2015 Arbitration Committee Elections
Status
This is a request for comment about the upcoming December 2015 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election.
Purpose of this request for comment: To provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2015 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Background: In the case of proposals that change existing rules, or that seek to establish new ones, lack of consensus for a change will result in the rules from the 2014 RFC remaining in force. Some issues are not covered by the existing rules but will need to be decided one way or another for the operation of the election, in those cases it will be up to the closer to figure out a result, even if there is no clear consensus, as they have had to in the past.
Structure: This RfC is divided into portions, each of which contains a discussion point for the community. The standard RfC structure will be used, in which any user may make a general statement that other users may endorse if they so agree. The points will be listed in the table of contents below, along with the users who have made statements.
Per the consensus developed in last year's request for comment, the electoral commission timetable is as follows:
Per the consensus developed in previous request for comments, the arbitration committee election timetable is as follows:
The points have been chosen in part from the comments from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Feedback. More proposals may be added if other concerns arise.
Duration: This RfC is scheduled to last for about 30 days; on or after September 28, it will be closed, and an uninvolved editor(s) will determine the results of the RfC. The results will determine the structure, rules, and procedures for the election.
Use the following format below; post a new statement at the BOTTOM of the section in which you want to make a statement. Endorse by adding a hash symbol (#) and your signature.
===Statement by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]=== Comment ~~~~ ;Users who endorse this statement: #~~~~
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the request for feedback it was noted by some users that this year's election received less community participation in comparison to years past. Some suggestions have been made to increase community awareness of the elections, including posting a one time central notice and/or permitting a candidate created "ad". Should there be a change in the methods in which we publicize the elections? If so, how should it be done? Mike V • Talk 03:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
During the 2014 election there was some uncertainty in the nomination deadline for Arbitration Committee and Electoral Commission candidates. Due to a perceived ambiguity in the rules, the Electoral Commission discussed the eligibility of two of the candidates and made a judgement call. Going forward, I personally believe it should be best to establish a consensus on how situations like this should be handled. What is considered to be an eligible nomination? Should the candidate complete and transclude their nomination by the deadline? Is the candidate permitted to stand if they create their nomination page before the deadline and transclude it within a set period of time? (24 hours? 48 hours? Longer?) How firm should the deadline be? Is the Electoral Commission permitted to use their collective discretion or should they adhere to the timeline presented? How should the deadlines of Electoral Commission nominations be handled? Mike V • Talk 03:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After last year's election, there were concerns raised that the duration of the scrutineering period was longer than desired. ( 1, 2) Should adjustments be made in the hopes of providing the election results in a timely manner? If so, here are some suggestions to consider: Should we establish a deadline for the election scrutineers? (e.g. 3 days?) Should we expand the number of scrutineers from 3 to 5 and only require 3 to certify the results, provided there isn't a reasonable objection? Should we permit English Wikipedia checkusers to serve as scrutineers, provided that they aren't standing for election as an arbitrator and are willing to abstain from voting in the present election? Thoughts and additional suggestions are welcomed. Mike V • Talk 03:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've brought this up before. Even with lighter participation, candidates are bombarded with questions. Many of them replicate points from the default questions. We have seen some candidates replying to up to 60 questions. These elections create vast amounts of materials, and pretty much nobody reads all of it. Between the user-generated questions, the candidate statements, and the ever-increasing pile of self-important election guides, the default questions are just more noise and I can't see how anyone would believe the answers given to them have any impact whatsoever on the eventual result. It's time to just get rid of them, since we can't really limit user questions or guides. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
2015 Arbitration Committee Elections
Status
This is a request for comment about the upcoming December 2015 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election.
Purpose of this request for comment: To provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2015 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.
Background: In the case of proposals that change existing rules, or that seek to establish new ones, lack of consensus for a change will result in the rules from the 2014 RFC remaining in force. Some issues are not covered by the existing rules but will need to be decided one way or another for the operation of the election, in those cases it will be up to the closer to figure out a result, even if there is no clear consensus, as they have had to in the past.
Structure: This RfC is divided into portions, each of which contains a discussion point for the community. The standard RfC structure will be used, in which any user may make a general statement that other users may endorse if they so agree. The points will be listed in the table of contents below, along with the users who have made statements.
Per the consensus developed in last year's request for comment, the electoral commission timetable is as follows:
Per the consensus developed in previous request for comments, the arbitration committee election timetable is as follows:
The points have been chosen in part from the comments from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Feedback. More proposals may be added if other concerns arise.
Duration: This RfC is scheduled to last for about 30 days; on or after September 28, it will be closed, and an uninvolved editor(s) will determine the results of the RfC. The results will determine the structure, rules, and procedures for the election.
Use the following format below; post a new statement at the BOTTOM of the section in which you want to make a statement. Endorse by adding a hash symbol (#) and your signature.
===Statement by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]=== Comment ~~~~ ;Users who endorse this statement: #~~~~
Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
In the request for feedback it was noted by some users that this year's election received less community participation in comparison to years past. Some suggestions have been made to increase community awareness of the elections, including posting a one time central notice and/or permitting a candidate created "ad". Should there be a change in the methods in which we publicize the elections? If so, how should it be done? Mike V • Talk 03:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
During the 2014 election there was some uncertainty in the nomination deadline for Arbitration Committee and Electoral Commission candidates. Due to a perceived ambiguity in the rules, the Electoral Commission discussed the eligibility of two of the candidates and made a judgement call. Going forward, I personally believe it should be best to establish a consensus on how situations like this should be handled. What is considered to be an eligible nomination? Should the candidate complete and transclude their nomination by the deadline? Is the candidate permitted to stand if they create their nomination page before the deadline and transclude it within a set period of time? (24 hours? 48 hours? Longer?) How firm should the deadline be? Is the Electoral Commission permitted to use their collective discretion or should they adhere to the timeline presented? How should the deadlines of Electoral Commission nominations be handled? Mike V • Talk 03:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After last year's election, there were concerns raised that the duration of the scrutineering period was longer than desired. ( 1, 2) Should adjustments be made in the hopes of providing the election results in a timely manner? If so, here are some suggestions to consider: Should we establish a deadline for the election scrutineers? (e.g. 3 days?) Should we expand the number of scrutineers from 3 to 5 and only require 3 to certify the results, provided there isn't a reasonable objection? Should we permit English Wikipedia checkusers to serve as scrutineers, provided that they aren't standing for election as an arbitrator and are willing to abstain from voting in the present election? Thoughts and additional suggestions are welcomed. Mike V • Talk 03:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've brought this up before. Even with lighter participation, candidates are bombarded with questions. Many of them replicate points from the default questions. We have seen some candidates replying to up to 60 questions. These elections create vast amounts of materials, and pretty much nobody reads all of it. Between the user-generated questions, the candidate statements, and the ever-increasing pile of self-important election guides, the default questions are just more noise and I can't see how anyone would believe the answers given to them have any impact whatsoever on the eventual result. It's time to just get rid of them, since we can't really limit user questions or guides. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:09, 11 September 2015 (UTC)