@SilverLocust, Not speaking officially for ElectCom, I think your statement in Special:Diff/1255628718 is not quite correct. From WP:ACERULES, "Any expected midterm vacancy, announced before voting begins and taking effect prior to 1 January, that brings the total number of vacancies above eight will be filled by a 1-year term." So I think a more accurate statement would be there are 8 seats which can be filled for either one or two year terms depending on support, plus an additional seat which can only be filled for one year, regardless of support level. RoySmith(talk)23:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The minimum percentage of support that is required is 60% for a two-year term, and 50% for a one-year term.
+
The minimum percentage of support that is required is 60% for a two-year term, and 50% for a one-year term, but no more than eight seats can be filled for a two-year term.
If that doesn't adequately address the issue, feel free to update it further. I don't claim any control over the election pages; I just thought I might as well update it while updating some arbitration pages. SilverLocust💬00:03, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better to me. I'm sure there are people out there who are more into the fine points of the rules and I have faith that if any of them see any additional problems they won't be shy about pointing them out. RoySmith(talk)00:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm counting correctly, Aoidh, Cabayi, HJ Mitchell, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, and Z1720 are continuing (six). Barkeep49, CaptainEek, GeneralNotability, Guerillero, L235, Moneytrees, Primefac, Firefly, and Maxim's seats are/will be vacant (nine). isaacl (talk) 18:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops, yup! Sorry, thought this crossed with the resignation notice and miscounted silktork (that was resolved in the last election). — xaosfluxTalk18:49, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sdrqaz, thanks for the ping. As I noted in my candidate statement, if successful at this election I will request the admin tools back at BN in late December, to keep things simple for everyone. I won’t be back fully active until the second week of January so if I am unsuccessful, I’ll hold that BN request over until the new year when I’m back. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC) (mobile)[reply]
Suggestion to candidates for making their case for support
I don't want to single out specific candidates by asking them on their question pages, so I'm placing a suggestion here for any candidates making their case to gain support. For those who haven't already served as arbitrators, it would be helpful to know what you've done to prepare yourself to understand, as much as possible, the workload of the position, and how you plan to accommodate its demands. Thanks for putting yourself forth as a candidate! isaacl (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you prefer to respond on the question page, then I can post a question there. I was thinking of candidates expanding their candidate statements, as part of their efforts to gain support, but I can understand if someone would be reluctant to change it now. isaacl (talk) 00:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've figured out a variant question so I don't have to single out specific candidates, thus I've posted questions to all candidates. isaacl (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No To All
I am a voting editor, and this is a miserable list of candidates. I read their statements very carefully. None of them had anything meaningful to say. What specific issues did they (or would they) address? What specific decisions did they (or would they) make? They had nothing to say, and so I voted against every single one of them.
I'm sorry that you feel that way, G41rn8. I won't argue with you but I will say that ARBCOM responds to complaints that are brought to them, either through email or through case requests. So, we are not like political candidates who say, "I'm going to accomplish X, Y and Z!". Arbitrators don't go out looking for problems to solve, they respond to questions that the community brings to them. What those questions and concerns will be over the next 2 years is impossible to predict. If the arbitration committee was more pro-active, as you are suggesting it be, like, for example, making policy changes, I'm pretty sure that the community would complain that the committee is overstepping its area of responsibility. LizRead!Talk!04:34, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most editors wouldn't know the election is happening without a talk page note. I don't think it's that serious. CFA15:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know the implications of terminally online nerds controlling what many people read without skepticism, but i sure hope more people will look at wikipedia skeptically (unless its beliefs i agree with (im always right)) Formerlychucks (talk) 12:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy to imagine that you might not get your wish as an unintended consequence of the relative proportion of synthetic AI generated content and siloed/echo-chamber partisan web content increasing. It could cause a sort of bifurcation of skepticism, with many people making the mistake of increasing their credence in Wikipedia content and maybe many others mistakenly dismissing it completely. Maybe this kind of process has already started. Sean.hoyland (talk) 03:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point of an encyclopaedia. It gives you an overview/introduction to the topic and enough information to start learning more such as the basic terminology and useful sources. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are not in the predetermined list of users authorized to vote in this election.
Your account does not meet the requirements to vote in this election. If you believe you are receiving this message in error, please contact the election commissioners.
As this is my first Wiki election, it took me awhile to get familiar with what the committee does and who's running. After getting somewhat up to speed, I'd like to offer these ideas even though it might have been easier for readers if I'd created separate messages in case anyone would like to respond.
Because there's only a week to go with the election, and it's such an important committee, I think the current notice at our Talk pages needs to be replaced by a new, catchy one.
In that notice, please say how many candidates are running for how many positions.
This information would have been very helpful from the outset of the election. I'm not sure how many Wikipedia committees are elected, but if there are others then I'd like to propose that this information be included in all of them from the outset.
I think the "Oppose" and "Abstain" voting categories could be clarified a little better. Does "Oppose" mean we really don't want that candidate to be elected at all, and "Abstain" that although we don't want to vote for that candidate we have nothing against him or her running?
The tables showing what year the candidates who are already on the committee were elected has a lot of white spaces. Maybe I missed seeing an explanation of what they mean, but if so, it may mean that the explanation should be more clearly placed.
It's too late for the 2024 election, but as a suggestion for future elections I think many voters would really appreciate an opportunity to hear from the candidates in person — in either a brief individual thumbnail video from each or else a live webcast in which all candidates engage in a discussion that would among other things perhaps include addressing specific cases and would be recorded for those who couldn't attend in person. That way we'd get clearer understanding of what these candidates offer.
One last thing, but for the technical team. In trying to type this list, many times when I was trying to type a question mark, a dash, or a capital letter, my cursor went up to the first line of the numbered item in which I was typing. Never before have I encountered this problem in Wikipedia work. It wasted a lot of time.
A bit late for this election, but was looking at Template:ACEWatchlistNotice and it's not as helpfully worded as it could be. Hiding the general election information page Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024 behind the pipe "Eligible users" means there is no obvious place to click to understand the general purpose of the notice. Perhaps "Arbitration Committee Elections December 2024:" at the start would help with this. The second link being a link to the securepoll seems oddly ordered, as that should appear after the link to the candidates' statements, and next to the link about the mobile bug which is specifically about the securepoll link. Best, CMD (talk) 08:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also worth noting that Daniel is the first person since at least 2014 elected to the Committee while not being a current administrator. In terms of the other statistics I track, the only noteworthy one is having the greatest number of candidates elected with over 70% support (8). Thryduulf (talk) 21:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even though he was a 'crat, technically Xeno was elected as a non-admin in 2019. He was eligible for resysopping, though, and took up the mop again before his term started. Giraffer (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm similar to Xeno, in that I am not really a non-admin candidate given I can request the tools back at any time (and was originally planning on doing so in mid-Jan, although will now be late December due to the election result). Cheers, Daniel (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent time the finishers had such high numbers was 2018. There were only six seats up for grabs, as the committee was reduced from fifteen to thirteen that year, and all successful candidates topped seventy percent.Turnout was quite high, much higher than this election.
They did a great job. I have expressed my gratitude towards them in several places. I will also add that the community's decision to move the timeline back a week helped get results early as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I was criticized in a voting guide for mentioning gender, I think this might be a huge jump in the number of women on next year's committee. I can't say that for sure because some of the current arbitrators do not identify themselves by gender and I actually only discovered some other AC candidates were women by seeing it alluded to on their election questions and discussion pages. Can someone who actually knows the committee and candidates verify this, even if you don't want to identify arbitrators and arbitrators-elect by username? That's not necessary, I was just interested in %. LizRead!Talk!06:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now done: User:Thryduulf/Arbcom election stats#Turnout since 2013. This year had the greatest number of votes since 2018 and greatest turnout since 2020, even with several thousand more eligible accounts than any previous year I've been able to determine. I've been unable to find the number of eligible voters for any election prior to 2019, if anyone knows if it is possible to find this information anywhere then please do add it. Thryduulf (talk) 13:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
