Aww man. To be the one who had to write up the report for the German Wikipedia's Signpost. Speaking of which should probably write write another one of those for the rest of 2016. GamerPro64 03:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• If four arbitrators is not enough for a quorum, then how, if at all, is their arbitration process going to function until May? Mz7 (talk) 03:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, I see at the very end of the article: they're working on amending their policies to allow by-elections. This is seeming like a Wikipedia version of a constitutional crisis. I note that our own arbitration policy does allow for interim elections if the ArbCom determines that arbitrator resignations or inactivity have created an immediate need for additional arbitrators. This article notes that the few supporters thus far in each suggest that these attempts could be going nowhere – out of curiosity, what are the arguments against running by-elections that are being discussed? Mz7 (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Mz7: This is a misunderstanding. The Schiedsgericht isn't an ArbCom. They aren't set up to settle disputes about content. It's a council people may call for when they have a dispute with another editor. The Schiedsgericht had been dysfunctional many times before and nobody noticed. So … it isn't a crisis at all. -- Janka (talk) 15:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand. The English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee is also not set up to settle content disputes. On the English Wikipedia, however, disputes only go to the ArbCom if it is so complex that the community is unable to resolve it without the structured process that arbitration provides. Perhaps it is a mischaracterization to say it's a crisis, but it does seem that the German Wikipedia will be without a functional Schiedsgericht for the next 5 months, solely because the rules preclude any possible action to bring it back to function. Either change the rules or hope there isn't a complicated user conduct dispute your way the next 5 months. Mz7 (talk) 15:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you make any effort to speak to Magister and get a comment from him? I didn't see a mention of that in the article, but perhaps I just overlooked it. 2601:602:9802:99B2:29CB:FF0D:9468:342A (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if nobody starts a succesful "Meinungsbild" (similar to a RfC), the arbcom will be able to make decisions at the 1st June, next year. That can get a problem, I agree. Luke081515 20:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why he should have accounced his personal political views in the ArbCom elections, shouldn't his Wikipedia activity be what people judge him based on? Then apparently some special snowflake admins can't be in the same committee with a person who's active in a political party they don't like. Remember: participating in the democratic system is a human right. Tolerance, intellectual diversity and all that... The AfD is now the 3rd largest party in the polling, and German Wikipedians are going crazy over that some of their supporters edit Wikipedia? Hysterical. --Pudeo (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I would've preferred MAGISTER kept his political views to himself, although I'm unclear in what context his statement was made. Worse, de-wp now has an issue with the SG because a bunch of admins resigned over apparently nothing. I fail to understand why we can't work collaboratively with people who do not match our ideologies especially when those beliefs aren't a point of conflict on wiki. I have my own political and religious beliefs but I don't make an issue of them here nor do I take exception with editors that differ. Imagine then, being elected to ARBCOM and bailing as a protest vote against views you find distasteful that have nothing at all to do with the task at hand. Not counting the fact that de-wp is better off without the special snowflakes, I'd like to see de-wp return those same editors to the SG and force them to do what they were elected to do. The German-language Wikipedians deserve better. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I am gravely mistaken, the German Wikipedia's ArbCom is made up of volunteers just like the English one. How exactly would you propose forcing a group of volunteers, with no binding contracts and no compensation, to do this work? They are entirely within their rights to resign for whatever reasons they see fit. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the English Wikipedia, ArbCom has ruled that WP:NOTCOMPULSORY does not apply to admins. Hawkeye7 (talk) 07:39, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't recall making such a ruling, was it before my time? GorillaWarfare (talk) 07:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 and GorillaWarfare: I don't recall this either, and I've been unable to locate any reference to this in any arbitration proceedings. Hawkweye, please can you provide a link to where this ruling was made. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I can't find such a ruling either. Even if there were, I would disagree: an administrator is just another volunteer editor—when we trust them with the tools, we don't expect that they will always use the tools; we trust that when they volunteer to use the tools, they will use them correctly. (In the way I'm using it, "the tools" are not just software changes; they include such abilities as discretionary sanctions.) Arbitrators are a little different. We do expect that, as long as they hold the seat, they will dedicate the time to the responsibilities they were elected to, but it is still volunteer work in the sense that, yes, they can resign at any time for any reason. Mz7 (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just spent a couple of hours looking through every arbitration case page that links to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and I've found that the Committee over the years has endorsed the following from that page:

• Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advocacy or propaganda / Wikipedia is not a soapbox (several alternative wordings, subjectively the second most common reference)
• Wikipedia is not a hosting service
• Wikipedia is not a vehicle for original research / Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought (several alternative wordings, subjectively the third most common reference)
• Wikpiedia is not a link repository
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary
• Wikipedia is not a battleground (subjectively the most common reference)
• Wikipedia is not a crystal ball

Additionally, one statement was proposed but did not pass:

• Wikipedia is not a commentary on scripture

There have been two, sort of relevant, statements on what administrators are expected to do:

• "Administrators are required to explain their actions. [...] While all editors should reply promptly and civilly to good-faith queries about their edits or actions, administrators are particularly expected to do so. Additionally, when an administrator takes an action that is likely to be controversial or to raise questions, he or she should explain the action in advance or at the time, in a location that the affected editors are likely to see, so that they will understand what has been done and why." -Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride#Administrator communications
• "[A]dministrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed.[...]" -Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute#Standards of conduct for administrators

These can be summed up as "If an administrator takes an action they must explain why they took it, if asked." This is very different to saying that NOTCOMPULSORARY does not apply to admins. Thryduulf (talk) 16:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was being a bit glib in my reply to Hawkeye7 above—I recognize that he's probably referring to instances when the Arbitration Committee has taken an administrator's failure to respond into account when making a decision. However, that is very different than saying WP:NOTCOMPULSORY doesn't apply to admins. An administrator is free to ignore an arbitration case or questions about their administrative decisions; they just should not expect to be able to continue administrating while doing so. We do not force administrators to keep editing or administrating. — GorillaWarfare 19:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]

@GorillaWarfare and Thryduulf: I knew that, GorillaWarfare! You don't force administrators to keep editing or administrating; but you do force them to cease doing so. I'm happy to concede this point of Wiki-law. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This is what Chris troutman was suggesting above for the dewiki arbitrators (I'd like to see de-wp return those same editors to the SG and force them to do what they were elected to do). I'd love to know how he would expect that to work. What are they going to do, take away their pay? Take them to court for a breach of their employment contract? GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare: Obviously I understand this isn't indentured servitude. I don't think it appropriate (although it's permissable) to quit an elected position of trust just because you don't agree with the affiliation of one of your colleagues. Where I elected to ABCOM I'd believe those that supported me want me to fulfill my duties. For me to then quit (with or without explanation) because another member expresses political beliefs is a betrayal of those that elected me to serve as arbiter. I thought my point was understood but from what I'm reading too many of you took me literally, as if I think chaining special snowflakes to their keyboards would fix the matter. I find your apparent lack of respect for the public trust disturbing. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:33, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris troutman: (Moved your comment because I believe it was misplaced.) I guess I don't understand your comment could be interpreted figuratively, but thanks for being clear... I personally feel that by choosing to elect an individual as an arbitrator, voters are indicating that they have trust in that person's judgment and ability to fulfill their role satisfactorily. It's completely acceptable for an arbitrator to decide that their best judgment call is to resign, whether it's so as to not become complicit in actions they disagree with, because they feel like they can no longer fulfill their responsibilities, etc. In fact I think continuing to serve under such circumstances would be a violation of voters' trust. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Chris troutman: As a former arbitrator I very much disagree. If I found that I was unable to work with one of my colleagues, for whatever reason, I would have resigned for the good of the project so that our mutual problem did not prevent arbcom business from happening (and that is more than is visible from the outside). Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@GorillaWarfare and Thryduulf: I understand the argument you're both making, but that dog won't hunt. I neither understand how someone's outside affiliations prevent anyone from performing satisfactorily nor do I think it's fair to the editors whom now have to find someone else to execute the office. If two arbiters have a personal disagreement that poisons every interaction, I might agree with you. The story doesn't portray that; it says that the first defections happened almost immediately following the revelation of MAGISTER's politics. That doesn't sound to me like those involved even attempted to resolve differences if that was even needed. While I think we all ought to keep our beliefs out of Wikipedia for the good of the project, we cannot tolerate this ideological terrorism where one group refuses to work alongside the other out of what looks like (based on Sebastian Wallroth's quote) an attempt to enforce a litmus test. This is another incident of Wikipedia's systemic bias which ought to be examined and addressed. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Chris, basically you and Pudeo are assuming that nine volunteer arbitrators all resigned in bad faith. And now on Christmas Eve you, Chris, even insult them as terrorists. Disgusting. --.js (((☎))) 19:27, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

particularly given the history of political extremism in the German-speaking world in the first half of the 20th century? "Political extremism"? Really? GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, genocidal mass murder on an industrial scale. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. In case it was not clear, my point is that calling it "political extremism" is a gross understatement. GorillaWarfare (talk) 06:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was clear to me, and we are in agreement. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But the Nazi party started as a more or less democratic political party of the far right, having (some) success in democratic elections. The horrible crimes started a few years later. So the uneasyness we germans have with the democratic far right may be understandable. --Drahreg01 (talk) 15:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is very true that summing up the Holocaust as an incident of "political extremism" would be an awful thing to do. But this story did not endeavor to sum up the Holocaust. When editing the story, I assumed that Tony1's intended meaning was to compare present-day "political extremism" to a relevant past period of political extremism, implying (but not stating directly) that it had previously led to one of the worst atrocities in history.

That said, though, in hindsight I agree, we could have found a clearer and more sensitive way to make the point. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tony1: The banner says Distribution is no solution, nack'ing Merkel's efforts to distribute the people who reached Germany/Sweden into other european countries. Einwanderung - "immgigration" isn't on the banner. -- Janka (talk) 15:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I checked ... twice ... with a native-speaker of German. Tony (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC) Now on further inquiry it should have been "Redistribution [of immigrants across the EU] is no solution". Too much political context required for non-German-speakers to get it, so I've removed the translation. Tony (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Every organization should have something in its bylaws that says "if action is urgent, there must be someone or some group available to do it." Of course, one way to do that is to define things such that no action is so urgent it can't wait until the next regularly scheduled election. Is there any possible issue that could come up before the Schiedsgericht which, by its very nature, couldn't wait until May? If so, how likely is such a scenario? In the English Wikipedia, if, heaven forbid, 80% of the sitting ARBCOM members were to suddenly resign (or worse) 5 days before newly-elected members were to be seated, it's unlikely we would need to do anything special to fill those seats. On the other hand, if it was 5 months before an election, we would.

My recommendations for most "boards" similar to ARBCOM or Schiedsgericht: If you are short of a quorum, have some method of temporarily filling the seat on an "emergency" basis, but any decisions made before the community either ratifies the appointment or fills the seat in some other way will be considered "temporary." Furthermore, the group would be actively discouraged from making decisions except those which cannot wait until the community confirms the appointment or there is a new election. If the appointee is not confirmed or elected by the community, all "temporary" decisions that are still in effect must be looked at again as soon as there is a quorum of community-elected or -confirmed members within a very short period of time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:17, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the report, Tony1. It's important to keep in mind that the German-language Wikipedia's Schiedsgericht (SG) has less power than English-language WP's ArbCom and is less often invoked. According to the archives, there was a total of seven requests in 2016, three of which the SG refused (due to not being competent, "unzuständig"). The last request was in June. The peak was reached in 2013 with 38 requests, there were 22 in 2014 and 18 in 2015. When it was introduced in 2007 (community decision via two "Meinungsbilder" in April and October 2007), it was explicitly declared that the SG will not be competent do deal with any kind of conflict with regards to content in article namespace ("Konflikte zu inhaltlichen Fragen im Artikelnamensraum werden nicht durch das Schiedsgericht entschieden"). This has limited its potential, as many conflicts are based on content disputes, of course. As I see it, there is a strong symbolic importance, as you mentioned in the report ("is symbolically powerful") - people know that there is another instance if all other mechanisms of conflict resolution fail. As the current practical importance of the SG is rather limited, I think that a pause of a few months could go nearly unnoticed (after all, there were no requests since June) if it were for less politically charged reasons. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:34, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to correct myself: There were two additional requests since June which are closed but not in the archive yet, see here. One in July, and one in connection with the events discussed here in December (rejected). Gestumblindi (talk) 01:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gestumblindi: I am interested in the differences between the English Arbitration Committee and the German Schiedsgericht. You and Janka above both note that the Schiedsgericht cannot settle disputes about content, but the Arbitration Committee is the same: the the English Wikipedia arbitration policy states that The Committee does not rule on content, but may propose means by which community resolution of a content dispute can be facilitated. Both the Schiedsgericht and the ArbCom are the final step after all other mechanisms of conflict resolution fail, and I think many English users would agree that the "practical" importance of the English ArbCom is also limited—the essay at Wikipedia:The Committee provides a good view of this. The vast, vast majority of disputes on the English Wikipedia never reach the ArbCom. In fact, this year has seen an unprecedented low number of arbitration cases: only 4 requests for arbitration were accepted by the ArbCom this year (compared to 18 in 2015). But what this means is that in the rare case that a dispute does reach the Arbitration Committee, it is an extremely complicated or unusually protracted dispute that the community has not been able to resolve on its own. While content disputes cannot be decided by the ArbCom, user conduct disputes can, especially in controversial topic areas. The English ArbCom has the ability to impose binding resolutions (meaning that editors must follow the committee's decision or face sanctions), including and up to the authority to "site-ban" users from contributing to the English Wikipedia entirely. To what extent is the Schiedsgericht different? Mz7 (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: Maybe it's not that different, after all. In German-language Wikipedia, there's a widespread perception that the English ArbCom is far more powerful, has more competency and has become a kind of "wiki government" for English-language Wikipedia. Until now, I shared this perception, but after reading your description, it seems to be (partly?) inaccurate. Although having similar language in written policy (en: "The Committee does not rule on content" / de: "Konflikte zu inhaltlichen Fragen im Artikelnamensraum werden nicht durch das Schiedsgericht entschieden") does not necessarily mean that the practical interpretation will be the same. It's interesting that English-language ArbCom and German-language SG appear to share the unprecedented low number of arbitration cases in 2016, and there were even less requests for the ArbCom than for the SG. Indeed, I have started a thread very similar to your "Declining caseload" thread at the SG discussion page in November; it's already archived there ("Immer weniger Anfragen - gutes oder schlechtes Zeichen?"), asking similar questions. - Still, I see some differences comparing en-WP's arbitration policy to the German policy ("Regeln"). Requests for removal of administrative tools are not explicitly stated as part of the SG's scope, there's a broader phrasing "Auseinandersetzungen um Adminfunktionen". While the SG probably may decide that admin tools have to be removed, this isn't really something coming up a lot, as de-WP has a binding procedure for admin recall, called Adminwiederwahl. Access to Checkuser and Oversight tools is not managed by the SG; due to de-WP's strict policy on privacy, these tools are handled in an extremely restrictive manner, and the few who have access to them are elected by a community procedure. - Another possible difference, as at first glance I don't see how admin tools for ArbCom members are handled: In de-WP, the roles of admin and SG member are strictly separated. If a SG member doesn't have admin rights when they're elected, they get them, but strictly in order to deal with SG requests. They are forbidden to use the admin tools in any way not connected with their SG duties, unless they're also elected "regular" admin. Also, the SG never enforces its decisions itself. A basic policy is that this has to be done by admins, resp. stewards in the case of admin rights removal, and that the admins have some leeway in enforcing SG sanctions. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestumblindi: Thank you for your thorough response! It's true: the only way on the English Wikipedia for an administrator to have his or her permissions removed involuntarily is by the Arbitration Committee. The community has extensively discussed possible recall alternatives similar to the Adminwiederwahl (see Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept), but to date, none have achieved consensus. Indeed many of the cases that the English ArbCom hears revolve around administrator conduct, and I accept that that is one noteworthy difference between ArbCom and the SG. As for admin tools for ArbCom members, since the early days of the Committee's formation, the community has never elected any non-administrator to the Committee, although many non-administrators have run (I believe there may have been one or two in 2004, when the Committee was in its infancy). Just last year, the community had a widely attended discussion on that issue in 2015 and came to a consensus that the roles of administrators and arbitrators are different, so were a non-administrator to be elected to the English ArbCom in the future, they will not automatically receive administrator tools, although paradoxically they may still hold oversight and checkuser rights. The ArbCom can hold community consultations regarding checkuser and oversight access (see the most recent one in September/October 2016), but the final decision is with the committee. The English ArbCom also does not typically enforce its decisions—that task is also usually handled by uninvolved administrators. Mz7 (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Mz7: This is a late reply, well... maybe still interesting. You write "since the early days of the Committee's formation, the community has never elected any non-administrator to the Committee" - then that's also an interesting difference; though in the early days of the SG, mainly administrators were elected, several non-administrators were elected over the years. One the one hand, this may be due to the view of many community members that admin and SG roles should be separated, and on the other hand, I think, there is a growing reluctance of admins to run for the SG. However, as said above, elected SG members automatically receive the admin tools, strictly for SG use. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having a member of the right-winged party AfD in an important position in the community without knowing it because WP:ANON is just one aspect (and in my view a less important one) of the bigger problem that the German wikipedia has more and more right-winged authors manipulating articles in article clusters of political importance. What's worsens this development is that these article clusters are one of the most read by the public. Being the 7th most visited website in Germany Wikipedia has a societal impact which is imho not reflected in the rules of and the will to take responsibility by the central community. We will see how the internal problem awareness and external pressure will lead to a solution-oriented debate about this dangerous developments in 2017. After more than 15 years and an enourmous increase in releveance for the societal informations sphere it is time to talk about the level of responsibility reached and whether of not the old rules still fit this level of responsibility. We live in exciting times. --Jensbest (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article on AfD describes it as a "right-wing populist and Eurosceptic political party". I'm sure this must have been discussed to death on the article itself, so I don't understand why it is considered appropriate to describe them here as "far-right". AndrewRT(Talk) 21:41, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, also the banner shown in the article is a banner of the far-right Identitarian movement, which doesn't have to do much with the AfD per se, either. --Vogone (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the demonstrators in the picture carry AfD banners as well, though (the blue ones with the AfD logo visible in the corner). Gestumblindi (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thus "per se". This does not exclude possible personnel overlaps. --Vogone (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For those interested in the elected-term overlaps, you can see the history of deWiki SG members in the nice graphic here -- de:Wikipedia:Schiedsgericht#Besetzung_des_Schiedsgerichts. Might have to scroll to the righthand side to see recent chronological changes. Most of the people that resigned, had served on the SG with Magister for somewhere in the range of 3 months to considerably longer, if I'm reading it correctly. There was a vaguely-similar case with enWiki ARBCOM a few years ago, w.r.t. the top vote-winner being asked to step down over participating in an off-wiki group, albeit a wiki-criticism forum rather than a political party. It ended up playing out differently on enWiki, partly because Jimbo Wales personally became involved, if memory serves (not in a WMF capacity but just in a personal one, again if memory serves). Don't know if there is any IAR which might help the SG reconstitute itself. I don't really think that the suggestions above about having a by-law-election clause are wrong, but I also don't think that a bylaw-election clause would have kept deWiki from undergoing a 'constitutional crisis' or whatever you want to call this ongoing sequence of events. Better to have multiple layers of internally-strong but in practice overlapping-yet-distinct systems of governance, so if one institution runs aground on the rocks, with luck another still-internally-strong type of approach might be able to right the nearby ship. If that isn't mixing metaphors too horridly 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:35, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for this disply!
  I note that three SG members, while not resigning, were not reelected in the last semiannual election, namely User:THWZ, User:DerMaxdorfer, and User:Codc. I think it would be relevant to know how many of them (if any) who candidated for re-election.
  I think that an important aspect here has not been discussed sufficiently, namely, the interpretation of the anonymity protection. I would have found it shocking to be elected to a body (where three persons a couple of months ago resigned "for personal reasons"), and find out that there is an ongoing and animated principal and personal conflict going on - of which neither voters nor candidates have been made aware, due to the anonymity protection rules interpretation. I might even have felt a bit cheated. (Now, of course, I do not know exactly what the new members were met by; but it seems a reasonable guess to have been something in this style.) I do not think it to be obvious that the anonymity considerations of de:Benutzer:MAGISTER ought to be respected under the circumstances. JoergenB (talk) 14:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I now have checked up the list of candidates for the last SG election. As you can see, neither of the three aforementioned (THWZ, DerMaxdorfer, Codc) was a candidate for re-election. In other words, out of the ten SG members after the May elections, six have resigned openly, and three have just not candidated for reelection; of the six new elected in November, three have resigned. JoergenB (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    At my last reelection (fall 2015) I explain that this will be my last elecation as candadate for a while because in my opinion member of arbcom shall be change frequently and two years plus later additional two years member of arbcom is enought for a while in particular this work consumes a lot of time. So, my retirement hasn't a reason in the recent problem. Futher in my opinion, a member of the arbcom has elected an if there are no problem in his work at arbcom (arbcom isn't a polical commitee) there aren't any reason for ending the collaboration in the commitee. MAGISTER was member of the arbcom some year and wasn't disputed so for me there aren't any reason for changes. --Codc (talk) 17:22, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @Codc: Thanks for this explanation! I now checked the SG membership overview slightly more carefully, and found that a 60% renewal (3 new vz. 2 reelected) seems to have been the typical outcome in the SG elections the last years. Thus, the outcome "5 new, 0 re-elected" would be a bit unusual, but not statistically inexplainable within normal variation. (Of course, taken together with the explicite resignations, the situation still could hardly be called "normal".) JoergenB (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    From my side my statement at the reelection last year (maybe its understandable with google-translate). --Codc (talk) 20:45, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I wanted to note that the readership of this article was enormous, dwarfing all other features from the December 22 edition. Kudos, Tony1, for the thorough report on a topic of such great interest. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2017 (UTC) (Editor)[reply]