Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2026

2026 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status as of 16:41 (UTC), Saturday, 3 October 2026 ()

• Nominations for the Electoral Commission are open until 23:59, 08 October 2026 (UTC).

---

The purpose of this request for comment is to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2026 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by the existing rules. 00:10, 1 September 2026 (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 2025 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 sections, each of which contains a proposal. Any user may make a proposal at any time. Other users may comment once the RfC is opened for discussion. Anyone is free to raise any new topics that they feel need to be addressed by filling out the proposal 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 2026 (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: Friday 00:00, 02 October 2026 until Thursday 23:59, 08 October 2026 (UTC)
• Evaluation period: Friday 00:00, 09 October 2026 until Thursday 23:59, 15 October 2026 (UTC)
• Commission selection: completed by Friday 00:00, 23 October 2026 (UTC)

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

• Nominations: Sunday 00:00, 01 November 2026 until Tuesday 23:59, 10 November 2026 (UTC)
• Setup period: Wednesday 00:00, 11 November 2026 to Sunday 23:59, 15 November 2026 (UTC)
• Voting period: Tuesday 00:00, 17 November 2026 until Monday 23:59, 30 November 2026 (UTC)
• Scrutineering: begins Tuesday 00:00, 01 December 2026 (UTC)

---

Use the following format. 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: Permit proposals for the next ACERFC at any point in the year

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.

---

Proposals may be added to the next ACERFC at any point in the year. Proposals will still only be open for !voting during September, and editors remain free to use the talk page to workshop ideas. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:15, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Support proposal 1: Permit proposals for the next ACERFC at any point in the year

1. The status quo is that suggestions for proposals may be added on the talk page, and then someone must remember to formally propose the idea in September. Let's streamline the procedure and cut out the middleperson. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:15, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
2. Yeah sure, cuts out some unnecessary bureaucracy. Discussion about it prior to the actual ACERFC remains on the talk page though, I presume. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 16:24, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
3. Yes. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. FaviFake (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
4. Seems like a good idea. Staraction (talk · contribs) 17:21, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
5. Yes. Clarifying the lack of bureaucracy is not, itself, instruction creep. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 15:37, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
6. I've gone back-and-forth on this, and am supporting with the provision that talk page discussion first should always be permitted. My hesitancy came from the fact that it can be desirable to discuss something first before putting on the RfC page. But I've concluded that flawed proposals can still be rejected, and rejecting them isn't really burdensome. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
7. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:09, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
8. Katzrockso (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
9. I am willing to support this for the purpose of clarifying that ideas and proposals can be drafted, developed and discussed at any time of the year. --Minoa (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
10. Yes. Ethanljy (Contributions) (User page) (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) 06:37, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
11. Actually, the best time to start workshopping changes is right after the most-recent election while anything that worked well or didn't work well is fresh in people's minds. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)
12. I believe I proposed something shortly after ACE, probably early this year, and was told to propose it again when the official RfCs roll around. Whatever folks think the rules permit, custom restricts proposals to this set of RfCs, and I don't see the need for that. Toadspike [Talk] 01:47, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

    Changing the rules to permit what is already permitted cannot change custom. Thryduulf (talk) 10:19, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

    I'm not sure if you're suggesting that request for comment discussions be held at any time during the year? One year I did try to encourage people to think about earlier discussions, particularly for proposals that require lead time to implement, and got zero response. For better or worse, most of those who like to weigh in on these matters only seem to get interested in proposals around September. isaacl (talk) 14:59, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

    I recall suggesting something similar, I think it was suggesting getting consensus on a single alternative and then ensuring that the software supports that alternative before asking in the September RFC whether the community wanted to change to that alternative, but like you silence followed. Thryduulf (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

    Given the downward trend in proposals each year, the idea of moving away from an expected timeframe to an ad hoc schedule is an interesting one. I think, though, that often proposals spawn related ones, and so there is some benefit in trying to group discussion into one or more common timeframes. I also think that some interested editors perceive the arbitration committee election process to be a significant one in its effect on English Wikipedia, and so want to spend some focused effort on any corresponding RfC discussions, but prefer having a fixed time for these discussions rather than having to be ready to spend that effort at any time. Though time is running out for this specific RfC, if there's interest, we can continue the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2027 once this RfC is closed. isaacl (talk) 15:20, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 1: Permit proposals for the next ACERFC at any point in the year

1. Per isaacl below at a minimum. Haven't decided if the idea is a good one. Izno (talk) 17:37, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

   Pretty sure it's actually a bad idea on a merited basis as well. We continue to have half-baked proposals at ACERFC (like proposal 2) which if actually discussed elsewhere beforehand would have caught that we have either discussed the topic or that the proposal does in fact fail to account for some rather critical details. Guys, we had a year since the last discussion, and now we're getting both this proposal and the one below and yet the attendant talk page was not used to discuss either. Izno (talk) 18:30, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

   With the aim of avoiding gatekeeping, personally I don't think that it should be mandatory for proposals to be discussed before being placed on this page. But I agree that this proposal would have benefited from a discussion regarding what options exist other than holding an RfC discussion. Refinements to wording can be made following the usual collaborative editing process (precisely because the English Wikipedia community is not a bureaucracy). isaacl (talk) 18:38, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

2. Partly because this is already permitted, and partly because we should encourage questions to be discussed/workshopped on the talk page first. Most years we get a couple of suggestions that are based on misunderstandings and/or which don't need to be an RFC (arguably including this one). Thryduulf (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
3. I agree with Thryduulf's reasoning. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2026 (UTC)
4. Concurring with Thryduulf. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:21, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
5. Per Thryduulf & isaacl. There's also a value in making proposals at a time where the community is primed to give it consideration and the proposal will have a reasonable level of traffic i.e. at WP:ACERFC time. Cabayi (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
6. Largely per Thryduulf. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:18, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Comments for proposal 1: Permit proposals for the next ACERFC at any point in the year

• There is no formal restriction on when proposals can be added to the arbitration committee election request for comments page, so this proposal is already in effect. Personally, I would prefer not to create a new specialized rule when it isn't necessary. isaacl (talk) 16:38, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  I don't think this needs to go in WP:ACERULES; I would rather this be a one line in the instructions at WP:ACERFC2027—perhaps editors are welcome to add proposals, which will be open for discussion in September [year]. Whatever the de jure practice is, I want to change the de facto one. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 16:53, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  If it doesn't need to go in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Election/Rules, then I don't think it needs to be discussed within the request for comments discussion. We can just update the page. In my experience, all attempts I've made to get people to think about the arbitration committee election RfC before August haven't resulted in much activity, so I don't see this as a signficant problem to address. isaacl (talk) 17:18, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  I've updated the page to clarify that proposals can be made at any time. isaacl (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  I would suggest adding language that stresses talk page discussions are strongly recommended if they haven't already occurred. Aside from that I think this clarification nullifies prop 1. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 07:47, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's less of creating new rule and more of being clear about how things work to prevent editors thinking there is a rule against adding something to the page before the RfC opens. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 17:07, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

• Meh. Collecting proposals throughout the year is already not only allowed, but suggested - I see some benefit in getting larger participants to discuss by scheduling all the discussions at once though. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:31, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

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: Remove the 50% threshold to be elected to a one-year term

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

i.e. make 60% the standard to be elected.

Currently, a candidate is elected for a one-year term under either or both of the following conditions:

1. Vacancy: a seat on the opposite tranche is vacant (and cannot be filled for two years).
2. Insufficient support: there were more two-year seats up than candidates that achieved >60%, so the remaining two-year seats are filled for one year.

Abolishing the 50% threshold would eliminate the second condition above, and raise the overall threshold for the first from 50% to 60% (duh).

Note that this would not abolish one-year terms altogether—it would mean that they are only used to fill vacancies. Giraffer (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Support proposal 2: Remove the 50% threshold to be elected to a one-year term

1. I went back through all the ArbCom elections since 2011 (the first election with 60% for a two-year term and 15 members) to figure out what historical effect this change would have. Since at least 2011, a two-year term has never been filled for one year. A designated one-year term was filled by someone with under 60% support twice, but that was most recently in 2014. The least-supported elected candidate has gotten over 65% support in every election after 2019.
   It's pretty crazy that we require at least 70% support to be elected an administrator but 50%+1 threshold to become an arbitrator, particularly when everything an administrator does is publicly logged, and relatively little of what an arbitrator does is. I'm not saying we need to have escalating support thresholds, but I would much rather leave a seat unfilled than appoint someone who barely commands majority support just for the sake of having a fuller committee. Giraffer (talk) 18:09, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
2. Beyond whatever arguments one could make about trust, I think we can resolve this on WP:CREEP. This wouldn't have changed an election result since WP:ACE2014, so it unnecessarily complicates the description of who gets elected. We should jump at this opportunity to simplify WP:ACERULES. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:22, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
3. Per Giraffer's second paragraph. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:10, 1 September 2026 (UTC)
4. Looking at the history of ACEs in the last decade, the rule seems to be that almost any user who is enough of a known quantity can get over 50% support, even if there were serious outstanding questions about their qualifications and/or fitness to serve on the Committee. Many of these candidates would have done just fine, but looking at the aggregate, I think that the risks of electing candidates in this support range outweigh the benefits of a backstop that gets used once a decade to keep the Committee at 15 arbs rather than 14. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:39, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
5. While repeating my previous reasoning about how admin and arbcom percentages are different, I believe 60% is the correct calibration. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:50, 2 September 2026 (UTC)
6. Here we go again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:09, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
7. Basically per leek. If we have a choice between "committee is struggling with activity levels" and "committee is struggling because serious outstanding questions about that one member were indeed justified", I'd prefer the former. And as House notes, we don't tend to actually be faced with this issue in the first place, so we may as well simplify the rules while we're at it. In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 03:43, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
8. Too low, hasn't been needed, and on balance I think it's more likely to be a net negative. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 15:22, 5 September 2026 (UTC)
9. Per leek. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
10. Yes, does not have any negative impact (from historical ACEs) and makes sure that arbitrators have more support from Wikipedians (which is important given the powers held by the arbitrators). Ethanljy (Contributions) (User page) (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
11. Yeah I agree that <60% support isn't the best indication of trust, and this change would simplify the rules. Fathoms Below (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
12. Better have a very clear consensus for someone's election than a simple majority. It's a high bar, I can think of a few circumstances where we would be quite glad for it. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:05, 8 September 2026 (UTC)
13. For a position with as much power entrusted to it as an arb, we really need a bar that's higher than a simple majority. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
14. A higher percentage of support is clearly superior and should be used. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 02:36, 11 September 2026 (UTC)
15. What Giraffer said. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
16. In addition to several strong arguments above, this would reduce my anxiety as a voter that a poor candidate could easily be elected, perhaps allowing me to vote more "leniently". As for the folks panicking that ArbCom won't have enough members, the Committee has in the past survived periods of very low active membership, and I am not convinced that effectively lowering our standards is a good alternative to that. Toadspike [Talk] 01:59, 27 September 2026 (UTC)
17. At least 60% seems appropriate, because arbs always grant themselves checkuser and oversight. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:29, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 2: Remove the 50% threshold to be elected to a one-year term

1. See WP:ACERFC2021, WP:ACERFC2022, WP:ACERFC2023. This has been argued ad nauseum and the proposer's comment doesn't strike me as researched on that point (rather than the "we could just do it point and it would affect nothing"). Izno (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

   And apparently also 2019 and 2018. Izno (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

2. For me, it's just a matter of there being a lot of "oppose" votes in any anonymous vote that we have on Wikipedia, and it can be a problem if there are too few Arbs, so I think keeping this possibility on the books can be a good thing. If I felt like badly qualified candidates were slipping in through this provision, I might feel differently, but it does not appear to me to be the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

   After reading subsequent discussion, I no longer feel strongly about this. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 26 September 2026 (UTC)

3. This appears to be a solution looking for a problem. Thryduulf (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

   I don't have any strong view on this proposal overall, but you are misusing WP:SLOP, @Thryduulf. For proposals that add complexity, the burden is on the proposal to justify why it is necessary, and if it doesn't, SLOP applies. But this is a proposal to reduce complexity. Such proposals are justified prima facie as a reduction of WP:CREEP, and the burden is on those who wish to keep the additional rule to justify why it is necessary. Sdkb ^talk 19:01, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

   If you want to change the status quo, then the onus is on you to show that the change will improve Wikipedia in some way, regardless of whether the proposal adds or reduces complexity. I see no evidence that this proposal will improve anything. Thryduulf (talk) 20:43, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

   Your reply doesn't explain why you disagree with Sdkb's core contention, which is that reducing complexity in policies and guidelines is inherently a valid motivation for proposing a change per WP:CREEP (although of course not the sole factor). Could you explain your disagreement? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:04, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

   WP:BROKE. If the current situation is not causing any problems now (none have been identified) and there are no foreseeable problems it would cause (none have been identified) then there is no benefit to changing something. Just because something is simpler doesn't mean it is automatically better. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

4. I believe that this proposal is more likely to cause harm than benefit, though most years it won't make a difference. Comparisons to ALECT are inapposite since the processes are very different, despite both being "elections", and the ALECT percentage is too high, IMO, anyway. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:03, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

   (original argument) Should reduce number of (in)active arbs and/or arbs who are perceivably less trusting. Removing the threshold would mean lowering standards, which is less desirable than how this proposal promises to be. --George Ho (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2026 (UTC)

5. I really wish the section were titled "Raise threshold from 50% to 60%". However, I still wish it were raised to 55%. As-is, still opposing to raise the standards for now... until I'm convinced that 60% is the best for one-year arbs. George Ho (talk) 06:33, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
6. Per Thryduulf. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:38, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Comments for proposal 2: Remove the 50% threshold to be elected to a one-year term

• Re Izno: the most recent discussion of this kind of proposal was three years ago, and it ended in no consensus. I feel like bringing it up again on this timeline is a reasonable pitch. I'm not sure what part of the proposal you're referring to with your not researched bit. Giraffer (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  That we have had this discussion and that your proposal does nothing to answer any of the concerns levied then. This particular issue is really frustrating because it almost always comes from people who aren't on the committee and haven't been on the committee and do not know what it's like to be on a committee that could potentially have fewer than the current 15. It is already pain to get stuff done with the 15 we have.

  Comments like "It's crazy that 50% elects one but 70% elects another" really show that the previous opposition hasn't been read, because we talk about why it's a bad comparison then. Having to repeat ourselves isn't fun. Izno (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  I appreciate your perspective as an arbitrator. I don't know what it's like to serve on an ArbCom with fewer than 15 members, let alone on ArbCom at all.

  I read previous discussions (I was a part of the 2023 one at the time) and I think, given the time elapsed and the relative stability of ACE since, that this merits proposing. As to your bit about threshold comparisons, I agree(d) with those points to the extent that we shouldn't fine tune thresholds by comparing processes, but I think having a 20% gap between them (especially now that we have AELECT and not an approximate ~65% RfA consensus threshold) is significant and something worth noting. Giraffer (talk) 19:05, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

• Re Giraffer - "everything an administrator does is publicly logged, and relatively little of what an arbitrator does is"
  An arbitrator does nothing. All the authority is delegated to the committee. Arbitrators have a one-fifteenth share of what the committee does. They do not act on their own authority in the way that an administrator does. I've advocated for referring to Arbs as members of the arbitration committee to reinforce public perception of the limitations, though it is long winded. Cabayi (talk) 10:15, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  Although I too prefer to refer to the arbitration committee when discussing their joint actions, my impression from what past members have said (and you could provide insight from your own experience) is that specific arbitrators will take the lead in specific roles or initiatives, helping to ensure that the requisite related tasks are accomplished. So while they aren't solely responsible for those tasks, they can be a large contributor towards them. isaacl (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's like every other area of Wiki-life, everybody has their own focus of interest, but without any WP:OWNership that would exclude any other interested committee member. Cabayi (talk) 10:57, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

• @George Ho: removing the 50% threshold does not lower the floor. It raises it to 60% for all candidates. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:26, 6 September 2026 (UTC)
• On revisiting this discussion there appears to be an unresolved set of assumptions.
  1. The comparison of percentage thresholds with an admin's RFA or AELECT thresholds is misleading. For an admin ACE candidate the ACE threshold is in addition to the RFA/AELECT threshold. For a non-admin ACE candidate the ACE threshold is in place of the RFA/AELECT threshold.
  2. If a non-admin is elected to ArbCom are they also elected Admin? The election meets Legal's requirements for an RFA as being a "well attended community process". - Cabayi (talk) 10:31, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  The answer to your question 2 is no. The requirements being met means that they are allowed access to things restricted to administrators (deleted revisions, etc) but this does not mean they automatically become one. I thought this had been explicitly discussed previously, but I've looked back at the RFCs as far as 2014 and none of the questions seem to address this so either my memory is faulty or the discussion was elsewhere. WP:ACERFC2022 and WP:ACERFC2023 are the ones that have the most discussion of non-admin candidates, and it's clear that everybody took it red that non-administrators elected to the committee do not automatically become admins. This could be changed if there is consensus to do so - now is the time to propose it if you want to do so. Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  During my time on the committee it was decided that newly elected members would be given (not just offered) CU & OS because it's necessary to do the job of overseeing the use of those tools. It follows that they ought to be admins too since one of the committee's core roles is the supervision of admins. There is currently no assignable role that encompasses the tools needed to oversee admins other than the role of admin. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Following that dichotomy to its logical resolution requires either that the threshold all round should be 65% to match RFA's requirements or that non-admins should not be eligible (or we continue to rely on the tradition that we have not as-yet elected a non-admin). Cabayi (talk) 12:50, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  ArbCom keeping watch over CUOS is because no-one but other CUOS can. Theoretically this could be devolved in some way but it is presently policy. Admins have a far-wider net of people keeping watch, doing so entirely by edits and public logs. Izno (talk) 16:55, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  And the user rights ArbCom might necessarily (because the contents are private) need to oversee the things that admins do already come with OS. Izno (talk) 16:56, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  There are quite a few things that a non-admin with CU and OS wouldn't be able to do but they can see almost all of them, e.g. they can't delete pages but they can view the contents of pages deleted by others.

  In terms of viewing there are 9 permissions that come with admin but don't seem to come with CU and/or OS.

  • Covered by WP:TAIV if necessary
    • View IP addresses used by temporary accounts (checkuser-temporary-account)
  • Covered by WP:EFM if they don't also come with one of the six abusefilter permissions that CU/OS do get (I haven't looked). In the year I was an arbitrator, edit filters were relevant to exactly one case.
    • View and create filters that use protected variables (abusefilter-access-protect)
    • View detailed edit filter log entries (abusefilter-log-detail)
    • View log entries of edit filters marked as private (abusefilter-log-private)
  • It seems unlikely that these will ever be relevant to arbitrator businesss:
    • View a list of unwatched pages (unwatchedpages)
    • View private event participants (campaignevents-view-private-participants)
    • View the disallowed titles list log (titleblacklistlog)
    • View the list of unreviewed pages (unused on English Wikipedia) (unreviewedpages)
  • It seems extremely unlikely that this will ever be relevant to arb business - I've been an admin for 21 years and I was an arb for a year, I didn't know it even existed until just now.
    • View information about the current transcode activity (transcode-status)

  So in practice, a non-admin arb would almost certainly just need WP:TAIV to do the job and I can't conceive of someone being elected arbitrator who wouldn't be eligible for that. Thryduulf (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  For reference, see Wikipedia:Non-administrator Arbitrators RfC, where consensus was established that non-admin arbitrators should not be granted administrative privileges. isaacl (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  That was the discussion I was think of, thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you Thryduulf & Isaacl for the research. Cabayi (talk) 10:45, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

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: Candidates can declare for a one-year or two-year term

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.

---

When submitting their candidacy, a candidate will explicitly declare if they want to run for a one year/two year term, and will be elected to that term if they meet the required support . To be clear, this would not change existing rules around the 60% threshold for a two year term; in other words, it would allow candidates above the two year threshold to decide if they want to serve a one year term instead. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:23, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Support proposal 3: Candidates can declare for a one-year or two-year term

1. I was thinking about burnout and inactivity on the committee in recent years, and I thought this might be a novel way of addressing it. My experience on Arbcom made me wonder if the two year term model is still something that really works. Over the last half decade or so, it feels like Arbcom has been in a boom--bust state when it comes to member activity. Often, there is a burst of activity when a new tranche comes on, while the older tranche may end up becoming less active. From my experience on the committee, things work best when there is a healthy mix of experienced hands and fresh blood. Often, it felt this balance would gradually fall out over the year, as newer members might figure out the committee isn't really for them, or older members shoulder more of the workload and feel more of a burnout... and that this would result in Arbcom having less active members, which gives everyone issues (I very much feel like this is one of the problems the 2024 Arbcom had, and an issue around the middle of the 2023 Arbcom). I think this would give an easier out to those who want to get a feel for AC, or vets who know their limits, and therefor reduce burnout, inactivity, and resignations. It would also allow for greater transparency among those running,and reduce partial calcification in Arbcom membership. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:23, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

Oppose proposal 3: Candidates can declare for a one-year or two-year term

1. Not necessary to encode. Izno (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
2. People who want to resign after 1 year can do so. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:50, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
3. Per Izno and Pppery. If someone elected to a two year term wants to resign after a year they can easily do so. If someone elected to a one year term actually wants to continue then they have to be elected again, wasting time and energy they could have spent on arbitration matters. The arbitrator gains nothing and the community gains nothing. Thryduulf (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
4. I think that this was useful to discuss, but after the discussion below, I don't think it's advisable to actually implement it. I think there would be problems with the voting, and it's already quite practical for someone to resign if they think that's what they should do. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2026 (UTC)
5. I agree with Tryptofish. It is easier to resign from a long term than to get reelected to several short terms. EnigmaBlock (talk) 02:05, 7 September 2026 (UTC)
6. I don't recall a year in my term on Arbcom in which the impending WP:ACE did not provoke consideration among members about whether they would see out their term or tender a post-dated resignation in time to allow the upcoming election to include their seat in the number of slots to be filled. Binding yourself to a one-year term before-hand seems unnecessary. The life changes which cause members to step down may just as easily offer members more time to spend on committee work. A bigger impediment to resignations may be the impracticality of holding special elections. Cabayi (talk) 11:24, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
7. Seems like instruction creep. Arbs can (and do) bail if it turns out they can't continue. I hope that arbs are smart enough to do so, as opposed to just occupying a seat and taking up space, but if not, this isn't going to fix the problem. RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
8. Largely per above. Seems more productive to elect them to a two-year term and they can resign after the one year mark if they so desire. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:18, 10 September 2026 (UTC)
9. Don't love "just resign" as a solution, but agree that this would overcomplicate things and wouldn't be super helpful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:08, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
10. I wouldn't formalize this (and thus suddenly limit it to fixed options of 12 and 24 months) as long as resignations are possible all the time and can be pre-announced in the candidacy. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2026 (UTC)
11. As others have said, members can simply resign. Better to predict your availability for the next year two months prior, rather than fourteen months prior. Toadspike [Talk] 01:53, 27 September 2026 (UTC)

Comments for proposal 3: Candidates can declare for a one-year or two-year term

• As far as I can tell, something like this hasn't recently been proposed. Feel free to suggest changes, I'm a rough drafter... Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:23, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  But it has been discussed at least once. Previous discussion concluded that there wasn't a need for it; current arbcom members know they can take an offramp at any time they wish for any reason, and they're starting to do so at 1 year if nowhere else. Izno (talk) 20:32, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  I think it's a very interesting idea. Something that occurs to me is that voters may treat the two categories of candidates in different ways, but the differences may be hard to predict in advance. I'm thinking of things like: I'm not going to vote for this candidate if they're only good enough to serve for one year, or, I'd rather vote for one-year candidates because I don't want to get stuck with people who are on there for two years. Unless we have two separate parts of the elections, with one part intended to fill X number of one-year seats and the other part intended to fill X number of two-year seats, I think there could be complications of this sort – and I don't really think we should want to have two classes of elections. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Izno's comment gives me another idea. Instead of having something formal where candidates declare one or two years at the election, ArbCom could just follow a procedure where, if a member wants to step down after one year, they do so, without needing to declare that intent ahead of time. Maybe ArbCom would want to put something into their procedures where they say, in writing, that one year, with sufficient notice, is the preferred time for doing that, or maybe they won't regard that as something that needs to be written down in public (up to them). This has the advantage that members might not always know how they will feel a year ahead of time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  Yeah, the "different classes" of elections crossed my mind too, and I ultimately thought this wouldn't be that big of a deal to overcomplicate things like that. But I do think you've got a point about stepping down after a year, if desired-- afaik this is informal practice as of late? My thought is that you would want to prevent a situation where someone gets on for a two year term that they never plan on fully serving, but I guess that could be fixed by someone just declaring they're planning on only being on for a year outright. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 20:47, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

  That was discussed before and if I recall correctly, the main response was that this can happen now, without any changes. The rules were clarified that any resignation that is announced before the start of voting and takes effect by the start of the new term on January 1 is treated as a mid-term vacancy, and so the seat is available to be filled during the election. isaacl (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

  Though I'm not against the idea in principle, I do think in practice it may increase the risk of losing continuity. The community has preferred to try to have overlapping terms in order to have a mix of arbitrators with at least one year's experience, and newly-elected arbitrators. Some arbitrators have stated that they felt they needed that one year of experience to be more effective. So while I agree volunteers are free to step back from their role at any time, I do think there is a benefit to encouraging arbitrators to serve for two years. Implementing this proposal would send the opposite message. isaacl (talk) 02:31, 5 September 2026 (UTC)

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.