=== Proposal name ===
Neutral description of proposal. ~~~~

==== Support (proposal name) ====
# Additional comments here ~~~~

==== Oppose (proposal name) ====
# 

==== Comments (proposal name) ====
*
----

What should the gist of the beginning of the "candidates" bullet point at WP:ACERULES be?

• Option 1: Registered account with 500 mainspace edits, editor in good standing, that is, not under block (as of the time of the nomination) or ban^[a]...
• Option 2: Registered account with 500 mainspace edits, editor in good standing and is not under block (as of the time of the nomination) or ban^[a]...
• Option 3: Registered account with 500 mainspace edits that is not under block (as of the time of the nomination) or ban^[a]...

Differences highlighted for emphasis (read: emphasis not intended to be part of ACERULES). Explicitly the "gist" to allow future copyediting.
HouseBlaster^talk 19:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 ("that is")

1. I struggle to see what "good standing" could refer to other than "not blocked/banned". HouseBlaster^talk 19:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   It means something different in the context of clean starts or resysop requests, but I'm sure the intent wasn't to add another subjective candidate qualification. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

   I like Pppery's idea more. Second choice to option 3. HouseBlaster^talk 19:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2. Second choice to Option 3. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 ("and is")

Option 3 (delete "good standing")

1. On second thought option 1 includes surplusage that has apparently caused confusion, so why don't we just say what we mean directly without guesswork? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. per Pppery. HouseBlaster^talk 19:52, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comments ("Candidates" bullet point)

• Wordsmithing on the question welcome. If anyone has any "none of the above" options, either add them directly as option 3(+) or raise them here for discussion (your judgement) (or do something else entirely) (this included to make it clear more than these options can be considered). HouseBlaster^talk 19:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Does "block" mean only a full block, any partial block, or something in between? Thryduulf (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That hasn't been decided anywhere AFAIK. I brought up the same issue on the talk page. Personally I think that as long as you aren't technically unable to submit your candidacy because of a block you should be able to run, although in practice the chance of a P-blocked candidate winning is probably zero. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I can see someone p-blocked from a single obscure page standing a chance, someone p-blocked from an entire namespace definitely not. Thryduulf (talk) 22:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have started #Eligibility of partially blocked/banned users because answering that question seems out of scope for this specific question. HouseBlaster^talk 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Per my comments on the talk page the language on the candidates page should be updated to match the language agreed here. I don't think that requires a formal vote, but if anyone thinks it does please speak soon and I'll start it. If not it should be highlighted as a note to the closer. Thryduulf (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this RfC is not specific to one page, so all appropriate pages can be updated based on any established consensus. isaacl (talk) 22:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should members of the U4C be barred from standing for election to ArbCom? HouseBlaster^talk 19:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support (U4C membership)

1. Support for the same reasons given at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 159#RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators. I will note that members of the U4C may not participate in processing cases they have been directly involved in as a result of their other positions, but even then I do not want Arbs recusing on the grounds that the matter might come before the U4C.
   Additionally, if/when the U4C is dealing with something previously dealt with by the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, there is a good chance it will be during (or the cause of) WP:FRAMGATE 2.0. During such a time, I would want members of the U4C whose home wiki is enwiki to be active on the case, ensuring we are represented and serving as a liaison between the U4C and enwiki. I do not want them to be recused because they previously participated in it as an Arb. HouseBlaster^talk 19:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
2. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:44, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
3. I would write something here, but HouseBlaster sums it up perfectly. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose (U4C membership)

Comments (U4C membership)

• See also discussion on the talk page. In particular, I agree with Pppery's comment that we (i.e. this RfC) have jurisdiction over candidates, but ArbCom has jurisdiction over members. HouseBlaster^talk 19:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 159 § RFC: Multiple roles for active arbitrators, there is consensus that current arbitrators may not serve simultaneously on either the trust and safety case review committee or the ombuds commission. This is a community consensus that applies to all serving arbitrators. It might be better for this question to be posed as a general RfC regarding all arbitrators, independent of candidate eligibility. isaacl (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• On a side note regarding the issue of an arbitrator on the U4C having to recuse due to being involved in a case, resulting in a gap in representation: this would be a problem with past arbitrators as well. However prohibiting past arbitrators from serving would make a pool of experienced editors unavailable to the U4C. Perhaps some notion of substitute U4C members would be helpful (though that's for a different discussion). isaacl (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How should partial blocks and bans (e.g., page, topic, interaction) affect the eligibility of users to run for ArbCom?

• Option 1: any partial block/ban disqualifies a candidate
• Option 2: partially blocked/banned users are ineligible if the block/ban prevents them from submitting their candidacy
• Option 3: only site-blocked/site-banned users are ineligible (if necessary, candidates may ask another user to submit their candidacy on their behalf)

HouseBlaster^talk 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 (any block)

Option 2 (only blocks that prevent submission)

1. Consistency with suffrage eligibility is a good thing. HouseBlaster^talk 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3 (only site-blocks)

Comments (Blocks and bans which disqualify candidates)

• I am bundling bans with this question on pblocks because the language about blocked candidates is just as ambiguous as banned candidates. Additional options welcome (but please try to keep the number of choices reasonable!). HouseBlaster^talk 22:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]