Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Archive 2

Last-minute change in number of seats
Per User:Iridescent's departure and as indicated by ArbCom (see here), there will now be 7 open seats up for grabs for this year's ArbCom election. –MuZemike 00:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If for any reason another vacancy occurs before the end of the election, a question not considered by the RFC will arise regarding how long the term for the 8th seat will be. If there are no further vacancies, the 8th seat question will not arise until the next election. Monty  845  00:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Might have to ask the election admins for a ruling if it happens.  Tony   (talk)   15:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have notified TParis, who closed the relevant section of the RFC, of this discussion. I don't think the election admins would be the ones to decide, they are appointed only to oversee the actual vote. If there is no consensus in the election RFC, then I think we would need to start a new RFC to determine the term length, if that seat ends up needing to be filled. Monty  845  15:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this should even be an issue. The issue WAS how to get from tranches that were unbalanced (9/6) to tranches that are as balanced as possible (8/7) in light of the reduction of the ArbCom size to an odd number.  Now that issue has resolved itself:  Tranche Alpha (NewYorkBrad etc.) has 8 members and Tranche Beta has 7.  We should just "accept" that gift from fate, and then if any more vacancies arise in Alpha before the end of the election, they will be filled in the election for the one year remaining in the term, and then next year the 8 seats in Alpha will be up for election.  Does it really have to be any more complicated than that?  Does there really need to be an RfC on whether the tranches are 8/7 or 7/8?  It just seems so trivial and there surely are much more productive things we can all be doing with our time on Wikipedia than worrying about that.  Neutron (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think what Tony1 is getting at is that adding a seat during the election is equivalent to "moving up the goalposts" and making it easier for candidates to get in. –MuZemike 19:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't get around to it, but I had in mind proposing that the number of vacancies be fixed on the opening of nominations, to prevent resignations or removals during the election that might be seen as tactical or politically-motivated. Barring mass-resignations, I still think this should be the way to go (i.e. fix open seats at 7 come what may).  Skomorokh   15:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Decision needed
Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry has just announced his resignation as of 31 December 2011. As we failed to decisively state what to do in such an eventuality (arbitrator resigning once elections have begun), it remains to be seen whether this creates an additional vacancy. If it did, it would not create too much of an imbalance (8 arbs elected this year, 7 [+ number of resignations of those 8] arbs elected next year), but per the RfC would have to be a two-year term like the others.

So, do we fill Chase me's seat at this election? Skomorokh  15:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we shouldn't; the RfC was thinking there would be 6 vacancies at the time — because Iridescent and Chase me have now stepped down, we should eliminate either one (Chase me) or two (Chase me + Iridescent) seats.  HurricaneFan 25  15:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But if we only had 6 seats open this year, there'd be at least 9 open next year. So it would've been okay to have 9 seats filled next year but not 8 this time around?  Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yet a majority of those commenting on the ideal size of the committee felt there should be 15 arbitrators. – xeno talk  15:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, and we'd leave them with less than 15 if we decided not to fill the seat for a reason other lack of candidates who reach 50% support. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Per my comment in the other section below, I think the seat should be filled if 8 candidates achieve 50% support, term length to be determined. Monty  845  15:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the resigning arbitrator expressed the wish that the seat be filled at this election. Skomorokh  15:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say that it is a wish, not a demand. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If only you got the news before the close of nominations, it might have changed who ran. As much as I don't like it (I'm only supporting 6 or 7 candidates this election, likely not 8) we really ought to try and fill up the committee.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  15:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To stir the pot up a little, the hard cutoff on number of candidates (when Tim sets up the SecurePoll configuration) has not yet been reached. Happy‑melon 16:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh boy. It really doesn't seem right to increase the number of seats after nominations have "closed", but it also doesn't seem right to leave the seat open for a full year, so that we have a maximum of 14 (not 15) arbitrators until the next election. It would be nice if we had an established method for filling vacancies between elections, but we don't, and we can't assume that a consensus for one is suddenly going to develop. (I have been thinking of one that might possibly have a chance of getting consensus, but that's for after the election.) That being the case, I think that on balance the better plan is to elect eight arbitrators in this election. However, as I said above after Iridescent left the committee, the "groups" should be "set" as of that event. In other words, Group 1 should remain at eight seats, one of which is now vacant, so it should be filled at this election for a one year term. The top seven finishers get the two-year terms in Group 2, and the eighth gets the one-year vacant seat in Group 1. (Assuming of course, that all get at least 50% support; if that's not the case, we're going to have to deal with it, but that possibility exists regardless of the number of seats to be filled.) I also think that for the future, we need either a specific set of rules to deal with events like this, or an elected "Elections Commission" to make these decisions. I imagine some might think it looks a little "sneaky" for these decisions to be made by whoever happens to show up for a discussion during the few days (or hours?) in which the decision is being made -- on a major holiday in the U.S., no less. But this is what we have for now. Neutron (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry is standing down as an arb at the end of the year, so do we go into and RfC mode (for the 2 days 8 hours left before voting) and get a rough consensus or how will this work? (See this for details) -- DQ  (t)   (e)  15:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments moved from below for conversational clarity. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously, I'm biased, but since candidates need 50% support anyway this should really be filled through the election. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * See above.  HurricaneFan 25  15:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the seat should be filled if a candidate meets the 50% threshold. For me the question is the term length. There are three ways I think the 8th seat could go. First, we could have it always be a one year seat filled by the candidate with the 8th most support. This would make sure that no tranche was larger then the other, and one extra seat being elected each year is not overly burdensome, and is still less then there would have been without the change. Second, we could have it be a 2 year term, and anticipate that during any given cycle, one Arb seat from the most recently elected tranche will become vacant, and will be able to be the 8th seat for the alternate tranche. The problem with that would be that there is a risk of all the arbs staying, which would leave an imbalance. My third proposal would be a hybrid of the two, we fill all 8, but the 8th place will be a one year term, however if another tranche beta seat opens during 2012, the 8th place arb would be promoted to fill the remainder of the two year term. I don't think we need to conclude an RFC before voting starts, as long as there is no significant dissent other whether the seat should be filled at least a year term, the specifics of the term length can be decided as the voting proceeds, or even after it is concluded. Monty  845  15:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * To summarize what I said in the earlier section, I think we should stick with the previous plan of electing seven members of "Group 2" for two-year terms, and treat this as a "one-year" vacancy in "Group 1." So the "top 7" are elected for two-year terms and the eighth for a one-year term, assuming all meet the 50% threshold.  It also would be nice if we could keep this discussion in one place at a time.  Neutron (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * End comment consolidation. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 17:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Since we have no mechanism for making this decision, and it really ought to be made before the voting starts (so there really is no time for a valid RfC), my suggestion is an "emergency commission" to quickly discuss the issue on one of their talk pages, come to a decision within about 24 hours, and announce and implement it. I think the most logical group, if they will accept, is Happy-melon, Tznkai, Skomorokh and Muzemike. Admittedly it might be a small step outside their role as Election Administrators, but it's the group we've got, and I don't think there should be too much controversy about them making this decision in an emergency. Neutron (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * An "election commission"? You're kidding me right?  The community already voted that there should be 15 candidates (unless not enough reach the 50% threshold).  Saying that only 7 would be elected invalidates decision, rather arbitrarily.  And as I said above, the original plan would've had 6 vacancies and 9 next.  So why would've have been acceptable to vote for 9 next year but not 8 this time around?  Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the merits or demerits of your position, Hot Stop, I think you should be extremely cautious in what views you express on election-related issues. Your right to participate in a discussion is as inalienable as any other editor's, but your position leaves you equally indisputably conflicted.  Expressing your own personal opinion is fine, as you did above.  I think you should be hesitant about making any attempt to affect the views of others.
 * I am not adverse to an impromptu Commission forming, or of participating in such an exercise myself; but there would need to be a consensus for such a step, and in the limited time we have I'm not sure which question - whether to form a commission to decide the issue, or just the issue itself - would be easier to find consensus on. Happy‑melon 18:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Seconded.  Skomorokh   19:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, the RfC was for 15 people on ArbCom, on the other hand, it expressly had no problem with a shortfall in candidates (i.e. vacancies). Given this, I don't think people would be terribly unhappy with either filling or not filling the vacancy.  That said, shouldn't the default be ... the default?  That is, the resignation happened after the process was well under way, so why shouldn't it be treated the same as if the resignation happened after the process was over?  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 19:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One could equally ask why it shouldn't be treated the same as if it happened before the process had started. The problem is that there never was a cut-off date set for vacancies to arise – and so there is no default, and I say that as an editor who has been co-ordinating these elections for three years.  Skomorokh   19:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Honestly? I'd rather be short an Arb or two (or three, or four) under the nominal committee size than encourage the further relaxation of the approval standards for new Arbs.  Do we really want to be padding the committee with editors who nearly half the community thinks shouldn't have the job?  Bluntly, we don't need more warm bodies; we need more Newyorkbrads. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That logic doesn't follow through. You're presuming that the eighth candidate is sure to be in the borderline region just above 50%, when that is far from a given.  They could have 70% support, or 40%; and in that latter case they are below the threshold consensus level anyway.  Basically what you're saying is that you're worried that the 8th candidate will finish somewhere between the 50% level that the consensus of the community says is support enough to be an arbitrator, and the somewhat higher level that you think is support enough to be an arbitrator.  That your own view and the community's view on where the threshold should be differs is fine; but it's not a valid argument against potentially electing a candidate who falls in that region, given that it is working against the consensus already obtained on the issue for this election. Happy‑melon 21:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that he has final say in "appointing" arbitrators, I've notified Jimbo. Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That is something of an anachronism. It is true that originally Jimbo had leeway to appoint arbitrators in whatever manner he liked, and the elections were merely advisory, but this has not been the case for years now, in which his role has been as ceremonially announcer. The proposal that he would have power of appointment achieved only facetious support in the RfC that determined the parameters of the election.  Skomorokh   21:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Contra-Happy melon above, election staff (a not yet well defined set) may have to make the final call at the end if no consensus forms I'd rather us take the heat for the buck stopping with us than foisting it off on Jimbo, the outgoing committee, or the incoming committee, which are other options in case of a problem. Now, looking at the RfC, my read of it is that it mandates a number of seats, not a number of vacancies. The only mention of vacant seats is in Tparis' summary, which I chalk up to him doing some basic math for the crowd. Since actual voting has not begun and the ballot is not set I do not believe the election is "locked in" yet. Once voting opens however, that is that.--Tznkai (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You're missing one, though it didn't explicitly refer to vacancies. If I can quote myself, "a shortfall in successful candidates is acceptable" (from my two-section close at WP:ACERFC, addressing comments both there and at WP:ACERFC).  Granted, none of the RFC comments anticipated this situation, but it does indicate that the "leave the position vacant" would be within the spirit of the RFC.
 * Also, Contra Hot Stop, the replies to the "Jimbo appoints vacancies" section was met with unanimous opposition. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant that he confirms results and clarifies term lengths, judging off of past years. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever Jimbo's actual role is or could be (if Jimbo's role is 'constitutional' in nature, the RfC mattters not a whit) my strong preference is to take care of this matter "in house" as it were. Involving Jimbo would invite bonus drama that I think we would all rather avoid. As to the "short fall in successful candidates is acceptable" that refers to candidates failing to meet minimum acceptability requirements for however many seats are open not how to deal with suddenly open seats in the twilight between the close of nominations and the start of voting.
 * If I can wax politically philosophical for a moment, Arbitration Committee Elections are one of the few explicitly democratic procedures on Wiki-en. Our goal is to reflect the democratic will of the polity, so the question is what outcome or interim procedure for deciding an outcome will maximally reflect the will of the polity? There are good arguments to go either way, and plenty of people with strong opinions on it in various directions. Considering how well we manage to gain consensus with super trivial decisions, the relatively high stakes of the election will make finding consensus (real consensus, which is some sort of mutual agreement, not a side "winning") nearly impossible. Especially since finding consensus, if we so attempted, would require considerably more advertisement than the main ACE talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If you want to gauge the will of the voters on this, the best method is to add a question to the SecurePoll ballot paper, if that is technically feasible, asking people whether they want this extra vacancy filled or not, and how. What I'd do, if I was running things, is go further and set things up so after people cast their vote, they are given the option to answer a set of questions similar to those posed at the RfC (but much better designed), on how the electorate think the election should be carried out and set up and so on. Sure, not everyone will bothered to answer such questions, but that gains more direct feedback than an RfC (with drawbacks such as lack of comments). Could things be set up at least so that people are directed to a feedback page as well as being prompted to add their thoughts, if they wish to do so, to discussions about the candidates (that latter link is being included for voters on the 'landing page' they arrive at after voting, right)? I know that SecurePoll provides a list of who voted, so feedback can be canvassed later, but getting people's opinions while they are voting would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought about adding a question onto the ballot, or as an exit question, but I dislike the idea of leaving the issue hanging until the end of the vote. And while I personally detest tactical voting, voters have every right to chose to do so if they wish, and leaving the answer unclear would thwart that. Among other reasons.--Tznkai (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that nominations are apparently closed, it would be entirely inappropriate to open more positions. Hipocrite (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I was about to write a brief bit on my rationales for supporting or opposing the current candidates, but that was partly (though not completely) predicated on the number of seats available. I'm now going to hold off on that, and on deciding on my votes, until it is clear how many seats there are available. Can someone please take some initiative here and make sure that either: (a) the number of seats available is decided before voting opens; or (b) the election is delayed and nominations are re-opened to allow others to step forward in light of the changed circumstances. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, resigning (or announcing a resignation) at the wrong moment during the annual elections, however well-meaning, is one of the more disruptive things an arbitrator can do (no matter how they try to rationalise it). It moves the goalposts. Far better to wait until the hand-over is complete and then resign, or to resign before nominations open. Either way, resignations should not affect the number of seats available, and if the number of seats available is changed after nominations have closed, the only way to offset that is to re-open nominations. Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Rest assured that however else we decide to handle this, the election co-ordinators will not allow the matter to remain unsettled by the opening of voting on Sunday. That said, I think it's still too early in the discussion to draw any valuable conclusions for it, so I would like to encourage interested parties to engage with each others' arguments so as to ensure an informed and considered outcome.  Skomorokh   01:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the decision will have to be made; and Tim has now finished setting up the election (Special:SecurePoll/vote/240), so it will have to be decided by Sunday night. That is still plenty of time for discussion, however. Happy‑melon 02:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it too late to get the 00:01 start time in there? Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does it need to be made before the end of the election itself; indeed, the stewards don't even need to know the number of vacancies—they're auditing, checking, validating, and presenting the tally (not the successful candidates). This is a community issue (certainly not one for Jimmy Wales), and needs to be settled with an immediate RfC.  Tony   (talk)   03:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So, it's simple as far as I can see: the election admins need to confer and make a ruling as to whether it's to be seven or eight vacancies. Better still if they establish a precedent, a broader principle (which of course, next year, could be revisited by the community if people want to do so).  Tony   (talk)   08:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually this sort of decision is traditionally mine to make. And I traditionally make such decisions per the advice of the community in the form of an RfC and/or the existing ArbCom.  Those who worry about drama can assist in minimizing drama by noting that it makes very little difference one way or the other.
 * The worst drama would be to institute a brand new out-of-process procedure out of line with what has been done in the past and out of line with longstanding traditions.
 * Also note that I have the right to fill vacancies on the ArbCom at any time throughout the year, so if we did 7 now, and decided that ArbCom was short staffed, then appointing the 8th later would be possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jimbo, you appointing someone would start a firestorm, no matter how qualified the candidate, and everyone here knows it.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  09:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jimbo's role in the ArbCom elections has been written out of both the new Arbitration policy and the text of these elections; neither even mention his name in the context of appointments. The recent RfC was unanimous that "Jimbo should not fill any resulting vacancies or extend the terms of existing arbitrators".  The current ArbPol states that "Members of the Committee are appointed following annual elections organized and run by the community... In exceptional circumstances, the Committee may call interim elections, in a format similar to that of the regular annual elections"; no mention of Jimbo appointing anyone, or even of calling by-elections unilaterally.  Jimbo's ship has well and truly sailed in this area. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 11:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So English Wikipedia's now officially a republic? Then we are in serious trouble because the election admins are self-selected volunteers. In nobody objects to 8 appointments this year that would be fine, but if someone does then the role of election admins would instantly become kingmakers and next year we'll probably have an election on election admins before we even start ACE2012 and beyond. - Speaking as an editor, Mailer Diablo 15:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'd go that far, but certainly Jimbo's 'constitutional' prerogative to tinker with the membership of ArbCom ex judice has been removed. The only way people can become arbitrators is to be elected at a community-organised election; and those elections happen either annually or when the existing ArbCom decide to call a by-election.  Which says absolutely nothing about how we should approach the situation in hand, of course. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 16:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jimbo, you know that I admire you and support all that you've done for us (and will continue to do for us, I hope). Your judgement, your skills, and your experience are unique. So I hope you won't mind my saying that things have evolved WRT community responsibility for the elections; I think you've acknowledged this more than once, in principle, both on-wiki and in public. The evolution is clear both in community opinion and, in black letters, in the recently endorsed ArbCom policy/constitution (referendum a few months ago). This one is the community's call, and the smartest thing for us all to do right now, given that the election is soon to go live, is to wait for the community's election admins to make a decision on the 8 versus 7 thing. I can't stress strongly enough how trusted these admins are, and how experienced they are in the conduct of ACE. We look to them to liaise with the stewards and to ensure the honesty and integrity of the process. They are in an ideal position to make a practical, neutral call on this one, without regard to their own personal preferences. Jimbo, I have no doubt that you, too, are held in such esteem, but the baton has now passed to the community.  Tony   (talk)   15:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * (EC, response to Mailer diablo)Well, we should have an election on election admins, or more accurately, an elected body to conduct the elections, which would select the election admins (which could include its own members.) This is just my opinion of course, but as I have watched this election unfold, it seems clearer and clearer to me that such a thing is needed.  Whether it has any chance of obtaining consensus is a different story, but after the election we may get to find out.  What is certain, however, is that we don't have such a body in place for this election, and as a result the decision at hand will be made by one or more unelected "kingmakers," to use your term.  The only issue is who the kingmaker is/are going to be.  (I believe this situation is what you would call a "constitutional crisis," and if we want the community to accept the election as "legitimate," it had better be resolved quickly.)  Neutron (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Either through the community or the election admins or both, we need a consensus to pull this off. At minimum, do we have an unanimous decision from the election admins? -Mailer Diablo 16:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether Jimbo has reserve power or not isn't really the issue, it is whether or not the elections will be served better by someone else making that decision. Jimbo has, as far as I can remember, characterized his powers like a modern UK monarch, somewhere to go where all else has failed and the system is in danger of devouring itself. We're not nearly there yet. Intercession before that point would threaten the legitimacy of the election, rather than enhance it, so lets stick a pin in that discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Tnzkai has it right. A few people in this discussion are more than a bit confused about my reserve powers, which still exist and are in full effect as always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Shit's about to hit the fan, huh? It wouldn't be too ridiculous to pay Ira, Alison, Thatcher and Anne to do the job for a year. It's not like that cash in the bank is doing much... otherwise there's going to be a whole heap of kids with the keys to the liquor cabinet come January. Or you could just put Fred and Dave back in, lord knows how well that one worked out previously.101.118.48.158 (talk) 12:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the others, but my comment wasn't to suggest that you didn't have reserve powers, but to imply that "running off to Jimbo" wasn't the preferred option. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 00:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tznkai, in that case then we all actually agree on the same thing. Mailer Diablo 03:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The community may not see it quite this way. If reserve powers really exist, they are rooted in either (i) en.WP community consensus, tested as necessary in RfCs; (ii) the ArbCom policy, recently revised (I'm struggling to see where reserve powers are mentioned there); or (ii) imprimatur of the WMF board, but only insofar as that board has power over en.WP and is willing to use it by proclamation or by directing its employees to act.  Tony   (talk)   04:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Supplemental RFC on number of seats to fill: ACE2011
Since the regular Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011 closed, 2 additional seats have opened up, one prior to the opening of nominations (seat 7), and another during the fallow period following the close of nominations (seat 8), but before voting has begun. Particularly in the case of the 8th seat, there is a need to establish consensus on whether it will be filled. Regardless of how many seats are available, candidates must have a minimum of 50% support, and seats will be filled in order descending support percentage, from highest to lowest. Monty 845  15:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * [Note from Jimbo]: In the interest of minimizing meta-drama, I want to make clear that I will respect the outcome of this RfC when I make my appointments.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * [note from election admins]: It has been suggested that the election admins are best placed to evaluate the final decision on this issue; after discussing amongst ourselves we have established a) that we are happy to do so, and b) that we are in agreement that the matter should be fully resolved before the start of voting, in the interests of minimising drama and also because it would be unfair to both candidates and voters to leave it unconcluded. As such, we propose to close this RfC together, tomorrow evening. <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 01:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am in full accord with Happy Melon above.--Tznkai (talk) 01:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As am I.  Skomorokh   01:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, from near-rioting in the streets to peace, love and understanding in just a few hours. Good job everybody.  Now let's just hope the RfC doesn't end in a tie...     Neutron (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Fill eight seats

 * 1) Per my comment below, . –MuZemike 15:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) I don't think the late timing of the 8th seat opening substantially effects the legitimacy of filling it. It seems unlikely that the change from 7 to 8 seats would have caused additional candidates to run. As we have a minimum support threshold, there is not a problem of the extra seat allowing under qualified candidates to be seated, voters can support fewer then 8 candidates if they choose. I say we let the voters decide based on the support threshold, the seat will remain vacant if less then 8 candidates hit 50%.  Monty  845  15:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) With the eighth seat being a one-year term to replace Chase Me in Group 1.  That would temper the "moving up the goalposts" concern, at least a little.  Neutron (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Directly replace Calvary's seat, one-year term remaining. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Fill the empty seats, period. It's false logic to claim that this would be moving the goalposts, because the goalposts were put in place when people didn't know that the eighth seat would open up. In fact, the goalposts were placed with the assumption that there would end up being a particular total number of Arbs, and this addition keeps that assumption as it was all along. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Attention shoppers! The consensus before the nominations was to set the size of the Committee at a total of 15 members. With the most recent vacancies, the effect of electing 8 members (if and only if 8 candidates can get a sufficient support vote!) is to keep that number at 15. Electing 7 or fewer changes that number to less than 15. Thus, electing 8 is not changing the rules. And, thus, electing 7 is changing the rules! No matter how many times the editors commenting in favor of 7 say the opposite, their repeating it does not make it true. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * By that logic, if the entire committee resigned right now, and 15 or more running in this election got over 50% support, you would fill all the seats from this election. Obviously the entire committee resigning is unlikely, but what if another arb resigned right now? Where does it stop? You have to draw the line somewhere, and it is entirely logical to say that once the number of vacancies has been determined, that it should not be changed during the election. There is nothing wrong with leaving one or two seats vacant for a year. Carcharoth (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You are definitely right and of course, we have to draw a line somewhere. Yet I believe that 1 seat does not make a significant difference here and couldn't possibly have distorted the picture and the whole election game. Pundit | utter  21:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) I don't see where the specific timing of these circumstances prevents all 8 seats from being filled.  As commented above, it's unlikely that more candidates would have appeared had this happened with more more lead time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't forget that Maxim withdrew after nominations closed, so it went from 7 seats elected from 18 candidates (reasonable, if not ideal) to potentially 8 seats elected from 17 candidates (less reasonable). I think you underestimate the number of people who looked at the list of candidates the day before nominations closed and thought "that looks reasonable, no need to try and find other candidates to improve the quality of the field". The thinking there might have been different if it had been 8 seats available from the start. I would not have run, but I might have considered asking others if they were willing to consider running. I'm also uneasy at the way some candidates are commenting here. Carcharoth (talk) 18:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Support - don't see a problem here. --Rschen7754 20:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Makes sense, since it seems very unlikely that the difference between seven or eight seats would have impacted on the number of candidates. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 20:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) After reading all the comments, I don't see the harm in filling in eight vacant seats instead of seven or six.  Granted I have not read the reasons why the two arbitrators in question have resigned their posts, but I would presume that if they were to do it now, they would have valid urgent, pressing reasons why.  At least it's better than having to deal with vacated seats later, essentially duplicating what's being done here now and having this discussion all over again, or worse, having to resort to "extralegal" means to fill in sudden vacancies. -- Sky Harbor  ( talk ) 23:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Fill 8 seats if possible though I'm not sure how many will get above 50%. - Hydroxonium (T•C• [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&amp;username=Hydroxonium V] ) 23:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) This is the practical option to minimise the waveform swings in vacancies up and down from year to year. Next year, going by the history of early departures, we're likely to see more seats become vacant (as now). So 7 now and 8 next year will become 7 now and 9 or 10 or 11 next year. Better 8 now and 7 or 8 or 9 next year, by analogy. In other words, take up the slack now and the swings and roundabouts oscillate just a little more smoothly.   Tony   (talk)   06:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Yes, eight; there's no downside to filling a full-size arbcom from the current pool of good candidates.  Dicklyon (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) If enough candidates get over 50% of the vote. Davewild (talk) 14:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) If enough people get 50%, yes. I don't think that the knowledge that there were eight open seats rather than seven would have motivated anyone to run or not run (or otherwise affected the nomination process). The ratio of successful to unsuccessful candidates would still be lower than last year. Holding a special election would be an unnecessary waste of time and effort. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 14:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) The alternative is to leave that seat unfilled for a year or to hold a second election for a single seat. It also seems that the Cavalry desires for that seat to be filled. The 50% threshold safeguard has already been established, and if we need an additional safeguard, then we can make the eighth seat a single-term seat. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:05, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) If there are N seats vacant and N candidates with the requisite support, then N candidates should be elected. This year N=8. The deadline for additional seats to be up for grabs should be 24 hours before the opening of voting to allow time for both the unexpected and the promulgation of news of the unexpected. Thryduulf (talk) 19:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) The main purpose of the election should be to fill positions in order to provide an arbcom of the desired size subject to candidate availablity and support. How many positions to fill with each election is best determined by applying the criteria at the time, rather than itself being determined in advance. (So basically I agree with Tryduulf). --Mirokado (talk) 19:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 12) Armbrust Talk to me  about my edits<sub style="color:#0892D0;">review  20:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 13) As Thryduulf says, if 8 seats are vacant, we should fill 8 seats, regardless of why they are available. We know that we have one extra open if we don't and there is no point in doing so. If there are not enough worthy candidates, the 50% barrier will prevent the seat from being filled anyway. I personally do not believe the argument that more people would have stepped forward if they had known about the extra seat available: If someone decides to run for ArbCom, they do so because they think they are qualified to do so, not because they believe that (N - 1) other candidates are more qualified. Regards  So Why  20:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 14) Per several editors above. T. Canens (talk) 20:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 15) I don't see it as a problem, and also 8 occupied seats serve Wiki better then 7 (or 6). I also agree with many of the comments above.   Pundit | utter  20:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 16) Don't want to short-change the committee should there be more resignations. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk)  21:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Fill seven seats

 * 1) Not appropriate to increase the number of seats after the nominations closed. Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Fill seven only: there are not enough worthy candidates to elect even seven, the arb committee will function fine with 14 instead of 15, the previous RFC did not foresee this situation, and the possibility that we will have a committee made up of candidates with marginal support (50%) may not have been contemplated by those who didn't foresee this possibility.  As things are stacking up, based on the candidate list, adding another arb likely to barely garner 50%-- to the already seven-- will not be an optimal outcome.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Adding on, and this was already decided in the previous RFC, with the closer concluding that "shortfall in successful candidates is acceptable".   Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Second choice. Per Sandy.  HurricaneFan  25  20:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 2) Because when nominations closed, this is how many were up.  Possibly other users would have applied if they'd known there would be 8. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 20:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) Per SandyGeorgia, maybe hold a special election after a time to fill the remaining seat.  -- Jayron  32  21:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Adding a marginal seat-warmer is not likely to improve the working of the Committee.  The time to set the number of seats available was before the end of the nominations period, not after.  I honestly doubt that we'll draw even seven candidates who are objected to by less than a third of the voting community. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 5) Not enough good candidates even to fill seven (also, I'd like to see a higher bar than 50%) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 6) Per SandyGeorgia.  If 15 are absolutely needed, a special election seems reasonable to me. Problems in the fairness of election methods can be very subtle and difficult to foresee.  Maybe there's nothing obviously wrong with changing the number of seats to be filled after the process has begun, but wouldn't it be bad to find out later that there was something wrong with it?  The safest course is to not change the set-up now.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 7) This option seems fairest. If we discover that ArbCom absolutely can't function with 14 (or if half the committee resigns), then hold an interim election. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 8) It's unfair to change the rules during the game. I think it'll be moot, because I doubt 7 will get 50%. If we can't find enough great candidates, we shouldn't use poor ones. I feel 50% is a ridiculously low threshold, too.  Chzz  ►  00:43, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 9) What a mess. Per Nikkimaria and Chzz.   S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 10) Per Nikkimaria, Philosopher and TenOfAllTrades. Carcharoth (talk) 11:08, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 11) On general principle, the conditions for any election should not change after the nomination period has expired. Anyone considering a candidacy should be able to make a fully informed decision on whether to run before the deadline, and rule changes after that point should be avoided. For the eighth seat, it would be better to either reopen the call for candidates (but it's a little late for that now), or run a special election. Sjakkalle  (Check!)  11:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Fill six seats

 * Comment: I do not think this is a viable option, since it was already announced (before nominations closed) that seven seats would be filled.  Increasing the number of seats from there, in light of changed circumstances, is ok; decreasing the number of seats after the close of nominations could look shady.  Neutron (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with your position, but wanted to add it as an option to cover the bases. The previous RFC did not directly address a 7th seat, I hope we can all agree that at least that seat should be filled, but just in case someone disagrees, there should be an option. Monty  845  16:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) I support six as my primary option; secondarily, I support filling seven seats. The election is poorly-contested, almost as bad as last year, when we escaped by the skin of our teeth from getting some really unsuitable, and in fact quite weakly supported, candidates as arbitrators. Let's try to minimise that risk this year. It'll indeed, per several people in the "Fill seven seats" section, be hard enough to fill even seven seats appropriately. 14 arbitrators in 2012, or indeed 13, would work for me, at least much better than appointing eight out of this field. No offense to any of those offering to serve in this ungrateful role! Not everybody is cut out for it, that's all. (And I'm not telling which of them I think are or aren't.) That's hardly going to fly at this time, no, I know. The fairness issue seems to me overblown in this instance, however. IMO Neutron has it backwards: filling eight seats could indeed be seen as unjust to users who might have applied if they'd known; but who would filling only six be unjust to? People who have applied, and might not have if they'd known? Really? "Looking shady" is hardly relevant in the (admittedly wildly unlikely) event that such an option gets majority support in these open and transparent proceedings. Bishonen &#124; talk 14:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC).
 * 2) First choice. I'm only supporting five this year, and six seems like the most reasonable possibility to me.  HurricaneFan 25  19:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Cancel the elections
I've only seen one or two suitable candidates. Perhaps it would be better to first find good candidates before holding the elections. Count Iblis (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No-one is forcing you to support more than one or two candidates and no candidate without majority support among those voters who are not indifferent will be appointed to the committee. If the electorate shares your views, no unsuitable candidates will become arbitrators; if they don't, why on earth should your feelings override those of the community in one of the few explicitly democratic processes we have? To suggest that the entire elections be canceled because you personally don't like the candidates who stepped forward is rather remarkably contemptuous of the judgement of your fellow voters.  Skomorokh   20:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Discussion
While it would of course be desirable to know how many seats we are voting to fill when the voting starts, that is not strictly necessary. We should nonetheless try to arrive at a consensus as quickly as possible, so that those voters who wish to vote differently based on the number of seats can adjust their voting accordingly. Monty 845  15:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Notifications of the RFC made to WP:AN, WP:VPP, WP:VPM, and WP:CENT. Monty  845  16:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

In response to Sandy's comments/oppose: I don't see that making the minimum threshold will make any difference with regards to the number of seats we fill, as we know that we are only taking in those arbitrators who have garnered the minimum percentage of 50%. That is, they won't be appointed if they don't meet that at least, i.e. as far as I understand, we are taking the highest X candidates with >50% support rates and appointing them; if we have fewer candidates above 50% than seats, then those remaining seats would remain vacant per the WP:ACERFC results. I don't think that has changed. –MuZemike 21:18, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Depth of field is unlikely to be an issue. 5 sitting arbs running all of whom are apparently competent (certainly fewer complaints about arbcom than usual) which means that you only need three viable candidates from the remaining 12 to fill 8 spaces.©Geni 21:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * As for Sandy's comment that we should decide this based upon her opinion of the quality of the candidates, the solution to that is to vote against any unsuitable candidate, not to prevent anyone else from having a support vote count. Any candidate getting less than 50% will not be approved, no matter what the decision in this talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Watchlist notices appear to have been put in effect.  HurricaneFan 25  20:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Term of the 8th seat
We should discuss the length of the term for the 8th seat now in case there is consensus to fill it. The RFC had all seats as 2 year terms, but did not anticipate the additional vacancies. It does not appear to be controlling as to term length, particularly as to the 8th seat Monty  845  15:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Support two-year term for #8 – Not speaking for the other election admins or others involved in running the election, but here is my rationale, based on my (subjective, albeit) analysis: Tranche Alpha consists of arbitrators who will more likely fill out their terms; Tranche Beta, on the other hand, will contain candidates whom we don't know if they will fill out their terms. Since we don't know how Tranche Beta will fare as far as possible resignations are concerned, I would assume a more likelihood of resignations coming from Beta instead of Alpha. Hence, in order to serve as a "buffer" to try and maintain balance between the two tranches, make #8 a two-year term (which would put that person in Beta). Coming back to the question as to whether or not we are obligated to fill this last-minute vacancy, the WP:ACERFC only called for how many total arbitrators we should have for 2012, intentionally worded so that we would have the flexibility as to how many seats for fill for next year.
 * Also, as my response to Jimbo's above comment, I think this is something in which the community is still able to address on its own without the need for Jimbo's intervention at this point. We need to continue to stay focused on this one thing while we still have time. –MuZemike 15:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My opinion is that the seat should be filled for a 1 year term, BUT if one of the two year slots in tranche beta opens up prior to the nominations next year, the arb in tranche beta with a 1 year term should be moved to the 2 year seat, with the 1 year seat to be filled in the election. Monty  845  16:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support one-year term for #8 - As I said above, this would somewhat temper the concern that the goalposts are being moved up during the election. As for "balancing the tranches," I see no practical or philosophical difference between 8/7 and 7/8.  Trying to figure out where resignations are going to come from is just guesswork.  There have already been two departures from Tranche A in a very short time period, and one several months ago in Tranche B.  That's not much to base a prediction on.  Did anyone guess that the WMF UK chapter was going to hire Chase Me?  Perhaps, just to pick a hypothetical example that is mostly like not the case, Newyorkbrad is interviewing right now to be the WMF's in-house counsel.  You never know.  Tranche A was reduced to a "balanceable" number by the departure of Iridescent, and I think we should just stick with that.  Neutron (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My preference is one-year, one-for-one replacement for Calvary's seat which will be the 8th seat. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One year, if any-- I don't support an 8th seat, but if we are forced to have one, the term should be one year. We are likely to end up with a committee of members who barely garner support of half of the voters, so we should minimize the impact.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support one year term for #8' Per the above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As a candidate, I won't express an opinion on the main portion of this RFC< but if we elect eight Arbs, the eighth-place finisher should be named to a one-year term only, to directly replace Chase Me. Courcelles 21:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support one year term for #8 --Rschen7754 21:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support one year term for #8 - to fill out Chase me's term. - Hydroxonium (T•C• [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&limit=1&amp;username=Hydroxonium V] ) 23:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Two years, of course. Otherwise, what's the point? I cannot fathom why an extra layer of complexity would be introduced. Eight two-year terms ... what's the problem? Let's be practical: there are highly likely to be early departures, as has happened in almost every previous year. That will boost the number of vacancies in ACE2012. Please consider minimising the likely oscillations, which a one-year term won't do.   Tony   (talk)   06:25, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Defer discussion until number of seats have been decided. The term length decision is not so time-critical. It can default to 2 years, but I would not be opposed to a successful candidate after the elections asking to be appointed to a one-year term. For future elections, it might be an idea to hold separate elections for 1-year and 2-year seats, as some candidates might like the option to chose between the two. Carcharoth (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I have opposed the eighth seat above, but if the outcome of the RFC is for an eighth seat regardless, it should be one year per Neutron and SandyGeorgia. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Concur with Courcelles. The eighth seat should be a one year term.  Going forward, it should remain at one year, so that there's at least some practical difference between being the top vote-getters and (likely) barely getting in.  Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * One year if we even reach an eighth candidate that reaches the 50% threshold, to fill out the rest of Chase me's term.  HurricaneFan 25  15:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Single-year term – As of writing, there is considerable opposition to filling the Cavalry's seat with a candidate from this year's election. It would be unfair to that opposition to give the winner of that seat a two-year term. The eighth-ranking candidate will also have the lest amount of community support S/(S+O)-wise. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:30, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Single-year term. As the least supported candidate they should only be in position for one year before facing the community's judgement (if they want to continue, of course). There is no limit on the number of terms that may be served, so neither we nor the candidate have lost out if they turn out to be a brilliant arbitrator, but equally we've not signed ourselves up to two years of a lousy arbitrator. Thryduulf (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Single-year term - Makes sense, since the eighth person will be filling a seat which was due to expire next year. Also, this is probably the most sensible option given how divided opinion is over filling the seat at all. CT Cooper · &#32;talk 19:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Single-year term – positions should be filled according to their original schedule to obey the principle of least surprise. In the case of regular elections like this, there will always be a whole year to serve, so the term will not be unreasonably short. Terms with shorter duration should be filled in increasing order of duration by the unassigned successful candidate with the lowest qualifying support. --Mirokado (talk) 20:10, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Two-year term per MuZemike's rationale. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Single-year term since the new arbitrator would be serving out Cavalry's term which expires at the end of next year. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 22:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Identification to the Wikimedia Foundation
This should be required at least while vote counting. This is just to remove the possibility of a person getting kicked out after 1 month. Not likely, but possible. Ebe 123  → report ← Contribs 00:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Part of the reasoning behind the scheduling of the elections is that successful candidates will have sufficient time between the posting of results and 1 January (when new members are seated) to provide their identifying information to the WMF. Risker (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Although candidates could consider digging out their driving license or passport and getting it scanned now, so they can email it when asked. :) PhilKnight (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea of mandating that the candidates identify themselves ahead of time was put forward but did not receive consensus in the RfC.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  05:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * No one will be kicked out for not identifying, since I won't appoint anyone who has not identified.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the actual voting procedure?
As usual, there is no indication of what the actual voting procedure is - how many votes do you have, can you oppose as well as support, etc. As usual I can't remember from last time. It would be useful to explain this in advance of the voting opening, so that voters can bear it in mind when considering. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point John, I'll sort an explanation out tomorrow.  Skomorokh   21:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)


 * John, I've added the following wording to the guide for voters; can you tell me if it resolves your questions?
 * "Voters will be invited to choose one of three options for each candidate: "Support", "Oppose" or "No vote"; and the number of "Support", "Oppose" or "No vote" preferences a voter can express is otherwise limited only by the number of candidates."
 * Skomorokh  03:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks. One might add that other votes will be invisible & that votes are never made public. That I do remember. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * We should clarify that no votes do in anyway affect the candidate's chances (if I recall correctly)--Tznkai (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point, taken care of.  Skomorokh   12:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What does that suggestion by Tznkai actually mean? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * This, I guess. "No votes" aren't counted in the formula used to rank the candidates, so selecting the "no vote" option for a candidate doesn't have an effect on the election's outcome. Can someone please explain the "Support votes divided by the sum of Support and Oppose votes" formula on the election page? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. And so what is the purpose of No votes? Is a percentage abstention total taken as the first test of whether or not "Support" and "Oppose" votes need to be counted? If so, what would that percentage be? And where is that defined? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand now that there are, in fact, no abstention votes. "No vote" should in fact be labelled "Not yet voted" as it's just a radio button place-holder, not a voter prefernce. Since the "No Vote" column is in the centre, it seems very unlikely that a voter will think that "No vote" means "I want to vote No to this candidate". But it's still possible, I guess. Maybe a label that did not include the word "No", and which made the place-holder status more obvious, could have been used? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The option was labelled "Neutral" in previous elections, but changed to "No vote" in this one following the pre-election RfC. It is the middle of the three options and the default option because that's the best way for the interface to appear impartial towards the voter opting for "Support" or "Oppose". "No vote" does not mean "Not yet voted", because it carries no implication of future voting; there is no technical or procedural reason preventing a voter from choosing the "No vote" option for as many candidates as they like in their final decision.  Skomorokh   10:36, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I see, many thanks, I was unaware of the change made by the RfC. Yes, I suppose there is that implication if the word "yet" was used, although it's not a very strong one. Perhaps it might lead the voter to think they had to make a choice either way. Although it's not really "a choice" is it - it's just the default start point. Or at least, it's a meaningless choice as it's never counted. It has meaning to the voter if they choose Yes or No but then change their mind (itself very useful). But electorally it has no meaning. As I understand it, each candidate is judged only on their own ratio score and not on their percentage of total votes cast. So it's possible for a candidate with a single "Yes" vote and no "No" votes to beat a candidate who gets a 99.9% Yes ratio and who has also been voted for by 99.9% of the electorate. That's one argument for forcing a choice between Yes and No and treating anything else as a "spoilt ballot" (difficult with electronic voting). It's all a bit late, isn't it, to start discussing STV, ranking and so on. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would say "No vote" is a choice, for voters who don't feel comfortable (due to ignorance, indifference, moral objection to the whole thing, whatever) to support or oppose a given candidate. It might not have any meaning electorally, and if a voter's sole intent is to maximise influence the outcome of the election it is an irrational choice, but it presumably has meaning for the electorate, as it is quite a popular option.


 * These sorts of musings are rather perennial at pre-election time; you might find the RfCs for the past few years entertaining reading.  Skomorokh   11:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So, it's a choice that's counted, even though that count is never used. But it's one that allows less-voted-for candiidates to win over more-voted-for candidates. Oh well. Thanks for the suggestion! Martinevans123 (talk) 11:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * No problem, and don't sweat it, as far as future elections are concerned, none of this is written in stone (yet), so you may propose alterations to your heart's content next time we get around the table of RfC to argue it out.  Skomorokh   11:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

In the event of a tie
What happens if there is a tie for the last place? Say there are 8 seats to be filled, and there is a tie for 8th place with >50% support, how is the successful candidate chosen?

It currently appears likely that if there are 8 places up for election, that the 8th most successful candidate (assuming there are 8 or more with 50%+ support) will be elected for a 1 year term rather than 2. If there is a tie for 7th, will the same method as above be used to determine who serves 2 years and who serves 1 year? Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In the rare occurence that this should happen, I think we would address it at that time.. we haven't had a tie for any one placing in any election that I can remember (a tie would require the same amount of supports and opposes, which with 500 or so voters is excessively improbable). SO in short, I suggest we cross that bridge in the unlikely event we get there. SirFozzie (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't jinx it! :P --Rschen7754 21:41, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * You just had to say it.--Tznkai (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I mean.. what are the odds.. It's like the odds of having lightning strike you twice! (ducks down into his below ground apartment.. Just in case... ;) SirFozzie (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I hereby nominate Fozzie as the official 2011 scapegoat for all drama between now and the end of the election.--Tznkai (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * if it happens, the ArbCom should change it's logo to a picture of SirFozzie standing on a hilltop holding a metal pole aloft during a thunderstorm. Neutron (talk) 22:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's say that the contenders (Candidate A and Candidate B) for the final seat both have 51%. Let's also say that Candidate A has 102 support votes and 98 oppose votes while Candidate B has 153 support votes and 147 oppose votes. Do we select Candidate B as the winner for having more support votes, or do we select Candidate A for having fewer oppose votes? Would "no votes" be considered in any way? Would there be a runoff election? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * 'If' there was a need for a tiebreaker, 'most supports' would be a logical choice - Candidate B above unarguably has the support of more of the community than Candidate A. But we really needn't worry about it until it happens, which is very unlikely. Robofish (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

When is voting open until?
This would be helpful information to include on the voting page. --FormerIP (talk) 03:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Timeline of resignations and appointments
This section may turn into a bit of a history, but firstly I'd like to thank the election administrators for the unanimous decision they made here. From what I can see, they've handled a potentially difficult situation very well. I agree absolutely with the statement made by the election administrators that Before next year we absolutely must either reach a clear position on this issue, or establish a framework to decide questions such as this in a more general way. Hopefully that will get done (and I'm sure it will). I also really appreciated the way the election administrators cited three historical precedents, and linked to the brief discussion on the matter that I started in November 2010. What I think would really help, at some point (maybe not right now, as people should be reading about the candidates and voting) is to have a timeline of resignations and appointments that is more detailed than what is currently available at the page on the history of the committee. The reason I'm suggesting this is that there are differences between the three historical precedents cited that may not be immediately apparent at first glance. So to summarise (number of arbs seated is at time voting opened, regardless of arb activity levels):
 * Regarding the December 2008 elections (I have a personal interest in that election, as I ran in that one), it is true that Deskana resigned after the election but the more critical point there is that the nominal size of the committee before the elections had been 15, with three arbs (Paul August, UninvitedCompany, Jpgordon) resigning before the elections (though I haven't looked up the exact date Jpgordon resigned). This meant that (with 4 outgoing arbs) there were nominally 7 seats available (similar to the elections being held this year in December 2011). I remember this very clearly, as I was one of several around that cut-off point. But what in fact happened, following the elections, was that Jimbo expanded the committee to 18 seats, as seen in his post-election statement here (this was after Deskana's later resignation, as can be seen there). That committee (for the year 2009) started off with 17 (due to Deskana's empty seat), and soon dropped to 16 with FT2's resignation, and then 15 with Sam Blacketer's resignation. A brief spate of mini-resignations and returns (best passed over for now) was followed by further resignations later in the year, first Kirill, then Casliber, then John Vandenberg. So by the time the December 2009 elections came around, the supposed committee of 18 was in fact 12, the same number that had been present going into the December 2008 elections (though as has been noted, John Vandenberg's resignation was a day after voting had commenced).
 * It was following or around the time of the December 2009 elections that the three-tranche system (of 6 seats each) became a two-tranche system (of 9 seats each), the important point to note being that there was no expansion or reduction in the size of the committee. Of the 12 sitting arbs at the time, 9 were remaining and 3 outgoing. Following the elections, 9 empty seats were filled (one, Coren, was an incumbent who was re-elected). However, that year (2010) saw more resignations, in the following order: Vassyana, Fritzpoll, Wizardman, Hersfold, Rlevse, Steve Smith. This was six resignations, one more than the previous year (unless you count Deskana's resignation as a 2009 one because it was post-election). So once again, the committee went into the election with 12 arbs present (though as has been noted, Steve Smith's resignation was a day before voting was to begin and after nominations had closed).
 * Of the 12 arbitrators going into the December 2010 elections, 6 were remaining and 6 outgoing. This meant that there were no less than 12 seats to be filled, but there was no reduction or expansion in the size of the committee. As it turned out, of the 12 seats filled, 5 were current or former arbitrators. In the year that followed (2011), there were three resignations/removals or resignation announcements, two during the year (Shell Kinney and Iridescent) and one during the election (Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry). The latter, as has been noted, was before voting began but after nominations had closed, and is more akin to Deskana's resignation in that it was not an immediate one but one to take effect at the end of the year.
 * Technically, this meant that the committee entered the voting phase of this current election (December 2011) with 16 arbitrators seated. i.e. Of the 16 arbs seated, 7 are remaining and 9 outgoing. But following a pre-election RfC that changed the size of the committee from 18 to 15, and a rapid in-election RfC to deal with the unexpected vacancy arising from Chase me's resignation making a seat vacant, it was decided by the election administrators that 8 seats would be available.
 * December 2008: 15-seat committee with 12 arbs seated, 7 seats available, 10 filled (post-election expansion to 18 seats)
 * December 2009: 18-seat committee with 12 arbs seated, 9 seats available, 9 filled
 * December 2010: 18-seat committee with 12 arbs seated, 12 seats available, 12 filled
 * December 2011: 18-seat committee with 16 arbs seated, 8 seats available, ?? filled (pre-election reduction to 15 seats)

It is worth nothing that in 2009 and 2010, despite the nominal size of the committee being 18 it was rarely that many, with the actual size being 15 or less for most of the year. 2011 was different in that the number remained at 16 or above for most of the year. Though any real analysis would need to take into account activity levels of individual arbs during those years. Anyway, that's quite enough of the history. Back to reading about the candidates and voting in this year's election! Carcharoth (talk) 06:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical errors in voting page
I can't figure out how to fix these grammatical errors, so I'm posting here in the hope that someone else can:
 * In the first bullet point, there should be a comma between the words "support" and "oppose", and "anyway" should be "any way".
 * In the third bullet point, "verify your vote was recorded" should be "verify that your vote has been recorded".
 * In the fourth bullet point, there is no need for the word "make" in "you may make change your vote". Also, "in order" is meaningless in this context and can be safely omitted.
 * In the fifth bullet point, there should be a period/full stop between the words "candidates" and "You".

Also, when I check a radio button with my screen reader JAWS, it says no vote</p, or a corresponding message for whichever radio button that I've checked. Graham 87 09:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thank you.--Tznkai (talk) 09:47, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. Graham 87 10:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, I would still add the "that" to the third bullet point, between the words "verify" and "your". It just sounds a bit more formal. Graham 87 10:14, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Done; thanks again Graham, much appreciated.  Skomorokh   10:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * When possible, I'll be scrutinising the interface for language. I guess there'll be someone around to fix it soon after.  Tony   (talk)   14:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I should be available around the clock for the next day; email is fastest.  Skomorokh   15:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * GUI looks perfectly worded to me.  Tony   (talk)   07:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Voters blocked on other projects
It has come to the attention of the election admins that voters in good standing on this project who are blocked on any Wikimedia project have been prevented from voting. This feature was added to SecurePoll in May 2011, and has a legitimate use in cross-wiki ballots (it was added for the Image filter referendum). However, a bug in the added code means it is currently enabled for this election, when it should not be. A fix to the SecurePoll software has been implemented and the repaired code has been deployed to the Wikimedia servers. We expect that this problem should be resolved, but if voters are having difficulty for this or any other reason other than not meeting the eligibility criteria, please let us know as soon as possible.

For the election administrators,
 * Skomorokh  22:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Tooltips
The tooltips when hovering over the radio buttons for "Support", "Neutral", and "Oppose" include unnecessary HTML: they say &lt;p&gt;Support&lt;p/&gt; etcetera. I'd have fixed it myself if I knew where to do it, but <tt>?uselang=qqx</tt> didn't show me where the appropriate messages are. Ucucha (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up Ucucha, we'll look into this and see what can be done.  Skomorokh   22:13, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't been able to raise my more technically literate colleagues, but from poking around the interface it does not look like tooltips are accessible to election administrators to edit; I suspect you will need to take this up at MediaWiki or with a willing developer.  Skomorokh   13:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I'll try to find the problem in the SecurePoll source. Ucucha (talk) 13:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Good luck everyone
I may not be able to vote but if I could, I would support everyone. Stay editing my friends The most interesting man in the world (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitenotice
Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011 – During the RfC prior to the election, the closing sysop concluded that there was consensus for a Wikipedia site-wide banner, yet such a banner hasn't been implemented. I've brought this up earlier at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2011/Coordination, but the issue isn't gaining the attention that I feel it deserves. I'll welcome any comment and suggestions. I'll also alert followers of WP:VP/M, WP:AN, and User_talk:Jimbo_Wales to this thread. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 00:29, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Monty845 has told me that there was a discussion about this on MediaWiki_talk:Sitenotice. The reasons behind not having a sitenotice message about the election is that anons and those ineligible to vote shouldn't be forced to see it, past rejections of such a banner, and that the portion of the RfC concerning spreading awareness of the election was more of a poll than a discussion. These points are valid, but someone should've modified the RfC page with information from this new discussion. Users such as myself didn't know about the change in plans. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)