Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:27, 24 November 2019

• WP:ACE2020

ACERFC decisions to date

• Election: There will be 15 arbitrators, seven seats on "Tranche Alpha" and eight seats on "Tranche Beta" from the 2019 elections. A maximum eight 2-years term are up for elections each year, with the eight seat switching tranche if necessary. Any additional vacancies which open before voting begins will be filled by a 1-year term. A minimum 50% support is required to be elected for a 1-year term, with a minimum 60% support is required for a 2-years term. Successful candidates with the lowest support percentages are given the 1-year term if any. If there are more vacancies than candidates with the required minimum, the extra seats will remain unfilled until a special or the next regular election. Vacancies arising between elections will remain unfilled until a special or the next regular election.
• Special Election: An interim special election which is called by the Arbitration Committee in accordance with the Arbitration Policy shall be conducted on an abbreviated timeline.
  • Electoral Commission: The previous Election Commission shall be reappointed unless they are unable or unwilling to perform the job, in which case members of the current functionaries team who are not arbitrators or WMF staff will be asked to volunteer without the need for confirmation. The Election Commission is empowered to resolve by majority vote situations unforeseen in the previous election RfC that may prevent emergency or interim elections from being held.
  • Nominations period: One week.
  • Voting period: As soon as possible after the close of nominations.
  • Terms of office: To the end of the year.
  • Number of vacancies: Up to the size of the committee authorized in the previous election RfC.
• Candidates: Registered account with 500 mainspace edits, editor in good standing "that is"/"and is" not under block or ban, meets Foundation's Access to nonpublic personal data policy, and has disclosed alternate accounts (or disclosed legitimate accounts to Arbcom). Withdrawn or disqualified candidates will be listed in their own section on the candidates page.
• Electoral Commission: A RFC to appoint 3 Electoral Commission officials who will solve disputes and problems during the election. Open to anyone who is over 18, meets Foundation's Access to nonpublic personal data policy, and otherwise be eligible to vote. Appointments to the Commission should be confirmed by the Arbitration Committee per the CheckUser policy. Officials will not be allowed to assess private matters and/or have access to voter data, and/or related permissions, and will instead defer private matters to the current ArbCom and/or the WMF as needed.
• Timeline:
  • ACE RFC: (30 days of September)
  • Electoral Commission RFC: 7 days nominations, 7 days evaluation, selection by 7 days after close of evaluation. (October)
  • Nominations: 2nd Sunday of November (10 days)
    • Nomination is hard deadline for creation and transclusion of nomination statement. How to handle any site-wide disruption is at the discretion of the Electoral Commission
  • Fallow period: (5 days)
  • Voting period: (14 days)
  • Scrutineering: No deadline for releasing or announcing the results.
• Guides: Allowed but with some strong suggestions. Must be allowed reasonable visibility.
• General Guide: Misplaced Pages:5 Minute guide to ArbCom Elections created and advertised.
• Voter Suffrage: A voter needs 150 mainspace edits by 1 November, 10 live edits (in any namespace) within one year of 1 November, and to have registered an account before 1 October, not currently blocked at the time of voting.
• Voting System: Voting system of (Support/Abstain/Oppose) will be used with percentages calculated via Support/(Support + Oppose). Secret ballots via SecurePoll will be used.
• Scrutineering: 3 functionaries from outside en.wiki as scrutineers.
• Ordering: The order of candidates are software randomised on the candidate page, and on the ballot.
• Warning: Potential candidates are warned of risks from standing for election with message similar to that on WP:CUOS2015 to be incorporated into the candidate instructions page.
• Questions: No standard questions for every candidates. No limits on the number of questions, but candidates are not obligated to answer every questions. Electoral Commission (as a group not individually) have the discretion to remove offensive (eg. WP:POLEMIC-style statements) or off-topic questions from question pages, following discussion among the Electoral Commission members, but has no authority to reword questions to the candidate. Any candidate that feels a question should be removed/reviewed should contact the electoral commission to review the question, and not take action themselves. While other editors can obviously remove clear vandalism, egregious personal attacks, etc., the determination of what is inappropriate or off-topic is clearly to be left to the Commission.
• Advertising: Traditional notices posted to various community noticeboards, watchlist notice and/or central notice banner for election in general (not individual candidates), Mass Message - eligible voters, have edited last 12 months before nominations, but excluding blocked users where the block duration extends past the the elections, globally b/locked accounts, bots, and accounts in Category:All Misplaced Pages bots, Category:Misplaced Pages alternative accounts, Category:Misplaced Pages doppelganger accounts, and Category:Deceased Wikipedians. Extra care should be taken in wordings of advertising to make sure it's neutral.
• Blocking: Blocking policy applies normally, but a candidate shouldn't be disqualified for being blocked (except for sockpuppetry) after nominating him/herself.

1. Transcription error from 2011 to 2012 election. De facto since. Consensus against proposed changes in 2016.
2. Changes during transcription from 2010 to 2011 elections.
3. ^ WMF's requirement.
4. Not in practice.
5. WMF's policy
6. De facto community evaluation from start of nominations.
7. De facto since 2009.
8. Stewards de facto since pre-2012

References

1. ^ 2019#Number of arbitrators
2. ^ 2013#Length of terms
3. 2013#Handling of the 8th Vacant Seat
4. 2012#How should vacancies be handled?
5. 2018#Percentage support needed for appointment
6. 2012#How many seats should be 2-year terms, and how many 1-year terms?
7. 2019#Runners-up to step up to fill vacancies
8. 2019#Procedures for emergency elections
9. 2012#What should the requirements be for candidates to run for the election?
10. 2014#Disclosure of Previous/Alternate Accounts of the candidates
11. 2019#Withdrawn/disqualified candidates
12. 2012#How should we deal with unforeseen problems?
13. ^ 2014#How should the selection of the election commission be conducted?
14. 2019#Electoral commission's scope of purview/access
15. ^ 2013#Schedule
16. 2015#How should nomination deadlines be handled?
17. 2012#Deadline for releasing the results
18. 2012#How should voter guides be handled for the election?
19. 2014#Should voter guides be included in the official template?
20. 2018#Write a short general guide to voting
21. 2019#Voter activity requirements
22. 2012#What should the requirements be to vote in the election?
23. 2011#What should the requirements be to vote in the election?
24. 2013#Voting procedure: proposing change "No vote" to "Abstain"
25. 2012#What should the method of voting be?
26. 2012#Secret balloting?
27. 2015#Should adjustments be made to expedite the election results?
28. 2016#Should the names of candidates appear in randomized order, and if not, how should they be ordered?
29. 2016#Should we warn the candidates about the risks involved?
30. 2014#The standard questions
31. 2014#Should there be a limit to the number of questions posed to candidates?
32. ^ 2017#Should election committee members be allowed to remove questions where appropriate?
33. 2019#Questions to candidates must be phrased neutrally
34. 2019#Dealing with possibly inappropriate questions
35. 2012#Advertising
36. ^ 2015#Should there be a change in the methods of publicity for the election?
37. 2016#Should we continue or modify the practice of notifying eligible voters by mass message?
38. 2018#Mass message
39. 2019#Mass message
40. 2014#Should the site notice be changed when voting begins?
41. 2013#Blocking candidates

Topics to review for next year

Commission selections

• See Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2019/Electoral Commission. Possibly enforce a "no voting" week? — xaosflux 00:28, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
• Review vacating the 2014 "per the checkuser policy" process for arbcom, as the checkuser policy is not really in play. — xaosflux 00:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

  At the least, move the timing of it up maybe (to after nominations are locked in, but prior to the end of voting). — xaosflux 14:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Resolve the seat and term amendments per this thread.

General complaints and improvements

General complaints, notes and improvement opportunities.

• Comment from myself: should there be a public notice to people when the nomination period begins? For the better part of the nomination session there were only three candidates and provides a sense of worry in the common-sense non-authoritarian department of things. I'm Caker18! I edit Misplaced Pages sparingly. (talk) 22:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • A watchlist notice has been up since the nomination period began. The influx of nominations before the deadline happens every year. Wug·a·po·des​ 22:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
• I think this was sort of lost thru getting it into wrong feedback page but... If somebody cares... Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Feedback's last section could get some helping hand, I guess. — regards, Revi 03:37, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
• Last minute noms are normal - everyone is waiting to see who else will run. I do it myself. It has probably nothing to do with publicity, more than enough people are fully aware of what Arbcom is and will nominate themselves if they want to. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
• One other person and myself, at least, ran into an issue when saving our votes. Perhaps the message on the ballot encouraging one to keep a record of one's vote (currently in the fine print about voting again) could be more prominent, and point out the possibility of things going wrong when trying to save them? It might help keep people from being caught off guard by things like this. (While neglecting proper record-keeping is ultimately a matter of user error, I don't think it would hurt to provide a reminder.) Thanks! —{{u|Goldenshimmer}} (they/their)｜Talk｜Contributions 06:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Goldenshimmer: currently the message says:

• Do you have something specific to suggest on this? — xaosflux 12:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn candidates

• See Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Candidates#Withdrawn candidates and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019#Withdrawn/disqualified_candidates. Some ability to remove new editors who didn't quite understand the process. Wug·a·po·des​ 03:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Election guides/Voters guides

• Can candidates write election guides? --Rschen7754 19:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If so, should it be highlighted in some way that the author is a candidate? Thryduulf (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
• Should there be a right-of-reply on election guides? Worm(talk) 09:30, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Probably. The comments in some guides are not only vindictive , but are also extremely blockworthy lies and personal attacks. Why should writers of such stuff be allowed to comment in such a manner with impunity? This makes ACE even more sordid than RfA. At least at RfA the candidates and/or their supporter have the right of reply. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:51, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Should only the guide 'author' be able to add their guide to the official template? — xaosflux 12:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

IMO yes. Voter guides are in user space. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• • What about the category? Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
• What is a difference between voters guide and the candidate discussion page? If someone writes a statement on every candidate on the discussion page, should they be encouraged to publish a voter guide instead?--Ymblanter (talk) 06:30, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

That is something that really needs discussing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

• Voter guides have been a tradition, but are they really necessary? As on RfA, thoretically the onus should be on the voters to find out for themselves what they like and don't like about the candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:57, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  In RfA, the !vote is public and thus it is easy to read and evaluate the rationales of other editors. Moreover, there is only one candidate in any given RfA. In the current ArbCom election, the voters will be asked to evaluate 23 individual candidates; few people have the time to perform their own in-depth analysis of each candidate. Thus, the voter guides serve a very useful purpose. Lepricavark (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Lepricavark I seriously think, as I have for years, especially at RfA (and long before I ran myself), that the onus is on voters to do their own research. If they don't have the time, they shouldn't be voting. But you expect the candidates to spend 30 hours or more answering the user questions and pile on with more. The official guide should provide enough stimulus for voters to go look up the candidate analysis on X-tools, contributions, articles created, admin logs, block log, and details (if any) on the candidate's user page.

There is, again as on oppose votes at RfA, no guarantee whatsoever that voter guides are truthful, accurate, and appropriate. Some of them are character assassinations to such an extent and out of all proportion that they would be instantly blockworthy PA anywhere else. It's no better than the voters at RfA who vote 'as per' and don't come back and change their vote when the 'as per' has changed theirs. There are a few good examples of this.

RfA and Arbcom elections are supposed to examine the candidates' suitability for the job, not destroy all the other good work they may have done. If I thought it were true, just for for example, that despite your 141,555 edits, you were a lousy editor, unless you were to run for admin or arb, how could I inform the entire community of my opinion of you? You may wish to bear that in mind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination timing

Follow up from Special:PermaLink/925896065#Possible_disqualification_-_Enterprisey. When exactly does the self-nomination "occur"? (e.g. When a page is made, when the page is transcluded to the candidates page, when some attempt is made, even in error, to try to nominate?) This really is only an issue for situations when someone is literally trying to nominate at the last minute like in the example above. — xaosflux 00:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Why have users been permitted to nominate themselves this year after the cut-off date? What do we have election commissioners for? This needs to be cleared up before the next election. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  To be fair, this was raised as a potential disqualification, and the commissioners did review it and make a ruling, so the commissioners did address the issue. Agree, it can be improved! — xaosflux 15:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Kudpung: the issue was the nomination page was started before the deadline, completed on the deadline (23:59), but transcluded after it (00:00). With no definition of which of these actions counts as the nomination point it is not possible to state with certainty whether the nomination was made in time. A decision needed to be made, and the commissioners made it, but it needs to be sorted for future years. My personal preference would be to say that the nomination must be correctly transcluded at /Candidates before the end of 23:59 in order to count, but that's just one persons opinion others may hold a different view. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

  As a completely unscientific point of consideration, a comparison of edit summaries used (or not used) when creating the candidate statement and when transcluding that statement onto the candidates page it seems that of the 2019 candidates very roughly half used an edit summary that was clearly more significant, dramatic or attached more significance to the event when transcluding than when creating. All of the others used summaries that did not indicate one was clearly more significant than the other. None seemed to regard creating the statement as the clearly more significant event when considering edit summaries alone. Thryduulf (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

• I remember this closure by Floquenbeam on 30 September in the 2015 RfC:

  There is very clear consensus that the closing deadline for nominations needs to be a "hard" deadline, with no exceptions. Nomination pages must be created and transcluded before the deadline, with zero wiggle room.

Was it overturned in a subsequent RfC? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

The AC:RFCs between 2016 and the current election are silent on this particular issue. The current EC has decided on the marginal timing issue for one candidate this year so no need to rehash that outcome with less than 2 days before voting starts - that would be punitive. Stick it in the list for RFC 2020 - or hold an emergency RFC after the current election is over if it is considered necessary to facilitate any of this for the emergency election stuff that is being discussed. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

You know, it sucks getting old and having your memory fail you. I had a feeling that we'd dealt with this a while ago, and I kind of sort of remembered that I'd participated in the discussion rather than close it, but I guess I didn't look back far enough. I thought the result had been to have to EC just deal with it as it came up. As you can tell from my comment above, I closed it that way because that seemed to be the consensus, not because I agreed with it. But if I'd remembered, I'd have pointed to that closure. Sorry. In any case, the whole reason we have an EC is to make these calls quickly. And this was just about as borderline as you can get. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Mandatory emergency elections / Minimum number of arbitrators

The last RFC produced a mechanism to hold emergency elections but placed the decision to hold them into the hands of the Committee. Should there be a mechanism to trigger emergency elections automatically if certain criteria are met? Basically, my question (and something to discuss) would be whether the community should instate a minimum number of sitting arbitrators (e.g. ArbCom should always have 8 or more members) and whether falling below that threshold should trigger emergency elections to fill the Committee (back to 8 or back to 15 or something in between). Regards SoWhy 14:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

This is important. There needs to be a fail-safe in case a quorum is not reached. Needs discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@SoWhy and Kudpung: this probably shouldn't wait until next year if it is a concern, as the situation could arise well before this get listed. My understanding is that currently ArbCom (and theoretically Jimbo Wales) can "call for an election" to provide for an emergency election. I don't think an automatic emergency election-initiation system would be a good idea (as it could lead to an infinite election cycle), but perhaps a set of conditions (such as "the current committee now has <n members") could be used to allow the community to request an election through an RfC process? — xaosflux 15:18, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There was a proposal to make this change at the 2019 RfC, here, which was withdrawn because it would require amending ArbPol. That amendment process was initiated at the village pump, but it was archived before it reached the requisite 100 votes, see Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)/Archive 154#Petition to Amend the Arbitration Policy: Interim Elections. – bradv🍁 15:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

If there are fixed conditions like "if (arbcom < n members) then emergency election to refill to full", I don't think an infinite election cycle is a serious concern since it would only be triggered again if the conditions are met again. And failsafes like requiring a certain time between emergency elections, not allowing emergency elections X months before a regular election or not triggering new emergency elections if the reason for the lack of arbs is candidates missing the quorom could further minimize this already low risk. But requiring an RFC before elections would mean the Committee could stay incomplete or worse unable to function for a much longer time, possibly for a full year, if the community decides against emergency elections. I proposed this for the next RFC phase because it needs to be finetuned to work as intended but I'm not against having a separate RFC to address this question in particular. Regards SoWhy 15:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@SoWhy: "holding an election" does not guarantee that anyone will actually run in it, or that anyone that runs will be elected. So at the least, a throttle on how often such a process can occur would be useful. — xaosflux 15:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed but those parameters can be decided upon in advance. But with a throttle and other conditions pre-decided, the actual triggering should not be left to the community or the remaining ArbCom members to decide. There are plenty of scenarios imaginable in which either group might not be inclined to call for such an election,. For example if a "cabal" of arbs managed to drive their "rivals" off the Committee, they would be unlikely to want new people to replace them. Regards SoWhy 15:59, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

There are too many possible scenarios, that's the problem. SoWhy's 'cabal' is one of them. This year has been a bad year for the Committee, due to infighting and dissent with some members leaving possibly because they couldn't get their own way , and the Committee having to arbitrate on some difficult issues while possibly ending up lacking the required skills or leadership.This might change with this new election (although it would be improper at this stage to speculate on the result) but nevertheless the fail-safe parameters need to be worked out and put to the community for approval. Let's not forget that this year over 20 admins - for better or for worse - threw their toys out of the pram in en.Wikis greatest constitutional crisis and challenge to the WMF's authority, and not all of them have asked for them back. That's a lot of admins to loose and the same could happen if Arbcom went on strike. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:07, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Admins handing back their tools could happen again for any reason or no reason and it might or might not have anything to do with arbcom's action or inaction. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Precisely, Thryduulf, and many, if not most ,Arbs are admins. If they were to go on strike, the possibility is real, and even if this year's event was the first of it's kind, it could conceivably be precedent setting. It might presage some significant way the en.Wiki works.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

This comment by Bradv is not getting the attention it should: There was a proposal to make this change at the 2019 RfC which was withdrawn because it would require amending ArbPol. If it required changing the policy in 2019, it will require changing the policy in 2020, so simply adding it to the list of things to discuss isn't going to achieve anything. If this is a big problem then you need to convince either next year's committee and/or 100 editors that a change to the policy is required. I was not convinced that the change proposed this year was required, so I did not add my name to those endorsing. As a potential member of next year's committee I'm not opposed to it but I also have not been convinced of the necessity. Thryduulf (talk) 17:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Voter suffrage

10 live edits

• Revisit the "10 live edits" component - it has proven to be very challenging to report on due to the large size of the electoral roll and the massive edits made project-wide. — xaosflux 19:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I knew that sooner or later this would be brought up. No only is it a lot of work for the election commission, (I can't remember why when site-wide canvassing was introduced but there must have been a compelling lobby for it at the time), but I am not convinced that it has enhanced the quality of the voting any more than the additional publicity of RfA did. Many users probably don't do any systematic research of the candidates and simply pile on. They may not even understand what they are actually voting for. It may sound like a good idea, but ramming internal politics down the throats of the vast majority of users who are here to provide article content could even be counter-productive. I'm not convinced that several thousand voters do a better job than several hundred who know what they are voting for (or against). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: this seems to have lost some context? It sounds like you're talking about advertising the elections rather than the suffrage requirements? Thryduulf (talk) 10:35, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm deliberately talking about both because they directly affect each other. There's the context. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Reviewing the franchise is absolutely fine but the reason has to be far more substantial than computer says no. Leaky caldron (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

• • The creation process got more efficient, as this was the first year on this new requirement it certainly won't hurt to discuss if it helped/hindered. Right now there are ~39,500 eligible voters. — xaosflux 13:57, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

    (Just for the record there are more like 41,000 now that the list was recompiled.) Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

    And counting...sigh. — xaosflux 01:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Users with multiple accounts

• May editors use multiple accounts to meet the voter requirements when no single account suffices? (e.g. Meeting the registration criteria with one account, but the number of edits criteria with another account?) This requires issuing a whitelist/"manual ballot" as it would not be technically distinguishable. (Came up in 2019 here). — xaosflux 14:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Mass message

• Don't message users with Vanished user in their user name --DannyS712 (talk) 02:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  Or "Renamed user"... — xaosflux 02:24, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions to candidates

• Should there be a limit to how many questions one person may ask a candidate? If so, what should that limit be? Should follow-up questions be included or excluded from that limit? Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
• What things other than questions, answers to questions and clarifications to questions should be permitted on candidate question pages? Thryduulf (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

I believe Question Time is something that should be significantly examined and overhauled. While I am thick skinned, as can be seen, I am sure that the general lack of interest in running in these elections is that potential candidates of the right calibre are not prepared to expose themselves to questions that are overly personal, irrelevant, impertinent, prolongations in ACE space of personal vindictiveness, general expressions of anti-trust in admins and arbcom members, blatant personal attacks, 'have you stopped beating your wife?', and downright trolling.

Like RfA, which has similar reasons for the lack of candidates, although answering the questions is theoretically optional, it's considered poor form not to answer, and also considered poor form if the candidate wishes to defend themselves against lies and trolling. This is however the dark side of Misplaced Pages culture - these elections are the venues where all good faith and good behaviour goes out of the window, and participation that conflicts with our pillars and policies is permitted with impunity - indeed encouraged.

Many questioners ostensibly do not read the the candidates' statements, paste the same question(s) to every candidate however irrelevant to each candidate, and many questioners simply basically repeat what other questioners have already asked (sometimes as often as 4 times or more).

That said, some questions are of course perfectly reasonable and relevant and it's a genuine pleasure to respond to them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I got 43 questions, you have had 37, I think that is already more than enough. Have you calculated the time it took you to answer them all? Many questioners seem to think that the question is required in order to get their vote; I would possibly pass on such a question because one vote out of a turnout of 2,500 voters is not going to make much difference. I have some suggestions:

1. Up to 15 users can ask questions.

2. There is a limit of two questions per editor.

3. Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed.

4. One Follow-up question relevant to a question you have already asked is allowed.

3. No new questions after voting has begun.

4. Answering questions is strictly optional.

Probably not strict enough. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Another outrageous attempt to narrow down and whittle away at the community's ability to examine and scrutinise candidates for the most significant representational / dispute resolution body we have. It is as simple as this - if you don't want the job don't apply. If you want the job but do not want to answer the questions don't answer them - the community will judge your stance. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

The proposal to discuss this issue at the next year RfC is perfectly legit. If you disagree with the proposed solution you will have all the chances to oppose it next year.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)