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

;Users who endorse this statement:

#~~~~

---

Consensus from last year's RfC: The number of arbitrators should be reduced to 15. Barring any unexpected vacancies, 8 seats should be filled for next year.

Statement by Newyorkbrad[edit]

The current size of the Committee at 15 members is reasonable. (Arguably the optimal number of members would be slightly less, but we need to build in some extra capacity given that arbitrators get busy, take wikibreaks, etc.) There is also some value to keeping the size stable rather than changing it as frequently as we have in recent years. Thus, my recommendation is to leave it as is. (COI note: In case anyone doesn't realize, I'm a sitting arbitrator and my term expires this year.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Neutron (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. LegoK^ontribsT^alkM 16:20, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Monty₈₄₅ 16:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Rschen7754 17:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I would also support expansion because I think the per-arbitrator load has been too great up until recently. —Cupco 19:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Banned sock[reply]

6. AutomaticStrikeout 20:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. My feeling is this is about right. Funnily enough, it does seem a bit quiet if a few of us are busy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Current size is about right, and if a little too big, I guess that's just needed as backup for resignations or inactivity. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Davewild (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. It could go down a bit, yeah. But it's not worth changing right now. (I fundamentally disagree with the formula for resisting gradual improvement towards excellence, expressed above in the "if it ain't broke" proposal.) Tony (talk) 13:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. I haven't seen any issues with the current level. Admittedly I haven't been following ArbCom as much lately (has it been a slow year?) but I'm not seeing any reason to change the number. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. What Tony said. I prefer a smaller, more agile committee, but thing at a time.--Tznkai (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. --VikÞor | Talk 02:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. Reasonable. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:13, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. Stability is desirable in this area. That is, 11 or 13 members is probably enough but I really don't want to debate the issue de novo every year. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18. I would prefer keeping the size of Committee stable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:29, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19. 15 seems to be working just fine, and any further changes to membership numbers should have good justification so we have some stability. CT Cooper · talk 11:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20. I agree with Brad, based on my own observations over the past few years. When we've had more than 15 members, there was considerable slowdown due to active Arbitrators taking a long time to vote on proposed principles, findings of fact, and remedies. On the other hand, when we've had less than 15 members, there simply weren't enough Arbitrators around to handle the Committee's tasks efficiently. We've found a productive medium, and I see no pressing reason why we should change it. Kurtis (talk) 21:01, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21. Sure, though with the caveat that if arbcom seems to constantly need more bureaucratic "subgroups", then maybe we should increase the number of seats. - jc37 21:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
22. We only have somewhere between 10-13 active members at any given moment even with our current roster of 15. Jclemens (talk) 01:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
23. --Shrike (talk)/WP:RX 14:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
24. All things considered to include recuses, 15 seems the right number. Stability is the best achievable outcome. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
25. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
26. ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M))}$${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,))}$${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ = ? 20:42, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
27. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
28. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 22:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
29. Endorse. Somewhat related, I'd like to see that the committee elects among themselves a set number of Arbitrators who handle said case (7 or 9, with additionally 1 or 2 reserves who can be added when one of the previous 7 or 9 has to leave for whatever reason), and those are strictly the 7 or 9 who are handling the case. That takes the workload down on some of them (they don't have to be active for all cases), and makes it more clear to the parties who is really active in which case. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:43, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I very much like the idea of setting an amount like that. But only if it's a minimum, not a maximum. (A case needs a quorum of at least 11, let's say. And then we wouldn't have to limit the number of arbs to 15. By setting a quorum value, the number of arbs is immaterial, as long as we have enough to establish a quorum.) That way, any arb can join in, but once a case has a quorum, they don't "have" to. That said, what's the motivating factor to join a case? If there is a politically charged case, what's to stop arbs from taking a mini-wikibreak? (Not that that isn't possible now, obviously...) A lottery? or some kind of rotation maybe? - jc37 10:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I would also support such an initiative; even considering that a panel of 5 could efficiently handle a bulk of anticipated cases. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 22:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

30. Miniapolis (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
31. Stability is a good thing. --Nouniquenames 15:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
32. Having the same number of arbitrators in each election makes the elections more fair. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
33. Trusilver 03:42, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
34. No reason to change. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
35. As HotStop said, if it isn't broke, then don't fix it. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
36. Like Newyorkbrad, my view as a current member of the committee is that the current size is optimal. If the size of the committee were to decrease or increase by more than a couple of members, I would expect many aspects of the arbitration process to suffer as a result. (Mandatory disclosure: Again, I'm a sitting member, though my term does not end this year.) AGK [•] 11:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
37. What worked in the past is likely to continue to work well. I see no reason to increase or decrease the number. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 15:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
38. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
39. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:49, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
40. No obvious reason for change, and no evidence the current number isn't working. Manning (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
41. Yes. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
42. Yes, but without prejudice to shrinking it a few seats in the future, if the circumstances permit. Lord Roem (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
43. mabdul 23:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
44. the wub "?!" 11:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
45. Sensible. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
46. My optimal choice would be 9 but 15 will do for now. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
47. The current size seems to be working. Per Hot spots. Mlpearc (powwow) 10:02, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
48. —Sowlos (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
49. Agree strongly. 15 is a decent number, we won't likely run out of active arbs and there's minimal risk of groupthink. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
50. Endorse. In accordance with my earlier proposal to entrust the Arbitration Committee with the appointment and deposition of Administrators. The Banner _talk 17:34, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
51. If it isn't broken ... ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
52. We do need to keep it at 15 because of wikibreaks and other things that come up LoganLopez (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
53. Rcsprinter (warn) @ 20:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
54. Good number, allows for a range of views and builds in some capacity to cover real life stuff that affects everyone. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
55. There's no such thing as a perfect number, but this is a reasonable one. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
56. We have lucky numbers, but there's no magic number for an exact no. of arbitrators. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 12:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Ebe123[edit]

I think the optimal size would be 13, but we should elect 14 for if an arb goes on break. I do not think changing the size would be bad. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Alot of us are busy some of the time. 14 I can live with too. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. I think people are looking at it from the demand side in which case 15 might be optimal, but on the supply side I'm not sure if we're going to have enough viable candidates to fill up the empty slots and hit 15. If it turns out that we do, then never mind. But if we come up short? Are we gonna let any low-support jokers in just to get 15?  Volunteer Marek  20:36, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Consensus from last year's RfC: Successful candidates with the highest support receive 2-year terms, while those with lower levels of support receive 1-year terms.

Statement by User:Monty845[edit]

The first 7 seats filled should be for 2 year terms, any additional seats should be for 1 year terms. This would mean that the Arbiter elected with the lowest support to a regular seat would come back before the community a year later to evaluate their performance, as would any elected to fill unplanned vacancies. This provides a bit of additional accountability, makes sure that none of the 2 year seats end up swapping tranches, while placing little extra burden on the community. Monty₈₄₅ 15:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Monty₈₄₅ 15:35, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. It means there will be an actual difference between finishing first with 75% support and barely squeaking in with 51%. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Openskye (talk) 11:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Neutron[edit]

Eight (8) two-year terms should be filled, to match the eight that are expiring. That will leave two tranches (classes, groups, etc.), one with eight members and the other with seven, in alternating years, this being the year for the eight-member group. If any vacancies occur in the seven-member group before the cutoff date for this election (whatever date is chosen), they would be filled for the remaining one-year period at this election, from the 9th, 10th etc. ranking candidates, assuming they meet the required percentage of support. Neutron (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Neutron (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. The community decided in 2010 for good reasons that the term length should be two years, and that has worked well. A one-year term can mean that just as an arbitrator has become fully familiar with the role, it is time for him or her either to run for reelection or leave the Committee. It is best to stick for two-year terms for everyone except in ad hoc vacancy situations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:55, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. AutomaticStrikeout 20:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per Newyorkbrad, exactly. TransporterMan (TALK) 20:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. -- Dianna (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6.  Volunteer Marek  01:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Rschen7754 02:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Per NYB really. Takes some time to learn the ropes. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:22, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Davewild (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Yes, as before, only one-year terms if they are filling early vacancies. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:46, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Sensible. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. VikÞor | Talk 02:27, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Per NYB. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:14, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. Sensible. CT Cooper · talk 11:24, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. This would make it a lot less convoluted going forward than if we were to completely alter the "seating arrangements" so to speak. I also agree with appointing an additional Arbitrator to a one-year term in the event of an early vacancy, provided they've garnered a margin of at least 50% in support; you never know, they might turn out to be great at the job. Kurtis (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. Definitely confirm that it takes up to six months to be fully functioning, so 1 year terms would not get the best out of new arbs. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:25, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18. - jc37 21:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19. Jclemens (talk) 01:03, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20. I understand the logic behind the two/one-year terms until last year: to maximise the evenness of the number of vacancies from year to year. But that evenness has almost always been overshadowed by early departures, and I don't much care if the number of vacancies fluctuates. I strongly agree with Elen that one year is insufficient. Tony (talk) 03:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 22:55, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
22. Miniapolis (talk) 13:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC) (also agreeing with Newyorkbrad, above)[reply]
23. Yes, we need to replace the two-year terms that are expiring. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
24. This makes the most sense. Think about how some city council elections work - the 10 (or however many) people who get the most votes are all elected for some number of years. You don't say, you got more votes so you serve for two years, while this other person only serves for one. If someone dies/leaves/melts down, then replace them with an appointee from the pool or have a special election if no more are available. --B (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
25. Makes the most sense to me. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 23:29, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
26. AGK [•] 11:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
27. Per Newyorkbrad (Number 2 above). DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 15:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
28. Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 20:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
29. 8 sounds reasonable. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:54, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
30. Suprcel (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
31. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 08:32, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
32. the wub "?!" 11:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
33. Assuming we're presented with enough good candidates. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
34. Agree, per first hand knowledge, it does take some time to settle in. Mlpearc (powwow) 10:07, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
35. Agree, but prefer 3-year terms. When a arbitrator resigns, his/her spot should be filled for the remainder of the term. In cases that the elections were less then 4 months ago, the highest ranking non-chosen candidates should be asked to fill the gap. The Banner _talk 14:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
36. An elegant solution. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
37. Sensible to stagger changeover, maintains corporate knowledge but ensures accountability to the community within a reasonable timeframe. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
38. I'm a little ambivalent about giving two-year terms to candidates who get 50–60% support, but I see the logic in saying that one-year terms aren't enough to really get up to speed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
39. It's true that the no. of seats up should be equal to the no. of arbitrators retiring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TruPepitoM (talk • contribs) 12:49, October 31, 2012‎

Statement by User:Beetstra[edit]

Having 50% support (which by definition is also 50% oppose) is not the strongest support to start a term as an Arbitrator. Although I understand Elen's concern in the above thread ("Definitely confirm that it takes up to six months to be fully functioning, so 1 year terms would not get the best out of new arbs.", though I note that Arbitrators have been voting on cases which were already opened before their term started, and that 2 years may also not get the best out of new arbs when they indeed turn out not to be the strongest candidates), I would suggest to consider whether we should give 1 year terms to Arbitrators who have between 50 and, say, 70% (percentage to be determined before the election starts), and to give 2 year terms to Arbitrators that have more than that 70%.

Users who endorse this statement

1. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Hasteur[edit]

To me it seems quite simple. There are seats that are expiring at the end of this election. There are other seats that are not expiring that are currently vacant (1 year left on the seat's term). Starting with the 2 year seats, start seating new arbiters based on their approval rating. Below some threshold (66% or 60%) seat the candidates in 1 year term seats. If we have more qualified candidates than seats on the 2 year cycle, start seating the remainder in 1 year sets. If we don't have enough candidates that meet the supermajority threshold, leave the seat empty. If we don't have enough candidates that pass the bare minimum threshold (50%), leave 1 year seats vacant. It's hard, but it's expected that the candidates need to have the confidence of a reasonable amount of the community before being considered an Arbitrator.

Users who endorse this statement

1. Hasteur (talk) 21:22, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Similar thinking, 50% may be a bit low. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:41, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Since I don't think we are supposed to put "Oppose" votes in here (although I think there is an "Oppose" section for some statement on this page), I just want to point out that my statement above (fill all eight expiring terms for 2 years, fill any vacancies in the other "group" (of which there are none to date) for 1 year), assumes that there is a single threshhold, the "height" of which is being discussed in a section further down this page. Hasteur and Dirk Beetstra have (each) proposed a two-threshhold system. I suppose I could make another statement in this section, proposing that there is a single threshhold, but I think it would unduly complicate things. A single threshhold is inherent in my statement, and I assume (though we all know what happens when you assume) that it is inherent in Monty's statement as well. I'll also say that whoever closes this RfC should get double pay. Neutron (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose is to solidify 2 thresholds. A higher one for those candidates that recieve a significant amount of support to fill the "more choice" seats, then a lower one that fills the lesser seats because the community had less confidence in them as Arbitrators. The idea is the ones the community is less sure of get the lesser seats and we leave vacant any seats we cannot fill (No choice seat should go to a candidate that got less than the higher threshold, no seat for those who can't muster a simple majority of people who voted. 76.184.251.7 (talk) 01:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)Hasteur (talk) 12:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC) (taking ownership of my comment that was made while accidentally logged out)[reply]

@Neutron - I know that your, and Monty's, are based on a one-threshold system. You just say, the X highest votes get 2 year, the rest gets one year (basically). I do think that 50% is a bit low, but sufficient, but what I am trying to propose here is that to have a 2 year seat, you need significant support, for a one year seat, enough support. So I am not suggesting to 'the X highest get 2 years', I am suggesting to 'the Y who get over 70% get 2 years' (which I think is reasonable, but maybe 66.6% is fine as well) - if that then are less than X, but only 4 .. so be it. If the ones in 1 year positions do well, in one year they should be able to get more (and the ones who get 1 year positions because they did not get into the X positions would have to reconsider themselves as well over a year, and we would possibly have to reconsider them as well). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Od Mishehu[edit]

8 candidates should be choisen for 2-year terms.Should any of the other 7 resign before the cut-off date, they should be replaced by subsequent candidates for a one-year term. Should any of the 8 2-year term arbs resign during this year, and any 1-year arbs voted in this year still available, then a 1-year should be upgraded to a 2-year to fill in the resulting vavancy of the following year.

Users who endorse this statement

1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-

Statement by Nathan[edit]

They should all be one year terms. Lots of things change in one year - on Wikipedia, on the Internet, in the world, in the lives of arbitrators, etc. The subset of the community that participates in the annual election for arbitrators should have the opportunity to select the entire committee, not just a portion of it. Think about the composition and nature of the Wikipedia community - it changes so rapidly that there might be only a fairly small concordance between the voters in one election and the next. By limiting the election to only some committee members, you bar today's community from fully influencing the future of the project. I understand the arguments in favor of staggered elections, but disagree that the utility of such a system outweighs its somewhat anti-democratic nature. At the very least, one year terms should be an option on the table here and thus I propose it.

Users who endorse this statement:

1. Nathan ^T 19:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is the only statement that has it right. All terms should be one year so that the ArbCom's composition will fully reflect the wishes of the community in each year. A two-year term is excessive for a project like Wikipedia; things can just change so much in one year. I have not seen any convincing arguments in support of these long terms, and shorter terms will serve to promote higher levels of engagement and accountability. Everyking (talk) 13:52, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Sowlos[edit]

The number of Arbitration Committee members receiving 2-year (and 1-year) terms should not be based on the number of seats. Term length should be based on two factors:

• First term candidates should always receive 1-year terms
• Successful candidates for subsequent terms should receive 2-year terms if they receive supermajority support (such as two-thirds) and 1-year terms if they receive less

This allows the community to evaluate untested candidates and those with low support after only one year while allotting the benefit and trust of longer terms those who have earned it. If enough elected candidates meet the requirements for 2-year terms, let the whole committee be filled with 2-year seats. If the reverse is true, let the whole committee be filled with 1-year seats. Trust the community. However, term-limits may be worth consideration.

Users who endorse this statement

1. —Sowlos (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Consensus from last year's RfC:

• Registered account with a minimum of 500 edits.
• Good standing and was not currently subject to active blocks or site-bans.
• Meets the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data and is was willing to identify with the Foundation if elected.
• Has disclosed any alternate accounts in their election statements (legitimate accounts which had been declared to the Arbitration Committee prior to the close of nominations did not need to be publicly disclosed).

Statement by User:Ebe123[edit]

I disagree with the "was not subject to a block" as people can change and we should not deny possibility to run because of a block. Imagine. You do not know the policies and you disregard them. You get blocked, but you learn and the user has really changed. Imagine you're that person. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 01:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Gigs (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sounds reasonable. Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:37, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• The language is intended to mean they they are not currently blocked and not currently subject to a site ban. Past blocks that have expired or been overturned are for !voters to consider how they will. Monty₈₄₅ 01:13, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, so I think the proposed change is not controversial and should be done for clarity. Gigs (talk) 13:23, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made the change above to the original language as a clerical correction. Monty₈₄₅ 19:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Should "did not need to be publicly disclosed" actually say "do not need"? Or was another meaning intended? 67.117.130.72 (talk) 01:26, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above was summarizing last year's rules, so it's written in the past tense. For the current election it would presumably be present tense. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Sven Manguard[edit]

• Registered account with a minimum of 500 edits.
• Account has a minimum of 180 edits in the past six months.
• User is not currently subject to active blocks, site-bans, or editing restrictions imposed specifically on that user by either the community or ArbCom.
• Meets the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data and is willing to identify with the Foundation if elected.
• Has disclosed any alternate accounts in their election statements (legitimate accounts which had been declared to the Arbitration Committee prior to the close of nominations did not need to be publicly disclosed).

This is a slightly stronger set of requirements. The new additions should not effect legitimate candidates, but will spare us from "NWA.Rep" type candidates. If a user can't average one edit a day over six months, I personally doubt that they have the commitment to function as an arb. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Obviously. Sven Manguard Wha? 17:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Rschen7754 17:53, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Nouniquenames 15:07, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. We need to elect people who have time to be actively involved as an Arb, not those that will be absent or little time to spare. 180 edits over 6 months is a very minimal commitment. An active Arb such as User:Newyorkbrad, exceeds this amount in one month on mostly Arb related duties. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 18:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

or editing restrictions - some editing restrictions are fairly trivial or outdated and should be covered by usual recusal policy. Whether these are serious enough to disqualify is something for voters to decide. Blocks and site-bans on the other hand make it more or less impossible for the person to act as arbitrators, so that makes sense. So I would remove those three words.

In regard to the qualifier in parentheses in the last bullet: legitimate accounts which had been declared to the Arbitration Committee prior to the close of nominations did not need to be publicly disclosed. Does that mean that if someone emails the ArbCom shortly prior to the close of nominations with their alts, then they don't have to disclose anything? I'm also not sure how I feel about the "if you let ArbCom know, you're good" part of it - history suggests that Arbs don't often react, or even notice, these kinds of notices (though they might have learned a thing or two), even if this issue has not arisen in regard to candidates so far. Why not just require full disclosure of all alts, unless there are real and important privacy reasons? Keep it simple. Volunteer Marek  17:45, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with the proposed change, the qualifications to run should be designed to avoid candidates with so little experience that they don't realize they stand no chance of being elected, candidates that would be ineligible to serve, and candidates whose candidacy would be clearly disruptive as in the case of blocked or banned users, but not candidates that will fail to meet our personal criteria for support. For more experienced users who could serve, but who have a problem that makes it unlikely they will be elected, such as the active restriction, or lack of recent activity, I trust in leaving it to them to decide if they want to run, and to the voters to adequately weigh their suitability. Monty₈₄₅ 19:08, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Editcountitis. Doing 180 or even 500 edits in one day isn't terribly difficult, especially for bot operators, so the "requirement" is game-able anyway. I think voters are capable of using their own judgment about a candidate's contribution history, and anything (such as lack of edits) reflecting on candidate suitability should be brought up in discussion of the candidate. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 19:35, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that the people choosing the arbs will be able to weigh the levels of inactivity on their own. No need to complicate the rules with it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:39, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• The 500 and 180 edits (total and past six month respectively) seems rather strange to me. The numbers are too low to bar the noobs, and I see no particular reason to bar them in the first place. Otherwise these two requirements are useless. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• On the edit count restrictions, I share czarkoff's reservations. On the editing restrictions provision in particular, I have marked concerns. Editing restrictions do not confer a binary state, unlike blocks or bans, and take many different forms of seriousness. In many cases, a restriction could be years old. The effect of editing restrictions on a candidate's ability to serve on the committee are better determined by the community during voting than by the minimum requirements of candidacies—which are intended to exclude only new, blocked, and banned accounts. The requirements proposed above go too far. AGK [•] 11:23, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. Getting 180 edits is hard when you're in the hotspot of scarcity of materials. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 13:07, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by 67.117.130.72[edit]

Anyone can run if they meet the WMF requirements and their nomination is supported by 2 editors in good standing.

Users who endorse this statement

1. 67.117.130.72 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. No need to separate by number of edits. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 10:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. per above.--Müdigkeit (talk) 11:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agreed. Voters will decide who they trust and who not. Superp (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. This seems the most elegant proposal (and the two-nominators clause IMO addresses concerns about troll-nominees, below). It Is Me Here ^{t / c} 14:13, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

• Can someone clarify for me, what is "objective" "in good standing"? Does this include any hidden edit counts? blocks? Really, we can discuss everything and I like the idea, but the problem is that I see the problem that we can't deny anybody with that woolly requirement. "Troll nominees" can simply caused by new meat puppies... So the bar isn't really set higher than before. mabdul 00:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. Having been in elections that were closed per SNOW, I can say that I personally do not object to a small number of nominees who are not likely to gain any support. There is really nothing wrong with trying - it is a learning experience and you get better each time. And they are easy to scroll past. To me, good standing is not something that could be defined other than not blocked, and of course no one who is blocked would be able to participate anyway. It really is not necessary for everyone to vote against them - a few no votes are sufficient to guarantee the result. Apteva (talk) 00:22, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Correct me if I'm wrong, but we are discussing about the requirements of the candidates. You can't vote against somebody without any "vote" - we are discussing that if somebody can be "promoted" to be a candidate. So this procedure is before the vote starts and thus nobody can vote for or against anybody... mabdul 12:39, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Volunteer Marek[edit]

• Not currently subject to active long term (more than a month) blocks or site-ban.
• Meets the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data and is willing to identify with the Foundation if elected.
• Has disclosed any alternate accounts in their election statements.

The first is essential for an Arb to carry out their duties - though I am specifically excluding short term blocks and other sanctions which I believe it is up to voters to decide whether these are relevant or not. The second one is important because Arbs handle private information and this will help ensure a level of accountability. The third should go at least some way to preventing potential shenanigans which could result in a huge amount of drama and waste of time later on in case an alt account or two, or fifty, are discovered (and the implication is that in such circumstances the person would automatically be de-Arbed). I think these are the minimum requirements, and I also believe that there is no point in going above the minimum - everything else can be decided by voters.

Users who support the statement

1. Me. That is one helluva an awesome statement!  Volunteer Marek  00:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Nothing to add, actually. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. I was about to propose this myself, before I saw this Statement, so obviously I support it. Whether or not an editor with less than a certain number or frequency of edits makes them "uncommitted" is up to the voters to decide. These 3 criteria, however, are common sense to be required. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support, and well done. The Garbage Skow (talk) 19:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

How would a user blocked at the time of their nomination go about nominating themselves? Also, shouldn't there be some screening, either via edit count or some other mechanism, to avoid editors with no chance of being selected, such as an account whose first edit after becoming autoconfirmed is to nominate themselves, from cluttering the ballot? Monty₈₄₅ 00:45, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it hasn't been a problem in the past, but I guess it could be one in the future. Maybe I should amend that to include that 500 non-bot edit threshold. Not opposed to that idea. Volunteer Marek  01:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we're worried about trolling editors who create their accounts just to nominate themselves, then how about some requirement that candidates must have been a part of the project for at least a few months or so? We shouldn't be too restrictive, as voters can decide how experienced an editor should be, but some bare minimum to eliminate trolls would be okay. In theory, an edit count can be stacked up by a troll in a few days or weeks, whereas a minimum requirement of having been a registered user for at least 4-6 months (Should it be more? Less?) better prevents ballots from being cluttered by these trolling editors. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with that.6 months seems about right.  Volunteer Marek  18:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And even that would just be so that the really exceptional user comes along - although of course it also means that someone with 100,000 edits over 8 years only needs to wait 6 months after last changing their user name. Apteva (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:gwickwire[edit]

• No long-term or renewed bans on account(s) at any time.
• Meets the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data and is willing to identify with the Foundation if elected.
• Minimum edit count of 1,000 edits total, 100 of which must be in the past month OR 40 in article(talk) namespace.
• Account must be six months old
• Complete disclosure of all alternate, bot, or other accounts.

I personally feel like some of the ones above are too relaxed. If the user has ever had a long-term ban on their account, or had a renewed ban, then they likely didn't learn their lesson with a short ban. Identification to WMF is neccesary for duties. Minimum edit count shows that they are somewhat active and somewhat familiar with policies by this time. Reason for the OR article namespace is some people only edit articles, and don't make a lot of edits because of that. Six month requirement is for further knowledge of policies here, and also to show that they aren't just someone who joined for fun, then will leave in a while. Other accounts are neccesary so the community knows of any blocks or any other happenings that the user running would wish to hide from us otherwise.

gwickwire | Leave a message 22:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:AGK[edit]

These requirements (which were used in last year's elections) should be used this year:

Candidacies may only be submitted by editors who meet the following requirements:

• Registered account with at least 500 edits.
• Account is in good standing and is not currently subject to blocks or site-bans.
• Meets the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data and is willing to identify to the Foundation if elected.
• Has disclosed any secondary accounts in their election statements (legitimate accounts which had been declared to the Arbitration Committee prior to the close of nominations do not need to be publicly disclosed).

These requirements exclude very new, blocked, and banned editors from running, but leave any other decisions about unsuitability to the community's vote. This is as it should be. AGK [•] 11:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. AGK [•] 11:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I prefer consistency unless there is a reason to change. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 16:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Sounds reasonable. I see no reason why this should be changed. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:18, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support as above proposals aren't gaining traction. --Rschen7754 22:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutron (talk) 22:49, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. As stated this is about 'minimum requirements'. If an editor has only made (say) 100 mainspace edits in recent months, that will quickly be raised in discussion, and the community can weigh the issue directly. Ditto for any recent blocks or community action. We don't need these things in the prerequisites. Manning (talk) 02:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Best of what has been proposed - I don't see any pressing need for any major changes. CT Cooper · talk 18:33, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Seems fine. Hobit (talk) 03:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Good to me. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Support statusquo. Monty₈₄₅ 20:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Reasonable. -- Lord Roem (talk) 03:37, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. the wub "?!" 12:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. Mlpearc (powwow) 10:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. Agree. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:53, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. No change supported. Let the voters decide otherwise, don't impose requirements that will restricts the voters choice. Davewild (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. Yes, there really is no need to change these criteria. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Od Mishehu[edit]

As absolute requirements:

• Eligible to vote
• Willing to identify with the Foundation if elected, and will otherwise meet the criteria for access to non-public data as of the first day of the term
• Not subject to any block during the election period (from the beginning of nomination to the end of the vote)

As recommended requirements (Users who don't meet these requirements are unlikely to get in, but are welcome to try at their own risk):

• Administrators (including former admins who could regain it at any time by contacting a 'crat)
• No recent blocks or bans
• Experience with dispute resolution

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:24, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:My76Strat[edit]

Since the question asks "What should the requirements be" instead of "What will the requirements be", I'll say this: The buck for ArbCom appointments "should" stop on Mr. Wales desk. The prospects should ultimately be published by Jimbo, after consideration. However, like I said, I think it "will" be done differently than this. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 09:05, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

Comments

Is it really necessary to get into the issue of Jimbo's role on this subject? The way I see it, Jimbo has effectively "delegated" the issue of what the requirements "should be" (or "will be") to run for ArbCom, to the "community", and this RfC is the device the community uses to determine that issue. Now, one could ask, is there a point at which the community's consensus could be deemed to be so "out of line" that Jimbo might step in and impose a different set of requirements? I think the answer is, theoretically, yes. For example, if the consensus in this RfC was that a candidate needs 30,000 edits to run for ArbCom, someone(s) would probably ask Jimbo to step in, and in that kind of extreme example, I suspect that he would step in. But it is obvious that the chances of that happening are extremely remote, so the issue of "what happens if it does" is not something that really requires discussion. There are many such issues on Wikipedia, and not just in these elections. Neutron (talk) 16:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think my comment was "necessary". But I don't think it was necessary that I keep it to myself either. 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 20:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:ErrantX[edit]

One of the issues with Arbcom is that often it represents the "patroller" and "administrator" side of Wikipedia less than the "content" side. This is problematic as it lacks balance. One solution could be to require either:

• Editors standing for election must have writen either 5 Good Articles or One Featured Article.
• Editors standing for election must have at least 60% of their total contributions to article space.

This could redress the balance by ensuring we have extremely established editors (either admin or non-admin) with experience in article work (the bread and butter of Wikipedia). Errant ^(chat!) 15:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Errant ^(chat!) 15:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   I have one fundamental problem with this, and that is that yet again it takes the tack of "the only real article is a GA or FA". I've got 13 featured lists - do these not make me a content editor? Do they not teach me the need for balance, for verifiability, for the avoidance of plagiarism? What about my circa-200 DYKs? The one thing that sickens me more than the "the only real editors are content editors" position (which I'm not saying you endorse) is the fact that the editors who hold that position, 9 times out of 10, have a very precise definition of what "content editors" are. GAs and FAs are not the bread and butter of Wikipedia - stubs are. B-class articles are. Taking something crappy and making it neutral. Most of our editors have engaged in content editing, but most haven't engaged with GA or FA, because it requires a certain degree of metapedianism that little things like clearing out spam or adding citations or expanding and updating don't. And I'm tired of seeing engagement with the highest grade of content editing touted as the way people demonstrate competence and experience. an FA or GA is not a prerequisite for knowing your way around content any more than playing for the Premier League is a requirement for being considered a footballer. Ironholds (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Looking back at this it may come off as an attack on you - my apologies for that. It was more intended as an attack on the concerns that this seems to be trying to address. Ironholds (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Sure, and I'd support a broadening of the criteria (honestly; in my mind FL == FA, as much work is required for both!). One issue with article percentage is "patroller" types may often look like adept content writer. I don't expect this requirement to "pass", at all. And indeed it probably shouldn't. However it's step one in an attempt to highlight that we have a serious issue; in that the "metapedians" hold a significant portion of the administrative and social power in our community. I often worry that so much of our procedures and problems are driven by the "meta" that such a huge portion of our community partake in (I've long argued for the moving of a lot of our social interactions off-site). Often administrative or legislative actions confuse me as they simply don't seem beneficial to writing good content (of any type), and I realised some time ago that is because a lot of people making those suggestions and driving their acceptance are people who don't write/edit much content. We need to restrike the balance and make sure that content is the focus of all our work. If we can find a metric that properly covers all the content editing you mention then I would be fully behind using it. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   As a broad statement I'd agree with that. The problem we have at the moment is that formally evaluating article content is a metapedian activity, insofar as it is something that requires active engagement in community processes to achieve. It would be nice to see more people nominate the articles of others for evaluation, for example, as a possible way around this, but that's just a random idea (and probably sucks). Ironholds (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   For the record, a few years back it was considered gauche to nominate one's own article; the majority of articles at FAC were nominated by editors other than the primary contributor. This was stopped when a pattern of drive-by nominations developed, wasting the time of FAC reviewers and delegates. Risker (talk) 18:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2. This would be an interesting requirement, and while I realize it's unlikely to gain traction, I wanted to offer you moral support. I know that in my case, some portion of my previous evaluation by voters' guides has turned on the fact that I have multiple GA's and a couple of pieces of featured content. Jclemens (talk) 02:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Hell freakin' yes. Of course we can count FLs too. Volunteer Marek  02:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

• ErrantX, if you were to look for the 15 arbitrators you feel have performed best in the role, and then checked how many of them met the standards you're proposing, I think you might fall a bit short in being able to fill that table. Could you explain to me the correlation between production of featured content and dispute resolution? <Full disclosure: I had 2 FAs and a GA credited to me at the time I was appointed to Arbcom; unless I'm missing something, the current committee has 5 or 6 editors who would meet the FA/GA criterion. I don't know that *any* current sitting arbitrators met the 60% article space criterion at the time of their appointment (unless they were using scripted tools), and I'm relatively certain that very few, if any, arbitrators in the history of the project would have met that. Very few editors with a history of dispute resolution would have. > Risker (talk) 02:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Risker, to flip what the Classical economists used to say, "demand creates its own supply". Volunteer Marek  03:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• And? There have been quite a few FA-writers who've run for the Committee in the past and who have not been supported sufficiently by the community. So you're looking for, what exactly? High level content contributors who are also successful at dispute resolution, *and* are willing to put up with constant abuse? Can you think of 15 people currently editing who fit into that category? Risker (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I am open to the first suggestion, the requirement of some strong content work, but I don't like the percentage element. Seems totally arbitrary and not necessarily relevant to whether someone's worked through researching and building a developed article. Lord Roem (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• This is the wrong approach; it is wrong to try to impose our own opinions on what makes a good Arb as the minimum standards to run at all. There is ample opportunity to express that opinion through guide writing and voting. Instead, what we must decided here is who can be considered a serious enough candidate as to appear on the ballot, and no more. Monty₈₄₅ 17:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with Monty. I think the voters should be treated as if they are capable of deciding for themselves who should be on the ArbCom. While minimal requirements like 500 edits are reasonable just to make sure someone has at least some level of commitment to the project, adding specific requirements for content contribution is not reasonable. While I support the current set of requirements, I'd rather see no requirements at all -- let even a brand-new editor or a banned user run, since I know the voters would not elect such a person -- than to have this kind of requirement imposed. Neutron (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Everyking[edit]

I think the requirements should be stronger than what I'm seeing in the statements above. To be an effective arbitrator, you need a lot of experience. Most of the cases that get to ArbCom are quite complex and require extensive experience—both as a content editor and as an administrator—to properly understand and appropriately resolve. I suggest that the key requirement should be adminship—not necessarily current adminship, but some past or present admin experience, ideally at least a year of it, along with a record of consistent editing for at least the two years immediately prior to the ArbCom vote. I just don't see the point in even bothering with candidates who don't meet those qualifications.

Users who endorse this statement

1. Everyking (talk) 14:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Kww[edit]

• Registered account with a minimum of 500 (or so) edits.
• Good standing and not currently subject to active blocks or site-bans.
• Meets the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data and is was willing to identify with the Foundation if elected.
• Has disclosed any alternate accounts in their election statements. Any accounts which have been declared to the Arbitration Committee prior to the close of nominations must be publicly disclosed by the Arbitration committee when the nomination is accepted.
• Has not served four consecutive years in the preceding six years

First, the idea of an Arbcom member with an alternate account that has been disclosed only to Arbcom is repulsive. Arbcom members should not have undisclosed alternate accounts. Period.

I think it is also time for term limits. I've tried to derive a formula that allows reelection, but requires them to take an occasional break.

As for edit counts: I think insisting on an edit count is fine, but I can't get myself excited over the exact number.—Kww(talk) 23:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. —Kww(talk) 23:09, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Statement by MuZemike[edit]

Last year's unexpected and last-minute vacancies has prompted me to pose this question about vacancies. Basically, there are three types of vacancies to be considered:

1. End-of-term vacancies: Vacancies that will result when an Arbitrator's term is expected to end.
2. Expected vacancies: Vacancies that will result when a sitting (at least one year remaining in term) Arbitrator is expected to step down from the Committee before his/her term ends.
3. Unexpected vacancies: Vacancies that will result when a sitting Arbitrator unexpectedly steps down from the Committee for one reason or another.

I'm not sure which directions the discussions will go, but it's clear that the biggest concern by far is with unexpected vacancies, as is what happened last year. I pose some questions:

• If a sitting arbitrator unexpectedly resigns, how long should that corresponding term be?
• Until what point can we adjust the number of vacant seats without jeopardizing the integrity of the election? (i.e. it would be too late during voting, as adjusting seats will very much affect how voters will vote; too early means that seats may go unnecessarily unfilled for next year)

--MuZemike 02:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Monty845[edit]

In addition to seats from regular vacancies and expected vacancies, all seats resulting from unexpected vacancies that are announced up to 48 hours before the close of the voting should be filled. This will fill the maximum number of seats possible while still giving those who wish to vote strategically based on the seat count a chance to amend their votes. I doubt many voters will change votes, thus the small window wont be a problem for most voters. Monty₈₄₅ 02:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Monty₈₄₅ 02:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   —Cupco 03:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Banned sock[reply]

2. Not opposing this, as long as we're not dipping below 50% support though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Hot Stop (Edits) 12:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. I agree, I don't think many people are that strategic with their voting, and even if they are, a small window to adjust is fine. Gigs (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Second choice (so far), see below. Neutron (talk) 19:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Second choice. CT Cooper · talk 11:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. The point is to fill the committee with the community's elected representatives; freezing the number of vacancies prematurely can put a crimp in that. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Sensible, presuming Casliber's caveat. --j⚛e decker^talk 15:39, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. As long as Casliber's modification is rolled in, count me in. --Nouniquenames 15:36, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I oppose this. It defeats some of the reasons for having voting over several days. This should be limited to "before voting starts" as another suggestion noted. - jc37 00:48, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It defeats some of the reason, but not the whole reason.I doubt that many voters would change their vote if suddenly there were to be an other openning. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cupco[edit]

If a sitting arbitrator unexpectedly resigns, the corresponding replacement term should be one year long. —Cupco 03:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

—Cupco 03:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Banned sock[reply]

1. Monty₈₄₅ 03:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Ebe123[edit]

The arb on break should not have compensation for the loss of time, and the 14th arb (in my first proposal) should take the arb's place. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:49, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Neutron[edit]

This is a modification of Monty's proposal, above: Vacancies that occur before voting begins in the election will be filled in this election. (This applies to terms that are not otherwise being filled in this election; in other words it applies only to the departure of Arbitrators elected in the 2011 election.) I believe changing the number of seats being filled while voting is actually taking place creates too much of a "moving target". Note, this change still would have resulted in the filling of last year's "last minute" vacancy in the election, because voting had not yet begun. Neutron (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. First choice, I would support Monty's proposal as a fallback. Neutron (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Predictability is good here. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:43, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. No midstream changes, ever.--Tznkai (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. I don't think the number should change once voting's begun, either. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Unexpected vacancies that occur after the start of voting should not be filled at this election. Eluchil404 (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. I can support this although hypothetically if a vacancy occurred on, say, the first day of the election one could argue for the opposite result. However, one of the purposes of having the Committee size remain at 15 (as consensus above seems to agree on) rather than reducing it is so that an unexpected vacancy or two won't have a detrimental impact. (For what it's worth, I'm not aware of any arbitrators who aren't up for reelection this year but are thinking of resigning early, so hopefully this will not be any sort of issue.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7.  Volunteer Marek  00:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Simplest and fairest option, and as New York Brad states, one or two vacancies won't be much of an issue. CT Cooper · talk 11:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. - jc37 21:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. VikÞor | Talk 01:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. the wub "?!" 12:06, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Opposes are unconvincing. :P Lord Roem (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. Mlpearc (powwow) 10:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. This is the most equitable. Fill all open seats during elections, save seats that open during elections. As long as the committee has enough members to cope, this works. —Sowlos (talk) 12:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. This seems the least likely to result in confusion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Nouniquenames[edit]

I propose electing one more person than we have positions to fill. The lowest-support individual, if still above 50% support and agreeable to the notion, would become an alternate to fill any vacancy that arises. Nouniquenames 15:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Nouniquenames 15:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

The "positions we have to fill" would ideally (in my opinion) be at the end of the election, as individuals should be voting based on who they want elected. That said, it could just as easily be 48 hours out, at the beginning of the election, or whenever seems most appropriate to others involved. --Nouniquenames 15:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Consensus from last year's RfC: At least 10 days should be allowed for the nomination period, 5 days for the fallow period (the period between nominations and voting, mainly to handle any late administrative and software tasks before voting begins), 14 days for voting, and a brief but indeterminate time for scrutineering.

Statement by MuZemike[edit]

Going off last year's election, I have drafted a following timeline below for this year's election:

• Nominations: Sunday 00:01, 18 November - Tuesday 23:59, 27 November (10 days)
• Fallow period: Wednesday 00:01, 28 November - Sunday 23:59, 2 December (5 days)
• Voting period: Monday 00:01, 3 December - Sunday 23:59, 16 December (14 days)
• Scrutineering: Monday 00:01, 17 December - ??? (whenever the Stewards are finished)

--MuZemike 02:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. --MuZemike 02:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Rschen7754 02:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   —Cupco 02:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)Banned sock[reply]

2. I would also support a longer nominating period, but this proposal is acceptable to me. Monty₈₄₅ 02:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. AutomaticStrikeout 20:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. -- Dianna (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Neutron (talk) 23:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Müdigkeit (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Seems right.  Volunteer Marek  00:33, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   AGK [•] 11:33, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Prefer the next proposal. AGK [•] 11:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

   Of the options proposed, I prefer this one. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 19:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Perhaps earlier is better. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 19:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• What is the value of the 5-day fallow period? Speaking as one of last year's candidates, I didn't find it particularly helpful, and it simply added another 5 days to the "no decision yet" period. Is this something that people feel strongly should be continued? Risker (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most importantly it provides time for the poll to be set up. I guess it could also be useful if there are any last minute nominations and there was some type of procedural concern that needed to be worked out. Basically a time to make sure that everything is ready to go for the start of voting. Monty₈₄₅ 05:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also gives a short period for the compilation and review of voter guides. -- Dianna (talk) 23:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And a thorough dirt diggin'... Volunteer Marek  01:43, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marek, how could you..... 02:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs)

And to answer the large number of questions! Courcelles 04:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it's good for voters to have time to review candidates, particularly the inevitable last-minute ones. In response to Risker's original comment, I think this is really for the benefit of the voters, not the candidates. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:40, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, what Heimstern said. Also what Courcelles said. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• 17 December is far too late to start the scrutineering. Need to start it all at least a week earlier or reduce the nom and voting to 10 days each. Tony (talk) 03:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do much with the election last go around, when did the scrutineering start in 2011? How did that work out? If we need to adjust it, I'd say to adjust it the other way - move nominations earlier and push voting forward to Dec 1st or some such. We should still keep 14 days, both for tradition's sake and to account for candidates/voters who are otherwise busy during what always ends up being a busy month. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Hot Stop[edit]

I don't see the reason why we should wait 17 days between this RFC closing (on Nov 1) and the opening of nominations (on Nov 18). I think the nomination period should open a week earlier, starting on Nov 11. This would also avoid any problems caused because Thanksgiving falls on Nov 22, which could cause issues for editors who are traveling the week of the 18th (the nomination period last year avoided the conflict by running Nov 11 to Nov 21; Thanksgiving was on the 24th. In both 2010 and 2009 the nomination period closed before the holiday as well). The remainder of the timeline has been moved up as well because of comments below.

• Nominations: Sunday 00:01, 11 November - Tuesday 23:59, 20 November (10 days)
• Fallow period: Wednesday 00:01, 21 November to 25 November (5 days)
• Voting period: Monday 00:01, 26 November to 23:59, 9 December (14 days)
• Scrutineering: Monday 00:01, 9 December - ??? (whenever the Stewards are finished)

Users who endorse this statement

1. As nominator Hot Stop (Edits) 12:52, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Unless there's a technical reason for it that we are missing, this sounds fine to me. Gigs (talk) 13:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. I don't see a reason for limiting the nomination period, candidates are always free to wait till whenever during the period they want to formally nominate themselves. Monty₈₄₅ 15:58, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Let's avoid Thanksgiving here. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:48, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Whichever is fine with me. My concern is that this gets drawn out too far, which is what we do not want. However, I have nothing against moving the whole thing up a week. --MuZemike 04:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. See no problems with moving it up. --Rschen7754 05:02, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. As revised with voting ending on Dec 9. Eluchil404 (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Probably better to end the voting earlier to allow more time for scrutiny of the votes and other post-election activities. CT Cooper · talk 11:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. - jc37 21:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. This way we can start the nomination process earlier and have the fallow period include Thanksgiving. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. Additional week is really needed to ensure that there is sufficient time for scrutineering and transition processes, especially as the election coincides with the busy travel/year end/holiday season. Risker (talk) 02:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Seems like this works better for candidates and voters alike, as the fallow period falls around Thanksgiving, allowing for lessened activity around the holiday. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. I don't really like the focus this places on North American holidays, but I suppose it is an unavoidable truth that much of our community is busier than usual at some times during December. AGK [•] 11:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. Switched to earlier dates DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 19:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. --Lord Bromblemore (talk) 16:36, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support, moving things along is preferable over unnecessary delay. Lord Roem (talk) 03:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. the wub "?!" 12:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18. Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19. Mlpearc (powwow) 10:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
20. Expediate to reduce Wikitedium. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
21. A good idea Michaelzeng7 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

From the perspective of the person who usually does much of the orientation and bureaucratic work to bring new arbitrators aboard, the earlier a result is available, the better. December 17 is terribly late for close of voting; stewards, candidates, arbitrators, and the community are usually far too wrapped up in seasonal activities by that time. It leaves only 14 days for stewards to review the votes and communicate the result (which usually takes 4-5 days), the successful candidates to be appointed, for them to identify to the WMF (whose staff will have statutory holidays where they shouldn't be expected to verify ID papers), and to make arrangements for permissions and accesses. If you're going to move up the nomination period, move up everything else too. Risker (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having observed four of these transition periods since I've been on the Committee, I agree with Risker. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:30, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the proposals both have the same schedule after the nominating period, with voting until the 16th. So this proposal isn't any worse then the first one in that regard. Monty₈₄₅ 16:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will adjust the schedule then Hot Stop (Edits) 17:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are some days you can't get out of bed. If the nom schedule will start on a Friday, I may support it. If someone wants to place this in an "Oppose" corner, please do so. TruPepitoMTalk To Me 13:13, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Consensus from last year's RfC: 150 mainspace edits by 1 November.

Statement by User:Ebe123[edit]

Any user in good faith may vote. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. ~~Ebe123~~ → report 00:15, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yeah, any real sock will be reported to SPI, the others are eligible; 150 useless edits don't help anybody. mabdul 00:34, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Perhaps a little idealistic, but certainly something I support. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Monty845[edit]

We need some minimum threshold to discourage the creation of sock/meat-puppet accounts for the purpose of influencing the election. The threshold of 150 mainspace edits by 1 November to be eligible to vote which was adopted at last year's RFC seems as good as any. Monty₈₄₅ 00:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Monty₈₄₅ 00:53, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Seems reasonable. CT Cooper · talk 11:35, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. Neutron (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Jclemens (talk) 01:07, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Though something like 4000 would be more appropriate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 23:00, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Rschen7754 18:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M))}$${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,))}$${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ = ? 20:46, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agreed with both this and the Statement by jc37. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agreed. Note that this isn't a requirement that came from last year's RFC, but a requirement that seems to have been in place for all of the previous elections as well. It's long-standing status quo and I see no reason to upend it. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:32, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Requirement of N edits should be as a threshold. ♪ anonim.one ♪ 18:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. 150 seems fair. Over 150 is not a good idea. Superp (talk) 20:32, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Yes. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:59, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. Fair enough. Lord Roem (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. We should not change this from last year. Davewild (talk) 08:25, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. the wub "?!" 12:11, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18. Agree, it should be the same as last year. Peacemaker67 (talk) 23:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
19. I'm also endorsing jc37's modification, below. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Should the date by which 150 edits need to be made not be 1 October, rather than November? That's when this RFC which begins the process started, and would reduce further the likelihood of meat/sock puppet accounts. Hiding T 07:11, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 76Strat <sup>String</sup> da <sub>Broke</sub> da (talk) 08:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me as well. - jc37 19:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How many editors with only 150 edits are even aware of ArbCom's existence? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is to prevent sock-puppet voting, otherwise why have any restrictions? Hiding T 12:59, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question that requires an answer before the game begins: Are editors with multiple acts, i.e. an administrative acct and a seperate User acct, able to vote more than once? ```Buster Seven Talk 07:19, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain that the answer to that question is "no", and that answer is strongly implied at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry (which also deals with legitimate alternative accounts, which is what you appear to be asking about), but there may be a more definitive source for the answer somewhere else. Neutron (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Voting multiple times is clearly impermissible sock puppetry, and if detected would result in the sock votes being discarded, as well as, I would wager, some further consequences to sock master. Monty<sub>845</sub> 07:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If this is going to be based on a number of edits (which it shouldn't be anyway, although it sure seems like it's going that way now) then good-faith editors like myself deserve a chance to get into the game. By moving it to October 1st, it seems like you're assuming a user currently racking up edits that has less than 150 total edits must be a sock. I am certainly not a sock. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2012 (UTC)I posted this in the wrong discussion area. Sorry for any confusion.[reply]

I think the idea of using the end date of the RFC as the cutoff date is that some editors, myself included, are uneasy about setting a requirement with the cutoff being before the requirement was set. Really the date should be after the RFC is concluded so that potential voters are on notice, but the time frame for that would be too tight. Monty<sub>845</sub> 07:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea for pre-dating occurred to me because this RFC itself has been edited by a sock-puppet. I think we have to acknowledge that discussing these things in a transparent wiki way means we have to adapt how that affects any ideas we have on eligibility. It may be worth exploring the idea of randomising the requirements in the future, I don't know. Given that so many editors would prefer secret elections, which I am uneasy with, it seems to me we should do as much as we can to prevent the elections getting gamed. Hiding T 17:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:jc37[edit]

This may merely be a technicality, but I think that being autoconfirmed should be a requirement. In an era of auto-editing tools, someone could do 150 edits rather quickly. - jc37 21:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Me - jc37 21:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. I support this along with the previous statement, as they're entirely compatible. Jclemens (talk) 01:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. In other words, semi-protect the election page. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Myxomatosis75 (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. Better way to prevent sock/meat puppets. Jsayre64 (talk) 01:59, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:19, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. ```Buster Seven Talk 07:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Agree, semi-protect page. Mlpearc (powwow) 10:30, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. Protect the integrity of the results. ~ GabeMc <sup>(talk|contribs)</sup> 05:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. I agree with this. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. Yes, of course. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. Certainly a good suggestion. AutomaticStrikeout 20:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

How many new editors have heard of or use auto-editing tools? I have been editing for years and do all edits one at a time, often only a few a day. I think I was up to less than 20 edits by the time I was autoconfirmed. 50 would probably work just as well as 150, though. Checking to see if someone has 50 edits is probably a lot easier than checking to see if they are autoconfirmed or has 150 edits, just because the contribution history defaults to 50 edits. Apteva (talk) 05:42, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question, the 150 edits in the other poposal would be by Nov 1, by the time of the actual vote any editor who met the requirement would also be autoconfirmed. Are you suggestion they need to be autoconfirmed by Nov 1, or by when? Monty<sub>845</sub> 00:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good question, I pinged him. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Autoconfirmed by when they need to have the 150 edits. As Jclemens notes, this goes hand-in-hand with the previous statement. And apteva: more often than you might think. As we so often see, what may be true for some, is not necessarily true for all. - jc37 00:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

150 edits in less than 4 days? It's hard to believe, especially considering newer editors don't really know about such automated tools, but I still endorse this statement as well as the other. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how new they really are. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the point is to cut down on people abusing multiple accounts during the elections. A sockmaster could create another account and start using auto-editing tools that they of course already know about through their main account. AutomaticStrikeout 20:08, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:IRWolfie-[edit]

Editors should have had an account for at least 3 months, have 150 edits prior to the election start date, and be autoconfirmed. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. As proposer, IRWolfie- (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. A period of time as an editor is appropriate, enough time to learn a bit of Wikipedia culture and to have some idea for whom to vote. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 01:19, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. VikÞor | Talk 01:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. —Sowlos (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think that's a reasonable minimum. Everyking (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. Agree. ~ GabeMc <sup>(talk|contribs)</sup> 05:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who do not endorse this statement

1. If the point of this edit minimum is to prevent socks, then we must assume all editors with less than 150 edits are socks, which is assuming bad faith and against a fundamental principle of Wikipedia. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 20:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Change it to 4 months and I'd be more likely to support. - jc37 03:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've reduced it by half. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:RedSoxFan2434[edit]

The only 2 requirements for voting should be that:

1. To be eligible to vote, a user must be an autoconfirmed, registered user.

2. To be eligible to vote, a user must have joined the project at least 4 months prior to the beginning of the nominating period.

A minimum of mainspace edits to be eligible to vote does not protect us from sockpuppets created to stuff the virtual ballot box, since socks can rack up edits and then be eligible to vote before being discovered as a sock. However, there must be some minimum beyond being autoconfirmed, so a 4-month membership minimum should be there to prevent socks better than an edit minimum would. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. As nominator, RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

While it may seem pointless, the 150 edits should still stay in place. Also, change it to 4 months as well, and I'd be more likely to support. - jc37 03:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

4 months is fine; but why is a 150-edit minimum so necessary? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:13, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The auto confirmed flag is only 10 edits in a 4 day time period. You are expanding it to 4 months. However, you can see how inexperienced someone may be if they've only made 10-20 edits to Wikipedia and never knew Wikipedia even had an Arbitration Committee and is invited to vote on it? 150 edits is a reasonable assumption of experience to have more accurate votes and a good knowledge of Wikipedia to vote in these elections. Michaelzeng7 (talk) 14:06, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand why some would hold this opinion, although I just disagree. If someone has such little experience on Wikipedia and does not know what ArbCom is then they can be trusted to not vote or to find out about ArbCom and the elections on their own (assuming they are logged into Wikipedia during the voting period; there may be some very inactive editors who won't be). I also think an edit minimum is easily surpassed by socks created to influence the election, which some other editors have expressed concern about, whereas a 4-month requirement prevents such a thing for this year's election and makes it more difficult to get away with in future years. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 20:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:Hiding[edit]

We need some minimum threshold to discourage the creation of sock/meat-puppet accounts for the purpose of influencing the election. The threshold of 160 mainspace edits by 1 October to be eligible to vote would ensure no-one is monitoring this RFC and creating sock/meat puppets as we speak. Raising the bar by ten from last year may also help prevent anyone gaming the system. Hiding T 07:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Hiding T 07:15, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Makes sense. And also agreeing that this should be by Oct 1, as you noted elsewhere on this page. - jc37 19:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. Seems prudent to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:15, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I might also add a proviso about some minimum number of recent edits. We could, at least theoretically, have problem editors who weren't actually banned might simply return to case grudge votes against people they dislike personally. I'm not sure how likely that is, but the more problems we solve in advance, the less likely we are to face the drama and conflict which would arise if we had to deal with them after the fact. John Carter (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. If this is going to be based on a number of edits (which it shouldn't be anyway, although it sure seems like it's going that way now) then good-faith editors like myself deserve a chance to get into the game. By moving it to October 1st, it seems like you're assuming a user currently racking up edits that has less than 150 total edits must be a sock. I am certainly not a sock. RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 13:55, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Good faith editors have a chance to get into the game, it may just be that it'll be the next elections for some people. Wherever the line is drawn it will inconvenience good faith editors. Having a deadline does not automatically assume any given editor is a sock puppet. It does serve to prevent sock puppetry such as has happened in the past. Given that this RFC has been edited by a sock puppet, it makes sense to set a deadline that pre-dates this discussions start. Hiding T 17:09, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Consensus from last year's RfC: Support/No Vote/Oppose, with percentages calculated via Support/(Support + Oppose).

Statement by User:Neutron[edit]

Maintain the existing system: Voters choose among Support/No Vote/Oppose, with percentages calculated via Support/(Support + Oppose). Neutron (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this statement

1. Neutron (talk) 23:19, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
2. Rschen7754 23:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
3. I like the system where you get 100 points and allocate it among the candidates as you see fit better, but that has epsilon chance of getting implemented so stick with the boring ol' status quo. Volunteer Marek  01:56, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
4. It worked. --Philosopher <sup>Let us reason together.</sup> 03:49, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
5. This is the only way to go, we need a way to voice opposition just as much as support. Monty<sub>845</sub> 15:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
6. No hard feelings to Czarkoff, but I think that even if you vote for only one candidate, that one vote should count as strongly as the support votes of the other voters. ☮Soap☮ 18:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
7. ${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\mathcal {M))}$${\displaystyle \color {Blue}{\vec {(e\ ,))}$${\displaystyle \color {Blue}t)}$ = ? 20:50, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
8. Straightforward and logical --Nouniquenames 15:15, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
9. Simplest system, easiest to use. Jsayre64 (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
10. If it isn't broken, why fix it? RedSoxFan2434 (talk) 01:37, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
11. AGK [•] 11:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
12. DocTree (ʞlɐʇ · cont) Join WER 01:29, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
13. the wub "?!" 12:14, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
14. Don't think this needs changing. Mlpearc (powwow) 10:32, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
15. —Sowlos (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
16. That seems fine. Simple and intuitive. Everyking (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
17. LoganLopez (talk) 15:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
18. This method has worked better than past methods. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

But why do we need a "no vote" button? Can't we set up the voting page so that voters can just choose not to click a button for a candidate if they have no opinion? Jsayre64 (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd probably like that too, though I suppose it's a good thing that an explicit decision has to be made about every candidacy by each voter. AGK [•] 11:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "No Vote" choice should be renamed to "Abstain". Some people may confuse "No Vote" with "Oppose". — Richwales 18:53, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for changing the buttons, we should avoid interface changes in order to minimize voter confusion. If my memory serves, a previous iteration of the ballot used Support/Abstain/Oppose, and that was confusing because of the different ways abstentions are calculated in voting systems. I would prefer Support/No Opinion/Oppose--Tznkai (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"No Opinion" would be fine. I'm just worried about the possibility for confusion between "No Vote" and "No" Vote. — Richwales 19:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who proposed "No Vote" last year (or was it the year before) to replace "Neutral", which was creating a few different issues, I would have no problem with changing again to "No Opinion." The main purpose of changing from "Neutral" to "No Vote" was to clarify that this option means nothing -- it's not counted at all, it doesn't affect the result, it doesn't necessarily mean you are really "neutral", it doesn't mean "non-support", it just means that you are not voting either Support or Oppose on a particular candidate. If it is understood that "No Opinion" means the same thing, and if it corrects the slight ambiguity that (admittedly) is created by "No Vote", that's fine. Neutron (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is there any need for a "no !vote/no opinion/abstain" option? Users shouldn't bother !voting if that's how they feel. Stick with support and oppose. Neutral !votes are usually self-serving drivel that just boggs everything down. ~ GabeMc <sup>(talk|contribs)</sup> 05:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People need a "no opinion" option so that they can vote for/against some of the candidates, even if there are other candidates about whom they have no opinion. If someone were to vote "no opinion" on everyone, you would certainly have a point. Or are you in fact suggesting that no one should be taken as a serious voter unless they are prepared to vote either for or against each and every candidate on the ballot? — Richwales 18:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by User:czarkoff[edit]

I would suggest Modified Borda count with each voter given the number of votes (n) corresponding to the number of vacant seats. That is: each voter names m (but no more then n)<sup>[1]</sup> candidates in a descending order; the first candidate receives ${\displaystyle {m \over n))$ points (1 point if all voter's votes are cast), the second candidate – ${\displaystyle {m-1 \over n))$, the third candidate – ${\displaystyle {m-2 \over n))$, ..., the last candidate – ${\displaystyle {1 \over n))$. Such method would allow for more precise vote casting. — updated 23:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Notes

^ If editor names more then n candidates, only the first n names are counted as votes.