Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022

8th seat
I'm confused what today's change about a 2 year term for an 8th seat was about. We haven't had any resignations so far so I'm especially confused what the reference was to something open. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In the discussion at, consensus was reached that if the smaller tranche is up for election, and one of the midterm arbitrators resigns, that seat switches tranches and is filled in the election for a two-year term. (The later decision to allow one-year terms for candidates receiving between 50 and 60 percent means the seat is now eligible to be filled for a two-year term.) Subsequent vacancies would then be filled by one-year terms. Sure, the text could be omitted until there is actually a resignation (since the previous decisions are now gathered onto a single page, it's easier for anyone interested to lookup what might happen ahead of time), but since it's been there for several years, I'm reluctant to remove it without first having a discussion. We can have one now, if enough people are interested. isaacl (talk) 20:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, but I didn't know it reading the change alone. I'm short of time so I apologize I can't just FIXIT but maybe the explanation could be made clearer? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:08, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Similar to what I said on the election RfC discussion page, I think some of the explanation would be simpler if the concept of tranches were explicitly used, but I suspect the description would get longer, especially given that right now, the only place the word "tranche" appears on this page is in the graphic. I'm not personally against a longer description, but I understand why all other considerations being equal, shorter is going to be more attractive for most readers. I'll think about if there are any other ways to clarify the text. isaacl (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Isaacl: I read about Donald Albury's retirement, and I feel confused by this conversation above. Does that mean that his "Tranche Beta" seat transfers over to "Tranche Alpha" and is elected for 2 years OR his seat remains "Tranche Beta" and is elected for 1 year? &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 11:30, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As described at, an eighth vacant seat is filled for a two-year term, thus changing the number of seats in each tranche. (The subsequent change to the support threshold means that the candidate must also clear the 60% threshold for a two-year term. If we get seven arbitrators appointed to a two-year term and one to a one-year term, I think switching tranches again next year would align best with this previous consensus, but we can deal with it if it happens.) isaacl (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * So, if 8 persons get 60%+ support, all of them get two-year terms. And if 7 get 60%+ support, and 1 gets more than 50% but less than 60%, then the latter will have a 1 year term. Did I get that right? &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:37, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. See . Candidates are seated in descending order of their support percentage, so everyone with ≥60% support is seated first. If there are fewer than 8 such candidates, the remaining seats are filled for one-year terms by those whose support is ≥50% and below 60%. If there are more than 8 such candidates and there are more than 8 seats available, any available seats above 8 are filled for one-year terms, even if the candidate's support is ≥60%. isaacl (talk) 21:42, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 22:09, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

How to get more candidates running in this election?
In last year's ACE election, only 11 people were nominated for election to fill 8 seats. There is a danger that we could have fewer candidates this year, which could potentially make it impossible to fill up all the available seats. Given this issue, what are some ways that we could encourage more long-term editors to run for ARBCOM? 2601:647:5800:4D2:98E6:C606:B7CF:D59D (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)


 * One of the simplest things you can do is explicitly encourage people who you think would make good arbitrators to stand. There is a change this year that means the question period does not start until after the nomination period closes, which might make the idea of standing slightly more palatable for some.
 * More generally, treating arbitrators as humans and accusing them of fewer baseless conspiracies during their term (this is explicitly not an accusation that the OP has not done this) will likely make the position more attractive to the sort of editors who would (imo) be good arbitrators. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Voting advice
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:5-minute guide to ArbCom elections on the voting advice provided in the guide. Comments are welcome. isaacl (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion
Since both and I didn't notice the info banner on the question pages, might I suggest full protection of them until they're allowed to be edited? Having a questions page up with a template for asking questions when they're normally allowed is apparently confusing for at least some of us old timers. TonyBallioni (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Well, you can edit through fullprot and it's easy to be "banner-blind" and miss the "page is protected" box, so I'm not sure how useful that would be...perhaps an editnotice with a timer (display "HEY QUESTION PERIOD ISN'T OPEN YET" until the question period is open)? Though a timer would mean we'd have to purge the page to get it to go away...hrm. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:24, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * If it's fully protected, the edit window has a red background, so I suppose that would be a pretty significant warning sign. We could also try to add an editnotice or make the banner a bit more prominent in some way. Different options here that we could consider for next year... Mz7 (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

"Individual questions"
All of the candidates' question pages have the heading "Individual questions" at the top, which shows up on watchlists every time a new question is asked&mdash;but there is no other kind of questions, and hasn't been for about 10 years. Should that subheading be removed? Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Not opposed. I also wouldn't be opposed to refactoring this to "Questions for {Candidate Name}". This may also eliminate the need to have separate level 1 headings with the username at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Questions/All. Mz7 (talk) 04:16, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I like this idea. Thryduulf (talk) 11:08, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Candidates
Are any of the candidates not from the USA? Roryharrow (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Roryharrow we don't collect that information from them, so it would be up to them to disclose it or for you (or someone) to ask them (they are not required to answer). — xaosflux  Talk 10:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Roryharrow Given that SilkTork states on their userpage they're from the UK, yes. []75.27.153.239 (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Invitation message
I find that I've been twice invited to vote in the election. What happened?, as I believe that this is unexpected. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:53, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @Xaosflux? &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @CX Zoom checking. — xaosflux  Talk 10:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @CX Zoom as one of the volunteer coordinators you were put on the "test list" (MM/00) that we initially used to make sure the process was working before we sent it out to tens of thousands of people :) For almost anyone else that is in this situation: you likely have an alt-account that has their user_talk: redirected to you. In either case you are not entitled to multiple votes :) —  xaosflux  Talk 10:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * All good then. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 12:36, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

results
When are the results? I couldnt find the date. —usernamekiran (talk) 22:29, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It depends how long the scruitineering of the votes takes. In the last six elections this has varied between about 8 and 14 days, so the most likely time for the results to be posted is between about the 20th and 26th December, but it could be before or after then depending on how many votes are cast, the time the scrutineers have available, what issues they encounter and how long any queries they have take to resolve. Thryduulf (talk) 23:46, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
 * A great Christmas present: banishment to two years of dealing with the community's most problematic arguments. How thoughtful. casualdejekyll  14:10, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Notifications
Topic "‪ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message‬" was archived or removed from ‪User talk:Nightfury‬. You might no longer receive notifications about this topic. View page.

I don’t understand why I receive notifications from this bot and another one ??

For example here--Товболатов (talk) 22:08, 21 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Please disable these notifications for me. This clear failure.--Товболатов (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not one of the coordinators and cannot speak for them, but I have to say I'm having trouble understanding what the perceived problem is here. Nightfury is using an archive bot to archive their talk page, that';s why it was archived. More information on how those work is located at WP:AUTOARCHIVE if you want the same functionality on your talk page. Personally I use one click archiving which allows the user to quickly and easily archive threads as they see fit. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You will have received a notification that this section has been archived because you were subscribed to it for some reason (see WP:SUBSCRIBE). This is nothing do to with the elections and there is nothing anyone here can do. If you want to stop receiving notifications for a particular discussion, visit Special:TopicSubscriptions and click "Unsubscribe" on the relevant entries in the list. Thryduulf (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you, kind of unsubscribed.--Товболатов (talk) 20:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Analysis
A basic analysis with predictions, comments, graphical representations of the voting pattern, and page views of the voter guides is available at Kudpung/ACE2022. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:04, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

So, next year we need a 1 year seat?
It seems we need to rebalance the tranches. Does that mean that one seat will need to be a one year seat next year? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, nevermind on that, that will not work (we would have to have a 3 year seat to rebalance). At any rate, what is the fix? Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * How so? The eight newly elected arbs will serve two years. Next year there will be at least seven seats up for election. Seven in one tranche and eight in the other is as balanced as it can get. If I had not resigned my seat, there would have been seven arbs elected this year, and at least eight seats up for election next year. - Donald Albury 20:42, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Yea as mentioned in the string above about the 8th seat and the linked conversation in that topic they stated the odd seat would switch tranches. I don't see any need to fix anything one has always had one more elector so we have an odd number of Arbs. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:28, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok, so next year there will be 8 ending but the election will only fill 7. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:02, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * No, next year there will be 7 ending; Donald resigned this year (i.e. his term ends in 2022). A week from now (1 Jan 2023) there will only be 7 members in Tranche Beta. Primefac (talk) 14:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, so the pattern is that midterm resignation replaced in a regular election will possibly switch to the other tranche for a two-year term, if the resigned from tranche is 8. - Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Assuming that the candidate in question gets >60% of the vote, yes. In 2018 it was determined that any candidate in the top X but only receiving >50% would only serve for a 1-year term. Of course, there were three 1-year terms as a result of ACE2019 because there were 11 open spots. Primefac (talk) 21:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Right, that is why it is possible but not inevitable. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2022 (UTC)