Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) at 00:39, 26 November 2011 (→Decision needed). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:39, 26 November 2011 by Jimbo Wales (talk | contribs) (→Decision needed)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

2011 Arbitration Committee Elections

Shortcut

WP:ACE2011

Status

Thank you for participating in the 2011 Arbitration Committee Election. The results have been verified and published.
Please offer your feedback on the Election process.

Candidates: Candidate guide; Candidate statements; Questions for the candidates; Discuss the candidates

Voter guides
These guides represent only the views of their authors. All guides written responsibly, seriously and in good faith are welcome for inclusion. RegentsPark Kiefer.Wolfowitz Sven Manguard HJ Mitchell Master&Expert Heimstern Joe Gazz84 NuclearWarfare Elonka Monty845 Badger Drink Rschen7754 Wizardman William M. Connolley Ealdgyth SandyGeorgia Carcharoth Guerillero

Timetable for ACE2011

The topic of the timetable for the Arbitration Committee Elections for 2011 is being discussed here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Last-minute change in number of seats

Per User:Iridescent's departure and as indicated by ArbCom (see here), there will now be 7 open seats up for grabs for this year's ArbCom election. –MuZemike 00:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If for any reason another vacancy occurs before the end of the election, a question not considered by the RFC will arise regarding how long the term for the 8th seat will be. If there are no further vacancies, the 8th seat question will not arise until the next election. Monty ₈₄₅ 00:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Might have to ask the election admins for a ruling if it happens. Tony (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I have notified TParis, who closed the relevant section of the RFC, of this discussion. I don't think the election admins would be the ones to decide, they are appointed only to oversee the actual vote. If there is no consensus in the election RFC, then I think we would need to start a new RFC to determine the term length, if that seat ends up needing to be filled. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why this should even be an issue. The issue WAS how to get from tranches that were unbalanced (9/6) to tranches that are as balanced as possible (8/7) in light of the reduction of the ArbCom size to an odd number. Now that issue has resolved itself: Tranche Alpha (NewYorkBrad etc.) has 8 members and Tranche Beta has 7. We should just "accept" that gift from fate, and then if any more vacancies arise in Alpha before the end of the election, they will be filled in the election for the one year remaining in the term, and then next year the 8 seats in Alpha will be up for election. Does it really have to be any more complicated than that? Does there really need to be an RfC on whether the tranches are 8/7 or 7/8? It just seems so trivial and there surely are much more productive things we can all be doing with our time on Misplaced Pages than worrying about that. Neutron (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I think what Tony1 is getting at is that adding a seat during the election is equivalent to "moving up the goalposts" and making it easier for candidates to get in. –MuZemike 19:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't get around to it, but I had in mind proposing that the number of vacancies be fixed on the opening of nominations, to prevent resignations or removals during the election that might be seen as tactical or politically-motivated. Barring mass-resignations, I still think this should be the way to go (i.e. fix open seats at 7 come what may). Skomorokh 15:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Decision needed

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

So, do we fill Chase me's seat at this election? Skomorokh 15:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't; the RfC was thinking there would be 6 vacancies at the time — because Iridescent and Chase me have now stepped down, we should eliminate either one (Chase me) or two (Chase me + Iridescent) seats. HurricaneFan 25 15:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

But if we only had 6 seats open this year, there'd be at least 9 open next year. So it would've been okay to have 9 seats filled next year but not 8 this time around? Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:20, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet a majority of those commenting on the ideal size of the committee felt there should be 15 arbitrators. –xeno 15:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, and we'd leave them with less than 15 if we decided not to fill the seat for a reason other lack of candidates who reach 50% support. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Per my comment in the other section below, I think the seat should be filled if 8 candidates achieve 50% support, term length to be determined. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

For what it is worth, the resigning arbitrator expressed the wish that the seat be filled at this election. Skomorokh 15:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I would say that it is a wish, not a demand. The Cavalry (Message me) 15:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

If only you got the news before the close of nominations, it might have changed who ran. As much as I don't like it (I'm only supporting 6 or 7 candidates this election, likely not 8) we really ought to try and fill up the committee. Sven Manguard Wha? 15:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To stir the pot up a little, the hard cutoff on number of candidates (when Tim sets up the SecurePoll configuration) has not yet been reached. Happy‑melon 16:33, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Comments moved from below for conversational clarity. --Philosopher 17:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry is standing down as an arb at the end of the year, so do we go into and RfC mode (for the 2 days 8 hours left before voting) and get a rough consensus or how will this work? (See this for details) -- DQ (t) (e) 15:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm biased, but since candidates need 50% support anyway this should really be filled through the election. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

See above. HurricaneFan 25 15:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the seat should be filled if a candidate meets the 50% threshold. For me the question is the term length. There are three ways I think the 8th seat could go. First, we could have it always be a one year seat filled by the candidate with the 8th most support. This would make sure that no tranche was larger then the other, and one extra seat being elected each year is not overly burdensome, and is still less then there would have been without the change. Second, we could have it be a 2 year term, and anticipate that during any given cycle, one Arb seat from the most recently elected tranche will become vacant, and will be able to be the 8th seat for the alternate tranche. The problem with that would be that there is a risk of all the arbs staying, which would leave an imbalance. My third proposal would be a hybrid of the two, we fill all 8, but the 8th place will be a one year term, however if another tranche beta seat opens during 2012, the 8th place arb would be promoted to fill the remainder of the two year term. I don't think we need to conclude an RFC before voting starts, as long as there is no significant dissent other whether the seat should be filled at least a year term, the specifics of the term length can be decided as the voting proceeds, or even after it is concluded. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

To summarize what I said in the earlier section, I think we should stick with the previous plan of electing seven members of "Group 2" for two-year terms, and treat this as a "one-year" vacancy in "Group 1." So the "top 7" are elected for two-year terms and the eighth for a one-year term, assuming all meet the 50% threshold. It also would be nice if we could keep this discussion in one place at a time. Neutron (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

End comment consolidation. --Philosopher 17:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Since we have no mechanism for making this decision, and it really ought to be made before the voting starts (so there really is no time for a valid RfC), my suggestion is an "emergency commission" to quickly discuss the issue on one of their talk pages, come to a decision within about 24 hours, and announce and implement it. I think the most logical group, if they will accept, is Happy-melon, Tznkai, Skomorokh and Muzemike. Admittedly it might be a small step outside their role as Election Administrators, but it's the group we've got, and I don't think there should be too much controversy about them making this decision in an emergency. Neutron (talk) 18:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

An "election commission"? You're kidding me right? The community already voted that there should be 15 candidates (unless not enough reach the 50% threshold). Saying that only 7 would be elected invalidates decision, rather arbitrarily. And as I said above, the original plan would've had 6 vacancies and 9 next. So why would've have been acceptable to vote for 9 next year but not 8 this time around? Hot Stop talk-contribs 18:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits or demerits of your position, Hot Stop, I think you should be extremely cautious in what views you express on election-related issues. Your right to participate in a discussion is as inalienable as any other editor's, but your position leaves you equally indisputably conflicted. Expressing your own personal opinion is fine, as you did above. I think you should be hesitant about making any attempt to affect the views of others.

I am not adverse to an impromptu Commission forming, or of participating in such an exercise myself; but there would need to be a consensus for such a step, and in the limited time we have I'm not sure which question - whether to form a commission to decide the issue, or just the issue itself - would be easier to find consensus on. Happy‑melon 18:42, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Skomorokh 19:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

On the one hand, the RfC was for 15 people on ArbCom, on the other hand, it expressly had no problem with a shortfall in candidates (i.e. vacancies). Given this, I don't think people would be terribly unhappy with either filling or not filling the vacancy. That said, shouldn't the default be ... the default? That is, the resignation happened after the process was well under way, so why shouldn't it be treated the same as if the resignation happened after the process was over? --Philosopher 19:23, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

One could equally ask why it shouldn't be treated the same as if it happened before the process had started. The problem is that there never was a cut-off date set for vacancies to arise – and so there is no default, and I say that as an editor who has been co-ordinating these elections for three years. Skomorokh 19:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Honestly? I'd rather be short an Arb or two (or three, or four) under the nominal committee size than encourage the further relaxation of the approval standards for new Arbs. Do we really want to be padding the committee with editors who nearly half the community thinks shouldn't have the job? Bluntly, we don't need more warm bodies; we need more Newyorkbrads. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That logic doesn't follow through. You're presuming that the eighth candidate is sure to be in the borderline region just above 50%, when that is far from a given. They could have 70% support, or 40%; and in that latter case they are below the threshold consensus level anyway. Basically what you're saying is that you're worried that the 8th candidate will finish somewhere between the 50% level that the consensus of the community says is support enough to be an arbitrator, and the somewhat higher level that you think is support enough to be an arbitrator. That your own view and the community's view on where the threshold should be differs is fine; but it's not a valid argument against potentially electing a candidate who falls in that region, given that it is working against the consensus already obtained on the issue for this election. Happy‑melon 21:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Seeing that he has final say in "appointing" arbitrators, I've notified Jimbo. Hot Stop talk-contribs 21:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

That is something of an anachronism. It is true that originally Jimbo had leeway to appoint arbitrators in whatever manner he liked, and the elections were merely advisory, but this has not been the case for years now, in which his role has been as ceremonially announcer. The proposal that he would have power of appointment achieved only facetious support in the RfC that determined the parameters of the election. Skomorokh 21:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Contra-Happy melon above, election staff (a not yet well defined set) may have to make the final call at the end if no consensus forms I'd rather us take the heat for the buck stopping with us than foisting it off on Jimbo, the outgoing committee, or the incoming committee, which are other options in case of a problem. Now, looking at the RfC, my read of it is that it mandates a number of seats, not a number of vacancies. The only mention of vacant seats is in Tparis' summary, which I chalk up to him doing some basic math for the crowd. Since actual voting has not begun and the ballot is not set I do not believe the election is "locked in" yet. Once voting opens however, that is that.--Tznkai (talk) 23:12, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You're missing one, though it didn't explicitly refer to vacancies. If I can quote myself, "a shortfall in successful candidates is acceptable" (from my two-section close at WP:ACERFC#Fundamental mechanics, addressing comments both there and at WP:ACERFC#How would a shortfall in successful candidates be dealt with?). Granted, none of the RFC comments anticipated this situation, but it does indicate that the "leave the position vacant" would be within the spirit of the RFC.

Also, Contra Hot Stop, the replies to the "Jimbo appoints vacancies" section was met with unanimous opposition. --Philosopher 23:53, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I meant that he confirms results and clarifies term lengths, judging off of past years. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Whatever Jimbo's actual role is or could be (if Jimbo's role is 'constitutional' in nature, the RfC mattters not a whit) my strong preference is to take care of this matter "in house" as it were. Involving Jimbo would invite bonus drama that I think we would all rather avoid. As to the "short fall in successful candidates is acceptable" that refers to candidates failing to meet minimum acceptability requirements for however many seats are open not how to deal with suddenly open seats in the twilight between the close of nominations and the start of voting.

If I can wax politically philosophical for a moment, Arbitration Committee Elections are one of the few explicitly democratic procedures on Wiki-en. Our goal is to reflect the democratic will of the polity, so the question is what outcome or interim procedure for deciding an outcome will maximally reflect the will of the polity? There are good arguments to go either way, and plenty of people with strong opinions on it in various directions. Considering how well we manage to gain consensus with super trivial decisions, the relatively high stakes of the election will make finding consensus (real consensus, which is some sort of mutual agreement, not a side "winning") nearly impossible. Especially since finding consensus, if we so attempted, would require considerably more advertisement than the main ACE talk page.--Tznkai (talk) 01:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

If you want to gauge the will of the voters on this, the best method is to add a question to the SecurePoll ballot paper, if that is technically feasible, asking people whether they want this extra vacancy filled or not, and how. What I'd do, if I was running things, is go further and set things up so after people cast their vote, they are given the option to answer a set of questions similar to those posed at the RfC (but much better designed), on how the electorate think the election should be carried out and set up and so on. Sure, not everyone will bothered to answer such questions, but that gains more direct feedback than an RfC (with drawbacks such as lack of comments). Could things be set up at least so that people are directed to a feedback page as well as being prompted to add their thoughts, if they wish to do so, to discussions about the candidates (that latter link is being included for voters on the 'landing page' they arrive at after voting, right)? I know that SecurePoll provides a list of who voted, so feedback can be canvassed later, but getting people's opinions while they are voting would be good. Carcharoth (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought about adding a question onto the ballot, or as an exit question, but I dislike the idea of leaving the issue hanging until the end of the vote. And while I personally detest tactical voting, voters have every right to chose to do so if they wish, and leaving the answer unclear would thwart that. Among other reasons.--Tznkai (talk) 02:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Given that nominations are apparently closed, it would be entirely inappropriate to open more positions. Hipocrite (talk) 23:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I was about to write a brief bit on my rationales for supporting or opposing the current candidates, but that was partly (though not completely) predicated on the number of seats available. I'm now going to hold off on that, and on deciding on my votes, until it is clear how many seats there are available. Can someone please take some initiative here and make sure that either: (a) the number of seats available is decided before voting opens; or (b) the election is delayed and nominations are re-opened to allow others to step forward in light of the changed circumstances. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, resigning (or announcing a resignation) at the wrong moment during the annual elections, however well-meaning, is one of the more disruptive things an arbitrator can do (no matter how they try to rationalise it). It moves the goalposts. Far better to wait until the hand-over is complete and then resign, or to resign before nominations open. Either way, resignations should not affect the number of seats available, and if the number of seats available is changed after nominations have closed, the only way to offset that is to re-open nominations. Carcharoth (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Rest assured that however else we decide to handle this, the election co-ordinators will not allow the matter to remain unsettled by the opening of voting on Sunday. That said, I think it's still too early in the discussion to draw any valuable conclusions for it, so I would like to encourage interested parties to engage with each others' arguments so as to ensure an informed and considered outcome. Skomorokh 01:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, the decision will have to be made; and Tim has now finished setting up the election (Special:SecurePoll/vote/240), so it will have to be decided by Sunday night. That is still plenty of time for discussion, however. Happy‑melon 02:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it too late to get the 00:01 start time in there? Carcharoth (talk) 02:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Why does it need to be made before the end of the election itself; indeed, the stewards don't even need to know the number of vacancies—they're auditing, checking, validating, and presenting the tally (not the successful candidates). This is a community issue (certainly not one for Jimmy Wales), and needs to be settled with an immediate RfC. Tony (talk) 03:12, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

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

Actually this sort of decision is traditionally mine to make. And I traditionally make such decisions per the advice of the community in the form of an RfC and/or the existing ArbCom. Those who worry about drama can assist in minimizing drama by noting that it makes very little difference one way or the other.

The worst drama would be to institute a brand new out-of-process procedure out of line with what has been done in the past and out of line with longstanding traditions.

Also note that I have the right to fill vacancies on the ArbCom at any time throughout the year, so if we did 7 now, and decided that ArbCom was short staffed, then appointing the 8th later would be possible.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, you appointing someone would start a firestorm, no matter how qualified the candidate, and everyone here knows it. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:57, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo's role in the ArbCom elections has been written out of both the new Arbitration policy and the text of these elections; neither even mention his name in the context of appointments. The recent RfC was unanimous that "Jimbo should not fill any resulting vacancies or extend the terms of existing arbitrators". The current ArbPol states that "Members of the Committee are appointed following annual elections organized and run by the community... In exceptional circumstances, the Committee may call interim elections, in a format similar to that of the regular annual elections"; no mention of Jimbo appointing anyone, or even of calling by-elections unilaterally. Jimbo's ship has well and truly sailed in this area. Happy‑melon 11:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

So English Misplaced Pages's now officially a republic? Then we are in serious trouble because the election admins are self-selected volunteers. In nobody objects to 8 appointments this year that would be fine, but if someone does then the role of election admins would instantly become kingmakers and next year we'll probably have an election on election admins before we even start ACE2012 and beyond. - Speaking as an editor, Mailer Diablo 15:10, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd go that far, but certainly Jimbo's 'constitutional' prerogative to tinker with the membership of ArbCom ex judice has been removed. The only way people can become arbitrators is to be elected at a community-organised election; and those elections happen either annually or when the existing ArbCom decide to call a by-election. Which says absolutely nothing about how we should approach the situation in hand, of course. Happy‑melon 16:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo, you know that I admire you and support all that you've done for us (and will continue to do for us, I hope). Your judgement, your skills, and your experience are unique. So I hope you won't mind my saying that things have evolved WRT community responsibility for the elections; I think you've acknowledged this more than once, in principle, both on-wiki and in public. The evolution is clear both in community opinion and, in black letters, in the recently endorsed ArbCom policy/constitution (referendum a few months ago).

This one is the community's call, and the smartest thing for us all to do right now, given that the election is soon to go live, is to wait for the community's election admins to make a decision on the 8 versus 7 thing. I can't stress strongly enough how trusted these admins are, and how experienced they are in the conduct of ACE. We look to them to liaise with the stewards and to ensure the honesty and integrity of the process. They are in an ideal position to make a practical, neutral call on this one, without regard to their own personal preferences. Jimbo, I have no doubt that you, too, are held in such esteem, but the baton has now passed to the community. Tony (talk) 15:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

(EC, response to Mailer diablo)Well, we should have an election on election admins, or more accurately, an elected body to conduct the elections, which would select the election admins (which could include its own members.) This is just my opinion of course, but as I have watched this election unfold, it seems clearer and clearer to me that such a thing is needed. Whether it has any chance of obtaining consensus is a different story, but after the election we may get to find out. What is certain, however, is that we don't have such a body in place for this election, and as a result the decision at hand will be made by one or more unelected "kingmakers," to use your term. The only issue is who the kingmaker is/are going to be. (I believe this situation is what you would call a "constitutional crisis," and if we want the community to accept the election as "legitimate," it had better be resolved quickly.) Neutron (talk) 15:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Either through the community or the election admins or both, we need a consensus to pull this off. ~~At minimum, do we have an unanimous decision from the election admins?~~ -Mailer Diablo 16:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether Jimbo has reserve power or not isn't really the issue, it is whether or not the elections will be served better by someone else making that decision. Jimbo has, as far as I can remember, characterized his powers like a modern UK monarch, somewhere to go where all else has failed and the system is in danger of devouring itself. We're not nearly there yet. Intercession before that point would threaten the legitimacy of the election, rather than enhance it, so lets stick a pin in that discussion.--Tznkai (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Tnzkai has it right. A few people in this discussion are more than a bit confused about my reserve powers, which still exist and are in full effect as always.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Supplemental RFC on number of seats to fill: ACE2011

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list:

Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Since the regular Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011 closed, 2 additional seats have opened up, one prior to the opening of nominations (seat 7), and another during the fallow period following the close of nominations (seat 8), but before voting has begun. Particularly in the case of the 8th seat, there is a need to establish consensus on whether it will be filled. Regardless of how many seats are available, candidates must have a minimum of 50% support, and seats will be filled in order descending support percentage, from highest to lowest. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Fill eight seats

Per my comment below, . –MuZemike 15:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the late timing of the 8th seat opening substantially effects the legitimacy of filling it. It seems unlikely that the change from 7 to 8 seats would have caused additional candidates to run. As we have a minimum support threshold, there is not a problem of the extra seat allowing under qualified candidates to be seated, voters can support fewer then 8 candidates if they choose. I say we let the voters decide based on the support threshold, the seat will remain vacant if less then 8 candidates hit 50%. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
With the eighth seat being a one-year term to replace Chase Me in Group 1. That would temper the "moving up the goalposts" concern, at least a little. Neutron (talk) 16:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Directly replace Calvary's seat, one-year term remaining. - Mailer Diablo 16:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Fill the empty seats, period. It's false logic to claim that this would be moving the goalposts, because the goalposts were put in place when people didn't know that the eighth seat would open up. In fact, the goalposts were placed with the assumption that there would end up being a particular total number of Arbs, and this addition keeps that assumption as it was all along. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't see where the specific timing of these circumstances prevents all 8 seats from being filled. As commented above, it's unlikely that more candidates would have appeared had this happened with more more lead time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:33, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Support - don't see a problem here. --Rs chen 7754 20:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Makes sense, since it seems very unlikely that the difference between seven or eight seats would have impacted on the number of candidates. CT Cooper · talk 20:54, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
After reading all the comments, I don't see the harm in filling in eight vacant seats instead of seven or six. Granted I have not read the reasons why the two arbitrators in question have resigned their posts, but I would presume that if they were to do it now, they would have valid urgent, pressing reasons why. At least it's better than having to deal with vacated seats later, essentially duplicating what's being done here now and having this discussion all over again, or worse, having to resort to "extralegal" means to fill in sudden vacancies. --Sky Harbor 23:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Fill 8 seats if possible though I'm not sure how many will get above 50%. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 23:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Fill seven seats

Not appropriate to increase the number of seats after the nominations closed. Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Fill seven only: there are not enough worthy candidates to elect even seven, the arb committee will function fine with 14 instead of 15, the previous RFC did not foresee this situation, and the possibility that we will have a committee made up of candidates with marginal support (50%) may not have been contemplated by those who didn't foresee this possibility. As things are stacking up, based on the candidate list, adding another arb likely to barely garner 50%-- to the already seven-- will not be an optimal outcome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Per Sandy. HurricaneFan 25 20:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Because when nominations closed, this is how many were up. Possibly other users would have applied if they'd known there would be 8. --Philosopher 20:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Per SandyGeorgia, maybe hold a special election after a time to fill the remaining seat. --Jayron32 21:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Adding a marginal seat-warmer is not likely to improve the working of the Committee. The time to set the number of seats available was before the end of the nominations period, not after. I honestly doubt that we'll draw even seven candidates who are objected to by less than a third of the voting community. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Not enough good candidates even to fill seven William M. Connolley (talk) 22:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Per SandyGeorgia. If 15 are absolutely needed, a special election seems reasonable to me. Problems in the fairness of election methods can be very subtle and difficult to foresee. Maybe there's nothing obviously wrong with changing the number of seats to be filled after the process has begun, but wouldn't it be bad to find out later that there was something wrong with it? The safest course is to not change the set-up now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
This option seems fairest. If we discover that ArbCom absolutely can't function with 14 (or if half the committee resigns), then hold an interim election. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Fill six seats

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

Discussion

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

Notifications of the RFC made to WP:AN, WP:VPP, WP:VPM, and WP:CENT. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

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

Term of the 8th seat

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

Support two-year term for #8 – Not speaking for the other election admins or others involved in running the election, but here is my rationale, based on my (subjective, albeit) analysis: Tranche Alpha consists of arbitrators who will more likely fill out their terms; Tranche Beta, on the other hand, will contain candidates whom we don't know if they will fill out their terms. Since we don't know how Tranche Beta will fare as far as possible resignations are concerned, I would assume a more likelihood of resignations coming from Beta instead of Alpha. Hence, in order to serve as a "buffer" to try and maintain balance between the two tranches, make #8 a two-year term (which would put that person in Beta). Coming back to the question as to whether or not we are obligated to fill this last-minute vacancy, the WP:ACERFC only called for how many total arbitrators we should have for 2012, intentionally worded so that we would have the flexibility as to how many seats for fill for next year.

Also, as my response to Jimbo's above comment, I think this is something in which the community is still able to address on its own without the need for Jimbo's intervention at this point. We need to continue to stay focused on this one thing while we still have time. –MuZemike 15:55, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is that the seat should be filled for a 1 year term, BUT if one of the two year slots in tranche beta opens up prior to the nominations next year, the arb in tranche beta with a 1 year term should be moved to the 2 year seat, with the 1 year seat to be filled in the election. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Support one-year term for #8 - As I said above, this would somewhat temper the concern that the goalposts are being moved up during the election. As for "balancing the tranches," I see no practical or philosophical difference between 8/7 and 7/8. Trying to figure out where resignations are going to come from is just guesswork. There have already been two departures from Tranche A in a very short time period, and one several months ago in Tranche B. That's not much to base a prediction on. Did anyone guess that the WMF UK chapter was going to hire Chase Me? Perhaps, just to pick a hypothetical example that is mostly like not the case, Newyorkbrad is interviewing right now to be the WMF's in-house counsel. You never know. Tranche A was reduced to a "balanceable" number by the departure of Iridescent, and I think we should just stick with that. Neutron (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
My preference is one-year, one-for-one replacement for Calvary's seat which will be the 8th seat. - Mailer Diablo 16:23, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
One year, if any-- I don't support an 8th seat, but if we are forced to have one, the term should be one year. We are likely to end up with a committee of members who barely garner support of half of the voters, so we should minimize the impact. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Support one year term for #8' Per the above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
As a candidate, I won't express an opinion on the main portion of this RFC< but if we elect eight Arbs, the eighth-place finisher should be named to a one-year term only, to directly replace Chase Me. Courcelles 21:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Support one year term for #8 --Rs chen 7754 21:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Support one year term for #8 - to fill out Chase me's term. - Hydroxonium (T•C•V) 23:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Identification to the Wikimedia Foundation

This should be required at least while vote counting. This is just to remove the possibility of a person getting kicked out after 1 month. Not likely, but possible. ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 00:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Part of the reasoning behind the scheduling of the elections is that successful candidates will have sufficient time between the posting of results and 1 January (when new members are seated) to provide their identifying information to the WMF. Risker (talk) 00:42, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Although candidates could consider digging out their driving license or passport and getting it scanned now, so they can email it when asked. :) PhilKnight (talk) 01:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The idea of mandating that the candidates identify themselves ahead of time was put forward but did not receive consensus in the RfC. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

URGENT objection

"Has a registered account and has had at least 150 mainspace edits by 1 November 2011"

Though nomination already has started, I want to make an urgent objection. The word "mainspace" should be removed, as it sees mainspace and other (template, discussion, Misplaced Pages, etc) as inequal. Paolo Napolitano 20:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of your position, the RFC established a clear community consensus for the requirement of 150 mainspace edits. If you want the RFC consensus overruled, you would need a community wide discussion on the issue, and I think it is unlikely you would be able to establish consensus before the end of the nominating period, if at all. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

And you knowingly participated in the WP:ACERFC, which you could have objected to this back then. I have a hard time trying to AGF that you weren't aware of that. –MuZemike 23:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I can imagine a user not noticing the "mainspace" in the RFC and thinking it applied to any edits. Regardless, though, the results of the RFC stand, and they require 150 mainspace edits. We can't be changing the rules after the nominations start. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Who will remove Paolo's candidature, which cannot be accepted under our eligibility rules? AGK 23:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed it. Secret 02:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, I will not make too much fuss about it. Count me in next year, I will keep on as an outside watchdog for another year.... Paolo Napolitano 13:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sitewide notice

This year's elections seem pretty quiet. Should we have a sitewide notice (similar to stewards elections earlier this year) to attract more editors? - Mailer Diablo 10:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Probably. We need more candidates. ~~Ebe123~~ → report ← Contribs 11:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, last year about half the candidates came forward in the last day and a half or so of the nomination period. There is a lot of 'waiting to see who else steps up' going on right now. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:18, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-11-14/News_and_notes#Call_for_candidates_in_the_ArbCom_elections – Hopefully those not seeing the watchlist notice will read the Signpost. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The RFC close stated that the sitewide notice should only be for the voting phase. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It wasn't specifically listed in the RFC, but would adding the nomination period to WP:CENT be appropriate? Just a thought.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I had a similar thought, but editors are rather insistent that that particular tool be used for discussions, not announcements. If nominations are very slow in coming we can do a wider round of announcements before the weekend. Skomorokh 13:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

We can link them to the candidate discussion pages then.--Tznkai (talk) 02:22, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"Create a candidate statement" button

You would have more candidate standing if you unblocked the "create a candidate statement" button. Every time I click on it, it then takes me to a page saying that teh page I want is blocked, and can only be played with by admins. How can I put forward my candidacy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thehistorian10 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Could you be more specific about exactly how you were stopped from creating a nomination? If there is a problem I would like to fix it. Also, note that you clearly do not meet the candidate edibility criteria. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I believe that Thehistorian10 is referring to "Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/". That page was deleted and then protected after someone accidentally created it. Thehistorian10 probably forgot to insert his or her username after the slash character. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Make sure you place your username (without the "User:" prefix) after that last slash. That will take you to a candidate page with your own username in front of it. Hope that helps. –MuZemike 19:44, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

It would probably be good for Thehistorian10 to review the eligibility requirements listed here prior to putting more effort into submitting a nomination. –xeno 19:52, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Geni and alternate accounts

According to our standing instructions for candidates, the Arbitration policy, and the pre-election RfC, one of the requirements of standing for election is that the prospective candidate disclose any alternate accounts in their nomination statement. In the case of Geni (see nomination), the candidate has indicated that their disclosure might not be complete, as they can't recall all past accounts used. So technically, this would seem at odds with the candidates' requirements, and barring spontaneous memory recovery does not look like being resolved, which leaves us in a bit of bind as to the candidacy.

On the one hand, the rules are clear and supported by consensus, and while I think in Geni's case (given the number of alts and their long history of contributions) the omission is genuine and innocuous, to create a precedent that "I forgot that account" would leave the door open for evasions by unscrupulous candidates in future.

On the other hand, to bar the community from judging a candidate of long-established stature whose history of alternate account usage is very well known on a technicality might be unfair on the candidate and a detriment to the elections at large.

I didn't think it appropriate that this be decided by a handful of volunteer election co-ordinators so I am bringing it here for the community's decision. If you agree with the assessment that the statement does not meet the requirements, should we IAR in this case? Thank you for your consideration, on behalf of the co-ordinators, Skomorokh 12:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

This is clearly an unusual case and this meets the spirit of the rule, so IAR. Why someone would need to disclose an account that isn't actively being used or hasn't been significantly used in the past in any case is, to my mind, bizarre, but I didn't write the RfC statement. --Philosopher 21:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a bot account, and a public sock, but I can't guarantee that I didn't make a doppelganger or two; I just don't remember. When you've been editing for several years, that's the sort of thing you start forgetting. :/ --Rs chen 7754 21:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the reason for this is so we can judge the human (not the account); given that, any old accounts which are practically unused shouldn't be a big deal unless they were to reveal some major problems. I'd say that any account which wasn't used against the rules of WP:SOCK, was never blocked, and wasn't used in the past couple years is probably irrelevant. And the entry "A significant chunk of the first page of Special:ListUsers are mine created to push some rather abusive usernames off the first page" (currently the last one) clearly indicates that their purpose is reasonable; these were nearly all made before account creation was logged (September 2005). I see no reason why this requirement should prevent Geni from running. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Since this has been open a week and the responses are unanimously in favour of upholding Geni's candidacy, no action will be taken. It might be worth revisiting this issue in the post-election feedback. Thanks all for commenting. Skomorokh 12:26, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Preloader error led to candidate discussion pages bearing trailing slashes

The preloader had an error leading to all the discussion pages being created with trailing slashes . Could someone do the needful and move them all to the proper locations? –xeno 19:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No-one else seems to be addressing this so can I ask why this matters? If pages are moved, do the redirects need to be suppressed? Skomorokh 12:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It matters because the talk pages aren't in the right locations next to the candidate pages. The redirects may be suppressed if there are no incoming links. –xeno 13:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Which talk pages do you mean exactly? The candidate talkpages (Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Candidates/SilkTork et al) are in the right place, with no trailing slashes, as is the collected discussion page, as far as I can make out. Skomorokh 13:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like the matter has resolved itself by people just creating the pages at the right locations. At this point, the pages with the trailing slashes should be checked for any comments, and then could probably be deleted per G6 –xeno 13:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Aha. I've redirected the remainder, so all should be sorted now. deletions make new editors cry. Skomorokh 14:09, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Either way. Though I don't see how that chart is relevant; it relates to deletion of new users edits, I highly doubt deleting these pages would not impact new users view of Misplaced Pages. –xeno 14:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Great! just kidding, you deletionist swine. Skomorokh 14:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

LOL! –xeno 14:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

What is the actual voting procedure?

As usual, there is no indication of what the actual voting procedure is - how many votes do you have, can you oppose as well as support, etc. As usual I can't remember from last time. It would bwe useful to explain this in advance of the voting opening, so that voters can bear it in mind when considering. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point John, I'll sort an explanation out tomorrow. Skomorokh 21:32, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

John, I've added the following wording to the guide for voters; can you tell me if it resolves your questions?

"Voters will be invited to choose one of three options for each candidate: "Support", "Oppose" or "No vote"; and the number of "Support", "Oppose" or "No vote" preferences a voter can express is otherwise limited only by the number of candidates."

Skomorokh 03:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes thanks. One might add that other votes will be invisible & that votes are never made public. That I do remember. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

We should clarify that no votes do in anyway affect the candidate's chances (if I recall correctly)--Tznkai (talk) 07:57, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Good point, taken care of. Skomorokh 12:19, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

A small but entertaining number of people impersonating the candidates

Hi folks! One might imagine that most well-balanced people are busy getting on with contributing to the encyclopedia, and obsessing over the arbcom elections would be the furthest thing from their minds. However, the candidates should congratulate themselves that some people, at least, are very interested in what they think or what others think about them. Some jokers (or perhaps just people from that part of the world) have been using IRC to impersonate candidates in this year's elections and approach editors privately under false pretences. (Gasp, shock, horror, chiz chiz, etc.)

So, for those of you who are so de-sensitised to things like the recent series of drunken monologues about Libyan politics that you still tolerate IRC, do be aware that most people who approach you with a flimsy excuse as to why they are signed in with a different username than usual, are not who they say they are. For a week or two.

An oversighter/checkuser (I forget which, they might be both) and operator on the channel in question, has been given all the relevant details. They reacted by taking a nap, presumably to ensure heightened alertness for dealing with further occurrences of this problem later. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:40, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So what exactly are they doing? Seeking bribes for favors to be granted by their namesakes once elected? Or what? Neutron (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, it didn't get that far, since "hi I typed my name wrong but oh well" isn't the sort of thing I treat as a very convincing explanation. Hopefully no-one else will either... the above note is just for those who might be slightly more forgetful of such caution :D --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawal

Could a coordinator please withdraw my candidacy? I have posted a lengthier explanation on my talkpage. Maxim_(talk) 02:23, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I am following the same general procedure for candidates withdrawing before voting as was done in 2009: removing Maxim from the guide, untranscluding the candidate statement, discuss, and questions for the candidate, and posting a notice as appropriate.--Tznkai (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

What we thought was unthinkable has just happened

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

In the interest of clarity, I'm moving these comments to the above section and closing this section. --Philosopher 17:48, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm biased, but since candidates need 50% support anyway this should really be filled through the election. Hot Stop talk-contribs 15:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

See above. HurricaneFan 25 15:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Categories: