Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2025

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

2025 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 11:59 (UTC), Saturday, 22 November 2025 (Purge)

  • Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open to eligible editors until 23:59, 01 December 2025 (UTC). If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page.
  • Community members are welcome to ask questions of the candidates.


Language

[edit]

For the sake of clarity, should this not be the English Language Wikipedia etc.? There are enough people who contribute for whom English is not a first language for them to believe this is a UK only matter. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I think "name of language Wikipedia" is more frequently used on this site than "name of language-language Wikipedia". The current wording for the arbitration committee election page dates back to 2007. Personally I'd suggest starting with places like the teahouse or Wikipedia:Help desk/Are you in the right place for a change in terminology. isaacl (talk) 17:30, 11 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Election clerks

[edit]

Any thoughts on how to select election clerks? Should we have a general call for volunteers, or ask specific editors? isaacl (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The RFC was somewhat silent. Perhaps ask for volunteers, subject to approval by electcom? Electcom may decide to just do it themselves. — xaosflux Talk 15:15, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not within the scope of the electoral commissioners to approve. They can of course volunteer, but it's still nominally a community responsibility to manage the day-to-day operations of the election. Personally I think it would be better for the commissioners to maintain some distance from the daily operations, so if they are required to make some decision, it won't be subconsciously influenced on what might be more or less work for them as an election clerk. isaacl (talk) 17:11, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well anyone can volunteer. I suggested electcom as (a) they have historically been the election clerks on votewiki when desired for set up, (b) even when WMF was the clerk, electcom made the decisions that had to be entered (c) noone built a process during the RFC. Clerks need to be accountable to electcom for any changes being made mid election, and due to some past issues (not the clerks faults) should be nda signed. — xaosflux Talk 18:32, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly we can get away without the nda, due to the improvements to securepoll now. — xaosflux Talk 18:33, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The community never assigned the commission the duty of holding the volunteer coordinators accountable. The more the commission gets involved with day-to-day operations, the further away it gets from its original reserve power role, which I feel compromises its ability to serve that role effectively. That being said... perhaps the community doesn't care about maintaining a reserve power role.
As the administrator election talk page is starting to solicit clerks for its next election, I am thinking of calling for volunteers on that page. isaacl (talk) 22:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't only reserve, elect com has always been listed as defacto coordindators (Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2025/Coordination#Coordinators). They are also the deciders of anything not specified and the deciders of remedies for problems (such as the ones that authorize changed to the electoral roll for a missing voter). It does seem that an unplanned event is occuring now: the community has decided to change to use local securepoll, but didn't specify what to do about replacing the WMF resource that was assigned to be the election clerk. Election clerking is certainly a component of coordination. — xaosflux Talk 13:06, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for being overly concise. By "reserve power", I meant they decide on any problems and anything not specified, in lieu of having a community discussion due to the need for an expedient decision. Just because the commissioners were, in years following the initial creation of the position, treated as defacto coordinators, doesn't change the need to perform their reserve role effectively, in my opinion.
How to select clerks wasn't a unplanned event; it was raised during the RfC. The lack of interest in specifying an exact method, to me, means the community left it up to the volunteer coordinators to decide. isaacl (talk) 22:12, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

broken WLN

[edit]

the MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages is broken, not listing the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2025/Electoral Commission - can someone check please. — xaosflux Talk 15:16, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Isaacl: - think you were working on the setup? — xaosflux Talk 15:17, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was intentionally turned off, I think. Template talk:ACEWatchlistNotice#Electoral Commission. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Election/Rules isn't specific on what phases should be advertised. It just says Advertising: Traditional notices posted to various community noticeboards, watchlist notice, and, optionally, central notice banner at the discretion of the election commission for the election in general (not individual candidates); Arguably tradition now includes the electoral commission nomination period, but I understand the argument that the call for election commissioner nominations might not warrant a watchlist notice. isaacl (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Call for election clerk volunteers

[edit]
Volunteer clerks have been found. Giraffer (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2025 (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.

If any administrator is interested in serving as an election clerk for the 2025 arbitration committee election, please state your interest below! In addition to the election clerk page, there is additional information at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/SecurePoll setup regarding the necessary tasks. isaacl (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to have clerks with some experience, but I am open to doing this if we don't find anyone more qualified. Toadspike [Talk] 06:53, 15 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm up for this! Sohom (talk) 13:22, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thank goodness, someone more qualified! I was afraid I'd be left to do this all on my own... Toadspike [Talk] 13:38, 17 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The expressed interest is appreciated! More volunteers would be great – here's your chance to gain familiarity with the process of running a poll using SecurePoll. isaacl (talk) 23:56, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve historically managed the SecurePoll on VoteWiki as a member of ElectCom in past years. I also generate the rolls. Happy to help. —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 14:19, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With the lack of objection so far, I've added myself to the list. If anyone has objections, please ping me. :-) —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 18:33, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a list? Sohom (talk) 19:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yep —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 20:00, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting publicly that as a member of ElectCom, if there’s no opposition I would like to add myself to the list. There isn’t really a documented relationship between election clerks and ElectCom, so having the overlap would probably be useful. I intend to leave most things to the other clerks (besides maybe decrypting), but to have access in case of any problems would be helpful. Thanks, Giraffer (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2025 (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.

Biological Unit 645-VFJW-XX#3401/4T-0.45.0.6 has a request for our Computer Overlords

[edit]

The ACE status header isn't quite right. The EC has not technically been selected; it's just that the endorsement period has ended. But then I went down the rabbit hole of templates nested in templates nested in templates with switches and IFEXPR calls and realized that this process is designed to prevent normal humans being able to fix this kind of thing. I don't really understand the benefit of a creating a really complicated system intended to take humans out of the loop, over a very simple "anyone can edit" ethos (can't recall where I've seen that phrase before). It wasn't too long ago that someone could just go in and type the current status by hand. Goes to show it's been 5 years since I tried to do anything like that.

But anyway, since that battle has probably been lost, can a coding expert please tweak this until someone closes the RFC? Unless, as I fear, it has now become easier to let errors remain just because it's impossible to hard-code this if the date and time of RFC closure isn't known in advance. Could that same coding expert please change the _x/STATUS flag of Biological Unit 645-VFJW-XX#3401/4T-0.45.0.6 to "Grumpy".

150 Quatloos to any admin crazy brave enough to unilaterally blow this system up and just type things in by hand again. Floquenbeam (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the message to state that the evaluation period is over. (Regarding why the messages are automated in this way, presumably because some users complain when status messages aren't updated on the very second when things change.) isaacl (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the ACE2025 header, The evaluation period for the Electoral Commission is over should be changed to The Electoral Commission has been selected. I've tried to figure out how to make that simple update, and the nested templates have stumped me. Pinging Floquenbeam for sympathy and Isaacl to hopefully update the darn thing. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the text comes from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December/Header/Switch, which doesn't have text for an intermediate step between the Electoral Commission evaluation period closing and self-nominations for ArbCom. As Floq guessed, every condition of the template seems to be based on time conditions. It can't detect whether the EC RFC has been closed or not to differentiate between "evaluation period over" and "commission selected", so it could be solved this year by reverting isaacl's edit now that the EC has been selected. Next year will result in the original issue again unless someone figures out another solution, though. Perfect4th (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't think it's that important to note in the status box that the commission has been selected. It's already covered in the timeline and updated on the request for comments page and the coordination page. The important message is that the nomination period is coming up. isaacl (talk) 04:40, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You do, indeed, have my sympathy. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:51, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Non-admin candidates?

[edit]

I know being an admin isn't a requirement to run for arbcom, but what happens if a non-admin wins? I've always been under the impression that a non-admin arb is granted temporary admin right for their term on the committee, but I can't find where that's written down. Is that indeed the official policy, and if so, where is it written? RoySmith (talk) 12:16, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know it was discussed somewhere a few years ago, although I can't immediately find it. From memory there isn't technically a need to grant a non-admin candidate the admin bit as the Oversight right (and CU?) confers all the same tools. Thryduulf (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In the immortal words of Agnes Jurati, are you sure about that? WP:CHECK says "While there is no formal requirement that checkusers also be administrators, the Arbitration Committee has traditionally restricted applications to users who are currently administrators". Looking at Special:ListGroupRights, admins get (for example) "block", but checkusers don't, which means that if a checkuser isn't also an admin, they can't place their own blocks (this situation exists on some other projects, causing all sorts of ANPDP-related pain). RoySmith (talk) 12:37, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's no special way for arbitrators to get admin rights (I believe the last discussion on the subject is Wikipedia:Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC from 2015), but they are automatically given CU and OS under WP:ARBPROC § Arbitrator access to mailing lists and permissions. Both of those groups come with the ability to see deleted revisions, which I think is the primary admin right that people have been concerned about arbitrators having in years past. ~2025-30877-24 (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that RfC (WP:NONADMINARB) answers the question, thanks. TLDR: "There is a strong consensus against granting the administrator right automatically to non-administrators upon appointment to the Arbitration Committee". RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I explicitly wasn't sure, especially about checkusers, but looking at the list now (thanks for the link) it seems that OS get some of the core things thought of as admin rights it isn't as much as I remember. For example a non-admin oversighter can delete revisions but can't delete whole pages. There are also lots of non-core admin things they don't get (e.g. everything related to events). About the only thing that I can see that might impede them doing the job as an arb is the lack of ability to edit fully protected pages, and even then that's something that's necessary most of the time and could be worked around relatively easily. Thryduulf (talk) 13:13, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care if this sounds stupid BUT

[edit]

How many spots on ArbCom are actually open? How many can we vote for? I swear I read the Project Page a couple of times and it's not quite clear to me. - Shearonink (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are nine vacant seats (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2025 § Vacant seats). You can choose one of three options for each candidate: support, oppose, or abstain (Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2025 § For voters). isaacl (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are not limited to the number of vacant seats. You can support as much as you want. Only the top performers will fill the seats. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 06:59, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can vote for or against as many candidates as you want to.
  • If you think there are fewer suitable candidates than seats then support only those who you think are suitable - if fewer than 9 candidates get 50% or more support then some seats will be left vacant.
  • If you think there are exactly 9 suitable candidates then vote for those 9.
  • If you think there are more than 9 suitable candidates, then you choose to either
    • Vote for all those who you think are suitable (which is my personal preference); or
    • Vote only for the 9 you regard as the most suitable (the preference expressed by some other editors)
If there are any candidates about whom you do not have a strong opinion as regards their suitability for the role, then you can abstain from supporting or opposing them. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also see User:Isaacl/Advice for approval voting. If there are candidates you don't support, and you can't eliminate them as being implausible to end up in the top nine spots (with at least a 50% support percentage), then support all candidates you are happy to see seated, and oppose all candidates you don't want to see seated. This will maximize the chance that someone you support will be seated. If you don't object to any of the candidates, and you feel they are all reasonably plausible to end up in the top nine spots, then you could choose to just support the candidates you prefer the most, and abstain from the others. (If you're concerned that some of them might not reach the top nine spots, support all of them to bolster their support percentage.) isaacl (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Just a thought -- perhaps elections should be more represented in the WP:ARB page.

The current WP:ARB page has a link in Lead to the elections history page, and the Members section plus infobox link to previous elections results, and it is only thru the very bottom box for Governance link to general WP:Elections that one finds a paragraph description about the board elections. Maybe mixing metaphors, but if one wants to be more transparent about the mechanisms, one might make the nature and/or current membership a bit more visible in WP:ARB.

Also -- I can understand election 2025 is a transitory thing, but it was only thru the post at my TALK that I got to see 2025 election information. Maybe there should be a link in the Category or a preliminary entry in the page of prior results that is linked to at WP:ARB Members section and infobox?

p.s. I particularly liked the WP:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2025/Candidates/Guide because of the statements being recorded there. (As my personal +voting is less about experience and more about having a variety of people types in the board plus a bit of humility or caution in their statements.) Cheers Markbassett (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fun fact: you can watchlist pages that do not yet exist. So if you go ahead and add Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2026 to your watchlist now, you won't miss a thing next year. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 21:38, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note for ACE2026

[edit]

A suggestion for next year: when the list of candidates gets posted next year, could we put the {{Arbitration Committee candidate}} box at the top of each candidate's section, not at the bottom. I keep clicking on the wrong one and getting the question page for the preceding candidate. RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I like having the candidate statement first, particularly on the individual candidate pages (the list on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2025/Candidates is just a transclusion of the candidate statement pages). For now I've added a horizontal rule between the candidate statements on the candidates page, which also adds some spacing between each statement. isaacl (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding the horizontal rule does help, thanks. So maybe I should modify my request to be "Make it more visually clear which box goes with which candidate's section". RoySmith (talk) 19:22, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I made an edit to add a horizontal rule at the bottom of {{Arbitration Committee Elections statement}}. This will appear on the specific candidate page as well as between individual transcluded statements on the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December XXXX/Candidates page, but I think it's the simplest way to ensure there's a bit of delineation between statements. isaacl (talk) 00:57, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Participation is difficult

[edit]

I have spent 30 minutes reading, and I still feel underprepared to vote. There is not a lot of discussion on individual candidates and I'm making choices based on the words of five editors. The individual editor voter guides give some guidance, but I missed them at first because the box is collapsed by default. And although a candidate guide from another discussion post. I plan to vote, but I am afraid that my actions are not well informed. 🌊PacificDepths🌊 (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that voting is voluntary, and you can abstain from voting on specific candidates. If you don't feel like you can form an adequate opinion on any given candidate, please don't feel compelled to support or oppose them (or participate in the vote at all if you feel that way about all candidates). isaacl (talk) 06:27, 19 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting take. Why though? Let’s say you’re in a vacuum of casually editing content in good faith and don’t know about any prominent names in the community who would be qualifying for Arbcom. You have candidate statements, Q&A, an open discussion forum for comments and concerns, and numerous dedicated guides advising people on how to vote. What’s missing for you? It’s no different than any election IRL. You can use the available media to help you figure out how you want to vote, but more ideally you’re abreast of the issues and the people involved to begin with and the media is just a supplement you’re not blindly following. Beyond that, if you really care that much about becoming informed, you have everyone’s history there in black and white, and you have infinite archives to peruse through. To a certain extent you are expected to be responsible for your own vetting as needed too. If you’re completely unable to form opinions based on the content provided next to your own experiences and vetting, it’s okay to just not vote. I don’t think the community wants people like that taking their best guess. But by all means, if you think additional supplementary materials could be useful, pitch what you feel is missing. It can always be formally implemented via the next RfC! ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:02, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also for the record, voter guides aren’t just collapsed in a template, they’re given an entire main section on the main page. It could be realistically argued that random people can write arbitrary opinion pieces and be given falsely legitimate influence in the election by having it prominently featured on an official information page. The prominent featuring of standalone opinion pieces on the main page, separate to the discussion board, is one of the more questionable aspects of the election IMO. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:15, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PacificDepths, just so you know, you're not at all alone in this. I felt this way about ACE until relatively recently. Even though I did read everything, including the voter guides, I was never sure how far to trust any of that information anyway. What if the candidate is a pretty slick talker, but would actually be a horrible arb and I can't tell? Do I even have any idea what a "good arb" is? What if this voter guide was written by someone with an axe to grind? etc. As others have said, it's fine to abstain on even most of the candidates - if you think you're not informed enough to say anything other than "I trust this one person" or "this one person should absolutely not be an arb", you can vote with respect to that candidate alone and abstain on all the others. There's a line in L235's guides that I found very helpful, personally: Would I trust the people I am supporting if they made a decision that seemed potentially unjustified, but said that can't explain why and asked me to trust them? -- asilvering (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]