Note: See also discussion section on the talk page.

Statement by User:Risker

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

Users who endorse this statement

1. Risker ( talk) 01:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Lara 02:58, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. While I realize that this would have kept me off the committee last election, I think the committee is slightly larger than an optimum size at present. Jclemens ( talk) 03:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. - Alison ^❤ 08:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Gerardw ( talk) 10:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:43, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Epbr123 ( talk) 12:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Ironholds ( talk) 20:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. T. Canens ( talk) 22:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Mohamed Aden Ighe ( talk) 22:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Tony1 Yes, but even 15 is at loggerheads with the proposals for a high % benchmark, which sets up the electoral system for failure. Tony (talk) 02:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC) I haven't formed a clear opinion on this. Tony (talk) 12:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
13. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
14. Josuecornier ( talk) 21:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
15. Al Lemos ( talk) 01:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
16. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
17. Akjar13 ( talk) 11:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
18. LuLxFakie ( talk) 15:06, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
19. Alzarian16 ( talk) 21:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
20. Pmresource ( talk) 21:06, 22 September 2011 (UTC) I agree. Too many cooks can spoil the pudding. reply
21. Every year I have been outspoken against a larger ArbCom. 15 members is plenty. The increase size makes it much harder to get work completed in a timely manner. ArbCom members opinions about issues are diverse to the point that when the community is split about an issue, ArbCom is, too. Increase size of the committee are unlikely to change whether tiny minority opinions will be better represented. Increasing the number of community seats on subcommittees would be a better approach to getting work done than increasing the overall size of ArbCom. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 14:50, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
22. Partial support (for the proposed number, but not the process), subject to my statement below. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
23. Fifteen members is enough members to have at least three subcommittees. Currently, there are only two subcommittees, and each only has three members. There hasn't been a new subcommittee since 2009, so I doubt that they'll produce more than one additional one before the 2012 election. If ArbCom desires to more than three subcommittees, then we could hold a RfC in order to collect users' thoughts on increasing ArbCom's number of seats back to 18 or even increase it to 20. Let's wait until a third subcommittee is formed before suggesting that ArbCom should be enlarged. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 15:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
24. While I previously supported a larger committee, I have come to the conclusion that eighteen is slightly too many, and fifteen is sufficient with enough room for loss of some members during the year. Fifteen is an odd number, which means that there will have to be either one group of eight, and another seven, or a minor adjustment to sixteen or fourteen arbitrators. CT Cooper · talk 13:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
25. Risker's current position as an arbitrator gives her unique insight into this issue. I've heard the same thing from other arbitrators and would bet that this represents the majority view. I understand that the community cannot totally cede control of the size of the committee to ArbCom itself (a committee of three would not function well). But here I think the community would do well to follow ArbCom's (or at least several arbitrators') recommendation.-- Chaser ( talk) 17:06, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
26. I agree if this means there would be more people available to step up if one of the arbitrators can't do their part due outside reasons. Blackash have a chat 06:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
27. Given the way groups of people usually work, having more than seven active arbitrators on a given case has nearly zero marginal utility. Having a few more arbs in the committee is reasonable because some of them can be inactive or recused, but 18 is way too many. (Personally, I'd even support 12.) Also, if there aren't lots of candidates, you need the bottom of the barrel to get to 18 people.
    ― A. di M.​ _plé​ ^dréachtaí 20:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
28. I'd prefer smaller actually, possibly with an increase in support "staff." Agility is important to a decision making body.-- Tznkai ( talk) 02:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
29. ?oygul ( talk) 13:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply
30. Keeping the group small will help the people get together and discuss things at a faster rate. ZamorakO o ( talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply
31. In my capacity as an administrator and volunteer, not as an employee action. - Philippe 19:50, 15 October 2011 (UTC) reply
32. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
33. 18 was generally cause for a lot of toe-stepping. Once it shrunk to 15 from resignations back when I was on things actually ran more smoothly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:37, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
34. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 23:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
35. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:58, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
36. Bigger is more cumbersome. Carrite ( talk) 02:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
37. Less is better. More is not useful, in this case. HurricaneFan 25 17:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:Cerejota

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

Users who endorse this statement

1. -- Cerejota ( talk) 01:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Count Iblis ( talk) 03:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. If the current committee is too large for the committee to communicate effectively then they need to improve their communication. If the committee structure leads to people thinking something is someone else's problem then they need to divide the committee into multiple sub-committees and hold members who aren't pulling their weight to account. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 09:29, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Although I think the Committee should explore the possibility of having smaller groups decide each individual case. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. I think this is the right approach. Two years ago, the committee was almost stunned into inaction given the strong attrition, and increasing the number of arbitrators was meant to address that. It may not have done so optimally, and I agree that some effort could be made to partition out the work to smaller groups, but reducing the number of arbitrators simply increases the risk that not enough are left active at any one time. —  Coren  ^(talk) 23:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. The additional seats have created more diversity in viewpoints. I'd rather have the cases decided a little slower with very thorough discussion then have them closed quickly due to a single prevailing ideology. Them From Space 00:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Palaxzorodice ( talk) 08:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. — James ^{( Talk • Contribs)} • 9:03pm • 11:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. I think the Arbitration Committee has become a lot fairer when it comprises 18 members, who individually are much less powerful than a member on, say, an 11-member committee. Sure, the cases may take more time to handle, but the final outcome is usually better thought out. Back in the days with a smaller committee, I remember that some arbitrators became rather activist, and sometimes it degenerated into an outright arrogant failure to respect common sense concepts of integrity. For instance, there was one case where an arbitrator was party to a case (due to his posting a "You are all idiots" notice on the Admin's Noticeboard), and therefore, naturally, recused from it. Yet a few months later, this very same arbitrator was voting on amendments to the case, sanctioning the side who had opposed him, while another arbitrator was backing him up, saying that the reasons for not recusing were reasonable. (In that arbitrator's defense, it should be noted that he finally did recuse after some prompting.) With a small ArbCom, these arbitrators wielded a lot of power, and a very small group could to some degree hammer through a decision with votes instead of engaging in debate with the other members of the committee. In this case I felt the power was being abused. The ArbCom today is a considerable improvement over the ArbCom of five years ago. While much of this is due to the efforts of several very decent members on the committee, I think it has helped that each individual arbitrator wields less power. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. We've been very lucky this year, one resignation, and as we can well remember, this is not the norm. Seems like most years we lose three arbs either due to resignation or long-term inactivity. A smaller committee to start with, I fear would lead to a rather small number of people making decisions as the end of the year rolls around. Even with 18 starting the year, due to inactivity and recusals, the two most recently closed cases were voted on by 12 and 11 arbs. If three less had started the year, that could have left as few as 8 voting on a case, a number I would consider unacceptably low. Courcelles 03:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 07:16, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
13. Per Sjakkalle and Courcelles. Davewild ( talk) 11:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
14. Given the history of resignations from the ArbCom, the committee has rarely (if ever) gone for a full year at full strength anyway. It is better to start out the year at slightly over the optimum size (and I don't know if that is 15 or 18) and then drop down to a more reasonable number, than to start at the optimum size and drop down to a number that is too small. If there were a system of "mandatory" special elections to fill vacancies I might feel differently, but there isn't, and such a thing would create its own set of issues. I also think there is some merit in Sjakkalle's statement. Eighteen arbitrators may be marginally more "representative" of the community than fifteen. Neutron ( talk) 20:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
15. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
16. Ampersandestet ( talk) 09:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
17. Off2riorob ( talk) 16:10, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
18. Jamietw ( talk) 15:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
19. With the caveat in my "oppose" statement to HJ Mitchell's proposal, below. -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 05:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:HJ Mitchell

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

Editors who endorse this statement

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

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

8. Basically yes. Have as many arbitrators as are able to demonstrate the trust of the community (support votes minus oppose votes > some number); no need to limit the number elected. [That's assuming a sufficient number get over the threshold.] Then organize and delegate. Use of internal mailing lists (presumably the source of the "communication complexity") should be radically curtailed in any case - if information is not sensitive, it should be public; and if it is sensitive, access should be limited to a small subset of people. -- Kotniski ( talk) 10:50, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. — James ^{( Talk • Contribs)} • 9:03pm • 11:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 16:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. -- NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 20:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. ShimmeringScarab ( talk) 17:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
13. -- œ ^™ 22:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
14. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
15. I agree organization is key to efficiency. Atsme ( talk) 15:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme reply
16. Well said. GuterTag ( talk) 10:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
17. JDrayton15- good call, if we have a small group then they will not accomplish much while a larger group with organization can achieve much more as long as they are organized.
18. Qwyrxian ( talk) 04:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
19. I agree better organization is need. I also don't think there should be only one drafting arbitrator as the case I was in (as person who was taken) was filled up with text and the drafting arbitrator didn't have the time to read all it and see what was happening by the filing editors. Things should be setup so if an arbitrator needs to step down there is a way to ask or contact some else to take over their part. Blackash have a chat 06:50, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
20. I have to agree. The Arbitration Committee has become too large, and has too high a caseload for the incessant bickering the goes one between Arbitrators over cases. Subcommittees and working groups are a very good thing, along with reform of the way mailing lists are used (Decrease use to personal information only with all other discussion publicly available, just like any other court. Ronk01 talk 13:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
21. -- DQ (t) (e) 11:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Editors who oppose this statement

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

Statement by User:Sofialamberto

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

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

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

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

Users who endorse this statement

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

Statement by User:SandyGeorgia

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

• 2008 results
• 2009 results
• 2010 results

Users who endorse this statement

1. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. M4gnum0n ( talk) 14:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Users who oppose this statement

1. There seems to be fixation abroad with interpreting the S/(S+O) calculation as though it were a reliable representation of community support or oppose; this is confounding the community's understanding of the way the election actually works, and encouraging a bipolar result in the RfC, where people are bidding each other up on a benchmark, expecting it will weed out the watery customers, but insisting that the election top up the numbers to a pre-set number. Taking 60% as the benchmark, you're saying that John Vandenberg, Jclemens, and Shell Kinney were just not good enough; more nine-pins would have fallen in the previous elections. With your 65% benchmark—now upped to 66.7% below—we can say good-bye to the legitimacy of David Fuchs, Chase me, and PhilKnight, too, plus PhilKnight, Steve Smith, KnightLago, and from 2008 Coren, Carcharoth, and Wizardman.

   The logical conclusion of this misleading thinking is to look at the supports just as a percentage of all unique editors who vote. Of the 71 candidates from the past three elections, only five have ever gained the support of more than half the voters—four of them last year; oops, I think that reduces ArbCom to ... five. Let's be grown-up about this: tactical opposing is an increasing trend, which renders meaningless and impractical the moral odour being peddled about these benchmarks. All we need to do is to rank the candidates so the most preferred take on the role; that's how real-life elections work, naturally enough. Tony (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply

2. Comment when I read SandyGeorgia statement it sounded fine, but upon reading Tony1 comment I see that the simple answer is not the right one. I've had some dealings with some of the editors mentioned and found on the whole they took their role seriously. It would have been a shame to cut them out because of S/(S+O) calculation. Blackash have a chat 07:30, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Ditto Tony. If these were separate elections, SandyGeorgia's comment would make sense. But they're not. They're dependent on each other, which means you get strategic voting where you don't vote for a candidate (or maybe even vote against the candidate) you may support because it'll hurt the chances of another candidate that you support just that little bit more. -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 05:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply
4. The support percentage would be meaningful if everyone considered each candidate against a particular criteria and was prepared to vote for all of them if they thought they would all make good Arbs. But in reality if you give the voters a wide choice some !voters will get pickier and may even decide to only vote for as many candidates as will be elected. I know I get pickier if I think we have a glut of good candidates. So if there had been a couple more credible candidates last year who were almost as good as the ones elected then the support percentages achieved by the same winning candidates would have been lower. Equally if last years runners up had not run then the same people would have been elected, but with higher support percentages. A few months ago I saw this same system being used to elect 7 out of 8 candidates, all of whom were pretty good; Predictably the runner up had a very high percentage support. If that same system had involved another half a dozen equally strong candidates then we might not have had anyone get 65%. So the proposal to combine this electoral system with a high and arbitrary support percentage would make the system "fail unsafe" in that the more good candidates stood the fewer good candidates could be elected, and if twice as many candidates stood as there were places there would be a real chance of none being elected. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:25, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:Piotrus

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

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

Users who endorse this statement

1. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Users who oppose this statement

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

Statement by User:Coren

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

Users who endorse this statement

1. —  Coren  ^(talk) 04:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Rs chen 7754 04:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. I prefer this. Speaking as one, I think it appropriate that the lowest-supported arbs have to essentially run again on their first year record to continue in office. I don't oppose Risker's alternative, just prefer the status quo on this. Jclemens ( talk) 05:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. I don't see Risker's experience drain scenario as plausible with the number of Arbs we have. Also, never underestimate incumbency in elections. People who want to get reelected, and still maintain the community's good will, have a definite advantage as known items. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 07:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Lord Vargonius Yes, this makes sense. If a candidate has relatively little support, then chances are he/she has done something in the past to disturb support or is very new at this, in which case it would be a good idea for him/her to have only a one-year term as opposed to those with more popular support, who likely have proven their skills in this area in the past and are a safe risk with a two-year term.
7. Indeed - if someone has lower support, and therefore get a shorter term, they come back to the community hopefully having convinced them they're capable. If they're not supportable, the community rightfully should have the chance to remove them. Orderinchaos 16:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Support with the caveat that any candidate that fails to secure a majority of support be not appointed to any seat for any length of time. If the community doesn't feel confident in you, you have no right to try and claim a seat. Hasteur ( talk) 17:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Jebus989 ^✰ 18:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Support for the reason Coren says. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 18:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Support - gives the community a chance to reassess what went wrong. — Kudu  ^~I/O~ 20:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Support on this one - but I do understand Risker's concerns about institutional memory. The Cavalry ( Message me) 22:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
13. If most appointees are given two-year seats, I do not see how this statement and Risker's are irreconcilable. AGK [ • 22:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
14. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
15. Support - the world, and Wikipedia, will survive either way, but if you are going to continue to have 18 arbitrators (which nobody has addressed in this RfC so far) (which became an issue in this RfC 13 minutes after I originally posted this), it does make sense to keep two groups of nine. As I understand things, however, this is really a moot issue, unless one or more arbs who were elected in 2010 for a 2-year term were to resign before the 2011 election. None have. The only arb who has resigned had a term that ended at this election anyway. So it would be all two-year terms even if Coren's proposal is adopted. Risker's proposal might have an impact in future years if it is adopted, however. Neutron ( talk) 00:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
16. Per Jclemens.-- Cerejota ( talk) 01:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
17. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
18. Nothing stops a 1-year term arb from running again, right? Lara 03:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
19. Support -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 09:31, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
20. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
21. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
22. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
23. T. Canens ( talk) 22:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
24. Agreed. Pteronura brasiliensis ( talk) 13:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
25. My full support. Akjar13 ( talk) 11:14, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
26. While Risker makes some good points, I think that the current system is best overall. Eluchil404 ( talk) 18:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
27. — James ^{( Talk • Contribs)} • 9:05pm • 11:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
28. Combined with a reduction in numbers to 15, this should be sustainable. Alzarian16 ( talk) 21:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
29. -- œ ^™ 22:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
30. Tony (talk) 04:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
31. This keeps the tranches balanced. Courcelles 03:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
32. Per Courcelles. Sjakkalle (Check!) 04:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
33. Davewild ( talk) 11:39, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
34. I support this so long as it doesn't involve any exercise of the 'royal prerogative'. -- Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 07:31, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
35. Seems to have worked fine up until now, and should continue. CT Cooper · talk 13:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
36. This allows people to see how editors handle the job. Blackash have a chat 07:42, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
37. Happy‑ melon 16:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply
38. ?oygul ( talk) 13:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply
39. Jamietw ( talk) 15:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
40. Having the one/two year mix reduces the possibility of burnout as well. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:41, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
41. Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 05:27, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply
42. causa sui ( talk) 18:34, 26 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:Risker

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

Users who endorse this statement

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

Statement by User:HJ Mitchell

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

Editors who endorse this statement

1. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:14, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. IIRC, there were very few candidates the last time, and I suppose there might be quite a few people who would be interested in arbitrating but not willing to serve for 24 months – that's a helluva long time.
   ― A. di M.​ _plé​ ^dréachtaí 01:03, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. M4gnum0n ( talk) 14:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Editors who do not endorse this statement

1. Electing 18 a year? How, when there's a minimum percentage rating of 50%, let alone the 60% or 66% or 70% that some people are calling for? I don't get it. Tony (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Agreed. this is a non-starter. We had, what, 9? 10? above 50% last year? Also, the two year plan has a bonus in that Arbitrators are not constantly running for re-election, the Committee must be free to make unpopular (but necessary) decisions. Most decisions the Committee writes will disappoint/disgust/enrage some (and in some cases, all) parties to the case. SirFozzie ( talk) 11:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Who has the time to vote for 18 people each year. Not me. Blackash have a chat 07:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Strain on the system. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:02, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Two years is not that long a term, we need some continuity and not electing the whole lot every year helps make sure we have a proper level of scrutiny of candidates. Also I'm pretty sure that the community is stabilising and that the proportion of people who've been around for more than two years is going up. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:Carcharoth

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

Editors who endorse this statement

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

You know you've been doing particle physics too long when you read the title of this section and you mistake the last I for an R. (SCNR)
― A. di M.​ _plé​ ^dréachtaí 21:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:Count Iblis

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

Users who endorse this statement

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

Statement by User:SirFozzie

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

Users who endorse this statement

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. This will prevent the complete newbies from hopping aboard wile allowing just about everyone else their shot. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 07:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. There needs to be some basic minimum edit-count requirement (I don't have a particular view on what the number should be) to screen out complete joke or fringe candidates, who have no chance of election and are merely distracting. A caveat: there has been some confusion in the past as to whether edit-counts in these and other elections have referred to mainspace edits or all edits; this should be made crystal clear. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. As with NYB, I have no view on the precise minimum - 1000 seems reasonable to me, but there may be a good reason for setting it higher, or lower. The limit should apply up to, say, 2 weeks before the opening of nominations to avoid people making a heap of twinkle edits the day the thing opens. Orderinchaos 16:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Keeping complete newbies out of the race sounds good to me. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 18:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Jebus989 ^✰ 18:08, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. In a democracy, anyone is allowed to run. I do support a (very) low minimum to prevent trolls and sockpuppets from running. PaoloNapolitano ( talk) 18:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. 500 edits seems good to me. Adminship should not be a requirement. — Kudu  ^~I/O~ 20:38, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. 500 edits minimum. I'd be pushing, ideally, for closer to 1,000 given the workload. The Cavalry ( Message me) 22:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. 500 is enough to screen out the time-wasters (deliberate or well-intentioned). AGK [ • 22:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
13. 500 sounds fine, but I wouldn't push it further than 1000. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
14. Yes, sure. 500 edits is OK, 1000 edits would be OK also, probably not too much higher. Herostratus ( talk) 04:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
15. Would prefer 1000. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 09:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
16. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
17. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
18. 500 is enough to give people an understanding of what is going on, and avoid the 5-edit candidacies like RFA gets on a weekly basis. Too much higher, and I could see the rule getting in the way of extremely exceptional candidates that may be out there. Courcelles 03:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
19. 500, or whatever is decided for voters, is a good number. Low enough that it disqualifies few if any viable candidates even with unique editing patterns or backgrounds but high enough that it discourages genuinely enthusiastic but clueless newbies whom the community would never approve. Eluchil404 ( talk) 18:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
20. 500 sounds reasonable, by then an editor should be familiar with Wikipedia's processes and have the good sense and judgment to know whether or not they'll stand a chance. — James ^{( Talk • Contribs)} • 9:07pm • 11:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
21. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:17, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
22. Davewild ( talk) 11:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
23. A low level threshold should be sufficient to stop very new accounts from running, which should be the individuals being filtered out. The community can judge the rest. CT Cooper · talk 13:25, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
24. This is a reasonable threshold to aim that candidates are serious. I agree with Fozzie that a much higher edit count is needed to stand a reasonable chance of being elected, but even "real-world" elections allow candidates with no chance of winning to run. It is OK for the candidacy threshold to be deliberately lower than the practical electibility threshold. Sjakkalle (Check!) 20:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
25. A fair balance. Qwyrxian ( talk) 05:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
26. I know I'll never have time to be an Arb, but I wouldn't want the fact of my anonymity to be the deciding factor as with User:Jclemens section. B^e——C_{ritical__ Talk} 05:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
27. Per NYB. Of course, joke and fringe candidates with minimal edits will never get elected, but voters collectively waste lots of time screening out those candidates before making a decision. If there were a serious candidate with less than 500 edits, that would change my opinion, but I doubt such a candidate exists.-- Chaser ( talk) 17:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
28. At least it gives us something to gauge an editor when you check out their editing. Blackash have a chat 07:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
29. Reasonable to set some sort of threshold. My only concern is that once this is established, it might start to WP:CREEP each year. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
30. 500 edits would be an absolute minimum not based on any philosophy, but merely common sense: no one who has less than this (or probably less than a much higher number) has any chance of being elected, so there is no point wasting everyone's time with such candidacies, especially the time of the candidate themselves. Happy‑ melon 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply
31. ?oygul ( talk) 13:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC) 1000 edits. reply
32. Clear up some candidates that don't have a chance and avoid the possibility of hurting feelings. ZamorakO o ( talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply
33. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
34. Having people try to run with 50 edits doesn't really make sense anyway. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
35. Not because of WP:EDITCOUNTITIS, but because no one with less has a snowball's chance of succeeding anyway. -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 05:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply
36. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 23:30, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
37. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
38. There needs to be a threshold. 500 is too low. Carrite ( talk) 02:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
39. M4gnum0n ( talk) 17:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:Jclemens

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

Users who endorse this statement

1. Last year's Giano controversy was disruptive, and while I was skeptical that any arbitrator could effectively perform the role without advanced tools and mailing list access, I had no idea how much non-public information would be handled by the committee. Jclemens ( talk) 03:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. NW ( Talk) 03:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. SirFozzie ( talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. If someone states that they're not going to self identify, a coordinator should just quietly delete their election pages and save us the nonsense. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Just to be perfectly clear: the WMF definition requires that the person also be over the age of 18 and of the age of majority in their place of residence. Risker ( talk) 03:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Yes. Being able to view and discuss checkuser data and suppressed edits is a requirement for being able to hold a seat, and identifying and being of legal age is a requirement for that. —  Coren  ^(talk) 03:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Rs chen 7754 03:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. -- Cerejota ( talk) 04:18, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 07:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. yep. Ipsign ( talk) 11:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. I have frankly never been a proponent of the identification requirement, but it does exist, and given that fact, people need to be prepared to comply with it. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:33, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
13. To the Foundation, yes. Publicly, not required. Orderinchaos 16:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
14. To the Foundation and publically. If you can't take the heat, don't enter the kitchen. David in DC ( talk) 17:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
15. I'm not a big fan of identification in general, but I believe that access to nonpublic information is a fundamental part of arbitration, not so much for CheckUser and oversight specifically as it is for private information and discretion in general. — Kudu  ^~I/O~ 20:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
16. The Cavalry ( Message me) 22:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
17. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
18. Under the current system, it's better that it be a prerequisite. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
19. El on ka 03:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
20. Yes, to the Foundation, not necessarily publicly. Herostratus ( talk) 04:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
21. Goes without saying .. - Alison ^❤ 08:26, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
22. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 09:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
23. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
24. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
25. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
26. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
27. PhilKnight ( talk) 13:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
28. Absolutely. Courcelles 03:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
29. — Darkwind ( talk) 01:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
30. Definitely. An arbitrator cannot serve in full capacity if they do not have advanced permissions and mailing list and private wiki access, it's as simple as that. Considering most co-ordination occurs off-wiki a limited arbitrator would be a nuisance and hinder the work of the Committee rather than assist. — James ^{( Talk • Contribs)} • 9:12pm • 11:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
31. Everton Dasent ( talk) 01:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
32. Per M.O.X. Der yck C. 18:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
33. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 11:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
34. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak 10:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
35. Davewild ( talk) 11:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
36. Master&Expert ( Talk) 09:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
37. I can see no other absolute requirement. Maybe we should require candidates to be autoconfirmed at the beginning of the nomination period, but I don't think anyone else would nominate themselves anyway.
    ― A. di M.​ _plé​ ^dréachtaí 21:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)01:08, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
38. Yes, we should be clear on this from the start to a avoid a pickle mid-election. CT Cooper · talk 13:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
39. I'd go even further and say "identify to the general public", but that's a start. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
40. Agree at least that way there isn't multiple accounts by the same person getting into being a arbitrator. Blackash have a chat 07:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
41. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
42. Happy‑ melon 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply
43. selbstverständlich -- Avi ( talk) 14:38, 16 October 2011 (UTC) reply
44. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:42, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
45. Unfortunate support. Not a big fan of required identification, but since the Foundation requires it for the tools and the tools are, at least potentially, important here ... -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 05:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply
46. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 23:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
47. If President Obama showed up the day after he was out of office, then made a little fewer than 500 edits and ran for ArbCom, I'd vote for him. Grand master ka 00:12, 27 October 2011 (UTC) reply
48. I think everybody should identify and sign in to edit, personally. This is an extreme minimum in that department. Carrite ( talk) 02:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
49. 155.41.31.179 ( talk) 17:43, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:Risker

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

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

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

Users who endorse this statement

1. Risker ( talk) 03:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 05:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Rubber stamping the community's will for the sake of having it all here to point to. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 07:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Lord Vargonius I concur. Wikipedia already has the election criteria, so none more should be specified.
6. I think this is entirely reasonable to expect of arbitrator candidates. Orderinchaos 16:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Standard. AGK [ • 22:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Aye. The Cavalry ( Message me) 22:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Sole Soul ( talk) 01:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Lara 03:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. El on ka 03:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
13. Herostratus ( talk) 04:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
14. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 09:33, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
15. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
16. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
17. Al Lemos ( talk) 01:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
18. Per policy. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
19. Eluchil404 ( talk) 18:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
20. Good. Palaxzorodice ( talk) 08:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
21. — James ^{( Talk • Contribs)} • 9:13pm • 11:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
22. -- œ ^™ 22:56, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
23. It's already the policy, so why am I redundantly supporting this? Tony (talk) 04:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
24. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak 10:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
25. Davewild ( talk) 11:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
26. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 16:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
27. CT Cooper · talk 13:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
28. Already policy. Qwyrxian ( talk) 05:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
29. Sound policy Blackash have a chat 08:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
30. This section serves as a reminder in case any proposals here contravene what was ratified earlier this year. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
31. Redundant, but necessary nonetheless. Happy‑ melon 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply
32. ?oygul ( talk) 13:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply
33. ZamorakO o ( talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply
34. Already policy, but just for the sake of having it confirmed here... SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
35. Number two especially. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
36. If amended to "active alternate accounts." There's really no need for a "I used to use another account, but I don't remember what it was"-type disclosure. -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 05:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply
37. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 23:32, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply
38. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:10, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:Hasteur

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

Users who endorse this statement

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

Users who do not endorse this statement

1. I agree this should be a factor which voters should consider while casting their votes, however I'd be hesitant to make it a pre-requisite. Der yck C. 20:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Per Deryck Chan. Also, who would decide whether a given candidate's involvement in a given discussion was sufficient to constitute his or her "resolving a dispute," etc. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 03:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak 10:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. No one could win an election without some sort of record of common sense and good judgement to stand on. Making this a requirement makes things more complicated and adds little, in my opinion. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Per NYB.-- Chaser ( talk) 16:50, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Per others. Factor, not prereq. -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 05:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Too subjective to be a criterion for running. I doubt anyone could get in without it, but it shouldn't be necessary in order to run. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement 2 by User:Count Iblis

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

Users who endorse this statement

1. Count Iblis ( talk) 01:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. I agree. Pteronura brasiliensis ( talk) 13:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Moral support. However Sir Fozzie is correct on the reality of the situation.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 16:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Nonstarter if WMF says otherwise, but it's the right thing. B^e——C_{ritical__ Talk} 05:57, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Users who do NOT endorse this statement

1. Plain and simple, you MUST. This is a mandate handed down from the WMF. Take it up with them. SirFozzie ( talk) 11:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Per SirFozzie, and note that the documentation provided to the WMF was never shared with any ArbCom member, nor has it leaked to date. Jclemens ( talk) 01:36, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. A complete non-starter. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Hackers hack to get a reaction, people who are going for arbitration spots are I hope not editing badly or to push their companies/work. So where is the pay off for the hacker? Blackash have a chat 08:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. I don't see how this would help fix the hacks/leaks issue. — Tom Morris ( talk) 16:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:NuclearWarfare

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

Users who endorse this statement.

1. NW ( Talk) 03:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Good idea and pragmatic. Candidates who are already identified should probably be identified to the electorate, as while the incumbents will be known to have identified, we may have former functionaries running who don't have active tools, such that it would be an exercise in institutional memory to know that they had previously identified. :-) Jclemens ( talk) 03:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Good idea. Jclemens, see m:Identification noticeboard, we don't have to rely on memory. Courcelles 03:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. It's reasonable to encourage people to identify in advance, but it should not be obligatory. Privacy is important, and if someone doesn't want to identify in advance in case they don't get elected, I see no reason to force them. Of course, a successful candidate only becomes an arbitrator after they have been identified. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. — James ^{( Talk • Contribs)} • 9:17pm • 11:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Concur with the idea of strongly encouraging them, though it shouldn't be a requirement. -- El on ka 02:44, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Interesting thought. I think it's fair that if you don't actually become an Arb, it isn't necessary that you identify yourself to WMF. This is different from WMF board elections, where real names of candidates are announced to the electorate before voting. Der yck C. 18:22, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. I agree with Elonka. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. I'd say require identification before voting starts. I wouldn't like to require real name release, but let's not waste everybody's time with identification troubles. —  Kudu  ^~I/O~ 13:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Reasonable, though we would need to make sure that the Foundation can review and certify the identification in sufficient time. Qwyrxian ( talk) 05:02, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Endorse, as statement says "strongly encouraged to identify" and not strongly required to identify. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. But only support this if it is made clear that this is not a requirement, but only a strong encouragement. Fiddling with the deadlines might not be possible if (as is likely) some candidates that might gain the needed support are not identified. It might, however, reduce the time taken for that process to be done (the bottleneck tends to be the candidates themselves, who should definitely be ready to send off the paperwork immediately after being appointed). At the end of the day, though, this being delayed doesn't matter immensely, as long as no arb takes their seat early. Bringing arbs in late due to delays in paperwork is annoying, but not a deal-breaker. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
13. "strongly encouraged" ≠ "forced to identify ahead of time in order to run". If people are so nervous about their identities that they fall under Tony's scenario below, then they have a surprise coming to them. There are unscrupulous people out there that make a sport of outing well know users, and the WMF has never been the source of the information said outers have used. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
14. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 23:55, 22 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Users who do not endorse this statement

1. It's no big deal, but I think it might turn away a few good candidates, knowing that they'll need to declare beforehand and it might all have been unnecessary if they're not elected. Candidates deserve to keep their privacy until it's necessary to reveal the details to the Foundation; until then, it's a matter of trust with the voters. I can't see what harm comes of the status quo. Tony (talk) 14:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Per Tony1 Davewild ( talk) 11:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Per Tony1. Clearly ArbCom and the Foundation cannot be trusted with data security. Jehochman ^Talk 16:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Per Tony1. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe last year Jimbo Wales waited on identification by the winning candidates before making the appointments to the committee. Whoever's doing this, that's the order I think it ought to be done.-- Chaser ( talk) 16:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Agree with Chaser as peer pressure could work. Really if you are running what the problem with giving your id to foundation before hand? You are running hoping to win right? So do it already. Blackash have a chat 08:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Per Chaser. Happy‑ melon 16:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Per Tony1. Lightmouse ( talk) 15:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Candidates should be able to maintain anonymity until there is a need not to. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Unnecessary prior to selection imo - Off2riorob ( talk) 19:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Per Tony and Chaser. No reason to identify if you're not going to be on the committee. Of course, they still can if they want to.-- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 05:47, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply
11. While I can see that getting into ArbCom should require disclosing one's identity to the Foundation (since ArbCom members are exposed to private information), I don't see why a failed candidate should have to do that. While any potential ArbCom member has to be willing to disclose his/her identity should (s)he win, disclosing one's identity means that there is one more person whose identity could end up being made public by a hacker (or even a Foundation member who ends up deciding to disclose it) - a risk no user should be required to make without an actual need. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:Pgallert

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

Users who endorse this statement.

1. Pgallert ( talk) 06:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. PaoloNapolitano ( talk) 08:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Agree with Pgallert's explanation below. Der yck C. 18:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Or maybe they should be temporarily given the rights they need for the duration of the case.
   ― A. di M.​ _plé​ ^dréachtaí 22:00, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. M4gnum0n ( talk) 17:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Comments

• Advanced rights are currently already not a requirement, and a thread here would have to be started in order for that to change. Once elected to ArbCom, Arbs are given by default most of the advanced rights, many of which become necessary in order for Arbs to do their jobs. This motion is unnecessary. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
• Any non-admin who wins an ArbCom seat has the trust of the community and should just be made an admin. (In addition to what ever other advanced rights they need) Monty ₈₄₅ 19:39, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
• +sysop is a de facto requirement, no one without it has even been elected. To hand out light bulbs, screwdrivers and access to the elevator shaft to all magistrates, just because they have the trust of the community, does not sound logical to me. -- Pgallert ( talk) 07:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:PaoloNapolitano

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

As for the technical matters, I propose this:

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

Users who endorse this statement

1. PaoloNapolitano ( talk) 18:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. User talk:mugginsx (Not myself-too inexperienced) Mugginsx ( talk) 12:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. ╟─ Treasury Tag► First Secretary of State─╢ 09:22, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Opposers hereunder demonstrate why a non-admin needs to be mandatory: otherwise not a chance of becoming elected; simply allowing a non-admin's candidacy is pure window-dressing. I'm not an admin, and more likely ever to become judged by an ArbCom than to offer my candidacy to participate at judging. A non-admin in ArbCom might well attempt to play the role of, and be perceived as, a kind of ombudsman for the underdog, in particular by contributors that are the most likely to be called for an ArbCom and quickly feel victimized by a group that decides mainly in favour of one that called for it. ▲ SomeHuman 16:10-16:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. -- Guerillero | My Talk 00:25, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Here is one arbitrator who has actively promoted this in past RFCs. :P John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Having a non-administrator on the ArbCom helps to avoid the possibility of an unconscious bias in favor of administrators. It is a fact of human nature that someone who shares a lot of the same experiences as an ArbCom member will tend to be treated in a more sympathetic manner or be given the benefit of the doubt in marginal cases. In addition, it opens up the possibility of finding a wise candidate who for various reasons might have decided not to seek becoming an admin. Guy Macon ( talk) 21:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Weak support. I'd prefer to have some other way to encourage non-admins to run, but this might do it. Hobit ( talk) 02:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Support. Adminship will serve everyone better, including admins, if we break down this "big deal" aurore about it. Service on ArbCom requires a different skill-set (even though it partially overlaps), and adminship should not be seen as part of a greasy poll you have to climb—some kind of prerequisite for doing a whole lot of things on WP. Tony (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Support. We should definitely narrow that power distance between the Napoleons and the other animals on the farm ;-). -- Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Strong Support Agree that this would make the community feel better about ArbCom decisions. Ronk01 talk 13:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Weak support. I agree that all arbs being admins is not necessarily an optimal situation, though I'm not sure this would be the best way to deal with it. We might try this for one year and see how it turns out.
    ― A. di M.​ _plé​ ^dréachtaí 22:05, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
13. I've read over a few RfAs where the candidates only issue was not being an active article writer, didn't participate in this one area, etc etc. However, I would trust these users with the tools that they would use if granted the rights. This just shows that non-sysops are capable of being helpful members of the ArbCom, and it gives a more diverse area of input to the committee. ZamorakO o ( talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:Rschen7754

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

Users who endorse this statement

1. There are probably some editors who do not wish to be admins who are familiar enough with the policies that they could probably do a passable job on ArbCom with admin abuse-related cases. However, forcing a non-admin to be on is a bad idea. Rs chen 7754 20:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. There already is nothing that prevents any non-admin editor from being elected, and every year a number of such candidates run for a seat. That none has ever been elected simply shows that mandating one would go explicitly against the community's desires. —  Coren  ^(talk) 22:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. I have to agree with Rschen7754 here. While mandating a non-admin seem like a good idea, it has two assumes something that I'm not comfortable with: that admins and editors are in two separate 'camps', a lá political parties. I'd also be surprised if anyone who wasn't an admin could cope with the stress. The Cavalry ( Message me) 22:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Per Coren. Requiring a non-admin to be on the arbitration committee appears to be against the community's wishes. I think that non-admins should be able to run like anyone else, though. Ajraddatz ( Talk) 00:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Per Ajraddatz. I think non-admins should be permitted to run, but not have a mandated seat, to avoid an "us vs them" mentality. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. It's not necessarily a terrible idea, and I don't see it as dividing people into camps, and I think it's fine for non-admins to run, but an actual mandate loses me. Herostratus ( talk) 04:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. I'd rather the WP community have an opportunity to see how an editor with a little bit of power behaved before giving them a lot of power. No mandate (but no requirement, either). Gerardw ( talk) 10:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 10:46, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. I have no problem with non-admins on ArbCom in principle, but mandating one is a very strange thing to do when none has ever been elected. Besides which, ArbCom is the body responsible for dealing with admin misconduct and it would be difficult for somebody without experience of the shit admins have to put up with to hear such a case. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. With the understanding that this does not prohibit non-admins from being elected, only that it does not mandate non-admins be elected. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
13. Agree with the consequence of the statement (no mandating) but not with all of the wording. There should be the possibility to have non-admins in ArbCom. Maybe zero of them, maybe 18, but not by means of a quota. -- Pgallert ( talk) 09:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
14. The community may elect a non-admin at any election, but I don't believe in requiring it to do so. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:56, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
15. If you cannot run the gauntlet of an RfA, why run for ArbCom? It is a matter of trust. And quite frankly, out of the dozen or so non-admins I can think of right now who could be in ArbCom, all of them would probably pass an RfA. Its a pre-screening if you will. -- Cerejota ( talk) 18:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply

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

16. Running in the election should be allowed if the user meets the requirements, but I don't think a mandated non-admin seat is good idea. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
17. I think any non-admin who is elected should just be made an admin, regardless, I don't think reserving a seat for a non-admin makes sense. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
18. Per Coren, Ajraddatz and Sonia. — James ^{( Talk • Contribs)} • 9:17pm • 11:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
19. -- œ ^™ 23:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
20. As per Sonia. — Kudu  ^~I/O~ 13:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
21. Neeya The Great ( talk) 08:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
22. A possibility but not a requirement - there are non-admins responsible and respected enough to win election but many of them are non-admins precisely because they have no wish to accept the demands and workload that position entails. Therefore, they're unlikely to run for ArbCom. But if they do and they're suitable candidates then that's fine. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak 11:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
23. Open to non-admins being elected, but no institutionalised division between admin and non-admin places. Davewild ( talk) 11:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
24. The voters can elect anybody they like. The rules should not restrict voting in this way. Jehochman ^Talk 12:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
25. I do not automatically oppose non-admins, but I would be against a reserved seat for them since it would (a) probably alter election results against the wishes of the voters, (b) the case has not yet been made for the existence of bias/discrimination against non-admins on ArbCom decisions that justify reserved seats, and (c) even if there was, one arbitrator could easily be overruled. CT Cooper · talk 13:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
26. Generally agree. A former admin would probably have the most insight into both admins' and non-admins' experiences on Wikipedia. However, either a former admin or a non-admin that has become an arbitrator is unlikely to have the typical non-admin's experience with other editors.-- Chaser ( talk) 16:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
27. Arbcom is the last place to go, it should be only held by people the community trusts to do the job. Just as the Australian high court only has judges because it the last place to appeal to. Blackash have a chat 08:25, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
28. In my opinion, if someone cannot muster sufficient community support to be an administrator, they definitely should not be an arbitrator. Now, if a non-admin manages to pass the vote and get on ArbCom anyway, that's fine, but I would be strongly opposed to the idea that we have to mandate a certain number of non-admins on the committee. -- El on ka 17:27, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
29. Happy‑ melon 19:51, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply
30. -- Avi ( talk) 14:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC) reply
31. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
32. There are a couple non-admins out there who would probably get elected if they ran. However, admins generally have the trust of a good deal of the community, whereas a non-admin may have none for all we know. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
33. Support only the plain statement that there shouldn't be non-admin seats reserved. Adminship shouldn't be a big deal, neither should non-adminship. -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 05:54, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply
34. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:12, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Users who do NOT endorse this statement

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

Statement by User:Michaeldsuarez

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

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

Users who endorse this statement

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

Users who do not endorse this statement

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

Headcount of non-admins considering taking part in the election

This is more of an experiment seeking data than a statement seeking endorsements. Some users are concerned non-admins not having any seats on ArbCom, while some are concerned about non-admins not willing to run in elections. I wish to know: How many non-admins are considering running in this election? List your username under the first category if you're willing to run in an election without any reserved seats for non-admins. List your username in the second category if you're willing to run in an election with reserved seats but are unwilling or uncomfortable with running in election without reserved seats. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 23:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid this is a premature question with a meaningless outcome: Answer 2 appears unlikely to get responses as long as an election for the reserved seat remains uncertain: it might even endanger one's chances of becoming an admin, which function could still remain a prerequisite for future ArbCom elections; answer 1 is unlikely to get responses because sheer experience shows not to stand a chance. ▲ Either way non-candidate SomeHuman 09:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I expect our Arbitrators to be honest, confident, and straightforward. If they're hiding from questions, then they don't belong on ArbCom. I'm asking this question in order to gather data on whether (or to what degree) reserved seats would increase the participation of non-admins in the election. Asking this question is to their benefit. Perhaps a secret ballot would be better, but the WMF doesn't create secret ballot polls according to my whims. With the options available to me, this was the best I could came up with, and my best is flawed. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 13:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure why I mentioned the secret ballot. What sort of ArbCom candidate is too timid or concerned about a future RfA to speak his or her mind candidly in the open? A secret ballot would also introduce the possibility of those who don't actually want to be candidates participating in order to influence the data. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 14:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Since in practice, non-admins did not become arbitrators, this here page is much less likely to become read by non-admins compared to the likeliness of an admin to take a look. It is thus predictable that polls tend to exhibit majorities for typical (conservative) admin viewpoints: only a final poll presented with a clear demand to consider only the value of the so far obtained arguments while disregarding the scattered polls' at that time gathered number of votes, might allow a change in ArbCom election policy. If that would warrant a non-admin ArbCom seat, an explicit call upon non-administrators to put their candidacy for a unique seat in the Arbitration Committee at the top of all pages will be needed to draw the attention, so as to prevent a very low number of candidates to pose a problem. ▲ SomeHuman 10:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

This page isn't just for candidates; it's also for voters. Voters wish to ensure that the best ArbCom is created from the election. Voters want ArbCom to be just and wise in case they may have to participate in an ArbCom case in the future. This is why I'm here. I also believe that Arbitrators, especially new, active ones, should be up-to-date on changes in policy. If a ArbCom hopeful doesn't learn about such a major change on their own initiative, then do they belong on ArbCom? It's also hard enough for voters to examine twenty candidates and choose the nine best ones. If a notice went on every page that the ambitious will perceive as saying, "Are you a non-admin? Do you hate how sysops have all the cool toys? Do you want power? Then we have an opportunity for you!" then there'll be a hundred candidates vying for that one reserved seat. Most of those candidates would become lost in the crowd, and voters won't go through the trouble of examining every candidate. Writers of voting guide probably will probably only discuss a fraction of candidates in their guides, and that would increase the influence voting guide writers will have. -- Michaeldsuarez ( talk) 13:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Non-admins willing to run in an election without reserved seats

1. - To clarify, I would be willing to volunteer to help whatever the voting setup is. I don't support any free pass situation for a non admin. - Off2riorob ( talk) 17:02, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Statement by User:Michaeldsuarez

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

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

Users who endorse this statement

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

Users who don't

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

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

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

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

Statement by User:Carcharoth

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

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

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

Please discuss this proposal here

Users who endorse this statement

1. As proposer. Carcharoth ( talk) 12:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Statements

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

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

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

• Note to closing admin. I've raised a question about this close on the talk page here. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 08:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Proposed lengths

10 days

1. Second choice. Risker ( talk) 03:05, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. 1st choice: who wants arbcom elections to take 1.5–2 months in every 12? Tony (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply

   What's the problem with that? The total amount of person time spent on the elections is the number of voters times the average time it takes to vote, whether it's concentrated on one week or spread on two months.
   ― A. di M.​ _plé​ ^dréachtaí 20:26, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply

3. If this includes two weekends, I would prefer just 10 days. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Per Tony, but I too would want to see this encompass two weekends - not everybody can edit on every day. AGK [ • 22:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. First choice, as long as it includes two weekends; Everybody (or at least almost everybody active enough to care) knows the ArbCom elections take place in December and I'm sure the date will be widely advertised once it's known. There's a genuine risk that those who check their watchlists infrequently might miss a week-long election, but anybody active enough to be motivated to vote would most likely see it in 10 days (including two weekends). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. 2nd choice. Lightmouse ( talk) 17:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply
7. - is more than enough time to volunteer. Off2riorob ( talk) 17:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
8. M4gnum0n ( talk) 17:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

14 days

1. Long enough for Board of Trustees elections. People who are interested enough to participate can do so in 2 weeks. Risker ( talk) 03:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Long enough indeed. Jclemens ( talk) 03:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Second choice-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Per Risker. Typically, the candidates are asked lots of questions and need to respond to them throughout the voting period (whether we keep the formal questions page open or not), which takes enough time that it is impossible for them to get much else done on-wiki. It is unfair to the candidates and the community to impose that burden on a couple of dozen of our most dedicated participants for longer than the time we already do. Supporting 14 days over 10 days to make sure the voting period includes two full weekends. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. 2nd choice. Tony (talk) 14:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. This length has turned out OK, however it is a long time for candidates to be hanging and electioneering. Any longer than this and I fear that candidates will flame out. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 14:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Voters should be around here at least once every fortnight. Shorter ignores the demands of the real world. Longer is unneccessary and, potentially, divisive. The window for "stacking the deck" shouldn't be any wider than necessary. IMHO 14 days = Goldilocks solution. David in DC ( talk) 17:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Hasteur ( talk) 17:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Rs chen 7754 18:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Did it for Board of Trustees and stewards. — Kudu  ^~I/O~ 20:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. first choice. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Second choice. -- El on ka 03:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
13. First choice. Regardless of the chosen length we will have people complaining that they didn't get to cast their vote. The purpose of ACE is to run an orderly election, not maximize participation. Protonk ( talk) 17:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
14. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
15. Second choice (behind 10 days). Leaving the candidates, ArbCom, and to a lesser extent the community in limbo for more than fortnight is just unnecessary, longer is just more time in which things more important than ArbCom (y'know, those weird things residing in the mainspace that get in the way of all the drama) are neglected, and it's well known that participation in elections/RfCs/etc declines the longer they drag on, so last minute votes are unlikely to have an effect on the outcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
16. Seems like about the right amount of time to give people a chance to vote. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
17. Pteronura brasiliensis ( talk) 13:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
18. A fortnight is fairly standard, and is enough to let everyone vote without making this process take almost two months. Courcelles 03:44, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
19. Anymore is just overkill, 2 weekends should be enough and it's during mid-late December (that's a time of hustle and bustle on Wikipedia!) that and there's been a high turnout last year in comparison to preceding years. — James ^{( Talk • Contribs)} • 9:21pm • 11:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
20. Echoing many of the above sentiments, this is the best balance between "everyone who wants to can vote" and "dragging this out longer than necessary". Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^{( talk)} 18:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
21. It's enough. It's 13 days longer than most of the elections I've been involved in, and while there are differences justifying a longer period, it can't go on forever. Neutron ( talk) 21:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
22. Just enough. -- œ ^™ 23:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
23. Second choice (after 3 weeks) Neeya The Great ( talk) 08:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
24. Fine. Jehochman ^Talk 12:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
25. First choice. Covering two weeks should give enough time for the overwhelming majority of people to vote. CT Cooper · talk 13:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
26. Sufficient time. Qwyrxian ( talk) 05:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
27. Best choice. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:23, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
28. ?oygul ( talk) 13:27, 11 October 2011 (UTC) 14 days is enough time. reply
29. This allows for plenty of time for us to research the people who are running, and long enough for a user to go on a week vacation, come back, get resettled, and vote. ZamorakO o ( talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply
30. 1st choice. Question to Risker: you marked your second choice. Is this your first choice? Lightmouse ( talk) 17:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply
31. Second choice Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply
32. -- Avi ( talk) 14:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC) reply
33. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
34. Ideally. 21 days is too long, anyone who really wants to vote can do so in two weeks. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
35. Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 05:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply
36. One and only choice. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:09, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
37. Sufficient length. Carrite ( talk) 02:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
38. -- Jan eissfeldt ( talk) 08:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC) reply
39. 1st choice HurricaneFan 25 17:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

21 days

1. I wouldn't mind 28 days either. 14 just strikes me as too short for all the people who aren't super into the election to cast a properly researched vote vote. NW ( Talk) 02:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Preferred. Three weeks gives enough time for enough people to vote, while reducing the risk of it just sitting there for several days and letting small conflicts escalate. SirFozzie ( talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Speaking as one of last year's coordinators, we made the voting window about as obvious as possible and we still received a large number of complaints by people that missed the window. If the new crop has to start on 15 January rather than 1 January, that's fine with me. Considering how low the voting numbers were last year, we can't afford to shut people out. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. I don't think the voting numbers last year were that worrisome, but there is no question that there is a lot of stuff to read to be able to cast an informed vote and that giving more time is a Good Thing. —  Coren  ^(talk) 03:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Long enough to have thorough discussion, short enough that discussion doesn't become stale.-- Cerejota ( talk) 04:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. I think 21 offers the best compromise between participation and keeping people waiting. Orderinchaos 16:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. PaoloNapolitano ( talk) 18:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. second choice. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. So much to read and research. Lara 02:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. First choice, especially considering that the elections tend to run during the (U.S.) holidays. In 2010 the elections ran from November 26 to December 5, which made it a hardship to deal with the family obligations of holidays and travel, plus trying to research all the candidates. With a 3-week voting period from approximately November 20 to December 11, this would be more manageable. -- El on ka 03:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Per NW, Orderinchaos and Elonka. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
13. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
14. T. Canens ( talk) 22:09, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
15. Everyone occassionally gets busy. The more time to vote, the better. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
16. 21 days enough. Palaxzorodice ( talk) 09:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
17. Three weeks allows people to do adequate research in order to make an informed decision. It also help those of us that are not on-wiki every day and therfore get a late start at reviewing the candidates. - Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 07:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
18. First choice - 10 and 14 days are too short for detailed observation and to give optimum results. Neeya The Great ( talk) 08:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
19. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak 11:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
20. Davewild ( talk) 11:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
21. Yes; with only two weeks, not everyone will get to vote, and we have ... ahem ... frequently seen true colors come out as the election progresses. Two weeks isn't enough time. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
22. Also fine. Jehochman ^Talk 12:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
23. Maximum I will support, since this is more than enough time for everyone to case a vote and anything is just dragging the election out excessively. CT Cooper · talk 13:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
24. I agree with SandyGeorgia in the true colours comment. Blackash have a chat 08:58, 29 September 2011 (UTC) reply
25. Per User:SandyGeorgia. Lightmouse ( talk) 15:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC) reply
26. 3rd choice Tony (talk)
27. 3rd choice. Lightmouse ( talk) 17:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply
28. First choice Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 19:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply
29. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 00:04, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
30. 21 days is more than reasonable, especially if we start on December 3 or so to prevent Christmas from getting in the way. Mitch32^{( Never support those who think in the box)} 03:58, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply
31. 2nd choice HurricaneFan 25 17:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

28 days

1. Count Iblis ( talk) 02:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Third choice Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 07:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Do we want to rule out votes of those having 1-month 3-week vacation? I don't think so. Ipsign ( talk) 10:54, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. No rush Jebus989 ^✰ 18:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Some of us periodically focus on real-life. Gerardw ( talk) 10:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. The elections occur in a region of wikipedia seldom trod upon by most regular users. A wider window would allow more pedestrian votes to be cast. aprock ( talk) 02:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. 4th choice—far too long. Will lose momentum. Tony (talk) 15:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply
8. 4th choice. Lightmouse ( talk) 17:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply
9. In recent years we've had over 20 candidates, but we could in theory have lots more. Even if you only spend an hour checking each unfamiliar candidate it would be a huge faff to try and cram this into three weeks. Ϣere SpielChequers 01:18, 29 October 2011 (UTC) reply

By User:Risker

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

Users who endorse this statement

1. Risker ( talk) 02:59, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Jclemens ( talk) 03:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. SirFozzie ( talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. I don't know one way or another, but when all the Arbs (and therefore, the people that know this part of the system) that have commented on the proposal thus far make a mad dash to endorse this, something tells me that it's probably a good idea. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. -- Cerejota ( talk) 04:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. Per Risker. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:29, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Jebus989 ^✰ 18:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Probably going to be more security precautions this year. PhilKnight ( talk) 18:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Kudu  ^~I/O~ 20:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Practically necessary that it fall no later than about 11 December. I do hope that we can get our backsides in gear in time, though the valiant ACE organisers have never disappointed (knock wood). AGK [ • 22:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
13. Sensible. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
14. Endorse, though I'd like to see the elections started even earlier, so we don't have to deal with the complexities of election aftermath in the middle of the holiday season. -- El on ka 03:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
15. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 09:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
16. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
17. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:00, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
18. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
19. Al Lemos ( talk) 01:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
20. Sounds reasonable. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:51, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
21. — James ^{( Talk • Contribs)} • 9:22pm • 11:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
22. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 09:36, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
23. Hydroxonium ( T• C• V) 07:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
24. Davewild ( talk) 11:44, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
25. CT Cooper · talk 13:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
26. We still have time to move the traditional start-time forward if needed.-- Chaser ( talk) 17:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
27. Especially because of the Christmas holidays. ― A. di M.​ _plé​ ^dréachtaí 22:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
28. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
29. ?oygul ( talk) 13:29, 11 October 2011 (UTC) reply
30. ZamorakO o ( talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply
31. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
32. Sounds right. As long as voting starts in late November then this is an easy window to hold on to. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
33. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 00:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
34. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:14, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
35. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 05:00, 4 November 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:OpenInfoForAll

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

1. OpenInfoForAll ( talk) 03:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Ipsign ( talk) 12:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Yes, I think this is important enough to use the banner that is displayed to registered users. However, I do not think this should be displayed in the all-users banner that is shown to unregistered readers and editors during fundraisers; ACE is strictly an internal matter, and our readers undoubtedly do not give a toss. AGK [ • 22:53, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. In addition to the below. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. Neeya The Great ( talk) 08:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. This should start at least four weeks before the end of the voting period, so that prospective voters will have the time to review candidates satisfactorily. (FWIW, I don't think I'm going to vote, either.)
   ― A. di M.​ _plé​ ^dréachtaí 22:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:Sven Manguard

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

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

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

9. Yes, the usual should suffice. AGK [ • 22:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Indeed. Lara 02:52, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
13. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
14. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
15. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
16. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 02:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
17. Baseball Watcher 01:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
18. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
19. — James ^{( Talk • Contribs)} • 9:23pm • 11:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
20. -- œ ^™ 23:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC) reply
21. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:01, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
22. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak 11:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
23. Davewild ( talk) 11:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
24. CT Cooper · talk 13:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
25. Qwyrxian ( talk) 05:09, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
26. Yep. ― A. di M.​ _plé​ ^dréachtaí 22:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC) reply
27. Carcharoth ( talk) 13:28, 2 October 2011 (UTC) reply
28. ZamorakO o ( talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply
29. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
30. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
31. Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 06:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply
32. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 00:15, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
33. M4gnum0n ( talk) 17:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Statement by User:DeltaQuad

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

Users who endorse this statement

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

Statement by User:SirFozzie

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

Users who endorse this statement

1. SirFozzie ( talk) 03:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. This works. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. Also not blocked, of course. And the edit requirement met by the day before the start of the election. Lara 02:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 01:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹ ^Speak 11:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. 150 is too low and too easy to game, raise the number to 500. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:48, 26 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. ?oygul ( talk) 13:42, 11 October 2011 (UTC) 500 is not many,150 is to low. reply
9. First choice. KillerChihuahua ^?!? 00:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
10. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:33, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
11. Still too low. I'm voting this because it is the higher proposed requirement. -- M4gnum0n ( talk) 18:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply

Editors who do not endorse this statement

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

Statement by User:NuclearWarfare

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

Users who endorse this statement

1. NW ( Talk) 15:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
2. Encourages newer/more occasional users to get involved behind the scenes without inviting trolls, brand new accounts etc. Jebus989 ^✰ 18:17, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
3. PaoloNapolitano ( talk) 18:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
4. I'd make it October though. — Kudu  ^~I/O~ 20:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC) reply
5. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:27, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
6. Looks good. Ajraddatz ( Talk) 00:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
7. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
8. This seems better than SirFozzie's. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 09:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
9. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:03, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
10. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC) reply
11. 150 edits is certainly not much, but I could live with this. Jafeluv ( talk) 10:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
12. Best choice here. Akjar13 ( talk) 11:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC) reply
13. — James ^{( Talk • Contribs)} • 9:25pm • 11:25, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
14. With Monty845's caveat on "blocked" below.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 16:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC) reply
15. I think 150 is a bit too low, but I think it is OK. John Vandenberg ^{( chat)} 10:43, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
16. I am not too thrilled with having edit counts as a criterion for suffrage (for one thing, it rewards sloppy editors who keep having to go back and fix their typos... one at a time) but I see the need for an objective measure even if its imperfect. 150 is a fairly low bar for most reasonable editors, but generally sufficient to indicate a certain commitment to the Wikipedia project. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC) reply
17. Seems reasonable to me. Salvidrim ( talk) 07:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
18. Davewild ( talk) 11:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC) (but with Monty845's caveat) Davewild ( talk) 11:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC) reply
19. Seems reasonable. CT Cooper · talk 13:47, 27 September 2011 (UTC) reply
20. Nothing we can do will shut out every potential person who wants to wastes hours sockpuppeting just to get 1 additional vote, so keeping it low enough for actual serious but only occasional users seems like the appropriate choice. Qwyrxian ( talk) 05:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC) reply
21. Happy‑ melon 19:53, 7 October 2011 (UTC) reply
22. Not to many edits. ZamorakO o ( talk) 02:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC) reply
23. This is in line with past precedent, and has worked well. Note also that it would be improper to set a requirement for a minimum edit total after that date has passed - so declaring a 150 edit requirement on or before 1 October isn't fair because that date has already passed. Good faith editors who wish to comply should have a chance to do so. Thus, I'd suggest that the deadline not be 1 November, but be 5 days (or some similar number) after the close of this RFC. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:21, 13 October 2011 (UTC) reply
24. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
25. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC) reply
26. With SomeHuman's caveat on blocked users, below. -- Philosopher  ^{Let us reason together.} 06:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC) reply
27. 2nd choice KillerChihuahua ^?!? 00:18, 23 October 2011 (UTC) reply
28. 1st choice HurricaneFan 25 17:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC) reply