2023
Arbitration Committee Elections
Status as of 10:51 (UTC), Tuesday, 16 July 2024 (
)
![]() | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
Does someone want to take a few minutes to correct the dates and remove some of the content which is irrelevant to this year's elections? The results table, for example. Pinging @ SuperBowlfan123: who copied it at first. (Not too concerned, however. I might run eventually, though.......) Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 13:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:ACERFC2023#Blocks and bans which disqualify candidates it needs to be clarified partially blocked/topic banned users are eligible to stand as long as their block/ban does not prevent them from submitting their candidacy. The RFC did not specify an exact wording so we need to pick one. The current relevant wording is a list of requirements:
An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who: [...]
- (ii) is not subject to active blocks or site-bans,
My first suggestion is to change that item to:
It's likely that someone else will have a better suggestion though. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
that is not prevented from submitting their candidacy by a block or ban. Personally I'd just update this page to match (and if there is no objection I'll do it). isaacl ( talk) 19:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Just thought this was interesting: 2023 will be the third year in a row that eight vacancies are all eligible to be filled with two-year terms. See WP:ACE2023#Vacant seats. Basically, if an arbitrator resigns from the Committee during the first year of their two-year term, and if they are also in the tranche that has exactly eight arbitrators, then their seat will swap over to the other tranche—see WP:ACERFC2013#Handling of the 8th Vacant Seat. Last year, one seat from Tranche Beta moved to Tranche Alpha because of the resignation of Donald Albury, and this year, that seat will move back to Tranche Beta because of the resignation of SilkTork. Mz7 ( talk) 19:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
RZuo ( talk) 14:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Just noting, we are aware that Opabinia regalis has resigned, as this was an expiring term there is no impact to the current election cycle. For electcom, — xaosflux Talk 16:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I entered the voting page and read: Discuss the candidates. You may read and engage in discussion of the candidates
here.
It links to
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates/Discussion - shouldn't it link to
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Discussion?
BeanieFan11 (
talk)
01:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
"has made at least 10 live edits (in any namespace) in the one year prior to 00:00, 1 November 2023"
Does this mean 10 non-reverted edits or 10 edits that are the current version of a page. A.FLOCK ( talk) 12:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I read the candidates' blurbs and found three of them to be free of grammatical and stylistic blunders. Interesting that two candidates used the pluperfect where a simple past was called for: I'd have expected the opposite mistake to be more common, as the perfect tenses generally seem to be in decline. The one non-native speaker failed to use a present perfect where appropriate, but otherwise wrote well: I would excuse that and say four candidates demonstrated clear, professional editorial skills. Yes, the arbitration job is not an editorial job in the narrow sense, but still -- should poor editors be promoted to oversee editors? Wegesrand ( talk) 14:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be that new questions to candidates should go at the bottom, but the only thing visible about location in the editing window is "below the line". As there is a line between the instructions and first question it is reasonable for people to assume that's where they are meant to go. This should be clarified and consideration should be given to an edit notice. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Add your questions below the line using the following markup...to include a "at the bottom of the page"? — xaosflux Talk 22:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Add your questions at the bottom of the page using the following markup:. (I was just going to boldly make a change, but since you asked...) Much like on talk pages, anyone can just restore the desired order, as Maxim did on his questions page, but having a simple direction won't hurt. isaacl ( talk) 23:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
#
character, this may lead to a blank item before actual ones, but that's not really a big deal (someone can remove it later). Personally I think if the commenter is someone who doesn't know English Wikipedia talk page conventions yet, saying "bottom of the page" is more likely to attain the desired result.
isaacl (
talk)
00:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
SecurePoll tells me I'm not eligible to vote, which apparently is because I don't have 10 edits in the recent year. My opinion is, for that criteria, editors should be allowed to reach those edits during the voting period rather than the cutoff being before voting starts. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 20:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Answered in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Coordination#Any updates on the scrutineering process? |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
We are past two weeks since the scrutineering has started, the longest since quite some time. Any comments on why it is taking so long? Ian P. Tetriss ( talk) 21:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC) |
If phab:T296349 is still open include a note about it in the MMS. — xaosflux Talk 14:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The voting page now has two links to "here", which is recommended against from an accessibility standpoint. Currently:
Proposed (assuming that these links aren't coded up to change each year):
Not married to any of the wording, or the inclusion of extra links. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 20:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Coordination/Instructions for scrutineers says They should pass on any appropriate data to the enwiki CheckUsers listed above
but there is no such list. This should probably get turned into "They should pass on any appropriate data to an enwiki CheckUser". — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
RoySmith (
talk •
contribs) 2023-12-12T16:41:30 (UTC)
May want to reconsider the election schedule. — xaosflux Talk 00:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
While 3 scrutineers and possible alternants are invited, in some cases there may become a shortage of scrutineers. Should solidify that "a majority" of the scrutineers are sufficient for certification. — xaosflux Talk 00:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Feedback#Tool to determine eligibility the coordination instructions for 2024 should include a request to add the election to the tool. Obviously this cannot be done until after the RFC determines what the eligibility criteria are. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd like us as a community to rethink how we approach scrutineering and how useful the current approach (which hasn't changed in over a decade) actually is. I'm personally not convinced that closely examining each and every vote is a worthwhile use of community time, both because of changes to the threat model (IPs and UAs have become less useful as identifiers since scrutineering was first established and each user only has a single IP+UA saved) and because the practical threat seems fairly low (a bad actor would need to game hundreds of edits across dozens of accounts to make any difference...and they don't even know who will be running until late in the year). Yes, I was around for Edgar, and that was a) the exception that proves the rule, and b) still wasn't enough accounts to have meaningfully changed the results. I think we should consider, for example, only checking a random % sample of the votes — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralNotability ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Oddly enough, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Election/Rules doesn't seem to say how we determine who wins. We've got:
but nowhere does it actually say:
It's kind of implied by the other two, but we really should be explicit that it's percentage (as opposed to total support or net) that you sort on. Sorting on either of those other columns this year would have given different results. And doing "sort by net, subject to a 50% cutoff" would technically have met the rules as written. RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
select username into two_year_terms from results where percent >= 60 order by percent limit 8;
select username into one_year_terms from results where percent >= 50 and percent < 60 order by percent;
Regarding these edits: I know some previous election pages have been modified in this way to place the election events in the past. I feel, though, that it's a waste of time. I don't think a significant portion of editors are confused into thinking that the election is still ongoing—the status header at the top is clear. I think editors coming back to this page later on will want to consult a snapshot of what people read at the time, and not a past tense version. I appreciate this can still be seen in the history, but since I don't see a use for the past tense version, personally I would prefer just leaving the contents as they stood during the election. isaacl ( talk) 22:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
2023
Arbitration Committee Elections
Status as of 10:51 (UTC), Tuesday, 16 July 2024 (
)
![]() | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |
Does someone want to take a few minutes to correct the dates and remove some of the content which is irrelevant to this year's elections? The results table, for example. Pinging @ SuperBowlfan123: who copied it at first. (Not too concerned, however. I might run eventually, though.......) Mattdaviesfsic ( talk) 13:10, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:ACERFC2023#Blocks and bans which disqualify candidates it needs to be clarified partially blocked/topic banned users are eligible to stand as long as their block/ban does not prevent them from submitting their candidacy. The RFC did not specify an exact wording so we need to pick one. The current relevant wording is a list of requirements:
An editor is eligible to stand as a candidate who: [...]
- (ii) is not subject to active blocks or site-bans,
My first suggestion is to change that item to:
It's likely that someone else will have a better suggestion though. Thryduulf ( talk) 17:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
that is not prevented from submitting their candidacy by a block or ban. Personally I'd just update this page to match (and if there is no objection I'll do it). isaacl ( talk) 19:31, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Just thought this was interesting: 2023 will be the third year in a row that eight vacancies are all eligible to be filled with two-year terms. See WP:ACE2023#Vacant seats. Basically, if an arbitrator resigns from the Committee during the first year of their two-year term, and if they are also in the tranche that has exactly eight arbitrators, then their seat will swap over to the other tranche—see WP:ACERFC2013#Handling of the 8th Vacant Seat. Last year, one seat from Tranche Beta moved to Tranche Alpha because of the resignation of Donald Albury, and this year, that seat will move back to Tranche Beta because of the resignation of SilkTork. Mz7 ( talk) 19:49, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
RZuo ( talk) 14:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Just noting, we are aware that Opabinia regalis has resigned, as this was an expiring term there is no impact to the current election cycle. For electcom, — xaosflux Talk 16:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
I entered the voting page and read: Discuss the candidates. You may read and engage in discussion of the candidates
here.
It links to
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates/Discussion - shouldn't it link to
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Discussion?
BeanieFan11 (
talk)
01:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
"has made at least 10 live edits (in any namespace) in the one year prior to 00:00, 1 November 2023"
Does this mean 10 non-reverted edits or 10 edits that are the current version of a page. A.FLOCK ( talk) 12:15, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
I read the candidates' blurbs and found three of them to be free of grammatical and stylistic blunders. Interesting that two candidates used the pluperfect where a simple past was called for: I'd have expected the opposite mistake to be more common, as the perfect tenses generally seem to be in decline. The one non-native speaker failed to use a present perfect where appropriate, but otherwise wrote well: I would excuse that and say four candidates demonstrated clear, professional editorial skills. Yes, the arbitration job is not an editorial job in the narrow sense, but still -- should poor editors be promoted to oversee editors? Wegesrand ( talk) 14:38, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
The consensus seems to be that new questions to candidates should go at the bottom, but the only thing visible about location in the editing window is "below the line". As there is a line between the instructions and first question it is reasonable for people to assume that's where they are meant to go. This should be clarified and consideration should be given to an edit notice. Thryduulf ( talk) 19:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Add your questions below the line using the following markup...to include a "at the bottom of the page"? — xaosflux Talk 22:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
Add your questions at the bottom of the page using the following markup:. (I was just going to boldly make a change, but since you asked...) Much like on talk pages, anyone can just restore the desired order, as Maxim did on his questions page, but having a simple direction won't hurt. isaacl ( talk) 23:07, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
#
character, this may lead to a blank item before actual ones, but that's not really a big deal (someone can remove it later). Personally I think if the commenter is someone who doesn't know English Wikipedia talk page conventions yet, saying "bottom of the page" is more likely to attain the desired result.
isaacl (
talk)
00:15, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
SecurePoll tells me I'm not eligible to vote, which apparently is because I don't have 10 edits in the recent year. My opinion is, for that criteria, editors should be allowed to reach those edits during the voting period rather than the cutoff being before voting starts. TOA The owner of all ☑️ 20:07, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
Answered in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Coordination#Any updates on the scrutineering process? |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
We are past two weeks since the scrutineering has started, the longest since quite some time. Any comments on why it is taking so long? Ian P. Tetriss ( talk) 21:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC) |
If phab:T296349 is still open include a note about it in the MMS. — xaosflux Talk 14:17, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
The voting page now has two links to "here", which is recommended against from an accessibility standpoint. Currently:
Proposed (assuming that these links aren't coded up to change each year):
Not married to any of the wording, or the inclusion of extra links. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 20:19, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Coordination/Instructions for scrutineers says They should pass on any appropriate data to the enwiki CheckUsers listed above
but there is no such list. This should probably get turned into "They should pass on any appropriate data to an enwiki CheckUser". — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
RoySmith (
talk •
contribs) 2023-12-12T16:41:30 (UTC)
May want to reconsider the election schedule. — xaosflux Talk 00:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
While 3 scrutineers and possible alternants are invited, in some cases there may become a shortage of scrutineers. Should solidify that "a majority" of the scrutineers are sufficient for certification. — xaosflux Talk 00:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Feedback#Tool to determine eligibility the coordination instructions for 2024 should include a request to add the election to the tool. Obviously this cannot be done until after the RFC determines what the eligibility criteria are. Thryduulf ( talk) 01:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I'd like us as a community to rethink how we approach scrutineering and how useful the current approach (which hasn't changed in over a decade) actually is. I'm personally not convinced that closely examining each and every vote is a worthwhile use of community time, both because of changes to the threat model (IPs and UAs have become less useful as identifiers since scrutineering was first established and each user only has a single IP+UA saved) and because the practical threat seems fairly low (a bad actor would need to game hundreds of edits across dozens of accounts to make any difference...and they don't even know who will be running until late in the year). Yes, I was around for Edgar, and that was a) the exception that proves the rule, and b) still wasn't enough accounts to have meaningfully changed the results. I think we should consider, for example, only checking a random % sample of the votes — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralNotability ( talk • contribs) 15:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Oddly enough, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Election/Rules doesn't seem to say how we determine who wins. We've got:
but nowhere does it actually say:
It's kind of implied by the other two, but we really should be explicit that it's percentage (as opposed to total support or net) that you sort on. Sorting on either of those other columns this year would have given different results. And doing "sort by net, subject to a 50% cutoff" would technically have met the rules as written. RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
select username into two_year_terms from results where percent >= 60 order by percent limit 8;
select username into one_year_terms from results where percent >= 50 and percent < 60 order by percent;
Regarding these edits: I know some previous election pages have been modified in this way to place the election events in the past. I feel, though, that it's a waste of time. I don't think a significant portion of editors are confused into thinking that the election is still ongoing—the status header at the top is clear. I think editors coming back to this page later on will want to consult a snapshot of what people read at the time, and not a past tense version. I appreciate this can still be seen in the history, but since I don't see a use for the past tense version, personally I would prefer just leaving the contents as they stood during the election. isaacl ( talk) 22:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)