Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2024 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 07:02 (UTC), Sunday, 15 December 2024 (Purge)

  • Thank you for participating in the 2024 Arbitration Committee Elections. The certified results have been posted.
  • You are invited to leave feedback on the election process.
Shortcut


The purpose of this request for comment is to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2024 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by the existing rules. 01:30, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

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 2023 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.

Duration: In order to preserve the timeline of the election, we should aim to close this RfC as soon as 30 days have passed, i.e. on or after 23:59, 30 September 2024 (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: Wednesday 00:00, 02 October 2024 until Tuesday 23:59, 08 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Evaluation period: Wednesday 00:00, 09 October 2024 until Tuesday 23:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Commission selection: completed by Wednesday 00:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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

  • Nominations: Sunday 00:00, 03 November 2024 until Tuesday 23:59, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Setup period: Wednesday 00:00, 13 November 2024 to Sunday 23:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Voting period: Tuesday 00:00, 19 November 2024 until Monday 23:59, 02 December 2024 (UTC)
  • Scrutineering: begins Tuesday 00:00, 03 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

=== Support proposal #: proposal name ===
# Additional comments here ~~~~

=== Oppose proposal #: proposal name ===
# 

=== Comments for proposal #: proposal name ===
*

Proposal 1: Rename neutral option to abstain

[edit]
There is a clear consensus to implement this change, with the main reasoning that "abstain" is more precise than "neutral", particularly due to the effect of such votes. (non-admin closure) starship.paint (RUN) 09:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

To better reflect the effect of not choosing support or oppose, the third option (other than support or oppose) is proposed to be "abstain".

The arbitration committee election is essentially approval votes on each candidate running in parallel, bundled into one ballot for convenience. The third option allows voters to choose to abstain from participating in one or more votes, while still participating in others.

As background, there was consensus agreement in 2013 to rename the third option from "No vote" to "Abstain". Although the 2014 election page stated that there would be an abstain option, the poll was configured with a neutral option, and this has remained the defacto third option since. isaacl (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal 1: Rename neutral option to abstain

[edit]
  1. "Abstain" is a more accurate description for the option in question. isaacl (talk) 01:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. The way neutral votes are counted has occasionally caused confusion in the past, so this is a tiny, but real, improvement, IMHO. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Cremastra (talk) 21:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. though not really necessary. C F A 💬 21:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Hardly the most urgent issue in the world but it seems self-evidently like a good idea. --AntiDionysius (talk) 23:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I agree that this is clearer than "neutral". -- asilvering (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. A very slight improvement, but an improvement nonetheless. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Most progress is through accumulation of small improvements such as this. —Quondum 12:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Makes sense to me. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Sure, this is really what it is and won't change other processes, the election coordinators need to make sure that the configuration resource (usually WMF) changes that name on the poll from the default value. — xaosflux Talk 14:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (accidental double !vote here) Sure, as we don't count these votes towards the conclusion - you aren't not voting support or oppose - you are not voting on this question at all. — xaosflux Talk 15:58, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "Neutral" sounds as if voting neutral on everyone had any influence on the result, for example by decreasing support percentages. That's not the case, though, so "neutral" can be misleading. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Yeah; i've voted in a good number of these elections and i usually have to think through the process and what neutral means; a very small change, but it wouldn't hurt to be a little clearer. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 15:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Donald Albury 20:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Meh. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:16, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. It can't hurt to be slightly more precise. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:05, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. I would support this as well. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Offers clarity and conforms with what was initially agreed upon BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 01:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Agree that the current wording can be misleading, this seems sensible. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support: Improving the accuracy of the labels is a good thing to do. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Abstain is more accurate, and describing it as neutral has caused confusion. - Aoidh (talk) 17:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  22. This is more clear in the actual effect of the vote. Unlike at RFA, there is no explanation of a chosen position, no chance to sway others with a comment attached to a neutral vote, or to vote neutral with "moral support" or whatever, it is just the absence of an opinion on the candidate, and this reflects that. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 19:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  23. More precise imho. –Davey2010Talk 21:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Looking at this for the first time and Abstain definitely more accurately reflects no action (not support or oppose). Asteramellus (talk) 00:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Support this, makes it clearer to me. Takerlamar (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Support as more accurate. Toadspike [Talk] 12:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  28. More accurate, and easier to understand that it has no bearing on the result. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:49, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:45, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  30. —Alalch E. 12:00, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Makes sense to me. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  32. Seems logical and clearer. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  33. Although removing the option altogether would even be better. The choice to abstain is always there (by simply not voting) whether this placeholder option is provided or not. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In this poll type an answer is mandatory for each question. You could of course not vote for anyone. — xaosflux Talk 20:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Abstain is more accurate than neutral. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  35. It's a small distinction, but abstain is more accurate. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  36. Support as being clearer. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:02, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  37. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:39, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  38. I understand the "rearranging deck chairs" concern, but it does have a different meaning, so we should be correct. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Support, principally because it will be clearer that an abstention does not factor into the pass-percentage calculation.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:14, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose proposal 1: Rename neutral option to abstain

[edit]
  1. The neutral term fits better with "support" and "oppose" while using abstain make the listed comments seem redundant. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you clarify what listed comments you are referring to? The arbitration committee election ballot doesn't have a way to provide comments. isaacl (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Kind of confusing for me, I honestly don't know the difference between 'neutral' and 'abstain', and don't know the need to replace it. I also agree with OlifanofmrTennant. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, neutral is "I don't care" or "I don't have an opinion either way", while abstain is "I'm not going to vote". There's a subtle difference. Cremastra (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neutral is voting "I don't care", abstain is not voting at all. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for proposal 1: Rename neutral option to abstain

[edit]
The discussion above 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.

Proposal 2: Start nomination process one week earlier

[edit]
There is a clear consensus to implement this change, with the main reasoning that the extra time would be a helpful buffer period for the onboarding process. (non-admin closure) starship.paint (RUN) 09:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

To allow for more buffer time when transitioning to a new arbitration committee, it is proposed to start the nomination process one week earlier. In context of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Election/Rules, the start of nominations would be changed to the first Sunday of November. For 2024, the dates would line up as follows:

  • Nominations: November 3 to November 12; starts 11 days after the electoral commission has been selected
  • Fallow period: starts on November 13 (*)
  • Voting period: no sooner than November 19 to December 2.

As background, in 2023, the results of the arbitration elections were not released until December 30. This required a very quick turnaround to get the new arbitrators on board, which can be difficult to ensure when all participants are volunteers, and with people often busy at the end of year.

(*) Note due to the requirement that the voting period start on the second business day of the week, the fallow period is at least one more day than the specified 5 days. isaacl (talk) 00:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal 2: Start nomination process one week earlier

[edit]
  1. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per previous discussion. This is a week in a long process that doesn't need to exist these days. Izno (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Earlier on boarding is a more successful onboarding and (in my experience) can have a huge impact on that arbs entire term. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. A 48 hour turnaround is less than ideal. (I would support bringing it back an additional week, too; adjusting the other timeframes by one week.) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Last year's onboarding was an unnecessary rush. Moving the schedule forward a bit would help. Cabayi (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Two days to perform the whole transition is not acceptable. This seems to be a good way of preventing that. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Leaving an extra week for processing gives us extra cushion if something goes wrong. RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Donald Albury 21:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Improved onboarding ensures new ArbCom members start on the right foot BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 01:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support: Giving volunteers more time is always a good idea. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Even if the timeline of the previous election was a one-time thing, the end result would be more onboarding time for incoming arbs. - Aoidh (talk) 17:51, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support, with thanks for the answer to my question in the discussion section. No need to rush the onboarding process. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. It's a lot of work for both volunteers and participants. More time can only help. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Thanks to Tryptofish for the question and isaacl for the explanation below. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 08:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Would also reduce the chances of encountering the problems I've tried to address with proposal 5. Giraffer (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. A sensible proposal. No reason to cut things close. Toadspike [Talk] 12:32, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. —Alalch E. 12:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. – Ammarpad (talk) 11:22, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  21. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Longer time = better decisions. Karol739 (talk) 23:00, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Good idea, especially when much of the election happens during the US holiday season and people are traveling. --Elonka 22:48, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Per above. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose proposal 2: Start nomination process one week earlier

[edit]
  1. Oppose, essentially per HJ Mitchell’s comment below. Volunteer Marek 20:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Ditto.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:15, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for proposal 2: Start nomination process one week earlier

[edit]
  • Note one reason for some buffer time before the start of nominations is that the overall election process is not officially determined until consensus for the elections RfC has been evaluated, so time to adjust to any changes needs to be allocated. (Ideally, proposals made during the RfC will take into account the necessary lead time and adjust as needed.) isaacl (talk) 21:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The late release of the results last year was due to the unavailability of one of the scrutineers. Better to tweak the rules to allow for that. From my perspective as one of the candidates last year, the process was very drawn-out and I'd rather see it shortened than lengthened. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree with the idea of shortening it as well but consensus for such things has been hard to come by in the past. And yes the scrutineers are out of our control. I'm wondering if a 2 of 3 agree and are finished for at least X days would work to account for an inactive scrutineer? Barkeep49 (talk) 15:40, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There was very limited discussion in 2015 about trying to make the scrutineering process finish more quickly. One of the ideas was to appoint five scrutineers but only require results from three. One thing I see with an X out of N approach is that it disincentivizes the remaining N-X volunteers from completing the task. I don't think scrutineers will consciously let this affect them, but I think it would akin to there being bad weather during your scheduled jogging time: it subtly nudges you into putting it off. Thus I think the community will have to expect that having some votes examined < N times would not be a rare situation. Given the past history of the results of scrutineering, of course, a double-check of each vote may be perfectly reasonable versus a triple-check. isaacl (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If by "process" you are referring to the nomination, fallow, and election periods, this proposal won't lengthen them. Proposals to shorten the nomination period and election period have failed in recent years, but of course a new proposal can be made. As long as scrutineering is being done by volunteers, it's difficult to ensure that it will happen faster, except by reducing their workload. That would probably mean either enhancing the SecurePoll software to be able to verify more voting eligibility criteria, or dropping some criteria that can't be verified automatically. isaacl (talk) 17:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to make sure that I understand this proposal correctly. Am I right that this would start the nomination period earlier, but the duration of the nomination period would remain the same as it is now, and the duration of the voting period would remain the same as it is now? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The proposal states what would change in the rules—the start date of the nomination period—leaving all of the durations specified in the rules the same. This would have the stated effect of giving more time for transition to the new arbitrators. You can see the sample dates for 2024. isaacl (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    HJ Mitchell, speaking as someone who'd otherwise support this proposal, your experience is giving me pause. isaacl is saying above that this proposal would not lengthen the pre-scrutineering process. If I'm understanding it right, the lack of a deadline for the scrutineering period means that the length of that period is not directly affected by this proposal. Which part of the process might feel more drawn out under this proposal, and why? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Proposal 3: Change qualifications for the Electoral Commission

[edit]
Based on the discussion here and on proposal 3a, there is a clear consensus among editors that one of these should be adopted. Most !voters stated an order of preference between proposals 3 and 3a. Upon analyzing these, it becomes clear the there is a consensus to adopt proposal 3. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Change the requirements to be a member of the Electoral Commission to be:

Open to any extended-confirmed editor who:
  • Is over 18 years old,
  • Meets the Foundation's Access to nonpublic personal data policy, and
  • Is not blocked or banned from the Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk namespaces.

Background: Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Electoral Commission#Qualifications for the commission? highlighted that the current requirements (Open to anyone who is over 18, meets Foundation's Access to nonpublic personal data policy, and otherwise be eligible to vote.) are not ideal.
The proposed criteria are stricter than the requirements to vote, but the role is mostly about solving problems and we really want experienced editors for that. Requiring extended confirmed status automatically imposes an experience and edit count requirement without regard to election-based deadlines. While there is no explicit recent activity requirement, this can be judged by those commenting on the nomination. An editor blocked from the Wikipedia or Wikipedia talk namespaces would not in practice be able to undertake the role (there is no requirement for only self-nominations, and someone blocked only from Wikipedia talk could self-nominate so I feel it is a useful provision to have). Thryduulf (talk) 13:48, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal 3: Change qualifications for the Electoral Commission

[edit]
  1. Support as proposer. Thryduulf (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is first choice over 3a. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure. Izno (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Second choice. Izno (talk) 21:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Donald Albury 21:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I'm not seeing any downside to this, and it's really common sense. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Seems reasonable. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I agree the blocked clause is unnecessary, but not a deal breaker for me to support this. Would support another amendment to remove this. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 13:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. —Alalch E. 12:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I don't have problem with being explicit about the block and ban issue. While it's common sense and may not be necessary to mention, it's nonetheless useful for completeness and avoidance of any confusion. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Support. Volunteer Marek 20:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:44, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose proposal 3: Change qualifications for the Electoral Commission

[edit]
  1. It seems incredibly unlikely the community would elect someone banned from Wikipedia and/or Wikipedia talk name spaces. But if they did it's likely to be done with a greater number of editors than will support this RfC (winning election commissioners mostly get more supports than successful ACE RFC proposals) and so we should leave it to the voters to decide. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the least significant part of the proposal, which is made to address the real issues encountered last year (see linked discussion). Thryduulf (talk) 23:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A bummer then that the least significant part of the proposal is enough to get me to oppose it. If all you'd done is require extended confirm at the point of nomination - the thing that you were trying to fix from last year - I wouldn't be here. On the whole I have more trust in processes with more participants and as this process has less participation than the election for the EC, I'd rather let that consensus of editors decide nuances like this. And that's beyond the fact that being blocked from Wikipedia/WT is itself a moving target, which is the issue that thread raised. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I am in agreement with Barkeep49 that we should narrowly tailor our solution. Asking Electoral Commission members to meet ArbCom voter eligibility guidelines that cannot be assessed until after they are selected is illogical. However, Barkeep49 is correct that since the ArbCom RfC has low participation, we should make the simpler change of requiring commission members to have 150 mainspace edits on enwiki by 1 October, 10 live enwiki edits within one year before 1 October, and not be prevented from submitting their candidacy by a block or ban. BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 00:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for proposal 3: Change qualifications for the Electoral Commission

[edit]
  • It would probably be helpful for RfC participants if you clearly outlined the changes here rather than just the outcome (ie, show what the requirements are at present). -- asilvering (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    See the quoted green text in the background section and WP:ACERULES - Open to anyone who is over 18, meets Foundation's Access to nonpublic personal data policy, and otherwise be eligible to vote. It is the last part that mainly caused the issues as who is eligible to vote is determined after the commission is selected. Thryduulf (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I read those, but since I had no idea what makes a person eligible to vote until I clicked through to the link you provided, I thought it might be helpful to spell that out right here on this page. -- asilvering (talk) 00:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*The preceding comments opposes confuse me. I thought this was about requirements for the Electoral Commission, not ArbCom. - Donald Albury Never mind. Donald Albury 21:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.

Proposal 3a: Change qualifications for the Electoral Commission (second option)

[edit]
Rejected in favour of proposal 3; see the closing comment above. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Change the requirements to be a member of the Electoral Commission to be:

Open to any extended-confirmed editor who:
  • Is over 18 years old, and
  • Meets the Foundation's Access to nonpublic personal data policy.

Background: The motivation for this change from the existing requirements (Open to anyone who is over 18, meets Foundation's Access to nonpublic personal data policy, and otherwise be eligible to vote.) is the same as for proposal 3 above, but it omits the final clause.

Note: This is obviously mutually exclusive with proposal 3. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal 3a: Change qualifications for the Electoral Commission (second option)

[edit]
  1. Second choice to Proposal 3. I do see the benefit in making it making it so that those who cannot in practice undertake the role cannot stand, but I can live without it. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Second choice to 3 for me as well, for basically the same reasons. * Pppery * it has begun... 23:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. First choice for me, can live with either. LGTM ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 23:41, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. First choice I cannot see myself voting for anyone blocked from enwiki at the time of their nomination/selection, but I remain aligned with Barkeep49 that voters should be free to select such users. Raising the editing threshold to extended confirmed status to match the criteria for candidates, rather than the criteria for voters, is sensible BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 03:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Second choice to 3. Unimportant difference.—Alalch E. 12:26, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Second choice to 3. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Locke Cole this is 3a, do you mean second choice to 3 or did you mean to post this under proposal 3? Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fixed. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:12, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Second choice to 3. – Ammarpad (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Only choice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. First choice. Izno (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Whatever choice. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:45, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose proposal 3a: Change qualifications for the Electoral Commission (second option)

[edit]
  1. I don't think we should reduce the current requirements by allowing even those barred from voting to be commissioners (I'm OK with adding that they be ECP to the current requirements). — xaosflux Talk 23:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue is that who is and who isn't barred is (in some cases) undefined until after the commission is selected. Thryduulf (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    While the suffrage requirements could change, the existing WP:ACERULES are considered standing otherwise. — xaosflux Talk 13:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean the rules changing, I mean determining who meets the current rules as eligibility is partly determined by the number of edits by 1 November and within 1 year of 1 November, which is obviously unknowable until after the electoral commission is selected in October. Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Although the difference are pretty small in practice, I think that specifying either being otherwise eligible, or not blocked/banned is reasonable, and I'm not seeing any real benefit in leaving it out. The point about not knowing until the commission is selected strikes me as over-thinking it. I still support proposal 3. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for Proposal 3a: Change qualifications for the Electoral Commission (second option)

[edit]
The discussion above 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.

Proposal 4: Electoral Commission Selection Criteria

[edit]
There is a unanimous consensus to implement this, which has been cited as already being practiced, to inform future practice. (non-admin closure) starship.paint (RUN) 10:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The current process for selecting the Electoral Commission is to hold an RFC. Historical convention is that this RFC only collects endorsements. The criteria for selecting commissioners from the RFC is not defined, but traditionally is to appoint the 3 volunteers with the most endorsements, appoint 0 or more reservists, and possibly not appoint some applicants. Proposing adding this criteria and closing guidance. While the selection is an RFC, having a guideline for the closing editor helps to ensure consistent results regardless of the closer.

Proposed change:

(a) The RFC will gather comments and endorsements for candidates.
(b) In closing the RFC: In general: the 3 candidates with the most endorsements will be selected as commissioners; additional candidates exceeding 50% of the endorsements of the third place candidate will be selected as reserve commissioners; variances and exceptions, including ties, will be resolved by the RFC closer using the standard consensus-building process.

— xaosflux Talk 12:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal 4: Electoral Commission Selection Criteria

[edit]
  1. Proposer. — xaosflux Talk 12:55, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Having guidance in general, and this guidance specifically, both seem sensible. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:23, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sure. Izno (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seems sensible and reflects historical practice. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. AntiDionysius (talk) 23:26, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Looks reasonable and lays things out a little more clearly. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Donald Albury 21:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I think this just puts in writing our existing practices. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Appreciate formalizing the closing instructions! BluePenguin18 🐧 ( 💬 ) 01:05, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. If this is really what people already do, then support. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The (a) part has been used for many years, the (b) part has been murky, just left to the discretion of the closing editor. — xaosflux Talk 18:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I can't find the page right now, but as I remember from last year we had an eager but somewhat unexperienced volunteer (whose efforts were nonetheless appreciated) close the RFC with some unexpected results regarding the reserve commissioners. It all worked out in the end, but having better guidance baked into the instructions would be a good thing. RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This page has info and permalinks on that topic. — xaosflux Talk 13:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Sensible. Giraffer (talk) 16:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Codifying current practice is almost always a good idea. Toadspike [Talk] 12:35, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  18. —Alalch E. 12:29, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Seems like a good way to clarify and record what is currently done. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:29, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  20. – Ammarpad (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  21. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Formalizes existing practice. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  23. In the situation where one of the elected isn't or won't be available, or withdraw. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:47, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  24. Seems reasonable enough.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose proposal 4: Electoral Commission Selection Criteria

[edit]

Comments for proposal 4: Electoral Commission Selection Criteria

[edit]
  • This looks fine; my only concern is instruction creep about the Electoral Commission selection building up over the years, until it approaches the formidable complexity of the ArbCom election itself. Let's try to avoid that. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, this is one of the more pleasant "elections" we have and wouldn't want to spoil that! The process is vulnerable to apathy (i.e. small number of candidates, having only inexperienced/controversial candidates, having small number of !voters), but I'm not trying to address that with this proposal - prop3x above is looking in to minimum qualifications. — xaosflux Talk 15:24, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Proposal 5: Majority certification

[edit]
There is a clear consensus against this proposal, with the main reason being the possibility of a valid rejection being outvoted, which could lead to a lack in trust. (non-admin closure) starship.paint (RUN) 10:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Background: The current version of WP:ACERULES makes no mention of how the election results are certified. Current practice requires all three scrutineers to certify the results for them to be made official, however this can cause problems when one scrutineer is unavailable towards the end of the scrutineering period. This was the case last year, when one scrutineer was initially unavailable for certification (although they eventually became available and certified the results). Requiring only a majority (rather than all) of the scrutineers to certify the election to make the results official would prevent a similar situation from happening again.

I would encourage people to read this thread from last year's feedback, which discusses the issue.

Proposed change: Add the following to the "Scrutineering" point at ACERULES: The majority of active (non-alternate) scrutineers are required to certify the election results in order for them to become official.

— Giraffer (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support proposal 5: Majority certification

[edit]
  1. As proposer. Giraffer (talk) 12:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose proposal 5: Majority certification

[edit]
  1. Without some sort of safeguard (see comments) I don't think I can support this as written. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I have to oppose it in this form, due to the issue raised by RoySmith, below: there could be one member dissenting, as opposed to being inactive. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  3. If one of the three scrutineers has a valid objection, the other two should not be able to go ahead and certify anyway. QuicoleJR (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Essentially, the majority requirement should only come into force if the third editor has made no objections. The current wording does not protect against valid objections being ignored. Furthermore, there is no particular definition of what "inactive" means and I would like to see some kind of X edits over Y days specified to make it clearer. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 22:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per Dreamy (no point restating everything). Toadspike [Talk] 12:36, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  6. For the reasons I give below. RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Better to have alternate scrutineers who can step up to replace a missing scrutineer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a good idea. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt this would be helpful to fixing issues of timeliness or missing scrutineers after the scrutineer has started their work. See also the mythical man-month. Izno (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not the same. Scrutineers are a check, not bottom level workers. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Someone who vanishes without contact to the rest of the world is unable to communicate the results of their previous work. That means that the next guy has to start all over again, and someone who is potentially new to the job of scrutineering. This is precisely the same. Izno (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In order to ensure as little delay as possible, the extra scrutineers would have to participate in the scrutineering from the start, which would make them regular scrutineers, and so the community would still have to agree to an X out of N scrutineers reporting scenario. isaacl (talk) 16:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That’s how alternates work. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's how some alternates work... In that case, the concept of a majority out of N scrutineers reporting is in alignment with your concept of alternates. isaacl (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Doesn't account for dissent. Set the quorum to be the majority, but the decision of those present must be unanimous. Also, as SmokeyJoe said.—Alalch E. 12:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose as written as it does not allow for dissent effectively per Dreamy. Also, the Electoral Commission already have discretion to resolve issues that come up. To me, a scrutineer being unavailable is one of those issues. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:30, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  10. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:27, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Lack of unanimous support due to the inactivity on the part of one of the scrutineers is very different than lack of unanimous support because one of the scrutineers has concerns with the results. Both are problematic, but the second one especially so. I don't think the inactivity issue occurring last time warrants permitting a concern to be overruled. - Aoidh (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Per Dreamy and Aoidh. Cremastra (talk) 23:46, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  13. I would prefer the change be to "The results must be certified by all active scrutineers". There's a big difference between "One of the scrutineers hasn't certified the results because no one has heard from them in weeks" and "One of the scrutineers has not certified because they have concerns about them." Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  14. I would consider other proposals to address this particular issue but this isn’t it, per others’ comments above. Volunteer Marek 20:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Nice idea but a result with reduced trustworthiness would be an even bigger issue than a late result. Cabayi (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Oppose, since it discounts credible dissents. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for proposal 5: Majority certification

[edit]
  • To be clear the part in scope here occurs after the voter scrutineering is done. At that point the WMF resource runs the decryption/tallying routine and produce the results. The scrutineers are able to access the system tally, and are asked to certify that the tally has the correct number of votes and that the table produced by the WMF resource (and published on-wiki) matches the system data. This last part is normally fast, but requires the volunteer scrutineer to be available and to act. Some sort of guardrail for this proposal may be wise, such as a minimum wait period and/or requiring electcom to declare the inactive state. — xaosflux Talk 13:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm concerned about just requiring a majority. Consider the case of two scrutineers certifying but the third raising valid objections and being out-voted. That would be not a good situation. Something like "a majority of the available scrutineers with no dissent" would be more workable. And, FWIW, this kind of stuff is another reason to support #Proposal 2: Start nomination process one week earlier. RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I too would like some sort of safeguard here, and I think that requiring one of the scrutineers to have been inactive for (5? 7?) days and/or have communicated their unavailability to electcom would be better than what is proposed. If the majority was 3 or 4 of 5 scrutineers I'd be more likely to be OK with it, but not just 2 of 3. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense. What about if ElectCom was given the ability to declare a scrutineer inactive if they haven't taken any actions in five days, and instead of needing a majority, requiring unanimous support of active scrutineers to certify? I suppose it depends on how much we trust ElectCom, though. Giraffer (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ACE2024 says The three-member Electoral Commission ... are responsible for addressing any unforeseen problems that may arise in the election process so I'd say they already have that ability. RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, I think some of the caution above is ensuring we don't make a rule to bypass this exception process. — xaosflux Talk 15:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If changing the certification requirements is seen to be reasonably within ElectCom's remit then this proposal is moot. I didn't interpret that clause as allowing them to, hence the proposal. Giraffer (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The default is for the community to decide on issues that arise, as per English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions. The electoral commission was created to address questions that need to be resolved more expeditiously. Issues with certification fit this scenario. isaacl (talk) 17:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case this proposal is a step backwards. Giraffer (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the scope starts after the scrutineering is completed (and thus after any invalid votes have been rejected) and just involves certifying the count and the result table, I don't think we need more than two people to check. I do agree though that if there is a dispute, it ought to be resolved.
    I think the situation where an absent scrutineer hasn't communicated with anyone is a bigger problem, though, than the case where they have and thus their planned availability can be accommodated. If we are enacting guidance on when to proceed without the certification from a scrutineer, then it should accommodate the case when they haven't been heard from. isaacl (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The intent behind the proposal was to accomodate for the latter scenario, although I suppose my wording could be abused to override an objection, as Roy mentions above. If ElectCom get to decide when the results are certified, it might be better to leave it for them to deal with on a case-by-case basis rather than try to codify something specific. Giraffer (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure; I was commenting on the additional condition raised by Thryduulf. isaacl (talk) 18:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Proposal 5a: Inactive scrutineer

[edit]
There was no consensus to adopt this proposal. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 19:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

An alternative to proposal 5, with some more safeguarding. I've followed the discussion above and it seems that there is enough support for the idea to give it another shot with different wording.

Proposed change: Add the following to WP:ACERULES: If a scrutineer has not participated in scrutineering for the previous seven days, or they have communicated their unavailability, ElectCom may designate them as inactive. In the event that a scrutineer is inactive for certification, the Election Committee may use their discretion to allow for the results to be made official without that scrutineer's certification. All opining scrutineers are required to certify the results for them to become official.

This is intended to address the concerns above about (1) the possiblity of overriding an active and dissenting scrutineer and (2) what qualifies as being inactive in this context.

—Giraffer (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify -- the wording is loose so feel free to workshop/suggest changes below. 23:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Support proposal 5a: Inactive scrutineer

[edit]
  1. As proposer. Giraffer (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support the idea behind this, fine with any further rewording of it proposed below. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose proposal 5a: Inactive scrutineer

[edit]
  1. I've been watching the discussion below, and I think we have reached the point where I might as well oppose this formally. It doesn't look like it's moving close enough to a revision that would fix it, and I'm not convinced that it would be simple to fix. I also agree with those in the discussion who say that this is something where we don't need to spell everything out in detail. If in the future we find that inactive scrutineers have become an ongoing problem, then we should revisit this issue, but for now, it hasn't risen to the point of being something that has happened frequently. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Per my comments below, I think this has serious problems but the comments from Tryptofish have tipped me over the line to formally opposing. Thryduulf (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments for proposal 5a: Inactive scrutineer

[edit]
  • Since the scrutineers' job is to double check the private votes and compile the results, how would ElectCom be able to tell whether a scrutineer was participating in scrutineering? It does not seem like the scrutineering process is publicly visible. QuicoleJR (talk) 19:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I'm aware, the election commission cannot tell who is participating in scrutineering (or indeed whether anyone is) other than by scrutineers communicating with the election commission e.g. regarding any issues they discover (and it's possible that one scrutineer may take a lead on this). This means that I don't think the first part of the first sentence (the key part) is workable. What would work would be something like:
    The election commission may at their discretion choose to accept certification from two active scrutineers, provided they (electcom) are unaware of any opposition to certification and either:
    • (a) One scrutineer has informed the election commission of their unavailability after certain date/during a certain period and it is currently after that date/within that period; or
    • (b) the election commission have not been so informed, and:
      • The active scrutineers tell electcom that they haven't heard from the third scrutineer for n days (circa 5-7 probably), and
      • electcom have not had contact with that scrutineer within that same time period (other than to inform them of their unavailability), and
      • attempts by the electcom to contact that scrutineer directly have not been successful for a further n days (circa 2-3 probably)
    Please do not propose this without further workshopping - for starters it is likely this can be simplified (my proposals usually can be) and time periods would need agreeing. One reason for giving the commission discretion is that if it's only a short time until the inactive scrutineer indicted they will be available again they may choose to wait. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm struggling to see how your (b) differs from the first sentence of the proposal beyond spelling it out a bit more. The proposal as written does give ElectCom the discretion on whether to declare a scrutineer inactive ("may designate"), and also on whether to proceed with two scrutineers for certification or wait for the inactive one to return. Giraffer (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The key difference is that in proposal 5a it is electcom determining whether a scrutineer is actively scrutineering (even though there is no way to know that) in the above it is the other scrutineers (who I believe can know) doing that determining with the electcom just acting as a check against attempted coups, etc. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proceeding with a missing scrutineer sounds like reducing the overall level of oversight. Even if this proposal applies only after the main scrutineering work is done, it still means less eyes on the process. Creating rules piecemeal for extraordinary situations makes the process more complicated than it needs to be. Scrutineers should be crystal clear on how long they're expected to be available. Tsavage (talk) 23:14, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm of two minds regarding trying to codify specific guidance on this matter. On the one hand, I feel that we should try to avoid creating specialized rules as much as possible. There are too many variations that can come up with each specific set of circumstances, and the time spent working out hypotheticals seems disproportionate to the amount of time that would be spent in practice by the election commissioners. We're picking commissioners for their judgement, so it may be more time-effective to let them exercise it when situations arise. On the other hand, given the amount of pressure that may be exerted by those seeking results to be released earlier, it may be helpful to have some general principles in place to help the commissioners avoid prematurely making exceptions to the usual process. isaacl (talk) 04:35, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024&oldid=1249472565"