Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011

{{discussiontop|This is a summary of the below closes and for more detailed closes, please see the actual section.

Nomination Period
The nomination period will begin 12 November and last for 10 days (until 22 November). We will use the same system we've had before and vote by secret ballot. The number of Arbcom members will be reduced to 15 members which leaves 6 slots vacant. The vacant slots are all two-year slots.

Candidate Eligibility
A user may run for Arbcom if they meet the voting requirements, meet Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data and confirm in their election statement they will fully comply with the criteria.

Advertising
The entire process from nominations, voting, and results will be advertised in the watchlist banner, on the village pump (misc), and The Signpost as well as the Wikipedia wide site notice during the voting stage only.

Voting Period
There will be a 5-day fallow period between nominations and the voting. The voting period will begin on 27 November, will last 14 days and will conclude no later than 11 December 2011. All users with 150 mainspace edits by 1 November 2011 who are not blocked at the time of their vote are eligible to vote within the voting window. The candidates will be eligible to vote.

The voting ballot will have three options: "Support", "No Vote", and "Oppose". No vote will be the default option. Voting percentages will be calculated by (Support / (Support + Oppose)). There will be general questions. Qualified voters may ask an unlimited number of relevant questions. Questions are subject to removal if irrelevant, but not because they are too numerous.

Post Voting
A 50% support is required. Shortfall in successful candidates is acceptable. Candidates will be ranked in order of support and the top six candidates will assume the remaining two-year seats on 1 January 2012.

--v/r - TP 17:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)}}

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 Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure as well as 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=

How many arbitrators should we have for 2012? (How many seats should we fill for next year?)
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)


 * Users who endorse this statement:

― A. di M.​ plé​dréachtaí 20:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Risker (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Lara  02:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 4) -  A l is o n  ❤ 08:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Gerardw (talk) 10:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Sir Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  10:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Epbr123 (talk) 12:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Ironholds (talk) 20:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Eagles  24/7  (C)  20:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) T. Canens (talk) 22:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 22:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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) I haven't formed a clear opinion on this.  Tony   (talk)  12:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) PhilKnight (talk) 13:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Josuecornier (talk) 21:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Al Lemos (talk) 01:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Jafeluv (talk) 10:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Akjar13 (talk) 11:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) LuLxFakie (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Alzarian16 (talk) 21:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Pmresource (talk) 21:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC) I agree. Too many cooks can spoil the pudding.
 * 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 than increasing the overall size of ArbCom. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Partial support (for the proposed number, but not the process), subject to my statement below.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) Fifteen members is enough members to have at least three subcommittees. Currently, there are only two subcommittees, and each only has three members. There hasn't been a new subcommittee since 2009, so I doubt that they'll produce more than one additional one before the 2012 election. If ArbCom desires to more than three subcommittees, then we could hold a RfC in order to collect users' thoughts on increasing ArbCom's number of seats back to 18 or even increase it to 20. Let's wait until a third subcommittee is formed before suggesting that ArbCom should be enlarged. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) While I previously supported a larger committee, I have come to the conclusion that eighteen is slightly too many, and fifteen is sufficient with enough room for loss of some members during the year. Fifteen is an odd number, which means that there will have to be either one group of eight, and another seven, or a minor adjustment to sixteen or fourteen arbitrators. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) Risker's current position as an arbitrator gives her unique insight into this issue. I've heard the same thing from other arbitrators and would bet that this represents the majority view. I understand that the community cannot totally cede control of the size of the committee to ArbCom itself (a committee of three would not function well). But here I think the community would do well to follow ArbCom's (or at least several arbitrators') recommendation.--Chaser (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) I agree if this means there would be more people available to step up if one of the arbitrators can't do their part due outside reasons. Blackash   have a chat 06:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) Given the way groups of people usually work, having more than seven active arbitrators on a given case has nearly zero marginal utility. Having a few more arbs in the committee is reasonable because some of them can be inactive or recused, but 18 is way too many. (Personally, I'd even support 12.) Also, if there aren't lots of candidates, you need the bottom of the barrel to get to 18 people.
 * 1) I'd prefer smaller actually, possibly with an increase in support "staff." Agility is important to a decision making body.--Tznkai (talk) 02:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) ?oygul (talk) 13:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Keeping the group small will help the people get together and discuss things at a faster rate. ZamorakO o (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action.  - Philippe  19:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  17:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) 18 was generally cause for a lot of toe-stepping. Once it shrunk to 15 from resignations back when I was on things actually ran more smoothly.  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) --  DQ  (t)   (e)  11:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Bigger is more cumbersome. Carrite (talk) 02:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Less is better. More is not useful, in this case.  HurricaneFan 25  17:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) --Cerejota (talk) 01:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Count Iblis (talk) 03:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 &lt;talk&gt; 09:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.  Them From  Space  00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Palaxzorodice (talk) 08:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:03pm • 11:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) John Vandenberg (chat) 11:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 12) Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 07:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Per Sjakkalle and Courcelles. Davewild (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 15) Qwyrxian (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Ampersandestet (talk) 09:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Off2riorob (talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Jamietw (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) With the caveat in my "oppose" statement to HJ Mitchell's proposal, below.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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 &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Editors who endorse this statement


 * 1) Count Iblis (talk) 02:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 4) Harrison49 (talk) 14:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 6) I believe a smaller committee is needed unless there's a hierarchy/organization, due to   communication complexity Safety Cap (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:03pm • 11:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) -- NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 20:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) ShimmeringScarab (talk) 17:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) --  &oelig; &trade; 22:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) John Vandenberg (chat) 11:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) I agree organization is key to efficiency.  Atsme (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme
 * 9) Well said. GuterTag (talk) 10:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) JDrayton15- good call, if we have a small group then they will not accomplish much while a larger group with organization can achieve much more as long as they are organized.
 * 11) Qwyrxian (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) I agree better organization is need. I also don't think there should be only one drafting arbitrator as the case I was in (as person who was taken) was filled up with text and the drafting arbitrator didn't have the time to read all it and see what was happening by the filing editors. Things should be setup so if an arbitrator needs to step down there is a way to ask or contact some else to take over their part. Blackash   have a chat 06:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) I have to agree. The Arbitration Committee has become too large, and has too high a caseload for the incessant bickering the goes one between Arbitrators over cases. Subcommittees and working groups are a very good thing, along with reform of the way mailing lists are used (Decrease use to personal information only with all other discussion publicly available, just like any other court.  Ronk01   talk  13:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) --  DQ  (t)   (e)  11:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Editors who oppose this statement
 * 1) Stephan Schulz's "support" interestingly suggests the very thing that I fear would result from a "sub-committee" idea.  You'd end up with circuit splits, en banc rehearings, which would then lead to less credibility on close decisions, longer waits while the decisions were appealed, etc.  More bureaucracy is not the answer.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Note: According to Sockpuppet_investigations/Aicykiss/Archive, Sofialamberto and ECritique are believed to be either Aicykiss's sockpuppets or his or her meatpuppets. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) Sofialamberto (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC) &mdash; Sofialamberto is believed to be either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Aicykiss.
 * 2) Aicykiss (talk) 11:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC) &mdash; Sofialamberto and ECritique are believed to be either sockpuppets or meatpuppets of Aicykiss.
 * 3) ECritique (talk) 13:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC) &mdash; ECritique is believed to be either a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of Aicykiss.
 * 4) Jehochman Talk 16:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) There is a reason high court only has a small number of judges. In Australia it is about 5 or 7, odd numbers also cut down the chance of even vote. Blackash   have a chat 07:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) M4gnum0n (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who oppose this statement:
 * 1) There seems to be fixation abroad with interpreting the S/(S+O) calculation as though it were a reliable representation of community support or oppose; this is confounding the community's understanding of the way the election actually works, and encouraging a bipolar result in the RfC, where people are bidding each other up on a benchmark, expecting it will weed out the watery customers, but insisting that the election top up the numbers to a pre-set number. Taking 60% as the benchmark, you're saying that John Vandenberg, Jclemens, and Shell Kinney were just not good enough; more nine-pins would have fallen in the previous elections. With your 65% benchmark—now upped to 66.7% below—we can say good-bye to the legitimacy of David Fuchs, Chase me, and PhilKnight, too, plus PhilKnight, Steve Smith, KnightLago, and from 2008 Coren, Carcharoth, and Wizardman. The logical conclusion of this misleading thinking is to look at the supports just as a percentage of all unique editors who vote. Of the 71 candidates from the past three elections, only five have ever gained the support of more than half the voters—four of them last year; oops, I think that reduces ArbCom to ... five. Let's be grown-up about this: tactical opposing is an increasing trend, which renders meaningless and impractical the moral odour being peddled about these benchmarks. All we need to do is to rank the candidates so the most preferred take on the role; that's how real-life elections work, naturally enough. Tony   (talk)  15:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Comment when I read SandyGeorgia statement it sounded fine, but upon reading Tony1 comment I see that the simple answer is not the right one. I've had some dealings with some of the editors mentioned and found on the whole they took their role seriously. It would have been a shame to cut them out because of S/(S+O) calculation. Blackash   have a chat 07:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Ditto Tony. If these were separate elections, SandyGeorgia's comment would make sense.  But they're not.  They're dependent on each other, which means you get strategic voting where you don't vote for a candidate (or maybe even vote against the candidate) you may support because it'll hurt the chances of another candidate that you support just that little bit more. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) The support percentage would be meaningful if everyone considered each candidate against a particular criteria and was prepared to vote for all of them if they thought they would all make good Arbs. But in reality if you give the voters a wide choice some !voters will get pickier and may even decide to only vote for as many candidates as will be elected. I know I get pickier if I think we have a glut of good candidates. So if there had been a couple more credible candidates last year who were almost as good as the ones elected then the support percentages achieved by the same winning candidates would have been lower. Equally if last years runners up had not run then the same people would have been elected, but with higher support percentages. A few months ago I saw this same system being used to elect 7 out of 8 candidates, all of whom were pretty good; Predictably the runner up had a very high percentage support. If that same system had involved another half a dozen equally strong candidates then we might not have had anyone get 65%. So the proposal to combine this electoral system with a high and arbitrary support percentage would make the system "fail unsafe" in that the more good candidates stood the fewer good candidates could be elected, and if twice as many candidates stood as there were places there would be a real chance of none being elected.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Piotrus
Reduce the number of seats? Keep the amount? I am puzzled. Based on my experiences - with arbitrators not taking part in the proceedings, not replying to questions and comments, and the excuses (variants of "we are very busy"), I'd think we should expand the number of seats as much as possible. I'd structure the vote in such a way that all editors who pass a minimum threshold of total and percentage votes would join the committee.

I understand Risker's concerns, but that can be fixed by better organization. Replace consensus (liberum veto in ArbCom?) with majority voting, enforce deadlines, assign people to tasks based on rotation to avoid "someone else's problem", and so on. Wikipedia has shown that organizations can function quite well with a large number of people, and as a person who has seen how the committee with ~10 (or less) active members functions (delays, delays, no responses...), I don't think that cutting the number of seats is an answer. At best, it would replace current problems with the old ones. No, we need a bigger committee with a better organization.


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  18:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who oppose this statement:
 * 1) I don't believe increasing seat number would fix the "we are very busy" issue, I when though an arbcom that lasted 11/12? weeks because the drafting arbitrator had some real life issues. I think having a more people in reserve that are willing to step up take over if need would be better. Blackash   have a chat 07:37, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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. &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) &mdash; Coren (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Rschen7754 04:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Sir Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  07:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 9) Jebus989 ✰ 18:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support for the reason Coren says. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 18:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Support - gives the community a chance to reassess what went wrong. —  Kudu ~I/O~ 20:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 13) If most appointees are given two-year seats, I do not see how this statement and Risker's are irreconcilable. AGK  [&bull; ] 22:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 16) Per Jclemens.--Cerejota (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) sonia ♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Nothing stops a 1-year term arb from running again, right? Lara  03:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Support -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Swarm u /  t 12:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C)  20:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) T. Canens (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) Agreed. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) My full support. Akjar13 (talk) 11:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) While Risker makes some good points, I think that the current system is best overall.  Eluchil404 (talk) 18:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:05pm • 11:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) Combined with a reduction in numbers to 15, this should be sustainable. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) -- &oelig; &trade; 22:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 30)  Tony   (talk)  04:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 31) This keeps the tranches balanced. Courcelles 03:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 32) Per Courcelles. Sjakkalle (Check!)  04:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 33) Davewild (talk) 11:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 34) I support this so long as it doesn't involve any exercise of the 'royal prerogative'. --  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 07:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 35) Seems to have worked fine up until now, and should continue. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 36) This allows people to see how editors handle the job.  Blackash   have a chat 07:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 37) <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 16:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 38) ?oygul (talk) 13:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 39) Jamietw (talk) 15:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 40) Having the one/two year mix reduces the possibility of burnout as well.  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 41) Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 42) causa sui (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) As proposer. Risker (talk) 04:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) One-year terms are too short. They undermine institutional memory and consistency. David in DC (talk) 17:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Per David in DC. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 22:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) With the proposer. Al Lemos (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) ShimmeringScarab (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Endorse, while also opposing Coren's proposal because we simply shouldn't be appointing those candidates who have lower support tallies at all.  Don't appoint candidates with lower support tallies at all, and appoint those with adequate support to two years.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Multiple term lengths seems unecessary and confusing, and staggered two year terms along with the possibility of re-election will preserve continuity. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Mainly because (from experience) one year is too little to really get to grips with the role. Also, it puts different arbs in different mindsets. While you can't avoid the thoughts of arbs whose terms are expiring (even after 2 years) turning towards the forthcoming elections, you can avoid that to some extent by ensuring that the first year for each arb involves getting to grips with the role and planning for two years, rather than worrying about an election. The exception might be arbs who already have experience and are happy to just stand to extend their term by one year. But I think all new arbs should: (a) have reasonably high support; and (b) commit to at least 2 years. Otherwise you get 1-year arbs seeing their first year as a precursor to an election for a 2-year term. I've said more on this here, and made a proposal here that incorporates this among other changes. Carcharoth (talk) 12:40, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) It gives them more time to get into the role and be judged on how they perform after they acquire a year of experience. This will stop the fear of making a "newbie mistake" that ruins the communities view of them, instead of being able to make those mistakes, learn from them, and then become a better arbcom member. ZamorakO o (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 10)  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  17:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:29, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) --  DQ  (t)   (e)  12:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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 &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 01:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Editors who endorse this statement
 * 1) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) John Vandenberg (chat) 11:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) IIRC, there were very few candidates the last time, and I suppose there might be quite a few people who would be interested in arbitrating but not willing to serve for 24 months – that's a helluva long time.
 * 1) M4gnum0n (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 3) Who has the time to vote for 18 people each year. Not me. Blackash   have a chat 07:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Strain on the system. --  DQ  (t)   (e)  12:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Two years is not that long a term, we need some continuity and not electing the whole lot every year helps make sure we have a proper level of scrutiny of candidates. Also I'm pretty sure that the community is stabilising and that the proportion of people who've been around for more than two years is going up.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  17:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Carcharoth
Combining a reduction in the numbers on ArbCom from 18 to 15 with continuing "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" (Risker's and Coren's proposals) will almost certainly result in a huge imbalance between the numbers elected this year and those elected next year. If the number of arbitrators is reduced to 15, there will be six seats up for election this year to add to the nine current 2-year incumbents. If even one of the six appointed this year is appointed to a 1-year term, then you end up in December 2012 with a 15-seat ArbCom where 10 of the arbitrators are up for election. To restore the balance, you would then have to appoint eight candidates to 2-year terms and two candidates to 1-year terms. In December 2013, you would then have seven seats up for election. The number of seats available would have fluctuated from 12 (last year - the ones marked in green on this chart) to 6 (this year) to 10 (next year), and back to 7. This degree of fluctuation in seats available makes a mockery of the ArbCom election process.


 * Editors who endorse this statement
 * 1) As proposer. Carcharoth (talk) 20:04, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) If the decision is to combine the two, the number elected and the numbers of n-length terms should be adjusted to avoid an imbalance.  (This should not be taken as my opinion on either proposal themselves, just for what happens if both happen.) --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What should the requirements be for candidates to run for the election?
You know you've been doing particle physics too long when you read the title of this section and you mistake the last I for an R. (SCNR) ― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 21:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


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

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)
 * 2) This will prevent the complete newbies from hopping aboard wile allowing just about everyone else their shot.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  07:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 6) Keeping complete newbies out of the race sounds good to me. Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty 18:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 18:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 9) 500 edits seems good to me. Adminship should not be a requirement. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 20:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 11) 500 is enough to screen out the time-wasters (deliberate or well-intentioned). AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 22:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) 500 sounds fine, but I wouldn't push it further than 1000. <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 15) Would prefer 1000. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C)  20:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) PhilKnight (talk) 13:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 21) John Vandenberg (chat) 11:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Davewild (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) A low level threshold should be sufficient to stop very new accounts from running, which should be the individuals being filtered out. The community can judge the rest. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) This is a reasonable threshold to aim that candidates are serious. I agree with Fozzie that a much higher edit count is needed to stand a reasonable chance of being elected, but even "real-world" elections allow candidates with no chance of winning to run. It is OK for the candidacy threshold to be deliberately lower than the practical electibility threshold. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  20:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) A fair balance. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) I know I'll never have time to be an Arb, but I wouldn't want the fact of my anonymity to be the deciding factor as with User:Jclemens section. Be— —Critical __Talk 05:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) Per NYB. Of course, joke and fringe candidates with minimal edits will never get elected, but voters collectively waste lots of time screening out those candidates before making a decision. If there were a serious candidate with less than 500 edits, that would change my opinion, but I doubt such a candidate exists.--Chaser (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) At least it gives us something to gauge an editor when you check out their editing. Blackash   have a chat 07:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) Reasonable to set some sort of threshold. My only concern is that once this is established, it might start to WP:CREEP each year. Carcharoth (talk) 12:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 30) 500 edits would be an absolute minimum not based on any philosophy, but merely common sense: no one who has less than this (or probably less than a much higher number) has any chance of being elected, so there is no point wasting everyone's time with such candidacies, especially the time of the candidate themselves. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 31) ?oygul (talk) 13:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC) 1000 edits.
 * 32) Clear up some candidates that don't have a chance and avoid the possibility of hurting feelings. ZamorakO o (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 33)  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  18:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 34) Having people try to run with 50 edits doesn't really make sense anyway. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 35) Not because of WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, but because no one with less has a snowball's chance of succeeding anyway. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 36) KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 37) --  DQ  (t)   (e)  12:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 38) There needs to be a threshold. 500 is too low. Carrite (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 39) M4gnum0n (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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:

― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 21:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC) 01:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 2) <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Rschen7754 03:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) --Cerejota (talk) 04:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  07:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) yep. Ipsign (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 12) Kittybrewster  <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  14:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) To the Foundation, yes. Publicly, not required. Orderinchaos 16:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 20:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) The Cavalry (Message me) 22:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Under the current system, it's better that it be a prerequisite. <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Elonka 03:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Yes, to the Foundation, not necessarily publicly. Herostratus (talk) 04:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) Goes without saying .. -  A l is o n  ❤ 08:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) <font face="helterskelter">Swarm u /  t 12:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C)  20:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) PhilKnight (talk) 13:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) Absolutely.  Courcelles 03:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 31) Everton Dasent (talk) 01:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 32) Per M.O.X. Deryck C. 18:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 33) John Vandenberg (chat) 11:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 34) <font color="#9400D2" face="comic sans ms"> ŞůṜīΣĻ <font color="#00008C" face="Papyrus">¹98¹ <font COLOR="#DC143C"> Speak 10:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 35) Davewild (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 36)  Master&amp;  Expert  ( Talk ) 09:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 37) I can see no other absolute requirement. Maybe we should require candidates to be autoconfirmed at the beginning of the nomination period, but I don't think anyone else would nominate themselves anyway.
 * 1) Yes, we should be clear on this from the start to a avoid a pickle mid-election. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I'd go even further and say "identify to the general public", but that's a start. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  18:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree at least that way there isn't multiple accounts by the same person getting into being a arbitrator.  Blackash   have a chat 07:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Carcharoth (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) selbstverständlich -- Avi (talk) 14:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 7)  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Unfortunate support.  Not a big fan of required identification, but since the Foundation requires it for the tools and the tools are, at least potentially, important here ... --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) If President Obama showed up the day after he was out of office, then made a little fewer than 500 edits and ran for ArbCom, I'd vote for him.  Grand  master  ka  00:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) I think everybody should identify and sign in to edit, personally. This is an extreme minimum in that department. Carrite (talk) 02:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) 155.41.31.179 (talk) 17:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 2) Jclemens (talk) 05:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Rubber stamping the community's will for the sake of having it all here to point to.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  07:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 7) Standard. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 22:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Aye. The Cavalry (Message me) 22:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Sole Soul (talk) 01:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11)  Lara  03:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Elonka 03:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Herostratus (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C)  20:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Al Lemos (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Per policy. Jafeluv (talk) 10:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 19)  Eluchil404 (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Good.Palaxzorodice (talk) 08:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:13pm • 11:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) --  &oelig; &trade; 22:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) It's already the policy, so why am I redundantly supporting this? Tony   (talk)  04:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) <font color="#9400D2" face="comic sans ms"> ŞůṜīΣĻ <font color="#00008C" face="Papyrus">¹98¹ <font COLOR="#DC143C"> Speak 10:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) Davewild (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) Already policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) Sound policy  Blackash   have a chat 08:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 30) This section serves as a reminder in case any proposals here contravene what was ratified earlier this year. Carcharoth (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 31) Redundant, but necessary nonetheless. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 32) ?oygul (talk) 13:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 33) ZamorakO o (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 34) Already policy, but just for the sake of having it confirmed here...  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  18:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 35) Number two especially.  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 36) If amended to "active alternate accounts."  There's really no need for a "I used to use another account, but I don't remember what it was"-type disclosure. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 37) KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 38) --  DQ  (t)   (e)  12:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 3) <font color="#9400D2" face="comic sans ms"> ŞůṜīΣĻ <font color="#00008C" face="Papyrus">¹98¹ <font COLOR="#DC143C"> Speak 10:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) No one could win an election without some sort of record of common sense and good judgement to stand on. Making this a requirement makes things more complicated and adds little, in my opinion.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  13:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Per NYB.--Chaser (talk) 16:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Per others.  Factor, not prereq. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Too subjective to be a criterion for running. I doubt anyone could get in without it, but it shouldn't be necessary in order to run. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 2) I agree. Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 13:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Moral support.  However Sir Fozzie is correct on the reality of the situation.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Nonstarter if WMF says otherwise, but it's the right thing. Be— —Critical __Talk 05:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 3) A complete non-starter.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  14:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Hackers hack to get a reaction, people who are going for arbitration spots are I hope not editing badly or to push their companies/work. So where is the pay off for the hacker? Blackash   have a chat 08:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) I don't see how this would help fix the hacks/leaks issue. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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). <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement.
 * 1) <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 3) Good idea. Jclemens, see Identification noticeboard, we don't have to rely on memory. Courcelles 03:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 5) —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:17pm • 11:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Concur with the idea of strongly encouraging them, though it shouldn't be a requirement. --Elonka 02:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 8) I agree with Elonka. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 13:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Reasonable, though we would need to make sure that the Foundation can review and certify the identification in sufficient time.  Qwyrxian (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Endorse, as statement says "strongly encouraged to identify" and not strongly required to identify.  Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  08:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) But only support this if it is made clear that this is not a requirement, but only a strong encouragement. Fiddling with the deadlines might not be possible if (as is likely) some candidates that might gain the needed support are not identified. It might, however, reduce the time taken for that process to be done (the bottleneck tends to be the candidates themselves, who should definitely be ready to send off the paperwork immediately after being appointed). At the end of the day, though, this being delayed doesn't matter immensely, as long as no arb takes their seat early. Bringing arbs in late due to delays in paperwork is annoying, but not a deal-breaker. Carcharoth (talk) 13:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) "strongly encouraged" ≠ "forced to identify ahead of time in order to run". If people are so nervous about their identities that they fall under Tony's scenario below, then they have a surprise coming to them. There are unscrupulous people out there that make a sport of outing well know users, and the WMF has never been the source of the information said outers have used.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  14:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) KillerChihuahua ?!? 23:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 2) Per Tony1 Davewild (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Tony1.  Clearly ArbCom and the Foundation cannot be trusted with data security. Jehochman Talk 16:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Tony1. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe last year Jimbo Wales waited on identification by the winning candidates before making the appointments to the committee. Whoever's doing this, that's the order I think it ought to be done.--Chaser (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Agree with Chaser as peer pressure could work. Really if you are running what the problem with giving your id to foundation before hand? You are running hoping to win right? So do it already. Blackash   have a chat 08:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Chaser.  <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Tony1. Lightmouse (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Candidates should be able to maintain anonymity until there is a need not to. SarekOfVulcan (talk)  18:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Unnecessary prior to selection imo  -  Off2riorob (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Per Tony and Chaser.  No reason to identify if you're not going to be on the committee.  Of course, they still can if they want to.--Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) While I can see that getting into ArbCom should require disclosing one's identity to the Foundation (since ArbCom members are exposed to private information), I don't see why a failed candidate should have to do that. While any potential ArbCom member has to be willing to disclose his/her identity should (s)he win, disclosing one's identity means that there is one more person whose identity could end up being made public by a hacker (or even a Foundation member who ends up deciding to disclose it) - a risk no user should be required to make without an actual need. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 22:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Users who endorse this statement.
 * 1) Pgallert (talk) 06:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) PaoloNapolitano (talk) 08:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree with Pgallert's explanation below. Deryck C. 18:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Or maybe they should be temporarily given the rights they need for the duration of the case.
 * 1) M4gnum0n (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  14:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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) Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  19:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * +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)

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:

― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 22:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) PaoloNapolitano (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) User talk:mugginsx (Not myself-too inexperienced) Mugginsx (talk) 12:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) <font color="#FFB911">╟─TreasuryTag► First Secretary of State ─╢ 09:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 5) --Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Here is one arbitrator who has actively promoted this in past RFCs. :P John Vandenberg (chat) 09:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 9) Support. Adminship will serve everyone better, including admins, if we break down this "big deal" aurore about it. Service on ArbCom requires a different skill-set (even though it partially overlaps), and adminship should not be seen as part of a greasy poll you have to climb—some kind of prerequisite for doing a whole lot of things on WP. Tony   (talk)  14:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Support. We should definitely narrow that power distance between the Napoleons and the other animals on the farm ;-). -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Strong Support Agree that this would make the community feel better about ArbCom decisions.  Ronk01   talk  13:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Weak support. I agree that all arbs being admins is not necessarily an optimal situation, though I'm not sure this would be the best way to deal with it. We might try this for one year and see how it turns out.
 * 1) I've read over a few RfAs where the candidates only issue was not being an active article writer, didn't participate in this one area, etc etc. However, I would trust these users with the tools that they would use if granted the rights. This just shows that non-sysops are capable of being helpful members of the ArbCom, and it gives a more diverse area of input to the committee. ZamorakO o (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 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.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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. <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 8)  Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  10:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) <font face="helterskelter">Swarm u /  t 12:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) With the understanding that this does not prohibit non-admins from being elected, only that it does not mandate non-admins be elected.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C)  20:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  19:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Coren, Ajraddatz and Sonia. —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:17pm • 11:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) -- &oelig; &trade; 23:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) As per Sonia. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 13:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Neeya The Great (talk) 08:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) 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. <font color="#9400D2" face="comic sans ms"> ŞůṜīΣĻ  <font color="#00008C" face="Papyrus">¹98¹ <font COLOR="#DC143C"> Speak 11:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Open to non-admins being elected, but no institutionalised division between admin and non-admin places. Davewild (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) The voters can elect anybody they like.  The rules should not restrict voting in this way. Jehochman Talk 12:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) I do not automatically oppose non-admins, but I would be against a reserved seat for them since it would (a) probably alter election results against the wishes of the voters, (b) the case has not yet been made for the existence of bias/discrimination against non-admins on ArbCom decisions that justify reserved seats, and (c) even if there was, one arbitrator could easily be overruled. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Generally agree. A former admin would probably have the most insight into both admins' and non-admins' experiences on Wikipedia. However, either a former admin or a non-admin that has become an arbitrator is unlikely to have the typical non-admin's experience with other editors.--Chaser (talk) 16:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Arbcom is the last place to go, it should be only held by people the community trusts to do the job. Just as the Australian high court only has judges because it the last place to appeal to. Blackash   have a chat 08:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) In my opinion, if someone cannot muster sufficient community support to be an administrator, they definitely should not be an arbitrator. Now, if a non-admin manages to pass the vote and get on ArbCom anyway, that's fine, but I would be strongly opposed to the idea that we have to mandate a certain number of non-admins on the committee. --Elonka 17:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 19:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) -- Avi (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 16)  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  18:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) There are a couple non-admins out there who would probably get elected if they ran. However, admins generally have the trust of a good deal of the community, whereas a non-admin may have none for all we know.  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Support only the plain statement that there shouldn't be non-admin seats reserved. Adminship shouldn't be a big deal, neither should non-adminship.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) --  DQ  (t)   (e)  12:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who do NOT endorse this statement:


 * 1) Perhaps the reason no non-admins have been elected is related more to human nature than the aptitude of the editor? Think  about it, if you knew that you would be running against admins, would any well-experienced editor run? I think not. Providing a category with only non-admins running is a good way to encourage experienced non-admins to run. And this business about non-admins finding the committee too stressful? That's simply offensive bigotry. Non-admins deserve a voice on the committee, this may not be the best way, but it's a start.  Ronk01   talk  13:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I fully support Ronk's opinion here, and it's not just bigotry, it's active discrimination. Akjar13 (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 2) Which in turn should give them admin rights for the term. Agathoclea (talk) 08:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who do not endorse this statement:


 * 1) A seat in ArbCom is not a 'reward'. For a particular non-admin candidate to 'win' the election of the reserved non-admin seat, the community judged his/her "wisdom and ability" to exceed such of all other non-admin candidates, a hurdle assumedly harder to take than becoming an admin. Also, aspects of great importance for standing a chance to become an admin, may well be judged of a different nature from those most valued in an arbitrator. ▲ SomeHuman 09:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Headcount of non-admins considering taking part in the election
This is more of an experiment seeking data than a statement seeking endorsements. Some users are concerned non-admins not having any seats on ArbCom, while some are concerned about non-admins not willing to run in elections. I wish to know: How many non-admins are considering running in this election? List your username under the first category if you're willing to run in an election without any reserved seats for non-admins. List your username in the second category if you're willing to run in an election with reserved seats but are unwilling or uncomfortable with running in election without reserved seats. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid this is a premature question with a meaningless outcome: Answer 2 appears unlikely to get responses as long as an election for the reserved seat remains uncertain: it might even endanger one's chances of becoming an admin, which function could still remain a prerequisite for future ArbCom elections; answer 1 is unlikely to get responses because sheer experience shows not to stand a chance. ▲ Either way non-candidate SomeHuman 09:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I expect our Arbitrators to be honest, confident, and straightforward. If they're hiding from questions, then they don't belong on ArbCom. I'm asking this question in order to gather data on whether (or to what degree) reserved seats would increase the participation of non-admins in the election. Asking this question is to their benefit. Perhaps a secret ballot would be better, but the WMF doesn't create secret ballot polls according to my whims. With the options available to me, this was the best I could came up with, and my best is flawed. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why I mentioned the secret ballot. What sort of ArbCom candidate is too timid or concerned about a future RfA to speak his or her mind candidly in the open? A secret ballot would also introduce the possibility of those who don't actually want to be candidates participating in order to influence the data. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Since in practice, non-admins did not become arbitrators, this here page is much less likely to become read by non-admins compared to the likeliness of an admin to take a look. It is thus predictable that polls tend to exhibit majorities for typical (conservative) admin viewpoints: only a final poll presented with a clear demand to consider only the value of the so far obtained arguments while disregarding the scattered polls' at that time gathered number of votes, might allow a change in ArbCom election policy. If that would warrant a non-admin ArbCom seat, an explicit call upon non-administrators to put their candidacy for a unique seat in the Arbitration Committee at the top of all pages will be needed to draw the attention, so as to prevent a very low number of candidates to pose a problem. ▲SomeHuman 10:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This page isn't just for candidates; it's also for voters. Voters wish to ensure that the best ArbCom is created from the election. Voters want ArbCom to be just and wise in case they may have to participate in an ArbCom case in the future. This is why I'm here. I also believe that Arbitrators, especially new, active ones, should be up-to-date on changes in policy. If a ArbCom hopeful doesn't learn about such a major change on their own initiative, then do they belong on ArbCom? It's also hard enough for voters to examine twenty candidates and choose the nine best ones. If a notice went on every page that the ambitious will perceive as saying, "Are you a non-admin? Do you hate how sysops have all the cool toys? Do you want power? Then we have an opportunity for you!" then there'll be a hundred candidates vying for that one reserved seat. Most of those candidates would become lost in the crowd, and voters won't go through the trouble of examining every candidate. Writers of voting guide probably will probably only discuss a fraction of candidates in their guides, and that would increase the influence voting guide writers will have. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Non-admins willing to run in an election without reserved seats
 * 1) - To clarify, I would be willing to volunteer to help whatever the voting setup is. I don't support any free pass situation for a non admin. - Off2riorob (talk) 17:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Non-admins willing to run in an election with reserved seats but not willing to run in an election without reserved seats

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)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  08:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

Combined proposals
Proposals here combine changes in both numbers and term lengths, rather than considering these matters separately, mainly because changes in numbers should be accompanied by changes in term lengths or distribution of term lengths in order to ensure there is no excessive imbalance in the number of seats elected each year.

Statement by User:Carcharoth
The following proposal is in part an attempt to find a compromise position that most people can support, and an attempt to achieve a steady and stepwise (rather than sudden) reduction from 18 to 16 arbitrators over 2 years, and to establish fully uniform 2-year terms, and to also stabilise the numbers elected each year and avoid relatively large fluctuations in this number.


 * (A) For this election (December 2011) reduce the size of the committee by one from 18 to 17. The nine arbitrators currently halfway through 2-year terms stay on during 2012 or their seats stay empty. Elect eight arbitrators in the December 2011 elections to fill eight 2-year terms.
 * (B) For the next elections (December 2012) reduce the size of the committee by one from 17 to 16. The eight arbitrators elected the previous year will be halfway through their 2-year terms and stay on during 2013. Elect eight arbitrators in the December 2012 elections to fill eight 2-year terms.

This can then be repeated each year with eight arbitrators being elected each time. This avoids the imbalances caused by different numbers being elected each year (9 versus 6 if the size of the committee is reduced to 15 this year - see here for a chart showing the two current tranches). It is also a compromise between a drastic reduction and a gradual reduction. I've given my reasons on the talk page for opposing a mix of 1-year and 2-year terms.


 * Please discuss this proposal here


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1) As proposer. Carcharoth (talk) 12:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

=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)
 * 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.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * Note to closing admin. I've raised a question about this close on the talk page here. - Hydroxonium (T•C• [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&amp;username=Hydroxonium V] ) 08:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

10 days
― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 20:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Second choice. Risker (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) 1st choice: who wants arbcom elections to take 1.5–2 months in every 12? Tony   (talk)  14:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What's the problem with that? The total amount of person time spent on the elections is the number of voters times the average time it takes to vote, whether it's concentrated on one week or spread on two months.
 * 1) If this includes two weekends, I would prefer just 10 days. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Per Tony, but I too would want to see this encompass two weekends - not everybody can edit on every day. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 22:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) 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  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) 2nd choice. Lightmouse (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) - is more than enough time to volunteer. Off2riorob (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) M4gnum0n (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 2) Long enough indeed. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Second choice--Cerejota (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 5) 2nd choice. Tony   (talk)  14:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 8) Hasteur (talk) 17:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Rschen7754 18:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Did it for Board of Trustees and stewards. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 20:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) first choice. <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Second choice. --Elonka 03:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 14) <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C)  20:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 17) Pteronura brasiliensis (talk) 13:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 22) Just enough. --  &oelig; &trade; 23:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) Second choice (after 3 weeks) Neeya The Great (talk) 08:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) Fine. Jehochman Talk 12:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) First choice. Covering two weeks should give enough time for the overwhelming majority of people to vote. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) Sufficient time. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) Best choice. Carcharoth (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) ?oygul (talk) 13:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC) 14 days is enough time.
 * 29) This allows for plenty of time for us to research the people who are running, and long enough for a user to go on a week vacation, come back, get resettled, and vote. ZamorakO o (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 30) 1st choice. Question to Risker: you marked your second choice. Is this your first choice? Lightmouse (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 31) Second choice  Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 32) -- Avi (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 33)  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  18:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 34) Ideally. 21 days is too long, anyone who really wants to vote can do so in two weeks.  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 35) Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 36) One and only choice. --  DQ  (t)   (e)  12:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 37) Sufficient length. Carrite (talk) 02:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 38) --Jan eissfeldt (talk) 08:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 39) 1st choice  HurricaneFan 25  17:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Long enough to have thorough discussion, short enough that discussion doesn't become stale.--Cerejota (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) I think 21 offers the best compromise between participation and keeping people waiting. Orderinchaos 16:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) PaoloNapolitano (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) second choice. <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) So much to read and research. Lara  02:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 12) Per NW, Orderinchaos and Elonka. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm u / t 12:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) T. Canens (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Everyone occassionally gets busy.  The more time to vote, the better.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) 21 days enough.Palaxzorodice (talk) 09:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 19) <font color="#9400D2" face="comic sans ms"> ŞůṜīΣĻ <font color="#00008C" face="Papyrus">¹98¹ <font COLOR="#DC143C"> Speak 11:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Davewild (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) Yes; with only two weeks, not everyone will get to vote, and we have ... ahem ... frequently seen true colors come out as the election progresses.  Two weeks isn't enough time.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Also fine. Jehochman Talk 12:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) Maximum I will support, since this is more than enough time for everyone to case a vote and anything is just dragging the election out excessively. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) I agree with SandyGeorgia in the true colours comment. Blackash   have a chat 08:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) Per User:SandyGeorgia. Lightmouse (talk) 15:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) 3rd choice Tony   (talk)
 * 27) 3rd choice. Lightmouse (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) First choice   Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 30) 21 days is more than reasonable, especially if we start on December 3 or so to prevent Christmas from getting in the way. <FONT FACE="Poor Richard" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><FONT FACE="Georgia" SIZE="-1" COLOR="black">32(Never support those who think in the box)</FONT> 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 31) 2nd choice  HurricaneFan 25  17:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

28 days

 * 1) Count Iblis (talk) 02:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Third choice  Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  07:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 4) No rush <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 18:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Some of us periodically focus on real-life. Gerardw (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 7) 4th choice—far too long. Will lose momentum. Tony   (talk)  15:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) 4th choice. Lightmouse (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) In recent years we've had over 20 candidates, but we could in theory have lots more. Even if you only spend an hour checking each unfamiliar candidate it would be a huge faff to try and cram this into three weeks.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  01:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1) Risker (talk) 02:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Jclemens (talk) 03:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) --Cerejota (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  08:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Per Risker. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 18:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Probably going to be more security precautions this year. PhilKnight (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 20:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 22:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Sensible. <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 15) -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) <font face="helterskelter">Swarm u /  t 12:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C)  21:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Al Lemos (talk) 01:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Sounds reasonable. Jafeluv (talk) 10:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:22pm • 11:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) John Vandenberg (chat) 09:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 07:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) Davewild (talk) 11:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) We still have time to move the traditional start-time forward if needed.--Chaser (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) Especially because of the Christmas holidays. ― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 22:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) Carcharoth (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) ?oygul (talk) 13:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 30) ZamorakO o (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 31)  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  18:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 32) Sounds right. As long as voting starts in late November then this is an easy window to hold on to.  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 33) KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 34) --  DQ  (t)   (e)  12:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 35)  Steven Zhang  <sup style="color:#FFCC00;">The clock is ticking....  05:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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. ― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 22:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) OpenInfoForAll (talk) 03:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  08:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Ipsign (talk) 12:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 22:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) In addition to the below. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm u /  t 12:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) John Vandenberg (chat) 10:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Neeya The Great (talk) 08:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) This should start at least four weeks before the end of the voting period, so that prospective voters will have the time to review candidates satisfactorily. (FWIW, I don't think I'm going to vote, either.)

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.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  03:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems reasonable to me. Jclemens (talk) 03:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Yeah lets not become VSCA with our own stuff.--Cerejota (talk) 04:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  08:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 7) The more the merrier <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 18:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 10:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, the usual should suffice. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 22:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Indeed. Lara  02:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) <font face="helterskelter">Swarm u /  t 12:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C)  21:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8)  Baseball   Watcher  01:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Jafeluv (talk) 10:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:23pm • 11:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) -- &oelig; &trade; 23:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) John Vandenberg (chat) 10:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) <font color="#9400D2" face="comic sans ms"> ŞůṜīΣĻ <font color="#00008C" face="Papyrus">¹98¹ <font COLOR="#DC143C"> Speak 11:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Davewild (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Qwyrxian (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Yep. ― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 22:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Carcharoth (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) ZamorakO o (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 20)  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  19:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 21)  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) M4gnum0n (talk) 17:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:DeltaQuad
Maybe since this is the first time i've paid attention to this particular section (so excuse if i'm out of proportion), but WT:AC, WP:AN, WT:DRN, traditional top banner that usually appears during the annual fundraiser, and signpost coverage. For all but the last (as it will be covered anyway, and it's a newspaper), notification every time a period ends. (RFC, Candidates, Review, Voting, and scrutinizing) It ensures the best turnout and commenting. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  12:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) -- DQ  (t)   (e)  12:23, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) SirFozzie (talk) 03:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) This works.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  08:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 5) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) <font color="#9400D2" face="comic sans ms"> ŞůṜīΣĻ <font color="#00008C" face="Papyrus">¹98¹ <font COLOR="#DC143C"> Speak 11:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) 150 is too low and too easy to game, raise the number to 500.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) ?oygul (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC) 500 is not many,150 is to low.
 * 9) First choice. KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) --  DQ  (t)   (e)  12:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Still too low. I'm voting this because it is the higher proposed requirement. --M4gnum0n (talk) 18:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 2) 100 in the last year seems too much if we want a low enough barrier. Deryck C. 18:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

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. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1) <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 15:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Encourages newer/more occasional users to get involved behind the scenes without inviting trolls, brand new accounts etc. <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 18:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) PaoloNapolitano (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) I'd make it October though. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 20:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Looks good. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) This seems better than SirFozzie's. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C)  21:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) 150 edits is certainly not much, but I could live with this. Jafeluv (talk) 10:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Best choice here. Akjar13 (talk) 11:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:25pm • 11:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) With Monty845's caveat on "blocked" below.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) I think 150 is a bit too low, but I think it is OK. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 17) Seems reasonable to me. Salvidrim (talk) 07:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Davewild (talk) 11:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC) (but with Monty845's caveat) Davewild (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Seems reasonable. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Nothing we can do will shut out every potential person who wants to wastes hours sockpuppeting just to get 1 additional vote, so keeping it low enough for actual serious but only occasional users seems like the appropriate choice. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 19:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Not to many edits. ZamorakO o (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) This is in line with past precedent, and has worked well. Note also that it would be improper to set a requirement for a minimum edit total after that date has passed - so declaring a 150 edit requirement on or before 1 October isn't fair because that date has already passed. Good faith editors who wish to comply should have a chance to do so. Thus, I'd suggest that the deadline not be 1 November, but be 5 days (or some similar number) after the close of this RFC. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 24)  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  19:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 25)  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) With SomeHuman's caveat on blocked users, below.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) 2nd choice KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) 1st choice  HurricaneFan 25  17:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) Gerardw (talk) 10:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * At the same time, the potential for sockpuppets shouldn't be defining policy here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who oppose this statement:


 * 1) - Anyone can edit, not everyone should vote. This invites voting fraud through sock puppetry. Carrite (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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.

― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 00:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1) Jclemens (talk) 02:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Seems reasonable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Per the spirit of stopping sockpuppetry.--Cerejota (talk) 18:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4)  Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  17:01, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.<font color="#990000">Geo <font color="#000099">Bard <font color="#000000" size="-1">Semi-retired 01:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Sensible. —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:26pm • 11:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) Common sense. Jehochman Talk 16:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Yes. That way, even a relatively low threshold (see my more specific statement below) would be impractical to game.
 * 1) Support. --  Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:41, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Support - Really should be a community decision. <FONT FACE="Poor Richard" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><FONT FACE="Georgia" SIZE="-1" COLOR="black">32(Never support those who think in the box)</FONT> 03:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) M4gnum0n (talk) 18:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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. Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  19:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1)  Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  19:17, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Cube lurker (talk) 16:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Davewild (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


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

Statement by User:A. di M.
Voters must be autoconfirmed editors as of the beginning of the nomination period, and they must not be blocked as of the time they vote (though they can try again if their block expires before the end of the voting period). This way, accounts created in order to game the system can't vote, and neither can users so disrespectful of the spirit of Wikipedia as to be blocked that long, but otherwise no-one is forbidden from voting if so they wish. (I'd expect newbies to not bother anyway.) ― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 00:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) ― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 22:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) Neutron (talk) 01:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) -- &oelig; &trade; 23:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 2) The 'oppose voting system' isn't used by any country in the world. It penalises good faith editors who fail to understand the game of tactical opposing. Lightmouse (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 2) Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3)  Lara  03:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Herostratus (talk) 04:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Maybe the default option could be "Neutral".  Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  10:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) <font face="helterskelter">Swarm u /  t 12:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Sure. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 20:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C)  21:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 11) Jafeluv (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Common sense clarity in this change, and support previous election method.  Jus  da  fax   02:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Davewild (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Voters should have an option to object to candidates, this is the easiest to understand, and most consistent with how decisions are usually made at Wikipedia.  Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  04:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 15)  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) The best of the options put forth to date.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  17:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 2) The 'oppose voting system' isn't used by any country in the world. It penalises good faith editors who fail to understand the game of tactical opposing. Lightmouse (talk) 16:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Do you have any evidence at all that tactical voting is done in a large enough scale that it swings the elections? Also, Wikipedia isn't a country. Most of our policies differ from those of any country.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  09:04, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 2) Deryck C. 18:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) This system is used in countries as an alternative to ranking candidates. No country uses the bizarre 'oppose voting system'. Lightmouse (talk) 16:09, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  14:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Cube lurker (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Davewild (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) As Sven says. Akjar13 (talk) 12:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) While some people may make strategic opposes to try to game the system, an option to actively oppose a candidate is important.  Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  13:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Per Sven. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 00:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Agree with it just as important to know who is not wanted.  Blackash   have a chat 09:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * 1) 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)
 * 2) Support Voters apparently aren't aware of this feature. They need to be told if this system is to be used. Lightmouse (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Agree - us political junkies shouldn't be the only ones who know how this works --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Volunteer Marek
Let's get radical and simple at the same time. How about this? Every eligible editor has 100 "points" which s/he gets to allocate to all the candidates. Add up the points. If there are N open positions, then the N folks with most points get on.

Would this be technically feasible (seems simple) or are we stuck with this whole Support/Neutral/Oppose thing? Randomize the order of candidates and remind voters how many points they have left to spend (and they must spend all of them) so that people named Zwyzxuvuski don't end up always geting elected.

It would solve this whole concern over "tactical voting" since in this case it would just involve me allocating 100 points to candidate 1 rather than 80 points to candidate 1 and 20 points to candidate 2. Which is a legitimate expression of preference. <font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek  22:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) <font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek   22:54, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is called Cumulative voting, except that in most (if not all) cumulative voting systems, the number of points is equal to the number of seats being filled. Neutron (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yup. <font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek  23:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Sound good if SecurePoll will work that way. Blackash   have a chat 09:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I'd be fine with this. Jclemens (talk) 01:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 22:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * Please stop the "is it technically feasible" nonsense. Of course it is. Whether it's easy to integrate into SecurePoll is a different story. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 00:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would hesitate to call raising such questions "nonsense", it is an excellent point; it would not be the first time that enwiki has reached a social decision on an issue which is technically infeasible. However, I can confirm that, while this functionality is not currently available in SecurePoll, it would be relatively straightforward to add if a developer could be persuaded to do so. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 21:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Instead of the total score, let's sort candidates by their median score. That's allegedly the hardest system to manipulate.

Statement by User:Lightmouse: ranked votes
Please rank your preference for up to three of the following voting system options:


 * First-past-the-post voting as per Statement by User:PaoloNapolitano. Such systems are used by democratic countries.
 * 3 Lightmouse (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3 Tony   (talk)  01:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2/3 Subject to my objection below. Neutron (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC) (Note:  Tied with approval voting. Neutron (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC))
 * 4 ― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 23:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3 Jclemens (talk)
 * Joint 4. Candidates who have a reasonably large committed group of supporters, but who the majority do not trust and would oppose, would get elected under this system. I think this is wrong, members of arbcom need to be trusted by most people, so we must be able to oppose candidates. Davewild (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * T-4 similar concerns as Davewild.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4 per same concerns as Davewild. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4 SarekOfVulcan (talk)  19:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No. Both per Davewild and because there are several ways (not specified) this could work out - all choices are not equal here.  Missed that a specific proposal was referenced. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A ranked system. Ranked systems captures preference. Such systems are used by democratic countries.
 * 1 Lightmouse (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 Tony   (talk)  01:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4 Subject to objection; and this one might be 2 or even 1 I might rank this one higher if you were proposing an actual system that I agreed with, rather than a method that is used in many different systems. Neutron (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 or 2 (i.e., I'd prefer pretty much any reasonable ranked voting system to first-past-the-post, but some of them I would prefer to approval voting and some I wouldn't). ― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 23:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 (depending on the system might be a 1). Davewild (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe 2 depending on system details.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Distant 2. These are a huge pain in the butt and ought not to be used. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 SarekOfVulcan (talk)  19:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Distant 2. Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The "oppose voting" system'. S/(S+O). Unique to Wikipedia. It aims to capture preference although it isn't used by any country and has no references.
 * 4 Lightmouse (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4 Tony   (talk)  01:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 Subject to objection; and also, this "vote" should count 13 times so far, see previous statements. By the way, Wikipedia isn't a country. Neutron (talk) 22:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3. BTW, I've moved the left parenthesis to where I guess it belongs (what you actually wrote instead would be a very, er..., ‘interesting’ system indeed). :-) ― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 23:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 Davewild (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 Cube lurker (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 SarekOfVulcan (talk)  19:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Per my comments above. It is important not only to select who you want, but also select who you do not want.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  17:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Approval voting (see HJ Mitchell's proposal below).
 * 2 Tony   (talk)  15:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 Lightmouse (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2 or 1 (see above). ― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 23:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 11:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4 Jclemens (talk) 01:13, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Joint 4. Candidates who have a reasonably large committed group of supporters, but who the majority do not trust and would oppose, would get elected under this system. I think this is wrong, members of arbcom need to be trusted by most people, so we must be able to oppose candidates. Davewild (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
 * T-4 similar concerns as Davewild.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2/3 Tied with first-past-the-post, and subject to my objections to the ranking process. Neutron (talk) 16:45, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4 per same concerns as Davewild. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3 SarekOfVulcan (talk)  19:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I object to this question, as it confuses the process. People should not be required to "vote" twice on the same thing. People are already expressing their preferences for the methods that have been proposed, which include Support/Oppose voting and first-past-the-post. As for "ranked system", there are many kinds of ranked systems, see preferential voting. It is not a single system, but an umbrella term for a variety of systems, some of which are proportional and some of which are not. If you want to propose one or more ranked systems or any other kind of system, you should create a separate statement for each one, as PaoloNapolitano and I have done, and then people can decide whether to support each statement. Neutron (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, this question is a bit bunk. I like the "Unique to Wikipedia. It aims to capture preference although it isn't used by any country and has no references.". Actually I also like "Ranked systems captures preference. Such systems are used by democratic countries." Oh yeah, and "Such systems are used by democratic countries.". Gee, which one am I supposed to vote for? Can I rank my preferences? Can I support some and oppose others? Is that used in democratic countries? <font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek  22:46, 27 September 2011 (UTC) ― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 23:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I object to the methods of !voting elsewhere. This preferential survey at last allows me to express with greater nuance my priorities, not just a one-dimensional yes/no. Tony   (talk)  01:24, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I find it deeply ironic that the setter of this question on (effectively) the merits of a relative voting system (both the FPTP and ranked systems require a relative judgement between options, while the S/S+O system is an absolute measure) is enforcing the use of a relative comparison :D <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 21:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * He did not say that ties are not allowed, so you could cast a first-past-the-post-like vote by giving a first place and three equal second places, an approval-like vote by giving n equal first places and (4 &minus; n) equal (n + 1)-st places, etc. :-D
 * You wrote "1 or 2" and then "2 or 1". This is confusing for readers. Did you mean "1" and "2"? If so, could you amend? Also, the "break" syntax built into your signature does make it messy when entering a !vote like this; I hope you don't mind my removing the break. Tony   (talk)  10:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is an explanation. For certain ranked systems, my rankings would be plurality 4th, ranked system 1st, support/oppose 3rd, approval voting 2nd; for other ranked systems, they would be plurality 4th, ranked system 2nd, support/oppose 3rd, approval voting 1st. Without knowing which ranked system Lightmouse has in mind, I cannot assign a first and a second place. ― A. di M.​ <i lang="ga" xml:lang="ga">plé​dréachtaí</i> 11:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * A preferential voting system is clearly the preference, although the sample is rather samll. Tony   (talk)  12:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Would someone please remove the "used by democratic countries" and "no references" bullcrap from this poll? I've never in all my days on Wikipedia seen a poll written with such blatant bias in the questions. And who on earth said Wikipedia should act like a country, anyway? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this whole "ranked votes" statement should be considered to be part of the RfC anyway; see my comments above. Neutron (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by HJ Mitchell
Approval voting—voters only have the option of supporting; there is no "oppose" option, and voters can vote for as many candidates as they feel like. Candidates are ranked by number of votes (and this system lends itself to both secret and public voting, so it's viable whichever way we go) and, if there are nine empty seats, we appoint the first nine or we come up with a minimum number of votes (say 100 for argument's sake) and appoint everybody who reaches that threshold. This doesn't entirely eliminate tactical voting, but will reduce its effects. We should also encourage people to make comments on the candidate in public if they have something to say that might influence voters' decisions. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Editors who endorse
 * 1) HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Would you care to move this from here to above to create a fourth choice? We could then see where it comes (above, below, in the middle) compared to other options being considered. If it stays here, and gets an equal number of votes, we won't know. We don't want any more additions after this but I'm sure the two others, like me, won't mind reconsidering for this exceptional case. Lightmouse (talk) 08:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Harry, could you spell out how this differs from the method proposed in Statement by User:PaoloNapolitano? Tony   (talk)  02:18, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes

 * 1) SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 5) Yeah--Cerejota (talk) 04:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Of course, per Rschen. Tony   (talk)  06:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 8) Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  08:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) --cc 09:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 12) Hesitantly. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 22:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Just as if it were a real election. :)   Neutron (talk) 01:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Definitely: easier voting, prevents reticence out of fear of a backlash, and prevents pile-on voting. <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 16)  Lara  03:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Herostratus (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) Absolutely. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm u /  t 12:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) I think avoiding knowing who has voted which way is a good thing. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C)  21:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Arbs shouldn't be able to know who opposed them. Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 23:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) Secret ballots provide an atmosphere where voters are free of intimidation, heckling, and backlash. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. <font color="#990000">Geo <font color="#000099">Bard <font color="#000000" size="-1">Semi-retired  01:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:32pm • 11:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) John Vandenberg (chat) 10:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) <font color="#9400D2" face="comic sans ms"> ŞůṜīΣĻ <font color="#00008C" face="Papyrus">¹98¹ <font COLOR="#DC143C"> Speak 11:36, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) Davewild (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 30) For numerous reasons. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 00:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 31) Has generally worked for ArbCom elections, and should continue. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 32) Yes! Though I do want to make it clear to any potential candidates that I will in fact support vote for them. Personally. <font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek   22:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 33) Qwyrxian (talk) 05:20, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 34) Yes. A well-known feature of fair voting. Lightmouse (talk) 11:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 35) Per Lightmouse. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 36) It helps stop the "Well this editor got lots of votes I just vote for them." Blackash   have a chat 09:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 37) <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 19:54, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 38) One's true intention is displayed when they have nothing to hide because no one will see. ZamorakO o (talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 39) -- Avi (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 40) Jamietw (talk) 15:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 41)  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  19:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 42) Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:18, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 43) No reason to make it public. If someone wants to declare who they voted for in public, they can. causa sui (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 44) RFA is dysfunctional, let's try democracy for a change. Carrite (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 45) M4gnum0n (talk) 18:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No

 * 1) Closed polling leads to lousy voting. jorgenev 05:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the list of voters (without the corresponding ballots, obviously) could be released to clerks. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 20:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * And short of running several hundred (or several thousand?) checkusers, how does one tell if a voter is a sockpuppet? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   14:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That problem exists whether we use secret voting or not. Ucucha (talk) 14:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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 <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 18:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) theMONO 20:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Per HJ Mitchell. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 20:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) Per HJ Mitchell. Discussion is always a better option than secret polls imo. Ajraddatz (Talk) 00:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) 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)
 * 6) Strongly. In the interests of transparency and discussion.  Them From  Space  03:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) 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)
 * 8) Voters should be willing to publicly stand behind their votes. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  19:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Per personal philosophy--Cube lurker (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) --Guerillero &#124;  My Talk  00:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) 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)
 * 12) 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)
 * 13) So editors can't oppose for the hell of it and real issues come out. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  12:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 2) That's a good point. Open ballots make people less likely to oppose. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

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.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  03:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1)  S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 3) Yeah, it worked fine for me. Jclemens (talk) 05:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) No problem, no fix needed. Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  08:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Structure is okay as is, thanks to years of pruning. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 22:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) No broky, no fixy. &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9)  Lara  03:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C)  21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:30pm • 11:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) <font face="Lucida Console" color="black" size="1">JORGENEV 16:43, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 14)  Blackash   have a chat 09:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) --Elonka 17:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 16)  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  19:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 17)  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

How long should the fallow period be?
How long should be "fallow period" (i.e. the period between the nomination and voting periods) be? –MuZemike 00:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, the "fallow period" allows time for nominees to complete the questions that have been asked to them and to complete any other housekeeping tasks before voting begins. –MuZemike 00:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

2 days

 * 1) Second Choice If we need to shave time, here's the place to do it. If candidates aren't prompt with answering questions, it only hurts them. Also, for the sake of discussion, candidates should already be thinking about how they'd answer, among other things, the general questions from previous years, Lar's questions from last year, and the questions on the working page for this year, as those three sources are likely to contain just about everything worth asking (although not all will be asked). Therefore a long fallow period isn't really needed.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  12:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) 2nd choice—a little short for questioning late runners. Tony   (talk)  14:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) 2nd choice Too short for people with a life. Lightmouse (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Second choice Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  19:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Second choice - A little short for proper scrutiny. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:20, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

5 days

 * 1) 1st choice—Quite long enough to question even a last-minute candidate, especially as questioning can continue until the end of the vote. The electoral process is already going to last more than a month. It is disruptive and unhelpful for it to bloat even further. Tony   (talk)  12:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) First choice I'm less hostile to the 'more than a month' thing than Tony, although I agree that having it drag on too long just gets painful.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  12:14, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not hostile to any ideas put forward on this page. I've asked the user to withdraw or reword the implied comment that I am; he has refused. I ask again that the interpersonal comment be removed. Tony   (talk)  14:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 1st choice Sounds about right to me. Lightmouse (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) First choice Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  19:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) First choice, seems like the right amount of time. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) First choice - There were quite a number of late comers last year from my memory, and a good five days to scrutinise candidates is probably the best balance between this an overly long process. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Only choice.  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 21:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Only choice.  Allows an editor who is temporarily busy in RL to reply without taking up so much time that it stymies the process. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

10 days

 * 1) 3rd choice Tony   (talk)  14:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) 3rd choice Lightmouse (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

15 days

 * 1) 4th choice Tony   (talk)  14:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) 4th choice Lightmouse (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

21 days

 * 1) 5th choice Tony   (talk)  14:46, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) 5th choice Lightmouse (talk) 17:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

How long should the nomination period be?
How long should the nomination period be? –MuZemike 00:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

5 days

 * 1) 3rd choice—possible if well-advertised beforehand, but still unwisely short. Tony   (talk)  14:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) 3rd choice Lightmouse (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Second choice Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  19:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Third choice - Nominations should be a minimum of seven days, so people have at least one week and weekend to put themselves forward. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Fourth choice Way too short. Neutron (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Third choice. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

10 days

 * 1) 1st choice—again, the election should not bloat over a month; it already exceeds that duration. Last year, there appeared to be no problem with a 10-day nomination period, which is usually advertised widely well in advance. Tony   (talk)
 * 2) Personally I'd do nine days, a week with a weekend on either end, or just seven days, a week with a Sunday on one end and a Saturday on the other. This is close enough for comfort.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  12:11, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) 1st choice Lightmouse (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) First choice Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  19:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) First choice - Ten days should give sufficient time for people to decide to throw their hat in the ring, and this should work well with a five day fallow period. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:24, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Second choice A little too short. Neutron (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) First choice Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 21:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) First choice --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Allow People time to give it thought (This is my one and only choice) -- DQ  (t)   (e)  12:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) First choice. --Elonka 01:11, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

15 days

 * 1) 2nd choice Tony   (talk)  14:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) 2nd choice Lightmouse (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Second choice - A little long, since ten days should be sufficient for people to put themselves forward. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:28, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) First choice Nominations should begin as soon as feasible after the RfC closes, but three weeks is a little too long.  Neutron (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Second choice Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 21:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Second choice. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

21 days

 * 1) 4th choice—edging towards a two-month circus, and while it's buzzy for some, it's disruptive for the work of the community. Tony   (talk)  14:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) 4th choice Lightmouse (talk) 17:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Fourth choice - Simply too long. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 21:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Third choice Neutron (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Fourth choice Let's not take forever, now. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:25, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Monty845
Nominations should open immediately following the close of this RFA. Monty <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  02:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) I don't think there is a good reason to artificially constrain the length of the nominating period. Candidates who feel a long period may lead to excessive questioning are not forced to nominate at the start of the period. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  02:55, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Nominations should start as soon as the RfC closes and nominations are ready to be received. If possible, construct the nominations page (or at least a placeholder) in advance and fill in the blanks (ie. requirements) once this RfC closes. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  19:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) The sooner the better. And per above, there's nothing forcing nominees to jump in at the beginning. --Elonka 20:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

=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)


 * Users who endorse this statement
 * 1) Ipsign (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Too much potential for drama or mess if the candidates can vote. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 23:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. -- &oelig; &trade; 00:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Strongly agree, assuming the S/(S+O) system is in place. Salvidrim (talk) 07:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) I fully endorse this. Akjar13 (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Sven Manguard
The candidates should not be prohibited from voting.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  13:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement


 * 1)   S ven M anguard   Wha?  13:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 3)  Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  20:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Why not? They are contributors like any others. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 20:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 22:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 7) If it's a secret ballot, yes. <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8)  Lara  03:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) If it's a secret ballot, no problem. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm u /  t 12:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Iff we have secret balloting. Otherwise, it's really for their and everyone else's good that they don't vote. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 13:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) If and only if there is secret balloting. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 13:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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  So  Why  14:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C)  21:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 18) Jafeluv (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 19) Eluchil404 (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) If all candidates can vote it is a level playing field, I don't see a good reason not to allow it.  Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  19:24, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:30pm • 11:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Cube lurker (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) <font face="Lucida Console" color="black" size="1">JORGENEV  16:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) Deryck C. 18:31, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) Secret voting makes candidate choices at the ballot box irrelevant. John Vandenberg (chat) 10:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) Davewild (talk) 11:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) Not a major issue with the secret ballot, and if all candidates can do it is a level playing field. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) Freedom of speech. Candidates should be free to express their support or opposition for each other. They may have something important to say. In addition, we should listen to what's being said rather than who's saying it. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) Of course they should be allowed to vote. Any voting system that is prone to tactical voting by candidates is also prone to tactical votes by voters. Lightmouse (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 30) Elonka 16:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 31) Obviously. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  18:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 32)  Blackash   have a chat 09:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 33) Candidates have their opinions just like everybody else, and being a candidate does not make their opinion worth less. This is more of a principled stance than something likely to have a probable effect. There are generally far more voters than candidates, so the presence of the candidates' votes do not have a very big impact on the result. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  11:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 34) In a secret ballot, there is absolutely no reason for candidates not to vote. In an open ballot, there is no reason not to allow them to exercise their own judgement in whether to do so. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 19:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 35) Why would candidates not be allowed to vote? Are their opinions somehow less valid than others? There are going to be bukkit-loads of people who are voting with a COI - if someone is nominated for ArbCom, I'd argue that they are better able to remain neutral at a time like this. Ajraddatz (Talk) 14:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 36)  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  19:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 37) Most people do tactical voting anyway, which I hate, and would cancel out any candidates who may try that. Suport so long as it's a secret ballot.  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 38) Goes without saying.  Haven't you seen the President go in and vote for himself?  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 39) KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:26, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 40) Per NW. (Iff statement) --  DQ  (t)   (e)  12:43, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Ipsign

 * To those who have already served in ArbCom: What were ArbCom cases you were involved in, during your previous ArbCom term, and how did you vote in them? Ipsign (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To those who have already served in ArbCom: What were the ArbCom cases where you drafted ArbCom's opinion? Ipsign (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To those who didn't serve in ArbCom: What were the ArbCom cases during last 2 years where you would provide different arguments (even if your vote would be the same)? Ipsign (talk) 12:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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)

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.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  15:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * I've taken your comments under advisement and reduced the number of questions by about half.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Skills and experience: What skills and experience, both on Wikipedia and off, do you think you will bring to the committee if elected?
 * 2) Strict versus lenient decisions: Although every case is different and must be evaluated on its own merits, would you side more with those who tend to believe in second chances and lighter sanctions, or with those who support a greater number of bans and desysoppings? What factors might generally influence you?
 * 3) ArbCom and policies: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: "ArbCom should not be in the position of forming new policies, or otherwise creating, abolishing or amending policy. ArbCom should rule on the underlying principles of the rules. If there is an area of the rules that leaves something confused, overly vague, or seemingly contrary to common good practice, then the issue should be pointed out to the community."? Please give reasons.
 * 4) ArbCom and article content: ArbCom has historically not made direct content rulings, e.g., how a disputed article should read. To what extent can ArbCom aid in content disputes? Can, and should, the Committee establish procedures by which the community can achieve binding content dispute resolution in the event of long-term content disputes that the community has been unable to resolve?
 * 5) ArbCom and motions:
 * a) What is, in your view, the purpose of an ArbCom motion? Under what circumstances, or for what areas or processes, would the use of a motion be your first choice in handling the situation.
 * b) When is it not appropriate to start a motion? If the community has reached consensus on an issue, does ArbCom have the right to overrule that consensus with a motion? If the community is unable to resolve an issue for some time, and there is no active case related to that issue, can ArbCom step in and settle the issue themselves by motion?
 * c) There were a number of controvertial motions this year. Please identify a few motions from 2011 that you believe were appropriate (if any), and a few you believe were inappropriate (if any). Discuss why you have reached the judgements you did.
 * 1) Private information: In light of the mailing list leak:
 * a) Do you believe that the Arbitration Committee should keep records that include non-public information, including checkuser data and the real life identities of users, after whatever case or issue that information originally pertained to had been handled by the committee?
 * b) If the answer to any part of (a) is yes, how long should the information be kept, how should it be kept, and who should have access to it?
 * c) Currently, much of ArbCom buisness is handled over email, and in other non-public forums. Do you believe that all ArbCom discussions that do not directly concern private information should take place publicly? If so, how? Why or why not?
 * d) What, if anything, did the Arbitration Committee do wrong in before, and in response, to the mailing list leak? What did they do right? What would you have done differently?
 * 1) Challenges facing the project: Please share your views on the following subjects. In each case, discuss ArbCom's role, if any.
 * a) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with vested contributors? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
 * b) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with factionalism? Why or why not? If there is a problem, what is to be done about it?
 * c) Does the English Wikipedia have a problem with editor retention? Does Wikipedia have an overall shortage of editors? Do specific parts or tasks have shortages of editors?
 * 1) Reflection on 2011 Cases: Nominate the cases from 2011 you think ArbCom handled more successfully, and those you think it handled less successfully? Please give your reasons.
 * 2) Proposals for change? What changes, if any, in how ArbCom works would you propose as an arbitrator, and how would you work within the Committee towards bringing these changes about?


 * Users who endorse the reviesed questions set


 * 1)   S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I think that this set has been well thought out and should be given some more consideration. Akjar13 (talk) 09:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Nice set of questions. I'd run myself if these were the questions and it was a secret ballot. Carrite (talk) 02:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 23:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  10:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Last year's approach was confusing and restrictive. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 09:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Statement by User:Tryptofish
In the spirit of the statement directly above, 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)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Hobit (talk) 02:20, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Since it's already been done, and is going along smoothly, I guess I support it.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  14:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 3) M4gnum0n (talk) 18:23, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  03:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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)
 * 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)
 * 1) -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) 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)
 * 4) 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.)  S ven M anguard   Wha?  14:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:36pm • 11:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Cube lurker (talk) 15:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Rschen7754 19:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Restrictions cause problems of filtering out multiple good questions from one individual and the problem of what counts as one question. Also, the notice restricting users to one question was poorly worded in previous years resulting in users missing it. Having no restrictions and allowing candidates to deal with the questions themselves seems fair to me. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 13:58, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Heimstern explicates my thinking. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 22:53, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) ?oygul (talk) 01:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 11)  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  19:16, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) M4gnum0n (talk) 18:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who oppose this statement
 * 1) The thousand-question bloat is unfair to voters and candidates, and a huge waste of time. Tony   (talk)  04:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I find it darn hard to parse through all those questions. Hobit (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Same here. Lightmouse (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) There should be some sort of limit other wise you get people with nothing better to do asking questions that even they don't really care what the answer is. Which is unfair to candidate and the other voters. Blackash   have a chat 09:24, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) The question process was worse than a lot of the arb work at times. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:54, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Questions for all should be carefully crafted with broad input. Individual questions smack of RFA-style grilling by "the elite" (cough cough)... Carrite (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1) SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Rschen7754 03:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 5) Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  08:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) See also my comment on NW's proposal. (I guess my answers flunked "concisely.") Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 18:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) Disagree with Coren, and endorse this. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 23:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9)  Them  From  Space  19:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Especially the last sentence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Per my above endorsement of NuclearWarfare's comments. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Cube lurker (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) Well said. --Elonka 02:47, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) <font color="#9400D2" face="comic sans ms"> ŞůṜīΣĻ <font color="#00008C" face="Papyrus">¹98¹ <font COLOR="#DC143C"> Speak 12:17, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) This statement make me smile, thanks. I still think there should be some limit set, Lar questions seemed with in reason to me. Blackash   have a chat 09:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) With the understanding that coordinators should be empowered to remove useless or repetitive questions.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  14:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) --  DQ  (t)   (e)  12:46, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 18) M4gnum0n (talk) 18:26, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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) &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 09:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 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.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  08:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes. Limited questions help voters and are more likely to produce a fair outcome. Lightmouse (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1) Ipsign (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I can't see why it be hard to have basiclly a faq for each candidate to answer and then let voters also ask (in this case) a very limited number of questions. Blackash   have a chat 09:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comments


 * (a) is already done, and (b) won't work. Question askers and guide writers are not the always same people.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  14:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  14:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

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. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * N.B. I wrote a guide last year, and plan to do so again this year.


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 01:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 3) —  G FOLEY   F OUR!  — 01:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Rschen7754 01:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 6) This is reasonable.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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".  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Per SirFozzie. Those who confuse humor with a lack of seriousness need to grow up.--Cerejota (talk) 04:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10)  Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  08:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 12) <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 18:36, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 23:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Elonka 01:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) Per Casliber. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 21:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 19) —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:38pm • 11:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Support although open to some variation of inclusion for satire.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  00:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) Has worked well previously, allows easy navigation between guides, and is fair since it allows anyone to contribute a guide on a level playing field as long as it is serious. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) Second choice (see SoWhy's statement), so long as there is a "disclaimer" (as there was in 2010) stating that these are solely the opinions of their authors.  Neutron (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) Support. Some guides are just plain silly. They are a bane. They are fools. They are wrong. They are a curse. They must disperse. They might cause a Wiki riot so they should all be quiet! (diffs:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ) <font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek   23:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fully endorse, especially w.r.t. your 10th diff. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 19:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  SarekOfVulcan (talk)  19:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) --  DQ  (t)   (e)  12:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * You're drastically underestimating how obvious the difference is. Last year the gulf between serious and (trying to be) humorous was so wide you could drive a tank through it.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  13:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

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.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  08:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1)  S ven M anguard   Wha?  08:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Rschen7754 20:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 23:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Sure, makes sense for user friendliness. Jclemens (talk) 23:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Just for convenience. <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7)  Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  10:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) For convenience's sake and easy navigation. —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:40pm • 11:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Seems a reasonable request --Cube lurker (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * # Yes. If the template is linking to the guide, the guide should include the template. --Elonka 02:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) Yes to reciprocal template, Neutral as to the position of the template in the guides?  Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Yes, more user friendly. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:01, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:38, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) To standardize. --  DQ  (t)   (e)  12:52, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1) Ipsign (talk) 14:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 23:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Hmm, if it's possible. <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 09:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5)  Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  10:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Epbr123 (talk) 12:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Good idea, if, as Sonia says, it's possible.  Regards  So  Why  14:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:40pm • 11:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) If possible, this is a great idea. Hobit (talk) 02:23, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Great idea, if it is possible. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Great idea, and very much possible (although coding might be painful). Note that in all likelihood there isn't going to be a situation where we have too many guides, I predict somewhere between eight and a dozen, so we should be able to show all of them at once.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  12:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Good idea.  Can this be done within the template and not just on the list? Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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  So Why  15:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:


 * 1)  So Why  15:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Jenks24 (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Endorse if it is made clear in the navbox, which guides are serious and which are satirical. Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  17:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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  So Why  17:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1)  Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  18:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) First choice, so long as "satires" are labeled as such, and there is a "disclaimer" (as there was in 2010) stating that these are solely the opinions of their authors.  Neutron (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Agreed. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  18:13, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) M4gnum0n (talk) 18:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1) Jehochman Talk 13:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Count Iblis (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Or at least they should be clearly labeled on the template as being unofficial. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Davewild (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Epbr123 (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Users who do NOT endorse this statement:
 * 1) a) Anyone can write a guide and have it included  b) As the 2010 elections proved, there were many opinions, often conflicting, which cuts the power of any one guide.  c) While I'd like for it to be made explicit, you dramatically overestimate everyone's intelligence if you think that people are going to vote en masse like zombies just because someone said something in a guide.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  13:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) The existing system with a template worked just fine, and the existing disclaimer is clear. --Elonka 18:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) I see no problem with the current system, and find the arguments of people being led en masse to be less then compelling. SirFozzie (talk) 18:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

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 Requests for arbitration/Statistics 2011. The page has links to statistics for earlier years. Risker (talk) 15:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Great. If this isn't up to date at election time poke me. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 16:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe that these statistics are currently up to date, and they are normally kept so. Paul August &#9742; 01:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Taking a look at the stats. Iridescent has a median time to vote of 17 days and a mean time of 12 days which is very poor. Of the others Shell has a mean time of about 6 days and a median time of 4 days, everyone else is less than that, which seems pretty reasonable. With regards to you NewYorkBrad your mean time to vote is 1.1 days and your median time is 0.0 days. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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 &lt;talk&gt; 09:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) If someone's willing to go to the effort. Jenks24 (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) You've got scant enough to evaluate arbs on, but this seems a reasonable metric. Jclemens (talk) 23:04, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 5) Because ArbCom insists on using a super-secret mailing list and a private wiki to bitch about people discuss matters, eve those that could easily be discussed in public, much of its work is a mystery to most mere mortals, so the more of this information that can be made available to voters, the better able they are to evaluate the performance of a particular arbitrator when the arb is up for re-election even if that is only once in a blue moon. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:04, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

=Post-election=

Comment to the closer
This is too close to call, and I don't believe that there's any way to solve it save holding a runoff vote between either 50 and 60, or 50, 60, and no minimal percentage. I was tempted to close it as 55%, but I feel that would get even less support than anything on the table now.  S ven M anguard  Wha?  07:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not? It seems like the only realistic way to close it to me, and extending the RfC just for this seems just a bit ... extreme.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more along the lines of a new RfC, running from now until the fallow period, with a bot inviting everyone that posted to this page to particpate in the runoff. The reason why I don't think 55% will go over well is that the people arguing each point are doing so for very specific reasons, which don't transfer over to 55% percent very well. There's no easy close for this, in that any option will make people unhappy, including a runoff. It's up to the closer to make the final choice though, as to how to proceed.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  10:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a !voter for "no minimal percentage", I prefer 50% to 60%, since I perceive 50% of the lesser of two evils. Perhaps other "no minimal percentage" !voters feel the same way, and perhaps !voters for 66% and 70% would prefer 60% as the lesser of two evils from their point of view. Even from that standpoint, this !vote is extremely close. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:32, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (post close comment) I was going to redact the comments I made today, after having a conversation about them on my talk page, however since the section is closed, I'll just say that I consider the comments redacted in spirit.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  20:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 2) Epbr123 (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 5) Deryck C. 18:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) John Vandenberg (chat) 10:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) The Easiest --Ald™ ¬_¬™ 01:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) <font color="#9400D2" face="comic sans ms"> ŞůṜīΣĻ <font color="#00008C" face="Papyrus">¹98¹ <font COLOR="#DC143C"> Speak 12:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 10) Maybe an interesting question to survey is the proportion of people who did/did not vote tactically. I voted tactically last year, and will continue to do so as long as the rules do not prohibit it – it's impossible to prove one way or another. In such cases, an 'oppose' doesn't mean what it appears to be on the surface, and we would be condemning ourselves perpetually to arb shortages or the Royal veto. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) I'm astonished to find out that good faith voters are being disadvantaged by a system that requires a basic knowledge of the 'game'. Lightmouse (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) As has been stated its impossible to interpret the why and wherefore of the results in this current voting set up - so minimum set limits are confusing the issue even more. If you are fearful that a nominee might be elected by default, or you think you could do better than a nominee then volunteer yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) First choice. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) Pluralities should be fine if it is a massive slate. Carrite (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Minimum percentage support thresholds are not a sensible feature in this system. If the field contains twice as many credible candidates as there are Arb seats to fill then we could easily need to elect someone with less than 50% of the vote. If the field was narrow and there was only one more credible candidate than seats then you might well have a runner up with over 80% of the vote. If we had a glut of good candidates we could find that none achieved 50% simply because of the size of the field. Minimum percentage supports simply mean the more good candidates you have the less likely you are to fill every seat....  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  22:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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 &mdash; is opposed by a majority is too controversial to be an effective arbitrator.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 6) Realistically, high enough to prevent unqualified candidates from passing while not making 'winning' the election an impossible task <font color=#000000>Jebus989 ✰ 18:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 8) Sole Soul (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) Second choice. <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Second choice. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) T. Canens (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 13) Second choice, as an absolute minimum. Jafeluv (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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.  Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  19:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Second choice. —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:44pm • 11:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 21) This must be the absolute minimum, as users with more opposes than support should not be on ArbCom. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) First and only choice. With a secret poll and candidates running against each other to fill the same position, 50% does the best job of filling out the seats, and giving us arbitrators who are seen as qualified by a large enough percentage of the community to have there decision making hold weight. It also prevents people who are seen as unqualified by the majority of the community from being seated. This is important because there is no pre-election run off (like a primary election), or pre-vetting for qualification by skill set or trust by a selection committee. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) Ampersandestet (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC) While I would support quorum of 50%+1, this seems to be a bit more appropriate.
 * 24) Given that many opposes will unfortunately be tactical rather than personal objections to the candidate, anyone who manages to get more active support than opposition clearly should be appointed. There is no evidence to suggest that approved candidates with lower rates have been a significant problem on arbcom.--Scott Mac 23:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) Second choice. What if we have a batch of candidates at 58-59% and not enough over that to fill seats? Would prefer 60 in principle per Ironholds.  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) Second choice. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) Iff it's closed voting. -- DQ  (t)   (e)  12:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) Only choice for me - at least HALF must be supported. 40% isn't good at all (allows users who have been opposed more than supported). As long as there's more support than opposition.  HurricaneFan 25  17:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 29) Since this is a highly scrutinized election, we must expect a high degree of opposition. I don't think this election should be compared with RFA, as some who support higher thresholds seem to be doing. While adminship probably is a big deal, it's not as big a deal as ArbCom membership. So it's only reasonable to think people will struggle to achieve the level of support RFA requires. I still support this cutoff because I don't think anyone with less than 50% support should sit on the committee, even if it means a smaller committee. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * 2) Sir Armbrust  <sup style="color:#E3A857;">Talk to me  <sub style="color:#008000;">Contribs  08:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)\
 * 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.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  02:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) at least 60 per Ironholds. Ipsign (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 7) AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 23:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) First choice. <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) First choice. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 10:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Per Ironholds, at least 60. <font face="helterskelter">Swarm u /  t 12:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) Per Ironholds. — <span style="font-family: Georgia, Garamond, serif;"> Kudu ~I/O~ 21:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">Eagles  <font face="Verdana" color="003B48" size="2px">24/7  <font color="003B48" size="1px">(C) 21:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) 60% makes sense to me. Al Lemos (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) First choice. Jafeluv (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) First choice. —  James  ( Talk •  Contribs ) • 9:43pm • 11:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 17) First Choice --Cube lurker (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 19) Should really be the minimum to ensure a decent level of confidence in every arbitrator. However, anything higher is not realistic with the secret ballot. A possible compromise could be users with between 50% and 60% support being limited to a one year term. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 20) Better err on the side of caution. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me  18:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 21) --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  01:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 22) --Biophys (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 23) Per Ironholds. If someone can't come up with at least 60% of the community support, they have no business serving in this capacity.  Trusilver  19:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 24) Ironholds said it. --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 25) First choice; any higher and we'd never have any arbs.  Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 26) KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 27) Iff vote is open. --  DQ  (t)   (e)  12:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * 28) I'd prefer 75 or higher to be honest, but it seems we can hardly get 75 in an election anymore. <FONT FACE="Poor Richard" SIZE="-1" COLOR="red">Mitch</FONT><FONT FACE="Georgia" SIZE="-1" COLOR="black">32(Never support those who think in the box)</FONT> 04:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

66%

 * 1) Per Ironholds. Kittybrewster  <font color="0000FF">&#9742;  14:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Second Choice --Cube lurker (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) This is my first choice, and I regret that it looks like we're heading to 60%.  Another problem is that we've been dropping below 60% lately, which is marginal IMO anyway and isn't a level that reflects the community trust we expect of arbs, considering the serious nature of personal and confidential issues they are privy to.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) M4gnum0n (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

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.   Ebe 123   (+) $<small style="color:#0000FF">talk Contribs$ 19:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I think 70% is needed.75% is too high while 50% is a bit low.Palaxzorodice (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

100%
1. I always support every single candidate and so should everyone else. Or else... <font style="color:blue;background:orange;font-family:sans-serif;"> Volunteer Marek  20:53, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Instant-runoff voting with a 25% "No one else" option
If people want to elect several Arbs at the same time and also ensure that everyone elected candidate has the confidence of the majority of the community, then we need to use the Instant-runoff voting system with a None of the above or more accurately no one else option. In this system you put the candidates in order of preference, 1 to as many as you have a preference for. But once you've voted for all the candidates who you could accept being elected you put No one else as your next preference. The counting is a tad tedious, but presumably would be computerised. It requires a series of Alternative vote counts until either you've filled every vacant seat or none of the remaining candidates can beat No one else. So if a thousand people vote and you have thirty candidates plus No one else then first you count all the thousand votes and if someone gets over fifty percent they are elected. Then you recount all thousand votes ignoring preferences for the person who has been elected, and eliminate the least popular candidates other than No one else and transfer their votes to their next preference until someone has 50% (if that someone is No one else then the runner up is defeated). Then you count the thousand votes again, but ignore any choices for elected or defeated candidates, and continue until either you fill every seat or No one else is more popular than any remaining candidate. In this system it is theoretically possible to see a candidate defeated when they are first choice of 49% but unacceptable to the other 51%, and then have a string of candidates who easily beat No one else.

We could use this system to set a real minimum support threshold of 75%. All this requires is that when the computer counts each candidate's preferences, at the end of each round you transfer the runner up's votes and check that the successful candidate can beat No one else more than 3 to 1. So if in the first round after eliminating the other candidates from that round if you have:
 * Candidate A 490 votes
 * Candidate B 480 votes
 * No one else 10 votes
 * Non-transferable/no further preferences 20 votes

You then look at Candidate B's votes and transfer them to either candidate A or No one else depending on which got the higher preference. If that results in:
 * Candidate A 640 votes
 * No one else 161 votes
 * Non-transferable/no further preferences 199 votes

Then Candidate A has failed to beat No one else by three to one, so is defeated and ignored in subsequent rounds.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) My distant second preference after the existing system without a requirement for a minimum percentage support.   Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  00:04, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

=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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 1) As it's an utter certainty that tactical voting takes place on a significant scale, yet it is impossible to determine whether someone has voted tactically, the system ought to allow the creation of a fixed number of arbs, chosen from the apparent support levels irrespective of whether the opposes outnumber the supports. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Isn't this how national elections work? Lightmouse (talk) 11:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) A minimum support percentage would only make sense if there were no preset number of seats to fill and for each candidate we were simply saying whether we thought that candidate should or should not be an Arb. So yes if the number of seats to fill is fixed then there should be no preset threshold for support. This system can work fine with either a preset number of vacancies or a preset support threshold, but it is not sensible to have both.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * 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.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  10:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 1) Cube lurker (talk) 15:58, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) 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)
 * 3) Davewild (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Ironholds took the words right out of my mouth. Jafeluv (talk) 14:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) No.  We don't appoint people to a position of such high trust regardless of their support percentage.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Depends on what it takes to fill all the seats. Though unlikely, if it means appointing arbitrators with less than 50% support, then some vacancies should be accepted. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, while most people could be reasonably good arbitrators, there are some people who don't have the skill set or temperament to do an adequate job, and those people should not be placed on arbcom just because too few other good candidates ran. FloNight&#9829;&#9829;&#9829;&#9829; 14:28, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) M4gnum0n (talk) 18:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

=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)


 * 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:
 * 1) Sounds like a necessary provision to reconcile the two requirements. Deryck C. 12:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Not my first choice, but if people insist on combining a Plurality-at-large voting system with a minimum support percentage then the nearest real world example would be majority-at-large voting, where anyone achieving 50% is elected and the remaining top candidates and one runner up compete in a second stage election.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  23:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who do NOT support this option:
 * 1) 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)
 * No, too much trouble. Better to try to elect more people a year later. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Davewild (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Cube lurker (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) The elected ought to be determined in one go. This option is too bureaucratic and may risk system paralysis. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) One ArbCom election a year is enough - another is likely to take up too much time and effort. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Let's try to do the right thing the first time. Lightmouse (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:
 * 1) Facetiously. ;-) -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who do NOT support this option:
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) 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.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  11:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Hahahaha. Thanks for providing the laugh. Deryck C. 12:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Davewild (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Per Tony1. Jafeluv (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Cube lurker (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) Too much danger of World War III, and it is not clear that Jimbo would want to step back out of his ceremonial role. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) This is a joke, right? Lightmouse (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)


 * 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:
 * SirFozzie (talk) 07:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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. <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 09:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. <font color="#CC0099">sonia ♫ 06:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 *  S ven M anguard  Wha?  11:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Davewild (talk) 11:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Cube lurker (talk) 15:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not ideal, but ArbCom can probably manage with a few less than 15/18. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 14:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The number of seats available has to be fixed before voting begins. But the number filled should depend on how many achieve the necessary support (that level should also be fixed before voting begins). There is nothing wrong at all with having a few empty seats if support levels are not high enough - that is how the system should work. It is also vital that any arbs thinking or intending to resign do so before the election starts and not during it or just after it, as that then leads to calls to 'fill' the seat - I would go so far as to forbid acceptance of resignations during the election period as resigning during elections is incredibly disruptive (just defer the resignation until the new arbs take their seats). If not enough candidates achieve the necessary support level, then don't fill all the seats. As simple as that. What is a genuine concern is the fluctuations in the imbalance of the number of seats open for election each year. Last year there were twelve seats filled (the green arbs on the chart here). This year there may be, by contrast, only six elected. Next year it could be ten, and the following year seven. That is a convergence of sorts, but it is possible to stabilise the numbers being elected much quicker. See my proposals here and here. Carcharoth (talk) 20:18, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heimstern Läufer (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * KillerChihuahua ?!? 00:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
 * M4gnum0n (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Users who do NOT support this option:
 * 1) 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)
 * 2) We already suffer from a shortage of arbs. Their number ought to be fixed, and they should be elected in one shot. -- Ohconfucius  ¡digame! 15:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) No country would accept such a system. Lightmouse (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) If we choose a flawed system then when the inevitable happens hopefully the system will get changed. However if we are lucky enough to only be one or two short then I expect we will probably just have to accept that. If however we have a year with a very strong field and so many more good candidates than places that the highest support percentage is below 50%; then hopefully people will accept that minimum support thresholds are not sensible in a Plurality-at-large voting system.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)