This page says nominations are open for seven days, but the period they are open for as up to eight days. Which is right? GoldenRing (talk) 06:41, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave the dates alone since changing them would affect the rest of the schedule. I've made the correction to reflect that it's actually an 8-day period. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who gives you the authority to do this unilaterally!!! Power hungry Arbitrator thinks he can do whatever he wants! This should have gone to an RFC! I demand an ArbCom case! I demand you resign! (thanks GR, thanks Brad, that error was introduced by some moron last year and no one caught it then.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the early money is on "Example 1." Neutron (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have the utmost faith in Example 1. Shouldn't we have a watchlist notice or something? Alex Shih^Talk 01:12, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a low number of candidacies, we may need to extend the nomination deadline a bit and post a watchlist notice (see also discussion here). The timeline says that the absolute final date on which we need to wrap up commission selection is 27 October. Why don't we push the nomination deadline to Monday, 23:59 16 October, and adjust the evaluation period to Tuesday 00:00 17 October – Monday 23:59, 23 October? Mz7 (talk) 05:43, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me on either of those ideas. Tazerdadog (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Tazerdadog and Example 1 shouldn't have to do all the work. Snuge purveyor (talk) 06:07, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. This is certainly unusual, and I apologize for doing this somewhat unilaterally, but given the circumstances, I think it's necessary in order to proceed with the process. I'll add a watchlist notice momentarily. Mz7 (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is very tempting. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. I don't see any rules preventing this. Although my ardent support still goes to Example 1. Alex Shih^Talk 08:20, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps make him a write in candidate? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]