WP:ACERFC

This is a request for comment about the upcoming December 2012 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election.

Purpose of this request for comment: To try and gain at least a rough community consensus on structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2012 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election.

Structure: This RfC is divided into portions, each of which contains a question for the community to discuss. 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 questions will be listed in the table of contents below, along with the users who have made statements.

The questions have been chosen from the comments from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Feedback. More questions may be added if other concerns arise.

Duration: This RfC is scheduled to last for about 30 days; on or after 1 November 2012, it will be closed, and an uninvolved editor(s) will determine the result of the RfC. The results will determine the structure, rules, and procedures for the election.

REMINDER TO USE THE TALK PAGE FOR DISCUSSION: All replies to another user's statement, vote, endorsement, or evidence should be posted on the RfC's discussion page. There, threaded discussion should be used to keep discussions organized.

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]]===
Comment ~~~~

;Users who endorse this statement:

#~~~~

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

Composition of the Committee

How many arbitrators should we have for 2012? (How many seats should we fill for next year?)

Consensus from last year's RfC: The number of arbitrators should be reduced to 15.

How many seats should be 2-year terms, and how many 1-year terms?

Consensus from last year's RfC: Successful candidates with the highest support receive 2-year terms, while those with lower levels of support receive 1-year terms.

What should the requirements be for candidates to run for the election?

Consensus from last year's RfC:

Registered account with a minimum of 500 edits.
Good standing and was not subject to active blocks or site-bans.
Meets the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data and was willing to identify with the Foundation if elected.
Has disclosed any alternate accounts in their election statements (legitimate accounts which had been declared to the Arbitration Committee prior to the close of nominations did not need to be publicly disclosed).

How should vacancies be handled?

Statement by MuZemike

Last year's unexpected and last-minute vacancies has prompted me to pose this question about vacancies. Basically, there are three types of vacancies to be considered:

End-of-term vacancies: Vacancies that will result when an Arbitrator's term is expected to end.
Expected vacancies: Vacancies that will result when a sitting (at least one year remaining in term) Arbitrator is expected to step down from the Committee before his/her term ends.
Unexpected vacancies: Vacancies that will result when a sitting Arbitrator unexpectedly steps down from the Committee for one reason or another.

I'm not sure which directions the discussions will go, but it's clear that the biggest concern by far is with unexpected vacancies, as is what happened last year. I pose some questions:

If a sitting arbitrator unexpectedly resigns, how long should that corresponding term be?
Until what point can we adjust the number of vacant seats without jeopardizing the integrity of the election? (i.e. it would be too late during voting, as adjusting seats will very much affect how voters will vote; too early means that seats may go unnecessarily unfilled for next year)

~~~~

The election itself

How many days for voting?

Consensus from last year's RfC: At least 14 days should be allowed for voting.

What should the voting timeline be?

Consensus from last year's RfC: At least 10 days should be allowed for the nomination period, 5 days for the fallow period (the period between nominations and voting, mainly to handle any late administrative and software tasks before voting begins), 14 days for voting, and a brief but indeterminate time for scrutineering.

Statement by MuZemike

Going off last year's election, I have drafted a following timeline below for this year's election:

Nominations: Sunday 00:01, 18 November - Tuesday 23:59, 27 November (10 days)
Fallow period: Wednesday 00:01, 28 November - Sunday 23:59, 2 December (5 days)
Voting period: Monday 00:01, 3 December - Sunday 23:59, 16 December (14 days)
Scrutineering: Monday 00:01, 17 December - ??? (whenever the Stewards are finished)

~~~~

Users who endorse this statement

#~~~~

What should the requirements be to vote in the election?

Consensus from last year's RfC: 150 mainspace edits by 1 November.

What should the method of voting be?

Consensus from last year's RfC: Support/No Vote/Oppose, with percentages calculated via Support/(Support + Oppose).

Secret balloting?

Yes

No

What general questions should we ask each of the candidates?

Consensus from last year's RfC: A list of general questions will be asked of each candidate. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidate questions for a draft list of general questions to be asked.

How should voter guides be handled for the election?

Consensus from last year's RfC: Serious voter guides may be included for the election, but those that are not should be discarded. They should also be randomized so that not everybody believes the top of the voter guide list says.

Post-election

What should the minimum support percentage be in order to be considered for appointment to ArbCom?

Consensus from last year's RfC: A minimum of 50% is required for consideration.