This is a request for comment about the upcoming December 2011 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election.

Purpose of this request for comment: To try and gain at least a rough community consensus on structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2011 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election.

Structure: This RfC is divided into over a dozen portions, each of which contains a question for the community to discuss. The standard RfC structure will be used, in which any user may make a general statement that other users may endorse if they so agree. The questions will be listed in the table of contents below, along with the users who have made statements.

The questions have been chosen from the comments from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure as well as Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2010/Feedback. More questions may be added if other concerns arise.

Duration: This RfC is scheduled to last for about 45 days; on or after 1 November 2011, it will be closed, and an uninvolved editor(s) will determine the result of the RfC. The results will determine the structure, rules, and procedures for the election.

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

---

Use the following format below; post a new statement at the BOTTOM of the section in which you want to make a statement. Endorse by adding a hash symbol (#) and your signature.

===Statement by [[User:USERNAME]]===
Comment ~~~~

;Users who endorse this statement:

#~~~~

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

Composition of the Committee

Note: See also discussion section on the talk page.

Statement by User:Risker

Reduce number of seats to a total of 15. While I believe the earlier decision to expand the Arbitration Committee to 18 seats was made in good faith, and with the hope that additional hands would increase effectiveness, the reality is that the larger committee has even greater difficulty meeting its core functions than a smaller committee is able to do. I recognize the oddity of a sitting arbitrator saying that the committee is too large. In fact, decisions take much longer when one needs more people to express opinions in order to reach some form of majority or consensus, discussions are more easily derailed, and compromise positions acceptable to the majority of members are significantly more elusive. It is more difficult to keep track of who is responsible for what, or who needs assistance with what; tasks can become somebody else's problem. The most effective periods of the Arbitration Committee have been when there are between 9 and 12 active arbitrators; this is a sufficiently large force to ensure that core functions are carried out, reduces the length of time needed to vote on motions and decisions, and keeps the committee focused. As there will normally be a couple of arbitrators with deliberately reduced activity (usually for non-Wikipedia-related reasons), and one or more arbitrator is likely to resign during any term, an initial intake of 15 arbitrators is sufficient to keep the committee within its most effective size range while still reflecting the diversity of the project with the community's opportunity to select its membership. Risker (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Risker (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Lara 02:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. While I realize that this would have kept me off the committee last election, I think the committee is slightly larger than an optimum size at present. Jclemens (talk) 03:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. - Alison ^❤ 08:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Gerardw (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Epbr123 (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Ironholds (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. T. Canens (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Tony1 Yes, but even 15 is at loggerheads with the proposals for a high % benchmark, which sets up the electoral system for failure. Tony (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. PhilKnight (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Josuecornier (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Al Lemos (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Jafeluv (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Akjar13 (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. LuLxFakie (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Pmresource (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC) I agree. Too many cooks can spoil the pudding.[reply]
21. Every year I have been outspoken against a larger ArbCom. 15 members is plenty. The increase size makes it much harder to get work completed in a timely manner. ArbCom members opinions about issues are diverse to the point that when the community is split about an issue, ArbCom is, too. Increase size of the committee are unlikely to change whether tiny minority opinions will be better represented. Increasing the number of community seats on subcommittees would be a better approach to getting work done, then increasing the overall size of ArbCom. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Partial support (for the proposed number, but not the process), subject to my statement below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Cerejota

Keep current number. While Risker's point is no to be lightly taken, the issues she refers should be fixed by internal ArbCom processes (quorum, deadlines, etc), and not by a reduction of participation. 18 still doesn't reflect the community (for example, there is strong under-representation of women and speakers of English as foreign language), but provides more of a chance that it might. Reducing the number also returns us to the days when because of attrition, decisions ended up being done by 6 or 7 arbs. I would, in fact, suggest a larger ArbCom, but recognize that at this time we do not have the processes in place to handle this correctly, such as sub-committees and other ways to spread the workload. So I am left supporting the status quo for now. --Cerejota (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. --Cerejota (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Count Iblis (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. If the current committee is too large for the committee to communicate effectively then they need to improve their communication. If the committee structure leads to people thinking something is someone else's problem then they need to divide the committee into multiple sub-committees and hold members who aren't pulling their weight to account. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Although I think the Committee should explore the possibility of having smaller groups decide each individual case. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think this is the right approach. Two years ago, the committee was almost stunned into inaction given the strong attrition, and increasing the number of arbitrators was meant to address that. It may not have done so optimally, and I agree that some effort could be made to partition out the work to smaller groups, but reducing the number of arbitrators simply increases the risk that not enough are left active at any one time. — Coren ^(talk) 23:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. The additional seats have created more diversity in viewpoints. I'd rather have the cases decided a little slower with very thorough discussion then have them closed quickly due to a single prevailing ideology. ThemFromSpace 00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Palaxzorodice (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:03pm • 11:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. I think the Arbitration Committee has become a lot fairer when it comprises 18 members, who individually are much less powerful than a member on, say, an 11-member committee. Sure, the cases may take more time to handle, but the final outcome is usually better thought out. Back in the days with a smaller committee, I remember that some arbitrators became rather activist, and sometimes it degenerated into an outright arrogant failure to respect common sense concepts of integrity. For instance, there was one case where an arbitrator was party to a case (due to his posting a "You are all idiots" notice on the Admin's Noticeboard), and therefore, naturally, recused from it. Yet a few months later, this very same arbitrator was voting on amendments to the case, sanctioning the side who had opposed him, while another arbitrator was backing him up, saying that the reasons for not recusing were reasonable. (In that arbitrator's defense, it should be noted that he finally did recuse after some prompting.) With a small ArbCom, these arbitrators wielded a lot of power, and a very small group could to some degree hammer through a decision with votes instead of engaging in debate with the other members of the committee. In this case I felt the power was being abused. The ArbCom today is a considerable improvement over the ArbCom of five years ago. While much of this is due to the efforts of several very decent members on the committee, I think it has helped that each individual arbitrator wields less power. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. We've been very lucky this year, one resignation, and as we can well remember, this is not the norm. Seems like most years we lose three arbs either due to resignation or long-term inactivity. A smaller committee to start with, I fear would lead to a rather small number of people making decisions as the end of the year rolls around. Even with 18 starting the year, due to inactivity and recusals, the two most recently closed cases were voted on by 12 and 11 arbs. If three less had started the year, that could have left as few as 8 voting on a case, a number I would consider unacceptably low. Courcelles 03:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 07:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Per Sjakkalle and Courcelles. Davewild (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Given the history of resignations from the ArbCom, the committee has rarely (if ever) gone for a full year at full strength anyway. It is better to start out the year at slightly over the optimum size (and I don't know if that is 15 or 18) and then drop down to a more reasonable number, than to start at the optimum size and drop down to a number that is too small. If there were a system of "mandatory" special elections to fill vacancies I might feel differently, but there isn't, and such a thing would create its own set of issues. I also think there is some merit in Sjakkalle's statement. Eighteen arbitrators may be marginally more "representative" of the community than fifteen. Neutron (talk) 20:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:HJ Mitchell

The problem is not with the number of arbitrators (though I personally think a radically smaller committee could do a better job), but with ArbCom's procedures. While the procedures themselves are a matter for another discussion, to give a few examples: drafting arbitrators could take a much more proactive role in encouraging the participation of their colleagues, cases could be heard by smaller subcommittees rather than having to wait for 18 people (volunteers in varying time zones at that) to opine, delegating responsibility for some of the non-dispute-resolution issues ArbCom handles to a particular arbitrator or ad hoc subcommittee, perhaps a leading arbitrator to make sure things actually get done. Basically, I get the impression the committee needs organisation and perhaps leadership, but downsizing would be a sticking plaster on a bullet wound. It's something we should revisit this time next year, hopefully after ArbCom has tried to address (what I think is) the root cause of the problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who endorse this statement

1. Count Iblis (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Reducing the size would be an improvement, however not a complete solution. Some other ideas on how things could be improved are at WP:ArbCom reform. PhilKnight (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Harrison49 (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I personally think a radically larger ArbCom is better, but only under the above conditions. Size is quite irrelevant if there is no organization and leadership.--Cerejota (talk) 18:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. I believe a smaller committee is needed unless there's a hierarchy/organization, due to (n^2+n)/2 communication complexity Safety Cap (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. I think an 18 person ArbCom could nicely handle cases in two panels of 9, or even 3 of 6, with the possibility of an en banc review where necessary. And the full group can share in common responsibilities.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:32, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Precisely my thinking. It works for the courts (at least the English ones), so I don't see why it shouldn't work for ArbCom. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. Basically yes. Have as many arbitrators as are able to demonstrate the trust of the community (support votes minus oppose votes > some number); no need to limit the number elected. [That's assuming a sufficient number get over the threshold.] Then organize and delegate. Use of internal mailing lists (presumably the source of the "communication complexity") should be radically curtailed in any case - if information is not sensitive, it should be public; and if it is sensitive, access should be limited to a small subset of people. --Kotniski (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:03pm • 11:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. -- NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. ShimmeringScarab (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. -- œ^™ 22:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. I agree organization is key to efficiency. Atsme (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme[reply]
16. Well said. GuterTag (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:SofiaLamberto

The greater the number of Arbitrators the greater the risk of the so-called "group think". This is usually, although relatively, inefficient in terms of effectiveness in the decision making process.

This does not mean to say that Arbs are prone to group think. I am talking about the general tendencies that usually happen when in a group, the decision is made to depend on a body. And when that body is composed of a large number of individuals, group think is a common and natural course of things - a trap that many smart people and groups have fallen victim to throughout history.

Besides, it is time consuming. Sofialamberto (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Sofialamberto (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Aicykiss (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. ECritique (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jehochman ^Talk 16:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:SandyGeorgia

Modified version of Risker statement. I support the statement (above) by Risker, agree that the current committee is too large, and agree that something in the range of a 15-member committee would be more efficient and effective; however, the problem with the last RFC on Arbcom Elections was that it set a committee size without consideration of the support percentage received by the electees. I agree with a committee size of 15 only to the extent that those elected attain at least a 65% support vote; if support tallies fall below or near 60%, the committee size should be reduced accordingly. A provision should be put in place for how to determine committee size if most of the candidates achieve only marginal support percentages. The addition of a pre-defined committee size has meant we are electing more and more arbs with lower support percentages.

• 2008 results
• 2009 results
• 2010 results

Users who endorse this statement

1. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Coren

I think we should continue the current system of "topping off" the number of arbitrators by filling the two year slots from those with the highest support, and the one year spots for those who follow in order. It's simple, and it safeguards against the risk of tranches unbalancing too much from year to year without appearing arbitrary. — Coren ^(talk) 04:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. — Coren ^(talk) 04:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Rschen7754 04:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I prefer this. Speaking as one, I think it appropriate that the lowest-supported arbs have to essentially run again on their first year record to continue in office. I don't oppose Risker's alternative, just prefer the status quo on this. Jclemens (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I don't see Risker's experience drain scenario as plausible with the number of Arbs we have. Also, never underestimate incumbency in elections. People who want to get reelected, and still maintain the community's good will, have a definite advantage as known items. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 07:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Lord Vargonius Yes, this makes sense. If a candidate has relatively little support, then chances are he/she has done something in the past to disturb support or is very new at this, in which case it would be a good idea for him/her to have only a one-year term as opposed to those with more popular support, who likely have proven their skills in this area in the past and are a safe risk with a two-year term.
7. Indeed - if someone has lower support, and therefore get a shorter term, they come back to the community hopefully having convinced them they're capable. If they're not supportable, the community rightfully should have the chance to remove them. Orderinchaos 16:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Support with the caveat that any candidate that fails to secure a majority of support be not appointed to any seat for any length of time. If the community doesn't feel confident in you, you have no right to try and claim a seat. Hasteur (talk) 17:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Jebus989^✰ 18:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support for the reason Coren says. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 18:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Support - gives the community a chance to reassess what went wrong. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Support on this one - but I do understand Risker's concerns about institutional memory. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. If most appointees are given two-year seats, I do not see how this statement and Risker's are irreconcilable. AGK [•] 22:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support - the world, and Wikipedia, will survive either way, but if you are going to continue to have 18 arbitrators (which nobody has addressed in this RfC so far) (which became an issue in this RfC 13 minutes after I originally posted this), it does make sense to keep two groups of nine. As I understand things, however, this is really a moot issue, unless one or more arbs who were elected in 2010 for a 2-year term were to resign before the 2011 election. None have. The only arb who has resigned had a term that ended at this election anyway. So it would be all two-year terms even if Coren's proposal is adopted. Risker's proposal might have an impact in future years if it is adopted, however. Neutron (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Per Jclemens.--Cerejota (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Nothing stops a 1-year term arb from running again, right? Lara 03:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. T. Canens (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. Agreed. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. My full support. Akjar13 (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. While Risker makes some good points, I think that the current system is best overall. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:05pm • 11:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28. Combined with a reduction in numbers to 15, this should be sustainable. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29. -- œ^™ 22:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30. Tony (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
31. This keeps the tranches balanced. Courcelles 03:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
32. Per Courcelles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
33. Davewild (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Risker

Make all appointments two years. There remains a genuine risk that, between resignations and single-year terms, there will only be a few arbitrators carrying over to the next year; this can seriously destabilize the committee and adversely affect matters that are in process at the change of term. The tranche system has, historically, never really been a factor. Risker (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. As proposer. Risker (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. One-year terms are too short. They undermine institutional memory and consistency. David in DC (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per David in DC. AGK [•] 22:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. With the proposer. Al Lemos (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. ShimmeringScarab (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:HJ Mitchell

The annual elections are the only occasion when the community gets to make its feelings known on the performance of the Arbitration Committee over the past year. The current system, whereby most arbitrators are serving two-year terms, means that the community only gets to express its opinion on a particular arbitrator biennially—this means that a significant portion of the community (those Wikipedians who have been eligible to vote for less than two years) has never had the chance to vote for or against many arbitrators. I would suggest that a decent arbitrator would have a good chance of being re-elected annually if they wished to continue serving. As such, Risker's 'institutional memory' argument does not hold water in my opinion (note that a handful of arbitrators will have been serving for four or five years by the 2012 elections), so I suggest that all arbitrators (or at least those elected this year) should serve one-year terms and seek re-election if they wish. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who endorse this statement

1. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who do not endorse this statement

1. Electing 18 a year? How, when there's a minimum percentage rating of 50%, let alone the 60% or 66% or 70% that some people are calling for? I don't get it. Tony (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agreed. this is a non-starter. We had, what, 9? 10? above 50% last year? Also, the two year plan has a bonus in that Arbitrators are not constantly running for re-election, the Committee must be free to make unpopular (but necessary) decisions. Most decisions the Committee writes will disappoint/disgust/enrage some (and in some cases, all) parties to the case. SirFozzie (talk) 11:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Count Iblis

No requirements other than having an account. The people who vote decide who is qualified. The only legitimate reason I can think of for imposing some limits, is to prevent a huge number of people who stand no chance of being elected from nominating themselves. But I don't think that's something we need to worry about. Count Iblis (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Count Iblis (talk) 02:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Gerardw (talk) 10:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. pluma Ø 05:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:SirFozzie

The same for voting, I'd say. (which is 500 edits to me). I thought about raising it (Honestly, no one with less than 1500 edits or more has a real shot at being elected, because there's not enough there for voters to make a qualified decision, so it will default to oppose), but don't want to restrict things too much.

Users who endorse this statement

1. SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. This will prevent the complete newbies from hopping aboard wile allowing just about everyone else their shot. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 07:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. There needs to be some basic minimum edit-count requirement (I don't have a particular view on what the number should be) to screen out complete joke or fringe candidates, who have no chance of election and are merely distracting. A caveat: there has been some confusion in the past as to whether edit-counts in these and other elections have referred to mainspace edits or all edits; this should be made crystal clear. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. As with NYB, I have no view on the precise minimum - 1000 seems reasonable to me, but there may be a good reason for setting it higher, or lower. The limit should apply up to, say, 2 weeks before the opening of nominations to avoid people making a heap of twinkle edits the day the thing opens. Orderinchaos 16:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Keeping complete newbies out of the race sounds good to me. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 18:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jebus989^✰ 18:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. In a democracy, anyone is allowed to run. I do support a (very) low minimum to prevent trolls and sockpuppets from running.PaoloNapolitano (talk) 18:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. 500 edits seems good to me. Adminship should not be a requirement. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. 500 edits minimum. I'd be pushing, ideally, for closer to 1,000 given the workload. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. 500 is enough to screen out the time-wasters (deliberate or well-intentioned). AGK [•] 22:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. 500 sounds fine, but I wouldn't push it further than 1000. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Yes, sure. 500 edits is OK, 1000 edits would be OK also, probably not too much higher. Herostratus (talk) 04:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Would prefer 1000. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. 500 is enough to give people an understanding of what is going on, and avoid the 5-edit candidacies like RFA gets on a weekly basis. Too much higher, and I could see the rule getting in the way of extremely exceptional candidates that may be out there. Courcelles 03:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. 500, or whatever is decided for voters, is a good number. Low enough that it disqualifies few if any viable candidates even with unique editing patterns or backgrounds but high enough that it discourages genuinely enthusiastic but clueless newbies whom the community would never approve. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. 500 sounds reasonable, by then an editor should be familiar with Wikipedia's processes and have the good sense and judgment to know whether or not they'll stand a chance. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:07pm • 11:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Davewild (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jclemens

Let's just get this out of the way up front: Must be willing to identify to the Foundation if elected. Other than that, whatever the community will support.

Users who endorse this statement

1. Last year's Giano controversy was disruptive, and while I was skeptical that any arbitrator could effectively perform the role without advanced tools and mailing list access, I had no idea how much non-public information would be handled by the committee. Jclemens (talk) 03:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. NW (Talk) 03:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. If someone states that they're not going to self identify, a coordinator should just quietly delete their election pages and save us the nonsense. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Just to be perfectly clear: the WMF definition requires that the person also be over the age of 18 and of the age of majority in their place of residence. Risker (talk) 03:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Yes. Being able to view and discuss checkuser data and suppressed edits is a requirement for being able to hold a seat, and identifying and being of legal age is a requirement for that. — Coren ^(talk) 03:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Rschen7754 03:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. --Cerejota (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 07:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. yep. Ipsign (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. I have frankly never been a proponent of the identification requirement, but it does exist, and given that fact, people need to be prepared to comply with it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. To the Foundation, yes. Publicly, not required. Orderinchaos 16:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. To the Foundation and publically. If you can't take the heat, don't enter the kitchen. David in DC (talk) 17:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. I'm not a big fan of identification in general, but I believe that access to nonpublic information is a fundamental part of arbitration, not so much for CheckUser and oversight specifically as it is for private information and discretion in general. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Under the current system, it's better that it be a prerequisite. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Elonka 03:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Yes, to the Foundation, not necessarily publicly. Herostratus (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Goes without saying .. - Alison ^❤ 08:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27. PhilKnight (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28. Absolutely. Courcelles 03:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29. —Darkwind (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30. Definitely. An arbitrator cannot serve in full capacity if they do not have advanced permissions and mailing list and private wiki access, it's as simple as that. Considering most co-ordination occurs off-wiki a limited arbitrator would be a nuisance and hinder the work of the Committee rather than assist. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:12pm • 11:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
31. Everton Dasent (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
32. Per M.O.X. Deryck C. 18:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
33. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
34. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
35. Davewild (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
36. Master&Expert (Talk) 09:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Risker

The community has established minimum requirements as part of the Arbitration policy, ratified in June 2011. Whatever additional qualifications the community may wish to add, the following must be met:

Members of the Committee are appointed following annual elections organized and run by the community. Candidates must:

1. Meet the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data and confirm in their election statement they will fully comply with the criteria; and
2. Disclose any alternate accounts in their election statements. Legitimate accounts which have been declared to the Arbitration Committee prior to the close of nominations need not be publicly disclosed.

Users who endorse this statement

1. Risker (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rubber stamping the community's will for the sake of having it all here to point to. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 07:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Lord Vargonius I concur. Wikipedia already has the election criteria, so none more should be specified.
6. I think this is entirely reasonable to expect of arbitrator candidates. Orderinchaos 16:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Standard. AGK [•] 22:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Aye. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sole Soul (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Lara 03:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Elonka 03:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Herostratus (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Al Lemos (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Per policy. Jafeluv (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Good.Palaxzorodice (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:13pm • 11:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. -- œ^™ 22:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. It's already the policy, so why am I redundantly supporting this? Tony (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. Davewild (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Hasteur

As much of what ArbCom has to deal with in public inquests is the deliberate, entrenched, and repeated disregard of policies/guidelines/conventions as established by the community with special regard to dispute resolution. Therefore I would propose that each candidate have a case of the candidate resolving a dispute within the past year.

Users who endorse this statement

1. Hasteur (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do not endorse this statement

1. I agree this should be a factor which voters should consider while casting their votes, however I'd be hesitant to make it a pre-requisite. Deryck C. 20:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Deryck Chan. Also, who would decide whether a given candidate's involvement in a given discussion was sufficient to constitute his or her "resolving a dispute," etc. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 10:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement 2 by User:Count Iblis

Whatever the community decides on this issue, except for the requirement to identify to the WikiMedia Foundation, Jimbo Wales, or anyone else. Most editors edit anonymously and the recent hacking incident shows just how vulnerable "securely held" private information is in the hands of the Wiki bureacrats.

Users who endorse this statement

1. Count Iblis (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I agree. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Moral support. However Sir Fozzie is correct on the reality of the situation.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do NOT endorse this statement

1. Plain and simple, you MUST. This is a mandate handed down from the WMF. Take it up with them. SirFozzie (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per SirFozzie, and note that the documentation provided to the WMF was never shared with any ArbCom member, nor has it leaked to date. Jclemens (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. A complete non-starter. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:NuclearWarfare

Candidates are strongly encouraged to identify to the Foundation ahead of time. This is standard practice for steward and Board of Trustees elections (where it is actually required), and as everyone who is running must identify if they get elected, there is no reason not to do it beforehand. (Plus, if this passes, we might be able to fiddle with that December 11 deadline). NW (Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement.

1. NW (Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Good idea and pragmatic. Candidates who are already identified should probably be identified to the electorate, as while the incumbents will be known to have identified, we may have former functionaries running who don't have active tools, such that it would be an exercise in institutional memory to know that they had previously identified. :-) Jclemens (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Good idea. Jclemens, see m:Identification noticeboard, we don't have to rely on memory. Courcelles 03:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. It's reasonable to encourage people to identify in advance, but it should not be obligatory. Privacy is important, and if someone doesn't want to identify in advance in case they don't get elected, I see no reason to force them. Of course, a successful candidate only becomes an arbitrator after they have been identified. Jafeluv (talk) 10:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:17pm • 11:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Concur with the idea of strongly encouraging them, though it shouldn't be a requirement. --Elonka 02:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Interesting thought. I think it's fair that if you don't actually become an Arb, it isn't necessary that you identify yourself to WMF. This is different from WMF board elections, where real names of candidates are announced to the electorate before voting. Deryck C. 18:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. I agree with Elonka. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. I'd say require identification before voting starts. I wouldn't like to require real name release, but let's not waste everybody's time with identification troubles. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 13:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do not endorse this statement

1. It's no big deal, but I think it might turn away a few good candidates, knowing that they'll need to declare beforehand and it might all have been unnecessary if they're not elected. Candidates deserve to keep their privacy until it's necessary to reveal the details to the Foundation; until then, it's a matter of trust with the voters. I can't see what harm comes of the status quo. Tony (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Tony1 Davewild (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Tony1. Clearly ArbCom and the Foundation cannot be trusted with data security. Jehochman ^Talk 16:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Pgallert

Advanced user rights (particularly those of administrator and checkuser) are not a requirement for ArbCom election. Should a sitting member of ArbCom need information that cannot be obtained without those user rights, a clerk possessing the required permission can be found to assist the ArbCom member. --Pgallert (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement.

1. Pgallert (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree with Pgallert's explanation below. Deryck C. 18:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Advanced rights are currently already not a requirement, and a thread here would have to be started in order for that to change. Once elected to ArbCom, Arbs are given by default most of the advanced rights, many of which become necessary in order for Arbs to do their jobs. This motion is unnecessary. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Any non-admin who wins an ArbCom seat has the trust of the community and should just be made an admin. (In addition to what ever other advanced rights they need) Monty₈₄₅ 19:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• +sysop is a de facto requirement, no one without it has even been elected. To hand out light bulbs, screwdrivers and access to the elevator shaft to all magistrates, just because they have the trust of the community, does not sound logical to me. --Pgallert (talk) 07:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:PaoloNapolitano

All the current Arbitrators have Administrator rights and are some the most senior and experienced users. The Committee is intended to be the court of last resort at Wikipedia and it is intended to be neutral and non-partisan. The problem is that the current Arbitrators do not reflect the wide range of Wikipedia contributors. I am not saying that trolls and vandals should be included, but it would be beneficial for the Committee and for Wikipedia to have seats reserved for non-admins. It is a saying that you should be "judged by your peers". In most cases, this is not the fact. The users involved in most Arbcom cases are regular "proletarian" users and the Arbcom comprising a such member(s) is something that I believe would better the average Wikipedian's perception of the ArbCom. The current Arbitrators or admin candidates will most likely oppose this proposal on one likely ground: Reserving a seat(s) in the Committee for non-admin(s) will reduce their chances of being elected. Come on. If I propose one (1) seat reserved in the first place to test this out, it will hardly reduce your chance of being elected.

As for the technical matters, I propose this:

• 1 (one) seat is reserved for a user who is not, or has been an administrator on the English Wikipedia.
• The non-admin candidate with the highest support is elected as an Arbitrator.
• The non-admin Arbitrator is given the same rights and duties as the other Arbitrators.
• Should the non-admin Arbitrator go inactive or recuse him/herself, the non-admin candidate with second most support in the election is called up to the Committee as a deputy Arbitrator and is given the same rights and duties as the Arbitrator. The candidate with third-most support is called up if the deputy Arbitrator is unable to enter the Committee and so on. This is done to ensure that there always is an non-admin Arbitrator ruling in all cases.

Users who endorse this statement

1. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. User talk:mugginsx (Not myself-too inexperienced) Mugginsx (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 09:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Opposers hereunder demonstrate why a non-admin needs to be mandatory: otherwise not a chance of becoming elected; simply allowing a non-admin's candidacy is pure window-dressing. I'm not an admin, and more likely ever to become judged by an ArbCom than to offer my candidacy to participate at judging. A non-admin in ArbCom might well attempt to play the role of, and be perceived as, a kind of ombudsman for the underdog, in particular by contributors that are the most likely to be called for an ArbCom and quickly feel victimized by a group that decides mainly in favour of one that called for it. ▲ SomeHuman 16:10-16:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Here is one arbitrator who has actively promoted this in past RFCs. :P John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Having a non-administrator on the ArbCom helps to avoid the possibility of an unconscious bias in favor of administrators. It is a fact of human nature that someone who shares a lot of the same experiences as an ArbCom member will tend to be treated in a more sympathetic manner or be given the benefit of the doubt in marginal cases. In addition, it opens up the possibility of finding a wise candidate who for various reasons might have decided not to seek becoming an admin. Guy Macon (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Weak support. I'd prefer to have some other way to encourage non-admins to run, but this might do it. Hobit (talk) 02:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Rschen7754

It is difficult to judge whether administrative tools were properly used if one is not familiar with how they work and how the policies relate to the tools. It is also difficult to understand how much resistance the most active administrators face, and how admins frequently make mistakes, without being an administrator. While there are a few non-admin editors who might do well on ArbCom, I think mandating the placement of a non-admin on the Arbitration Committee is a bad idea.

Users who endorse this statement

1. There are probably some editors who do not wish to be admins who are familiar enough with the policies that they could probably do a passable job on ArbCom with admin abuse-related cases. However, forcing a non-admin to be on is a bad idea. Rschen7754 20:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. There already is nothing that prevents any non-admin editor from being elected, and every year a number of such candidates run for a seat. That none has ever been elected simply shows that mandating one would go explicitly against the community's desires. — Coren ^(talk) 22:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. I have to agree with Rschen7754 here. While mandating a non-admin seem like a good idea, it has two assumes something that I'm not comfortable with: that admins and editors are in two separate 'camps', a lá political parties. I'd also be surprised if anyone who wasn't an admin could cope with the stress. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Coren. Requiring a non-admin to be on the arbitration committee appears to be against the community's wishes. I think that non-admins should be able to run like anyone else, though. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Ajraddatz. I think non-admins should be permitted to run, but not have a mandated seat, to avoid an "us vs them" mentality. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. It's not necessarily a terrible idea, and I don't see it as dividing people into camps, and I think it's fine for non-admins to run, but an actual mandate loses me. Herostratus (talk) 04:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. I'd rather the WP community have an opportunity to see how an editor with a little bit of power behaved before giving them a lot of power. No mandate (but no requirement, either). Gerardw (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. I have no problem with non-admins on ArbCom in principle, but mandating one is a very strange thing to do when none has ever been elected. Besides which, ArbCom is the body responsible for dealing with admin misconduct and it would be difficult for somebody without experience of the shit admins have to put up with to hear such a case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. With the understanding that this does not prohibit non-admins from being elected, only that it does not mandate non-admins be elected. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Agree with the consequence of the statement (no mandating) but not with all of the wording. There should be the possibility to have non-admins in ArbCom. Maybe zero of them, maybe 18, but not by means of a quota. --Pgallert (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. The community may elect a non-admin at any election, but I don't believe in requiring it to do so. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. If you cannot run the gauntlet of an RfA, why run for ArbCom? It is a matter of trust. And quite frankly, out of the dozen or so non-admins I can think of right now who could be in ArbCom, all of them would probably pass an RfA. Its a pre-screening if you will. --Cerejota (talk) 18:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Please note that wording of this proposal implies that it discourages the election of non-administrators. I prefer encouraging non-admins to run for election, if not, the proposal should be neutral in the preference of admins/non-admins. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 11:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

16. Running in the election should be allowed if the user meets the requirements, but I don't think a mandated non-admin seat is good idea. Jafeluv (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. I think any non-admin who is elected should just be made an admin, regardless, I don't think reserving a seat for a non-admin makes sense. Monty₈₄₅ 19:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Per Coren, Ajraddatz and Sonia. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:17pm • 11:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. -- œ^™ 23:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. As per Sonia. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 13:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Neeya The Great (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. A possibility but not a requirement - there are non-admins responsible and respected enough to win election but many of them are non-admins precisely because they have no wish to accept the demands and workload that position entails. Therefore, they're unlikely to run for ArbCom. But if they do and they're suitable candidates then that's fine. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. Open to non-admins being elected, but no institutionalised division between admin and non-admin places. Davewild (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Michaeldsuarez

Administrators are users entrusted with access and tools by the community. This level of trust is demonstrated through a RfA discussion. They've jumped over hurdles and through hoops to gain the support they needed to be entrusted with those rights. Users without administrative access and tools are free to be compete in the ArbCom election. Lacking administrative rights doesn't mean that those users are not trusted by the community; it only means that those users never wished to obtain administrative rights or that they weren't able to jump over every hurdle in the RfA process.

Nevertheless, it could be kept in mind that non-administrators lack the same experience with administrative tools that administrators have and that they've jumped over fewer hurtles. These users shouldn't be rewarded for working less hard going over hurdles and through hoops by mandating a seat for them. Instead, non-administrators should demonstrate that they have the wisdom and ability to become Arbitrators through their actions. Part of this demonstration is proving that they could successfully compete against administrators in the election.

Users who endorse this statement

1. I created this statement due to PaoloNapolitano's objections to Rschen7754's statement. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Which in turn should give them admin rights for the term. Agathoclea (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Michaeldsuarez

If a non-administrator is elected and approved, then that user should be granted the bits necessary to view deleted revisions and any other evidence needed for making an informed judgment. Since the bar set for becoming a Arbitrator is significantly lower than the bar for becoming an administrator (we may be forced to approve ArbCom candidates who won less than 50% of the voters' support), the ArbCom election shouldn't be treated as a means to bypass the RfA process. Non-administrators elected to ArbCom should only be granted the rights needed to view (eg. view deleted revisions) and not the rights that would allow him or her to do administrative actions (eg. blocking). If granted the full technical rights of a administrator in order to avoid the creation of a new user group, then the user should restricted by policy not to use administrative actions, such as blocking. It wouldn't be fair to administrative hopefuls jumping through hoops in order to gain the support of over 70% of voters in a RfA discussion to see an user gain full administrative rights while only gaining the support of 50% (or less) of voters.

Statement withdrawn – Xeno has informed me about a springtime RfC where the community contented to granting CheckUsers and Oversighters the bits needed to access deleted revisions. Non-administrators elected to ArbCom don't need to become sysops in order to do their jobs; they only need to be added to the CheckUser and Oversight groups. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who don't

1. I think anyone elected to ArbCom should simply be made an admin and be done with it. It's hardly a way of bypassing RfA - it's much harder to get elected as an Arbitrator than approved as an admin (meaning that the problem will probably not arise anyway) - and if we accept that election as an Arb means that the community has expressed the corresponding high degree of trust in that person, then we can assume by default that it has also expressed the lower degree of trust needed for them to become an admin.--Kotniski (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry, I see that I wasn't clear in my statement. If we keep the number of Arbitrators at 18, then there'll be nine vacancies to fill in this election. This means that a candidate only has to finish in ninth place in order to become an Arbitrator. Finishing in ninth place doesn't indicate a wide margin of community support. I'm not sure if you fully understand how difficult it is to become an administrator. Some users will oppose any nominee who has less than four thousand edits or who hasn't written ten or more Good / Featured Articles. In addition, RfA discussions don't utilize the secret ballot. This means that any support or oppose !vote will be contented unless a proper justification is provided for that !vote. Users who !vote in RfA discussion aren't afraid to voice their support or opposition in the open, and these discussions become heated as each side confronts each other. For non-administrators, RfA discussions are more challenging than a ArbCom elections, and finishing in or around ninth place shouldn't be seen as a shortcut into proper adminship. There's also the problem of gaining permanent rights for being elected to a two-year position. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   All right, I'm not going to argue, since I don't think the matter will arise. But I still feel that someone who would fail RfA would definitely fail to be elected to ArbCom, under whatever reasonable criteria are adopted for election.--Kotniski (talk) 15:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The election itself

Statements

I think it depends on whether we're going to go with separate question/voting phases. Personally, I'd prefer candidacies declared, questions asked, clarifications issued... and then voting starts, which probably means a 10-14 day voting window. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless someone starts a thread here to change that, having separate stages for the questions and the voting, which was done last year with few complaints, was a given for this year. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, realistically, I cannot see closing off questions before voting if we are going to have more than 2 weeks for voting; there simply is not time this year to do that. As it is, nominations are going to have to be up the last week of October at the latest to give a couple of weeks before voting begins. Risker (talk) 04:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed lengths

10 days

1. Second choice. Risker (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. First choice: who wants arbcom elections to take 1.5–2 months in every 12? Tony (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. If this includes two weekends, I would prefer just 10 days. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Tony, but I too would want to see this encompass two weekends - not everybody can edit on every day. AGK [•] 22:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. First choice, as long as it includes two weekends; Everybody (or at least almost everybody active enough to care) knows the ArbCom elections take place in December and I'm sure the date will be widely advertised once it's known. There's a genuine risk that those who check their watchlists infrequently might miss a week-long election, but anybody active enough to be motivated to vote would most likely see it in 10 days (including two weekends). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14 days

1. Long enough for Board of Trustees elections. People who are interested enough to participate can do so in 2 weeks. Risker (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Long enough indeed. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Second choice--Cerejota (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Risker. Typically, the candidates are asked lots of questions and need to respond to them throughout the voting period (whether we keep the formal questions page open or not), which takes enough time that it is impossible for them to get much else done on-wiki. It is unfair to the candidates and the community to impose that burden on a couple of dozen of our most dedicated participants for longer than the time we already do. Supporting 14 days over 10 days to make sure the voting period includes two full weekends. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Second choice, after 10 days. Tony (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. This length has turned out OK, however it is a long time for candidates to be hanging and electioneering. Any longer than this and I fear that candidates will flame out. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Voters should be around here at least once every fortnight. Shorter ignores the demands of the real world. Longer is unneccessary and, potentially, divisive. The window for "stacking the deck" shouldn't be any wider than necessary. IMHO 14 days = Goldilocks solution. David in DC (talk) 17:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Hasteur (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Rschen7754 18:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Did it for Board of Trustees and stewards. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. first choice. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Second choice. --Elonka 03:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. First choice. Regardless of the chosen length we will have people complaining that they didn't get to cast their vote. The purpose of ACE is to run an orderly election, not maximize participation. Protonk (talk) 17:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Second choice (behind 10 days). Leaving the candidates, ArbCom, and to a lesser extent the community in limbo for more than fortnight is just unnecessary, longer is just more time in which things more important than ArbCom (y'know, those weird things residing in the mainspace that get in the way of all the drama) are neglected, and it's well known that participation in elections/RfCs/etc declines the longer they drag on, so last minute votes are unlikely to have an effect on the outcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Seems like about the right amount of time to give people a chance to vote. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. A fortnight is fairly standard, and is enough to let everyone vote without making this process take almost two months. Courcelles 03:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Anymore is just overkill, 2 weekends should be enough and it's during mid-late December (that's a time of hustle and bustle on Wikipedia!) that and there's been a high turnout last year in comparison to preceding years. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:21pm • 11:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Echoing many of the above sentiments, this is the best balance between "everyone who wants to can vote" and "dragging this out longer than necessary". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. It's enough. It's 13 days longer than most of the elections I've been involved in, and while there are differences justifying a longer period, it can't go on forever. Neutron (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Just enough. -- œ^™ 23:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. Second choice (after 3 weeks) Neeya The Great (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

21 days

1. I wouldn't mind 28 days either. 14 just strikes me as too short for all the people who aren't super into the election to cast a properly researched vote vote. NW (Talk) 02:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Preferred. Three weeks gives enough time for enough people to vote, while reducing the risk of it just sitting there for several days and letting small conflicts escalate. SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Speaking as one of last year's coordinators, we made the voting window about as obvious as possible and we still received a large number of complaints by people that missed the window. If the new crop has to start on 15 January rather than 1 January, that's fine with me. Considering how low the voting numbers were last year, we can't afford to shut people out. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I don't think the voting numbers last year were that worrisome, but there is no question that there is a lot of stuff to read to be able to cast an informed vote and that giving more time is a Good Thing. — Coren ^(talk) 03:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Long enough to have thorough discussion, short enough that discussion doesn't become stale.--Cerejota (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. I think 21 offers the best compromise between participation and keeping people waiting. Orderinchaos 16:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. second choice. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. So much to read and research. Lara 02:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. First choice, especially considering that the elections tend to run during the (U.S.) holidays. In 2010 the elections ran from November 26 to December 5, which made it a hardship to deal with the family obligations of holidays and travel, plus trying to research all the candidates. With a 3-week voting period from approximately November 20 to December 11, this would be more manageable. --Elonka 03:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Per NW, Orderinchaos and Elonka. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. T. Canens (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Everyone occassionally gets busy. The more time to vote, the better. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. 21 days enough.Palaxzorodice (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Three weeks allows people to do adequate research in order to make an informed decision. It also help those of us that are not on-wiki every day and therfore get a late start at reviewing the candidates. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 07:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. First choice - 10 and 14 days are too short for detailed observation and to give optimum results. Neeya The Great (talk) 08:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Davewild (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

28 days

1. Count Iblis (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 07:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Do we want to rule out votes of those having 1-month 3-week vacation? I don't think so. Ipsign (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. No rush Jebus989^✰ 18:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Some of us periodically focus on real-life. Gerardw (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. The elections occur in a region of wikipedia seldom trod upon by most regular users. A wider window would allow more pedestrian votes to be cast. aprock (talk) 02:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By User:Risker

Speaking from a practical perspective, voting results need to be available no later than 16 December to ensure that successful candidates have sufficient time to submit their identifying information, get some background, straighten out all their accesses, and be ready to go live for 1 January. While the length of time required to verify votes is proportional to the number of votes cast, historically it has usually taken 3-4 days, then the tally is run, reviewed by the scrutineers, and endorsed: another 24-48 hours, depending on how many scrutineers need to endorse. Regardless of length of voting period, the balloting should end not later than 11 December. Risker (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Risker (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I don't know one way or another, but when all the Arbs (and therefore, the people that know this part of the system) that have commented on the proposal thus far make a mad dash to endorse this, something tells me that it's probably a good idea. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. --Cerejota (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Risker. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Jebus989^✰ 18:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Probably going to be more security precautions this year. PhilKnight (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Practically necessary that it fall no later than about 11 December. I do hope that we can get our backsides in gear in time, though the valiant ACE organisers have never disappointed (knock wood). AGK [•] 22:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Sensible. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Endorse, though I'd like to see the elections started even earlier, so we don't have to deal with the complexities of election aftermath in the middle of the holiday season. --Elonka 03:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Al Lemos (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Sounds reasonable. Jafeluv (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:22pm • 11:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 07:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. Davewild (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:OpenInfoForAll

I have no intention of voting in the election, but the community should be notified via the traditional top banner that usually appears during the annual fundraiser.

1. OpenInfoForAll (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Ipsign (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Yes, I think this is important enough to use the banner that is displayed to registered users. However, I do not think this should be displayed in the all-users banner that is shown to unregistered readers and editors during fundraisers; ACE is strictly an internal matter, and our readers undoubtedly do not give a toss. AGK [•] 22:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. In addition to the below. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Neeya The Great (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Sven Manguard

Watchlist banner, Village Pump (misc), and Signpost for all stages, and the Wikipedia wide top banner during the voting stage. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. Anyone who would stand a decent chance of being elected would a) be expecting the election during this time and be on the lookout, and b) see at least one of those three places without needing the Wikipedia wide banner. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Seems reasonable to me. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yeah lets not become VSCA with our own stuff.--Cerejota (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. A mention or two on the various mailing lists wouldn't be amiss either, I suppose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. The more avenues, the better. All should include a "hide" feature so one only need read any individual announcement once. David in DC (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. The more the merrier Jebus989^✰ 18:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. The Signpost is not a community-regulated vehicle for publishing press releases the community sees fit to include. It is expected that the elections will be covered heavily, but it is not to be required in any way. The other means sound fine. theMONO 20:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Let us not be prissy. If the Signpost was asked to report and publicise the elections, it surely would oblige (and always has done). AGK [•] 10:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9. Yes, the usual should suffice. AGK [•] 22:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Indeed. Lara 02:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Baseball Watcher 01:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Jafeluv (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:23pm • 11:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. -- œ^™ 23:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. Davewild (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:SirFozzie

I'd say 500 edits, with 100 in the last year. My reasoning is as follows: We need a low enough barrier to entry to encourage the most people voting possible, while also making it harder for drama/trolling accounts to throw it out of whack. The 500/100 barrier should be enough to limit those with some stake in the outcome. SirFozzie (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. SirFozzie (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. This works. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Also not blocked, of course. And the edit requirement met by the day before the start of the election. Lara 02:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who do not endorse this statement

1. 500 (or even much less) edits may be reasonable, but by no means a minimum within a certain timespan. Despite my on average nearly one thousand edits in article space per year, during more than five years, I occasionally abstained for many months. Whenever I decide to return, in case I would like to present my vote, I would surely be qualified and must be entitled. ▲ SomeHuman 16:40-17:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. 100 in the last year seems too much if we want a low enough barrier. Deryck C. 18:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:NuclearWarfare

The requirements should be the same the following (a slight modification of last year's): registered account, 150 mainspace edits by 1 November 2011, and is not currently blocked. I would be amendable to changing "150" or "mainspace", but I definitely don't like Fozzie's idea of 100 in the past year. NW (Talk) 15:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. NW (Talk) 15:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Encourages newer/more occasional users to get involved behind the scenes without inviting trolls, brand new accounts etc. Jebus989^✰ 18:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I'd make it October though. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Looks good. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. This seems better than SirFozzie's. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. 150 edits is certainly not much, but I could live with this. Jafeluv (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Best choice here. Akjar13 (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:25pm • 11:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. With Monty845's caveat on "blocked" below.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. I think 150 is a bit too low, but I think it is OK. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. I am not too thrilled with having edit counts as a criterion for suffrage (for one thing, it rewards sloppy editors who keep having to go back and fix their typos... one at a time) but I see the need for an objective measure even if its imperfect. 150 is a fairly low bar for most reasonable editors, but generally sufficient to indicate a certain commitment to the Wikipedia project. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Seems reasonable to me. Salvidrim (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Davewild (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC) (but with Monty845's caveat) Davewild (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who do not endorse this statement

1. In fact, it's acceptable except for "not currently blocked". Not only for voting (even a definitively blocked ex-contributor should have his/her one vote, and an indefinitely blocked one is subject to the outcome), but even to put up one's candidacy: otherwise it would allow preventing a candidacy or perhaps getting rid of a candidate; a badly judged block is more likely to occur than a blocked candidate to become elected. ▲ SomeHuman 16:40-17:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I strongly oppose any proposal that denies blocked users (except for confirmed sockpuppets) voting rights, especially because nowadays most blocks to previously active editors are issued by the ArbCom itself. This is in line with the spirit that prisoners should be entitled to vote in their local government elections. Deryck C. 14:11, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Gerardw

Registered account, no minimum edit. WP is supposed to the encyclopedia anyone can edit. Gerardw (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Gerardw (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The requirements are designed to limit the impact that sockpuppets can cause. Considering the list of people that voted last year, 500 edits, would not have prevented 99.9% of them from casting votes. It is, however, a mountain for a sockpuppeteer to climb, even with automated tools. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jclemens

Whatever the community decides should be the minimums to run for Arbcom or vote in the election, those thresholds should be measured at the start of the nomination period--accounts either get to participate entirely, or not at all, and there's no mad dash to edit during the nomination period to vote. I have no personal info that this has been a problem, but while we're setting up measures, let us all be crystal clear about the point from which we are measuring, and I believe the beginning of nominations is an optimum point.

Users who endorse this statement

1. Jclemens (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Seems reasonable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per the spirit of stopping sockpuppetry.--Cerejota (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 17:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Comment. Maybe not the start of nomination period but some date certain, perhaps prior to the nomination period per se. This to weed out ambition and put the focus on whoever happens to have experience and willingness to serve the community. This is presuming one agrees to minimuns, in principle, although reasonable persons might not.GeoBard^Semi-retired 01:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

5. Sensible. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:26pm • 11:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Personally I prefer to measure eligibility at the close of the nomination period, but as long as it's measured at a fixed point of time before voting begins, it's fine. Deryck C. 18:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Common sense. Jehochman ^Talk 16:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Monty845

Editors who are otherwise qualified to vote, should only have their votes rejected as a result of a block if the block is either an indef block still in effect at the time the votes are counted, or if they have been blocked due to misconduct directly related to the election, and the block is still in effect at the end of the voting period. Monty₈₄₅ 19:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Monty₈₄₅ 19:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cube lurker (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Davewild (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this statement

1. I disagree that users blocked for reasons independent of the election should be disqualified from voting. Deryck C. 14:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   A little confused, that's basically what this statement is saying with the exception of indef blocked users. Or are you opposing because you believe indef blocked users should be allowed to vote too. (nevermind, read your vote above)--Cube lurker (talk) 16:57, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Sorry for the triple negative. (Although I don't see a logical error there... what did you think I meant?) I mean, someone who's otherwise qualified and blocked at the time of vote-counting should be allowed to vote and the vote should count. Deryck C. 18:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   replied on user talk.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Neutron

The method should be as in the past several elections: Support/Oppose voting with the candidates ranked according to the percentage of Support votes out of the total of supports and opposes. Neutral, No Vote, Abstain, or anything else other than support and oppose, does not count in any way, for any purpose. If it is a secret ballot, there will be one option such as Neutral for the sole purpose of providing a default option, but it is still not counted or considered in reporting the results. Neutron (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Neutron (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. -- œ^™ 23:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this statement

1. An Abstain vote has an important function. It should not be counted but it should be reported. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement 2 by User:Neutron

Same as above, but the "default" option will be called "No Vote" just to make even clearer that it does not imply any judgment or opinion regarding the candidate.

Users who endorse this statement

1. Neutron (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Lara 03:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Herostratus (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Maybe the default option could be "Neutral". Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sure. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. It's important that the default be called "No Vote", so as to distinguish it from having evaluated the candidate and having a neutral position. I'm ambivalent about whether or not there should also be a "Neutral" choice, but if there is, it should not count in any aspect of the vote tally. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Jafeluv (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Common sense clarity in this change, and support previous election method. Jusdafax 02:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Davewild (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this statement

1. An Abstain vote is not the same as No Vote. It should be called Abstain, not counted, and reported in the vote totals. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:PaoloNapolitano

Only one option: Support or not. Voters tick off the candidates they support, and the candidates are then ranked by number of votes. This is the easiest way to do it, it is more practical than the proposal above and except that it is no major difference.

Users who endorse this statement

1. PaoloNapolitano (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Deryck C. 18:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do NOT endorse this statement

1. The three option system not only measures how much support a candidate has, but also how much opposition he or she has, and how many people, out of the total voters, had an opinion on a specific candidate. Just as important as selecting who you want on the Committee is selecting who you do not want on it. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Cube lurker (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Davewild (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. As Sven says. Akjar13 (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Kotniski

I don't object to the S/(S+O) formula, but the instructions need to make clear (more than they did last time) that you are partially disenfranchsing yourself if you don't "oppose" the candidates you don't specifically want on the committee. Mathematicians will realize that the S/(S+O) formula (assuming the bar to be somewhere over 50%) actually gives more weight to oppose votes than to support votes (if I vote to support someone, and you vote to oppose them, then the net result of our votes is to reduce their chances of election). Insiders doubtless know all this, while common editors (who are likely used to elections where you just vote "for" someone) will not; this means that the insider's vote is likely to carry more than twice the weight of the commoner's.--Kotniski (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support—every voter needs to be made aware that others will be doing this at their option, and not to do so is to disadvantage one's own supports by comparison. This is, incidentally, why it is not correct to assume that Opposes are equivalent to "This candidate is unsuitable to be an arb", as widely assumed on this page. Tony (talk) 04:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

1. SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. The best option. I'll note that last year the coordinators mentioned that it would take a long time to get any other voting method set up, and that if they wanted a new one, starting the RfC over the summer would have been a good idea. I'll also note that I haven't seen such an RfC. At this point, it's probably too late to set up and test any of the other voting methods mentioned last year. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. While secret ballots were a mitigated success at best for the smaller elections, it seems clear to me that they were the best way forward for ArbCom. — Coren ^(talk) 03:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Prevents the possibility of ArbCom making decisions based on election votes; not that I'm accusing anyone of this, it's simply to ensure that the question can never be asked or has to be asked. --Rschen7754 03:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yeah--Cerejota (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Of course, per Rschen. Tony (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. This has worked well in the past two elections, is faster and easier than having to make one edit per candidate, and it is advantageous that arbitrators don't have the burden of knowing who voted for and against them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:52, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. --cc 09:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. per Rschen7754: secret ballots help to prevent possibility of somebody thinking that ArbCom can possibly take election votes into account. Ipsign (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. When we had open voting, it got way too political. I also think in general non-secret balloting means people feel they have to vote a certain way in spite of their own misgivings based on how it will be seen. Of course, if people *want* to be seen, there are any number of comment pages allowing them to effectively do this, and I don't think there should be any mechanism to prevent people doing that if they wish to abrogate their own right to a secret ballot. Orderinchaos 16:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Hesitantly. AGK [•] 22:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Just as if it were a real election.  :) Neutron (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Definitely: easier voting, prevents reticence out of fear of a backlash, and prevents pile-on voting. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Lara 03:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Herostratus (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Absolutely. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. I think avoiding knowing who has voted which way is a good thing. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Arbs shouldn't be able to know who opposed them. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. Secret ballots provide an atmosphere where voters are free of intimidation, heckling, and backlash. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. Yes. Otherwise users posting in real name or name that can be readily traced might need to sleep with garlic and crucifixes over their beds. GeoBard^Semi-retired 01:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:32pm • 11:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 11:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29. Davewild (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30. For numerous reasons. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 00:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No

1. Closed polling leads to lousy voting. jorgenev 05:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Largely per Jorgenev. Secret voting means we get votes cast for any reason—however frivolous—or no reason at all, and people don't feel the need to provide some sort of meaningful rationale that they do at fora such as RfA and so the risk is the votes become skewed. I assume it's also more difficult to detect abuse using secret balloting—how can we tell if a voter is a banned user, or if somebody voted twice using different accounts (my secondary account was eligible to vote under last year's criteria). Finally, if a candidate fails to reach the threshold for election, they have no idea what (if anything) they've done wrong and what they can improve upon. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I believe the list of voters (without the corresponding ballots, obviously) could be released to clerks. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The list of voters is already made available by the software (Special:SecurePoll/list/130 for last year's AC election); it's just the votes that are secret. Ucucha (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   And short of running several hundred (or several thousand?) checkusers, how does one tell if a voter is a sockpuppet? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   That problem exists whether we use secret voting or not. Ucucha (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The SecurePoll interface has a tremendously powerful CheckUser-like interface that provides an extremely wide range of tools for identifying sockpuppets and various other forms of unwanted ballots. In many cases, the scrutineers can tell when a voter is a sockpuppet because the software sticks a big red warning mark next to their vote. :D Happy‑melon 18:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. theMONO 20:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per HJ Mitchell. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Candidates' strengths and weaknesses aren't as well publicised with secret voting. I doubt most voters read the comment pages thoroughly. Epbr123 (talk) 21:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per HJ Mitchell. Discussion is always a better option than secret polls imo. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Polling should be open, just like the other polls on Wikipedia. This allows other voters to make better informed decisions, rather than relying strictly on Q&A, or the few voter guides available. It's been clear from past elections that though there is a "discussion" page on each candidate, it is rarely used. --Elonka 01:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strongly. In the interests of transparency and discussion. ThemFromSpace 03:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. I remember a candidate in a past closed-ballot election complaining -- not about having 'lost', but about not knowing why. Open-ballot voting is much more likely to encourage constructive discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 11:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Voters should be willing to publicly stand behind their votes. Monty₈₄₅ 19:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per personal philosophy--Cube lurker (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. At least for now, if secret voting means that the voting must be done at a single sitting. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. I think it's very helpful to see and hear others thoughts, and when reading the votes (as in RfA) I feel I can make a much more informed call than with the secret balloting. Hobit (talk) 02:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other

1. I prefer secret ballot, but if we went for a non-secret ballot, I'd be more comfortable with a higher support threshold, a la RfA. Jclemens (talk) 02:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. That's a good point. Open ballots make people less likely to oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Sven Manguard

The one thing that wasn't complained about during last year's elections was the structure of the pages. With the ubiquitous ACE navigation box, everything is easy to find. We should just copy over last year's structure for this year's structure. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Reasonable. Ain't broke, don't fix it - with discretion to minor fixes that are found.--Cerejota (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yeah, it worked fine for me. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. No problem, no fix needed. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Structure is okay as is, thanks to years of pruning. AGK [•] 22:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. No broky, no fixy. — Coren ^(talk) 01:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Lara 03:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:30pm • 11:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. JORGENEV 16:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Activities before and during the election

Statement by User:Ipsign

Not sure if it is a right place, but I'll try here. I think that candidates themselves should be prohibited from voting. Rationale is that voting puts them into position of conflict of interest when it comes to votes for other candidates: while it is fairly obvious that candidates consider themselves to be good enough to serve, ability to cast "tactical vote" against others certainly puts them into position of conflict of interest (how candidate X should vote for candidate Y: according to Y's abilities or "against" to make sure X gets elected?). IMNSHO, ArbCom should stay above and beyond any potential for WP:COI, and such prohibition on voting would certainly help with it, with no apparent downside. Note to argument Hey, all politicians are doing it - not only politicians are questionable moral/ethical target, but also politicians normally don't have an option to cast "tactical vote" against the others, so analogy doesn't IMHO fly. Ipsign (talk) 11:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Ipsign (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Too much potential for drama or mess if the candidates can vote. AGK [•] 23:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Right. Of course politicians will vote for themselves, but they don't also have the option to OPPOSE another candidate, deliberately increasing their own chances of success. -- œ^™ 00:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strongly agree, assuming the S/(S+O) system is in place. Salvidrim (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I fully endorse this. Akjar13 (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Sven Manguard

The candidates should not be prohibited from voting. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. That was a fringe view that only one or two users appeared to hold last year, but I don't mind enumerating it this year. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 20:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Why not? They are contributors like any others. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. With a public vote, it might be argued that arbitrators and candidates have disproportionate influence and should abstain from voting for that reason. With a secret ballot, that is no longer a concern. — Coren ^(talk) 22:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. They are still members of the community. If they want to do tactical voting, they can do so like anyone else. I agree with Coren, it is better if it's a secret ballot. Neutron (talk) 01:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. If it's a secret ballot, yes. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Lara 03:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. If it's a secret ballot, no problem. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Iff we have secret balloting. Otherwise, it's really for their and everyone else's good that they don't vote. NW (Talk) 13:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. If and only if there is secret balloting. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 13:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. If it's a secret ballot, no one will know anyway and if it's public, then it's still their choice whether they want to do so. Some people might be swayed by how a candidate votes but there will always be people who are swayed by such things. Even a secret ballot won't stop any candidate to just say who they voted for. Also, I see no reason why candidates shouldn't be allowed to say - secretly or publicly - who they think should be elected. Regards SoWhy 14:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. There has never been a restriction on candidates voting: some have chosen not to, and others have voted, even going back to the time when votes were done publicly. Prior to the initiation of secret ballots, there had been concern expressed about sitting arbitrators voting, apparently because of the concern that they might be perceived as unusually influential, but that issue is not of concern if the voting is done with SecurePoll. Risker (talk) 15:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Secret balloting and sheer numbers prevent this from being a significant problem: the tactical voting effect could only happen with meatpuppetry/canvassing which if they have an effect would have it anyways even if we banned voting for oneself.--Cerejota (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Jafeluv (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. If all candidates can vote it is a level playing field, I don't see a good reason not to allow it. Monty₈₄₅ 19:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:30pm • 11:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Cube lurker (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. JORGENEV 16:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. Deryck C. 18:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. Secret voting makes candidate choices at the ballot box irrelevant. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. Davewild (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Ipsign

Users who endorse this statement

Comment

The first of these proposed questions would produce responses that are much too long (for the candidate to prepare and the voters to review), though I'm sure it can be tweaked to be more reasonable. In practice, all of these are variations on questions that candidates typically are already asked. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About tweaking for #1 - probably (though maybe it can be automatically generated, along with #2?), about questions which are already asked - is there a list of "questions which are already accepted" somewhere to refer to and comment on? I certainly remember certain difficulties finding exactly this kind of information a year ago. Ipsign (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Sven Manguard

EDIT The set of questions referred to here has been removed, and is no longer for consideration. A smaller set is below.

Above is my set of proposed questions. Most are from the general questions last year or from Lar's questions from last year. Some have been tweaked or reordered. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, that is a series of 40+ questions, mainly harvested from various questions asked by others over the past several years. (I answered many of them three years ago.) It would take a well-informed, thoughtful candidate between 4-8 hours to answer just this group of questions. Please consider shortening this to no more than 15-20 questions for the "standard" group. One of the biggest issues with so many standard questions is that other editors will add very similar questions and then insist that their questions are different enough to be given multiparagraph responses as well. Three years ago, we had wide-open questioning; it took me easily over 120 hours to answer all those questions. Risker (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken your comments under advisement and reduced the number of questions by about half. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse the reviesed questions set

1. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:AGK

We are going into too much detail here. I would rather we do what we have done every year without a problem, and let the general questions form organically. We have other things to settle about this election.

Users who endorse this statement

1. AGK [•] 23:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this statement

1. This "organic" free-for-all would be a huge disservice to voters, who will end up having to read (or disregard) up to 50 general questions, many of the inappropriate technically, or partly or wholly duplicating other questions. This is what used to happen before last year's rationalised approach.Tony (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Tryptofish

In the past, the general questions have suffered badly from being "too long;didn't read". We shouldn't just be letting them arise organically in this poll. Instead, there needs to be a process by which the community organically collaborates on devising the questions in advance, with attention to avoiding repetition and redundancy. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Tryptofish

In the spirit of the statement directly above, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidate questions should be created, as a page for drafting the questions-to-all. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Hobit (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Kotniski

No need for general questions; candidates will know what general information is expected of them, and can include it in their statements. Let everyone ask an individual question or two; that ought to more than cover anything that might have arisen through general questions (which by their nature tend to produce dull and predictable answers, increasing the amount of text to read without really saying anything).--Kotniski (talk) 11:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. This would be better than the free-for-all proposed above, in which there would be little distinction between general and candidate-specific wall-plastered questions. Tony (talk) 04:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:NuclearWarfare

No restrictions on the number of questions that may be asked by any qualified voter, unless there is a firm consensus, gathered in a traditional fashion, that the questions are not up to the standards the community expects. NW (Talk) 02:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. NW (Talk) 02:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Pretty much this, although I preferred Lar's omnibus questions to everyone, which put us all on pretty much equal footing, and (probably) seriously reduced duplicate/slight variant questions. Even though Lar has retired, I would not be opposed to one or more editors taking over the job of asking every candidate a series of well-thought-out tough questions. Jclemens (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I would be willing to prepare a set of questions, mainly going off of Lar's old questions, run them by a few people who are not running and get their thoughts, then ask them. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. No ex ante restrictions in numbers of questions, in part because we haven't had too many problems in the past, in part because such restrictions create problem of line-drawing ("does that three-part question count as one question or three questions?" etc.). Questioners should, however, try to avoid monopolizing the floor. Lar's lengthy question set last year was extremely well-written and thought-provoking regarding some of the project's most important meta-questions, and produced good responses from a lot of top-flight candidates; but the questions also took up about three days of my wikitime to answer properly. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Also, I found having two pages for each candidate last year, one for "official" questions and one for "extra" questions, to be extra work for the candidates and probably confusing to everyone else. I'd recommend that be dropped this year. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Although the general questions to all candidates should be limited, I think anyone who wants to step up and ask a question (subject to what NW says above) should be allowed to. What the candidate does with the question is up to the candidate. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. With all due respect to the candidates, you're asking us to put a heck of a lot of trust in you, since you'll be part of the committee that can ban people with no recourse except appeal to the same committee, can desysop admins and chooses who will have access to sensitive information via Checkuser and Oversight. We the community have every good reason to grill you. As for the voters, I can't see how it's that hard to sort through questions and find the ones that interest you. If really necessary, restrict the number of questions on the project page and allow additional questions on talk, similar to what effectively happened last year. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Heimstern Läufer. My level of trust, heck my level of basic respect for the legitimacy of ArbCom, has been pretty damned low recently. People sure as hell better be ready to get called out on and asked about any issue in their past that is remotely troubling. (Note: I don't see this as incompatible with Coren's statement below.) Sven Manguard Wha? 14:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:36pm • 11:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cube lurker (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this statement

• The thousand-question bloat is unfair to voters and candidates, and a huge waste of time. Tony (talk) 04:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:SirFozzie

As long as the questions are relevant, I see no problem with it. To those people who claim that arb candidates are being badgered by having to answer a lot of lengthy questions (like Lar's Questions for Arb Candidates.. if you can't answer these questions concisely and cogently, you won't have the skills to do a lot of the work that comes with being an ARb. SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Rschen7754 03:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per SirFozzie's argument: if you cannot concisely and cogently answer a deludge of questions at the election, you lack the skills required for the post. ArbCom is a big deal.--Cerejota (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. See also my comment on NW's proposal. (I guess my answers flunked "concisely.") Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Jebus989^✰ 18:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Disagree with Coren, and endorse this. AGK [•] 23:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. ThemFromSpace 19:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Especially the last sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per my above endorsement of NuclearWarfare's comments. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Cube lurker (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Well said. --Elonka 02:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Coren

I think the questions should be curated, written well in advance, and more limited in number (quality, not quantity). It's true that being able to answer a large number of (sometimes acerbic) questions is a skill that prospective arbitrators absolutely should posses; but too many questions is to the voters' detriment.

While the candidates have to understand, consider and answer "only" X questions; the voters would need to consider X answers for every candidate in order to make an informed decision. If you drown the voters in information, they are more likely to give up and not bother voting at all in the first place.

Users who endorse this statement

1. — Coren ^(talk) 03:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't think this is incompatible with Sir Fozzie's proposal above, which I've also endorsed. Jclemens (talk) 05:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Absolutely. It is a disservice to the voters to allow a mega-bloat in questions—up to a thousand in elections where they were unchecked—which most voters end up not bothering to read. It's a serious turn-off: voters have told us this. Tony (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   To me, questions are for the individual voter and the candidate. Every voter is allowed one question of each candidate, so long as it has not already been asked. They are not intended to be of use to everyone; we are not offering soundbites. We are allowing everyone to get a shot at asking the candidate their view on whatever issue matters to that voter the most. Of course, I may be in the minority - where have voters told us that this is a turn-off? AGK [•] 09:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. I find myself agreeing with Tony1 here. People did complain, and it was a mess. At the same time, targeted questions given to individual editors were valuable in small numbers. One well composed set of about 20 questions, max, should give us a broad picture of the candidate's views on important subjects. Individual questions, asked to one and only one candidate, should not be disallowed, however coordinators should be empowered to remove useless or mass asked questions. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Ipsign

I agree with reasoning by User:Coren above, but want to go a bit further: what if we: a) will pre-create a list of 'standard' questions for every candidate to answer and b) will move all other questions to guides (allowing candidates to choose if to answer - or not to answer - questions in specific guide) ? I think it would prevent the problem raised by User:Coren, and at least on the first glance I don't see big problems with such an approach. Ipsign (talk) 12:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Ipsign (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• (a) is already done, and (b) won't work. Question askers and guide writers are not the always same people. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're not the same people right now, but who prevents question asker to write a guide based on answers? And it will relieve voters from reading kilometers of questions, which was a problem per User:Coren. Ipsign (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are a large number of people that are opposed to guides, and therefore don't write or use them. Writing a good guide is a committment, and a bad guide is worthless to everyone. Making having a guide an implicit requirement to asking a question is a bad idea. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:NuclearWarfare

Any voter guide that can be reasonably perceived to be serious should be added to T:ACE2011 if the author requests it. Satires and other such guides are generally funny, but should not be included in the general template. Any guide that meets that criteria should not be removed unless there is a firm consensus, gathered in a traditional fashion, that the guide is not up to the standards the community expects. NW (Talk) 01:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. I wrote a guide last year, and plan to do so again this year.

Users who endorse this statement

1. NW (Talk) 01:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Even though guides are subjective and one should always look at the context of who writes and their experiences with candidates, the lack of feedback since the introduction of secret voting means that they are a net positive. Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 01:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Rschen7754 01:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. As a first-time candidate last year, I appreciated the give-and-take with various guide authors, and actually won some support through such dialogue. I've done my best to address their concerns during my tenure, much in the way that I took my RfA feedback under advisement two years prior. Jclemens (talk) 02:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. This is reasonable. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Although I would prefer that a link to the Lighter side guides be provided under a collapse box. Yes, the ACE are SRSUS BIZNESS, but we also need a bit of lightness/spoof at times. SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Serious voting guides are a net benefit for everyone; they allow the voters to share their analysis and opinion, and provide a valuable forum for discussion and interaction. While the satires are sometimes enjoyable, they aren't as generally helpful to the voters and should not be confused with the "real deal". — Coren ^(talk) 03:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Per SirFozzie. Those who confuse humor with a lack of seriousness need to grow up.--Cerejota (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Not to put any pressure on him, but I anticipate that Volunteer Marek's guide will again be required reading. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Jebus989^✰ 18:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. AGK [•] 23:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Elonka 01:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Per Casliber. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 21:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. These have developed to replace much of the commentary that took place on the open voting pages and as such are a necessary part of the election. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:38pm • 11:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support although open to some variation of inclusion for satire.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. --Guerillero | My Talk 00:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

1. This proposal is seriously misguided. Who is going to determine what is serious and what isn't? Jehochman ^Talk 15:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Sven Manguard

All voter guides that are included in the ACE navigation box must transculde a copy of the ACE navigation box to the top of their guides. This wasn't a particularly major issue, but I did receive complaints about pages not having the box, and it's so minor and seemingly uncontrovertial that I don't see why we shouldn't just mandate it. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Rschen7754 20:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. AGK [•] 23:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Sure, makes sense for user friendliness. Jclemens (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Just for convenience. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. For convenience's sake and easy navigation. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:40pm • 11:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Seems a reasonable request --Cube lurker (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   # Yes. If the template is linking to the guide, the guide should include the template. --Elonka 02:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Upon reflection, I am changing my mind on this one. I would prefer to keep the barrier to listing as low as possible, so the template should list all guides. If someone has taken the time to create a guide, I'd like to see it, regardless of formatting or whether or not it includes the reciprocal template. I might support an amended version of Sven Manguard's statement though with the wording of strongly encouraging guide writers to include the template, but I'd rather not see it as an absolute requirement. --Elonka 05:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

10. Yes to reciprocal template, Neutral as to the position of the template in the guides? Monty₈₄₅ 18:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Ipsign

What about randomizing list of guides every time it is shown (or according to hash(viewer username) function)? Order of guides is a big deal when it comes to proverbial average voter (I don't know of many people who will read all guides, so which ones are selected, essentially affects the end result). Ipsign (talk) 11:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Ipsign (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think they do a similar thing when presenting the nominees at Meta elections - eg appointments for community seats on the Board, and Stewards. Seems to work well. AGK [•] 23:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Hmm, if it's possible. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Epbr123 (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Good idea, if, as Sonia says, it's possible. Regards SoWhy 14:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:40pm • 11:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. If possible, this is a great idea. Hobit (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:SoWhy

Echoing the sentiment expressed by SirFozzie and others in their comments on NW's proposal, I think all guides, serious or satirical, should be in the template and it should be up to the voters to decide which one(s) they like. Humor and seriousness are both imho useful tools, if used correctly, to handle such matters and sometimes they mix anyway. The 2010-template proved that it's quite possible and not at all harmful to have both serious and satirical guides mentioned in the same template without any problems and since it's not broke, I do not see any reason to fix it. A short "satires:" in front of the not-so-serious-guides is imho plenty to tell anyone that those are not meant to be taken seriously. Regards SoWhy 15:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. SoWhy 15:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Jenks24 (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Endorse if it is made clear in the navbox, which guides are serious and which are satirical. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   As I said, last year we had this distinction in the template and as I think that box served us well, I don't see any reason to change it. Regards SoWhy 17:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Monty₈₄₅ 18:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I support the inclusion of everything that complies with Wikipedia policy, subject to proper placement per my statement below. Guides containing content violations such as personal attacks or BLP violations may be dealt with by redaction or deletion, per standard policy for any pages on Wikipedia. Jehochman ^Talk 15:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Jehochman

Guides should not be linked in the template. Doing so gives the guide writers excessive influence over the elections. People can write guides and link to them from their own statements, comments, userspace pages and even signatures, but there should not be any official imprimatur on these unofficial documents. Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, we could have a separate page for the guides to be listed, and link that page from the template. At the top of the list of guides page we could explain that the guides are unofficial, and that all editors are welcome to add their own guide to the list. The template space is just too small to include the necessary disclaimers and instructions, and it is not scalable. If 100 editors want to include their guides, the template would become unwieldy. Jehochman ^Talk 15:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Jehochman ^Talk 13:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Count Iblis (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Or at least they should be clearly labeled on the template as being unofficial. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Davewild (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Eraserhead1

I would like to see the median time to voting as well as the percentage of cases voted on while active added to the candidates page for existing members of the committee. I'm going for the median time rather than the mean so that if an existing arbitrator took an extremely long time to vote in a single case that that wouldn't be given undue weight.

Note: This information is currently collected and maintained by Paul August, and can be found at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2011. The page has links to statistics for earlier years. Risker (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great. If this isn't up to date at election time poke me. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that these statistics are currently up to date, and they are normally kept so. Paul August ☎ 01:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Given the communication issues raised this year I think a communication target would be good too, but I think that will be trickier to calculate. This should be a good start. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. If someone's willing to go to the effort. Jenks24 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. You've got scant enough to evaluate arbs on, but this seems a reasonable metric. Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Qualified support. The qualification is that length of time to vote is not always a measure of an arbitrator's dedication or availability, which I think is what the proposer is trying to measure. When a proposed decision is posted by another arbitrator, sometimes I will agree or disagree with the proposals and vote right away; other times I will see a disagreement unfolding and wait to vote until I can come up with alternative proposed language, or I want to see the parties' reactions to the proposals on the PD talkpage, etc. And now that we have added the "comments" section to the voting templates, there are times that arbitrators will want to query the basis or wording of a proposal right away, and then vote when their questions are answered. So on balance it may be a somewhat useful metric (probably an arbitrator who is voting on average two days after PDs are posted is paying closer attention than one who is voting on average a week later), but with lots of qualifications. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Post-election

Note: Historically, support percentages in ArbCom voting have been calculated using the "(Support) ÷ (Support + Oppose)" formula (in other words, people voting neutral or no vote would not impact the support percentages). Unless a thread is started in this RfC to change the formula to include neutral votes, the S/(S+O) formula will be the one applied to the discussion above.

No minimal percentage: just rank the candidates

1. The percentage rating that the support divided by support + oppose formula produces might be ok as a comparison between candidates; but to suggest that it's a measure of community support is erroneous. The numbers are significantly suppressed by the oppose factor, in which many voters do the only rational thing to maximise the effect of their votes: they click to register a "tactical" oppose for every candidate they're not actively supporting (it's easy with click-buttons in the confidential/automated SecurePoll voting we now have, but is not, IMO, a reason for not using it). Many opposes are registered not because a voter actively opposes candidates for whom they might otherwise have opted out of expressing a vote. Tony (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Epbr123 (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Tony is right. Last year, I voted tactically. I specifically opposed a couple candidates that I did not feel belonged anywhere near Arbcom, and I specifically supported a couple whose works I knew well. But for the majority, I registered no vote at all. All vacancies need to be filled during these elections, or the process risks breaking down entirely. As such, I viewed my non-votes as tacit supports, i.e.: I had no reason to oppose them, but that would not appear on a percentage chart. Resolute 14:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. What Tony says makes sense. In fact, it's made me wonder whether we've got the right formula (or the right description of the options) to start with. Can't think of anything better right now, but I would draw attention to my statement somewhere up above, about making it clear to voters that if they want their vote to carry full weight, they need to tick the "oppose" boxes as well.--Kotniski (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Deryck C. 18:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. The Easiest --Ald™ ¬_¬™ 01:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Because of the way the votes are tallied, this is the only way to make the system fair for all involved. Akjar13 (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

50%

1. Since this is has been in past years and seems likely to continue to be a secret ballot where editors are free to oppose any candidate without consequences, there is no badgering of opposes. Opposes are not thrown out for a lack of appropriate rationale, so a vote can be simply an "I don't like this candidate's stance on X". As such, it's a very different world than RfA; to the best of my knowledge, Arbcom election has never been billed as "not a big deal". Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I normally would prefer a higher percentage, but have to go with majority for the simple reason that there are too many "tactical oppose" votes being cast. (For those who are unaware, there are those who try to maximize the impact of their votes on getting their top candidates elected by only voting a number of supports for the number of seats open, and then voting oppose on the rest, even if they think they'd make a good arbitrator). JClemens makes a good point there too. SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. It's important to not raise the bar further than this: ArbCom candidates are not picked only on trust (which would mean that higher is automatically better) but also on representativeness and "philosophical" stances. It's entirely possible for a valid candidate to get low numerical support mostly by virtue of others being preferred to them without implying that they are seen as unsuitable or untrustworthy. This is why the selection is ultimately those with the highest support and not "all who past some arbitrary goalpost".

   The 50% limit is really there only as a safety net; it's arguable that someone who – even in a wide field of candidates — is opposed by a majority is too controversial to be an effective arbitrator. — Coren ^(talk) 03:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. An election is not a consensus, it is an election. If we use consensus criteria for ACE, we would never get qualified people in, as there is often not a relationship between competence and popularity. --Cerejota (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. In the past elections, we have had relatively few candidates, and I fear that setting the absolute percentage too high will mean we are short of qualified people after the elections are over. However, if more than half the community is opposed to a candidate we are probably better served with a smaller commitee than an arbitrator who is lacking community support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Realistically, high enough to prevent unqualified candidates from passing while not making 'winning' the election an impossible task Jebus989^✰ 18:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Requiring more supports than opposes is sufficient and has worked reasonably well. A higher threshold allows an organized minority to veto a candidate who has majority support. (I realize this is the case for other positions on Wikipedia, but we aren't talking about those right now. I also realize that "more supports than opposes" is not exactly the same as 50%, which would include a tie, but it's close enough and I don't want to start another section over just one vote.) Neutron (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sole Soul (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Second choice. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Second choice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. T. Canens (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Anything higher means we will have to deal with fewer candidates passed than seats open. But we should decide in advance whether this is 50% of {Support + Oppose}, or 50% of {Support + Oppose + Neutral} if there is a "Neutral" or similar option on the ballot. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Second choice, as an absolute minimum. Jafeluv (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. I prefer this level over the higher ones. It is possible even likely that to achieve a full committee we would need to promote candidates with 55-59% supports and I think that this is better than leaving the spots unfilled. On the other hand, when a plurality of voters clearly rejects a candidate as unsuitable they should not be seated even if an empty seat would remain. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. We need to fill vacancies, hopefully those actually elected will have much higher percents then 50, but as a floor I don't think anyone with more people opposed then in support should be an arb. Monty₈₄₅ 19:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Second choice. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:44pm • 11:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. 50% is my second choice - any higher and we'll fail to elect a decent size committee. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. First choice. It's clear from looking at last year's voting results that if we don't have a cutoff at 50%, we won't be able to fill all necessary seats. --Elonka 15:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. To make it more likely all places can be filled than 60%, but candidates must have majorit support. Davewild (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. I lean toward having no limit but think below 50% would be bad for the faith in Arbcomm. Hobit (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

60%

1. Sixty percent. I'd prefer seventy, although even that would make arbcom seemingly a less important thing than adminship. What I'd like is a committee which can be said to have the confidence of far more than a simple majority of the community - it's what we ask of RfA candidates, it's what we ask of RfB candidates, and it's simply ludicrous that we have a body tasked with granting high-flying userrights, overseeing the use of those userrights and acting as a "court of last resort" which is made up of people who, in some cases, can claim nothing more than "out of the entire community, 60 more like me than hate me". This is not designed to offend individual arbitrators - simply to point out that if we're going to have a committee with all these whizzy rights and powers the people who sit on it should probably have the community's trust, too. Ironholds (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)\[reply]
3. Pretty much per Ironholds. I'd put it higher but I don't think that it'd get enough support, so I'm hedging my bets, so to speak. Arbs are some of the most powerful users on this site, and to say that my faith in them has been shaken this term is an understatement. I'd prefer a smaller, more trusted group. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. at least 60 per Ironholds. Ipsign (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think this is the most sane level at which to set it, however, one would hope they would have significantly more than 60%. Orderinchaos 16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. As per Ironholds. I want to see that more than a simple majority of people who took the time to go to the vote page support a Arbitrator. As said before, ArbCom is the "Court of (next to) last resort". The last appeal line is User:Jimbo who typically declines requests that come to him. These users have the power to levy very significant restrictions of privilages on the site, we want to be sure that a super-majority supports them in their role. Hasteur (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. AGK [•] 23:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. First choice. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. First choice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Per Ironholds, at least 60. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per Ironholds. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 21:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Start as you mean to go on—"half the community doesn't want me on ArbCom" is not a good place to start. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. 60% makes sense to me. Al Lemos (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. First choice. Jafeluv (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. First choice. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:43pm • 11:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. First Choice --Cube lurker (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Has to be. Any lower would reduce the community's confidence in the committee too much; any higher and we might not be able to fill all the spaces. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

66%

1. Per Ironholds. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Second Choice --Cube lurker (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

70%

1. I think that wse should make absolutly sure the user is good for ArbCom and the vast majority thinks the user is good for AC. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
   _Contribs 19:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think 70% is needed.75% is too high while 50% is a bit low.Palaxzorodice (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

75%

Fundamental mechanics

Having decided how big ArbCom should be (currently 18, proposal above for 15), the election should be designed to achieve this number by filling all vacancies.

Users who support this statement

1. Tony (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Do you mean "all vacancies existing at the time the polls close"? Unless that's what you're trying to say, I don't see how this is controversial at all. Regardless, I support. :-) Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jclemens, it's directly at loggerheads with the thread above, in which many editors appear to disregard the likelihood that an S/(S+O) floor of 60%, or even more, will result in fewer successful candidates than vacancies. I mean vacancies that will bring the Committee's numbers up to what the community has determined the size should be—currently 18. These two demands are incompatible. We've been extraordinarily lucky in ACE2009 and 2010 that just enough candidates have fallen above Jimmy's 50% benchmark. 60% would render the system unworkable: few candidates achieve that. Tony (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... so then how is this different from your "just rank the candidates" proposal, above? Might it be apt to combine those? Jclemens (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess there are a number of ways of designing an electoral process that fills all vacancies, so a broader principle than "no % benchmark" is expressed here. If this principle gains no consensus, I believe we may as well accept that ACE isn't going to deliver a result that will produce a Committee of a pre-set size, yet the community decided in November 2009 that it would be 18, and there's currently a proposal on this page to make it 15. All to no avail if this principle is rejected. Tony (talk) 07:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The objective is not necessarily to have a "pre-set size", but rather a maximum number of seats. Ironholds (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do NOT support this statement

1. A transparent end run around the above discussion on support thresholds. If we cannot find 18 people with the support of 50% of the voting community, then we won't fill to capacity. If that means ArbCom dosen't have enough personnel to function, I'd take that as a sign that ArbCom itself dosen't retain the community's support. Sven Manguard Wha? 10:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. If I didn't get 50% of Support/Oppose votes, I wouldn't feel comfortable accepting an appointment, and neither would most of my colleagues, I would imagine. If we're short handed, we're short handed. If we're seriously shorthanded, we'll look at other methods (such as a mid year election to fill vacancies). I don't think it'll happen mind you. If we go with a capacity of 15, that means that six slots will be open this year. Somehow I doubt we'll have fewer then six people with majority support. SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Absolutely not. Tony, you're suggesting appointing people to what is, in all but name, Wikipedia's governing body, when the majority of the voters feel they should not be on that body! Much as I respect you, Tony, that's not just a bad idea, that's insane! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   But as has been pointed out in various places, an oppose vote does not (necessarily) mean the voter feels the person should not be on the body; it may just mean that they want them to be on the body somewhat less than they want another person to be on the body (and are voting in such a way as to maximize that other person's chances).--Kotniski (talk) 16:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. Cube lurker (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. No. The point of an election is not to have every seat filled, it is to have every filled seat occupied by somebody trusted by the community. Ironholds (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Davewild (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Ironholds took the words right out of my mouth. Jafeluv (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would a shortfall in successful candidates be dealt with?

On this page there is overwhelming support for two irreconcilable requirements:

1. Set number of arbs. Risker's question of How many arbitrators should we have for 2012? How many seats should we fill for next year: the consensus seems to be that the new committee will comprise 15, down from the current 18. And Coren's strongly supported statement was quite explicit: "I think we should continue the current system of "topping off" the number of arbitrators by filling the two year slots from those with the highest support, and the one year spots for those who follow in order...." No election in modern times has failed to fill all vacancies ("slots"); this still appears to be the assumption among editors.
2. Percentage benchmark. The continuation of a S/(S+O) % benchmark for successful election creates the possibility of a shortfall if set again at 50% (the existing level) and the likelihood of a shortfall at 60% (strong support above for both).

Therefore, we need to decide how to reconcile these two consensuses, since adopting both will set the election up for possible or likely failure. Here are two options for comment. Remember, the community is saying it wants a fixed number of arbs next year (see above, 15 or 18). Please add other options if you can think of them. Tony (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Option A—hold a supplementary election as soon as possible after the results are announced to make up any shortfall

Users who support this option

• Sounds like a necessary provision to reconcile the two requirements. Deryck C. 12:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do NOT support this option

• Seems like a lot of bother, disruption, and instability. Better hold the first election soon or we'll still be voting in January. Tony (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No, too much trouble. Better to try to elect more people a year later. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Davewild (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Option B—Jimmy Wales comes in and appoints his own arbitrators or extends existing terms to make up any shortfall

Users who support this option

Users who do NOT support this option

• Oppose. Seems weird at this point after Jimmy has played a purely ceremonial role in announcing the appointments since 2008: why bother holding an election at all if it has to be overridden afterwards? Tony (talk) 05:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose I neither fully trust Jimbo, nor do I have any confidence that him stepping in won't cause massive chaos. In fact, if he intervenes, I'd expect massive chaos. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Hahahaha. Thanks for providing the laugh. Deryck C. 12:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Davewild (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Tony1. Jafeluv (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Option C- The Arbitration Committee starts at below 18 or 15.

18 or 15 or whatever number is not automatic. It's good to have a high number, so that we can take breaks and deal with real life. I'd prefer setting the bar at 50% (and that's going to probably be a no consensus to change from past years, so if I was looking at it neutrally, that's what I'd say), but A) people who'd have their terms extended or set by Jimbo.. well, to call people who disagree with it a pack of wolves waiting to tear them down, could be maybe uncharitable, but I think close to the situation.

We need either 6 (15) or 9 (18)( people with at least 50 to 60 percent support to fill expiring areas . Last year we had nine make 60% and twelve make 50%. If people don't have the requisite support, it'd really be hamstringing them to put them there anyway. And while I don't deign to speak for any of the arbs whose terms are expiring at the end of the year, I think the general thought would be "If we wanted to serve longer, we'd run again". So: There's nothing magical about the numbers 15 or 18. We appoint up to that number, but it's not the end of the world if we fall short.

Users who support this option

1. SirFozzie (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. If it's obvious this isn't going to work- say, if only one person is elected by whatever percentage is decided- we can talk about it then. sonia♫ 09:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Is someone going to advise all the editors upstairs on this page who think arbcom will start next year with a pre-set number of members that this may not necessarily be the case, then? The word "maximum of" needs to be inserted into the RfC statement if it's to have any validity, don't you think? Tony (talk) 10:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   No, you're right about that; the premises of this RfC are contradictory. For those who haven't read to the bottom, perhaps a little note at the top of the section about numbers should be added saying that a decision needs to be made about what to do if the percentage endorsed means not enough seats are filled. sonia♫ 06:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3. Sven Manguard Wha? 11:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Although I think a by-election should be held, if we haven't filled the remaining seats by the time when the new term should begin, the new ArbCom should begin with fewer than the set number of members. Deryck C. 12:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Realistic in a non-ideal world. I would also strongly recommend including Coren's proposal above, about "topping off", as part of this approach, since that proposal seems to have a lot of support. What I mean is that the candidates with totals near the low end would get one-year instead of two-year terms. Including some one-year members would be better than having a larger shortfall. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Davewild (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. This sounds reasonable if there are not enough candidates who pass the predefined threshold. Not filling every seat does not seem like a huge problem considering Risker's statement above. Jafeluv (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do NOT support this option

• I'm concerned at the potential for disruption in leaving unstated the actual number of arbs the annual election would produce; (2) the thought of by-elections after six weeks of drama in the election process; (3) the wild girations of arb numbers that could result; and (4) the persistence of the belief that all oppose votes are actual rather than tactical opposes. Tony (talk) 12:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]