Misplaced Pages

talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bishzilla (talk | contribs) at 16:10, 15 August 2008 (→Illustrations?: specify). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:10, 15 August 2008 by Bishzilla (talk | contribs) (→Illustrations?: specify)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Shortcut

Kick Off

I think it's great that this has been unprotected, and I look forward to engaging positively! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To do list

I've put this on the main page (it's really a draft) - I think there's merit in reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of past processes with some rigour at this stage - that's really the most valuable first step in my book... As a guide, I'd say it might be sensible to try and have everything pinned down by november.. which gives us an appropriate amount of time for discussion, brainstorming and decision making, I'd say.... feedback most welcome! Privatemusings (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a few items to the list of pages we'll want to prepare. Also, on the list of open seats; Is NewYorkBrad's seat up for a by-election, as well? Or will that seat remain vacant? In the past, inactive arbs have been replaced at election, with the caveat that they could claim an "extra" seat if they return. I also note that the Arbcom RFC had several proposals for increased membership, a Delta tranche and shorter terms, and so on; I hate to open the can of worms, but is there any shot of those proposals gaining traction before this election? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
A proposal that gained a lot of support (hmm... let's see if I can find it - and more importantly link to it) involved expansion of the Tranches to seven members and introduced Tranche Delta. The smoothest way to do this would be to vote seven into Tranche Beta this election, seven into Tranche Gamma next election (December 09), a new seven into Tranche Delta in December '10 and seven into Tranche Alpha in December '11. This would extend terms to four years, as opposed to the current three years, unless we held elections twice a year instead. Here is that suggestion, put forward by User:Neil -- Escape Artist Swyer The mess I've made 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I think quite a few people think that the 3 year terms are already too long. Going to 4 years could be problematic. From the RFC WP:ARBCOMRFC#View_by_SirFozzie_2--Cube lurker (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm... yes that's a very good point. I would have to suggest elections every six months then (2 year terms) or every nine months (3 year terms). I know the next four elections, should the seven by four expansion be approved, would be awkward affairs (due to a change in the voting system) but thereafter I'm sure we'd cope. The necessary fuss of more frequent elections would be countered by the increase in work that the Arb Com could handle quickly and efficiently. -- Escape Artist Swyer The mess I've made 23:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I'd support elections every six months. It might lead to less criticism of Arbcom, and on wiki times seems to move quicker. Six months is quite a long time. Hiding T 18:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't see any reason why NYB's seat shouldn't be up for by-election, unless Jimbo fancies appointing someone directly. -- Escape Artist Swyer The mess I've made 23:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Given the time since NYB's resignation, I'd say that's unlikely at this point. I'll add the seat to the list, pending clarification. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 00:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Voting system

I'd like to see a change in the voting system this year. In previous years, members have been appointed with the highest percentage support, but this doesn't take into account the fact that they've got serious opposition from the community (e.g. high support and high opposition). Endorsement voting works well, where users only support candidates - this way we'd get people with the highest support. If we went along with this system, I'd strongly suggest a new "discussion" page is set up where people can voice their concerns about candidates and discussion about each candidate can happen. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree the system needs looking at, Ryan - I'd be tempted to suggest some sort of Preference based voting - equally, I'd be happy to appoint some sort of committee with the mandate of selecting the best available system. The Schulze method is apparently very good, and was recently used (as you'll know) in the elections to the board of trustees.... it's only downside is that it's very difficult to intuitively understand (or understand at all!!). Another 'drama reduction' measure I think I'd like to talk about (and am tempted to support even at this early stage) would be some sort of secret ballot - again, like the elections to the board of trustees... whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
To be honest, I wasn't a huge fan of the Shulze method - a lot of people didn't understand how to use is, but with more than one user being promoted, I think preference voting is the way forward - that was, the most preferred users from the wider community get elected. The thing is, the Shulze method, if everyone understands, is quite a good syetem to get the most preferred candidates elected. I also think a secret ballot is good - it increases the probability of all the candidates staying till then end and means tag team voting is cut significantly. We need a well advertised discussion page for each candidate however if we go along this route, so concerns can be raised rather than taken to a low traffic talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
A secret balloting system will mean coding and server-space; I know we had an outside firm doing the board elections this time around, but didn't we have one of the devs setup a server for the secret balloting two board elections ago? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 04:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Most prefered may not be ideal for arbcom. There is something to be said for prefering candidates with no significant oposition over candidates very popular with one group but highly unpopular with another.Geni 04:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to a "only support" system, unless each user is limited vote for only one to three candidates. A candidate who is highly controversial but a "big name" can easily gain 200 supports and 300 opposes, and I think it is utterly wrong to put such a candidate ahead of a more quiet and uncontroversial candidate with 100 supports and 0 opposes. The Schulze system is actually quite good, even if people don't know how to use it. The only knowledge of the system is that you put a small number next to those you like, and a big one next to the ones you don't like. However, implementing that system in an open poll is unworkable, and will require a ballot system. Finally, I prefer a secret ballot for two reasons. First, I want to remove any concerns that an ArbCom member will be biased against those who opposed their candidacy. Second, the open poll is altogether too much affected by what other people have voted. That leads to votes along the lines of "This person has garnered much opposition so I can't trust him either", skewing the result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Sjakkalle that a "support only" system is not appropriate for this kind of election. It would have led to the extraordinary decision to appoint a 100-fold opposed candidate in 2006, for example. This would not be good for legitimacy or confidence, especially given the (to my mind) obviously preferable appointments that resulted. Splash - tk 09:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
We have the discussion over voting system every year, and always finish up with the same up-or-down system. It has not to my knowledge noticeably malfunctioned, and this has not principally been to do with Jimbo's divine prerogative, i.e. he has basically gone down the list of 'most net support'. That said, Schulze is a nice system but as observed by Sjakkalle would only work with ballots. Splash - tk 09:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
As to open or closed balloting, well. The theory of arbitrator bias is mainly just a theory - generally, we've had such clearly-supported candidates that are such good Wikipedians that this has never emerged from the dustier corners of election theory. I don't see any reason for this year to be different. More serious is the RfA-avalanche effect where people have their decisions either taken from them or made for them by the sheer weight of support/oppose. More worrying to most people than arbitrator revenge is being the 'lone rebel' pariah (or 'few rebels' pariahs). It's bound to chill in both the support and oppose directions. I would therefore prefer a closed ballot, but do recognise that the open ballot with limited discussion provides a useful sociological steam-release valve that might be stoppered-up in a closed system. Splash - tk 09:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I'd like to ask that we keep the voting the system the same as it's always been; as Splash says, I don't believe it has been shown to be faulty at this point. Highest percentages win - it's simple, everyone understands it, it's not subjective, it scales, and it's worked thus far. The Schulze system is far too esoteric and confusing; please, please let's not use that. Also, keep the ballot open. Closed ballots can lead to suspicions of vote-rigging, and I'm not sure about the "pariah" effect Splash mentions - I never had any problems from being the first person to oppose Newyorkbrad last year (and it was 208-0 at the time I voted!). Neıl ☄ 12:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I agree with Neil, same basic voting system as last year, please. If you do change it, please at least don't switch to secret ballot though, ok? The stuff about getting the guidelines down well in advance, using templates to help make it clearer what is going on when votes are struck, comments moved, etc, all seems like goodness to me though. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed with Neil and Lar. Simple and straightforward is the way to go, no secret ballots. This is especially important now, when the legitimacy and transparancy of the ArbCom is such a contentious issue. GlassCobra 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't advocate any method of voting that would actually serve to limit the drama surrounding arbcom elections. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Elections are not held for entertainment. CataTony 14:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
You do not apparently live in the United States. In this instance, though, I was being sarcastic - but I'm sure some watch these elections for the ZOMG Drama - this is Misplaced Pages, after all. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Strongly agree Ryan P system "support only". 'Zilla plan stand arbcom election this year! Who dare oppose her? Nobody! Zilla integrity. Not wish favored by voting system. (Even though landslide support for 'Zilla obviously foregone conclusion.) And open voting please. Reasons given in votes interesting. Closed ballot boring. bishzilla ROARR!! 13:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC).
  • I definitely think the voting system needs to enable voters to oppose candidates, either through support/oppose sections like the previoius years voting system or by ranking the candidates like for the board vote. Candidates who would get very strong opposition (regardless of if they get strong support as well) should not get elected (even though last year I remember voting for two candidates who I think would have been elected if it was support only). On balance would oppose a secret ballot as I think transparency is more important than the quite reasonable reasons for supporting it. Davewild (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes are welcome to the process, however it's my strong opinion that for these positions, the elections should be open (in plain public view) and provide ample opportunity for opposition arguments. The first is to maintain transparency towards the community, while the second is because, at least from what I've seen, opposition arguments provide more useful information about the user. But that's just my "IMHuO...". :) - Mtmelendez 19:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

  • I highly doubt that you can run either preferential voting or Schulze method as the way to vote for ArbCom. The election is designed to have multiple winners, therefore, neither of these work. - Penwhale | 01:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Election committee

I'd strongly suggest appointing an election committee to oversee procedures. Last year it was quite disorganised if I'm being honest - We didn't really know what was going on. Also, just about any user could strike another users vote out for not having suffrage - I think it would work better (and be more respected) if only members of an election committee could do this. It would also help organise procedures regarding sock voting - more responsibility will mean greater checks are made. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

heh... (after ec) - strongly agree.. we can take some time to discuss roles and responsibilities (and allow a good, solid field of folk to put their hands up for such a task...) - it'd be good to get consensus here for such a committee, and maybe we can aim for October to 'swear them in' - I'll add it to the 'to do' for now... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
geez I'm a bird brain... it's there already... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
The only reason the Board Election Committee was able to be effective is because it had direct authority (foundation:Resolution:Election Committee Officers - March 2008; "The qualifications of voters, the deadline for nominations, and all other matters related to the conduct of this election are to be determined by the commission, subject to review by the Board") from the Foundation to make decisions without the community being able to overrule it. Given that this isn't possible with this election, a committee is slightly pointless - every detail requires a consensus of the community, rather than a committee, so I cannot say that I see the point of a committee for these elections. In effect, the committee would just be doing what the community agrees on, so therefore it seems a redundant layer of bureaucracy.
Of course, if the community is willing to delegate decision-making power to a committee, then it will obviously be of some use. However, until that happens, I can't see what benefits having a committee would bring.
Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Last time it ended up being Mtmelendez and a few others who put together the voting pages, question pages, and so forth, and who monitored the election during voting. It was quite impromptu, using the same rules for franchise and such as with the previous election. We still had several complaints of "Who came up with these rules? Why was there no community input?" So, so long as the community has a crack at whatever proposals we come up with, I think we'll be fine, committee or no. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Unless a committee's authority comes from an indisputable source, there will always be disruptive bitching, ignoring, and general insolence. That is why I don't think a committee as such is the way to go for these elections. Daniel (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

<- "if the community is willing to delegate decision-making power to a committee" - I'd certainly support this - it's exactly what I'm suggesting. I would like the committee folks to have a similar mandate to the arbcom clerks in some ways (as an example)- after a few days discussion here, I'll try and write up a proposal on a sub-page, which could go ahead if it gets broad community consensus... Privatemusings (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But then I'm sure the community will want to hold an election to appoint people to this decision-making committee, which will be simply lame in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
no elections! no voting! - hows about a good 'ol consensus based discussion?! That way, I can force you on to it without you even consenting to 'stand' :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll probably not be getting involved with this election at all except for supporting a handful of candidates :) Daniel (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. I tried to bring some organization into the process and almost got crucified for it. - Mtmelendez 19:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We've always found it best to spread the work amoung well whoever felt like doing it. It is unlikely to be worth the hastle it would take to set up an election committe.Geni 04:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There's always complaints about the process, whether it's too disorganized or whether it's too bureaucratic (i.e. too "unwiki"). I think that establishing a committee or "spreading the work among whoever felt like doing it" will probably bring the same amount of opposition, just from different sides of the community. - Mtmelendez 19:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Some Thoughts on Procedure and Policy

When the whole Arbcom RFC shenanigans began, I put together a page of proposals and ideas for the next election. The full page is at Misplaced Pages:Arbcom electoral reform. The Highlights:

  1. We need to determine who votes. Some have said that 150 Mainspace edits are too many - others, that that's too few. We also need to set the cutoff date for those edits - last year it was 1 November.
  2. Questions - Some candidates were opposed for not answering questions, despite the fact that they became candidates at the last minute (2 or 3 days before voting began). Others were concerned about questions for "All the candidates" that bypassed the long-shots. I'd propose a 2-week declare-your-candidacy phase, during which questions would be submitted. Then, a 2 week period of Candidate Statements, Discussion, and a page with all submitted questions in one spot, available to all candidates for 14 days, to answer as they wish.
  3. Discussion - How much is too much on the voting page? We had half a dozen rules-of-thumb last time, and there was some heartburn over it. We should set a standard - maybe 2 sentences, 100 words, or an unlimited vote, one reply, and then a reply to that; anything else is moved to the talk page with a link.
  4. Poll Workers - I'd propose a set of templates/rules for election helpers, so that everyone who is helping is responding to similar votes in the same way, and - most importantly - so that voters who have their votes indented are told why.

Count me in on whatever committee is forming around this process - and I'd add that Mtmelendez was heavily involved last time around, and should probably be pinged now as well - which I will do if I remember. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Some comments in the same order:
  1. I think raising this is mainly people trying to set a 'distrust threshold'. People try to do that all the time on Misplaced Pages, and are repeatedly stopped. In this particular case, there is no basis for thinking that e.g. 300 edits would have made more than a marginal difference to the support/oppose ratios, and even less basis for expecting it to have changed the result (particularly given the divine prerogative of appointment that completes the process). In short, changes to the edit franchise are a solution looking for a problem that has never occurred. A cut-off date, however, is sensible. It should be before the opening of nominations, ideally, to squelch any off-site co-ordination. (Which is also a never-yet problem, but increasingly possible).
  2. Yes, nominations should close in advance. Doesn't stop people not answering questions, but that's their problem. All q's to all candidates is sub-optimal though, as people might quite legitimately have a question about a specific aspect of a certain candidate. Encouraging people to ask both centralised and specialised questions will lead to much more performance art ("look Mum, how fancy a question I can ask") than is necessary. There should be a numeric limit of e.g. 3 centralised questions per editor plus e.g. 2 to a specific candidate. Some finessing of this will be required to prevent abuse. Splash - tk 09:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  3. People should not be fiddling with others' votes, as mangling their comments destroys the context in which a vote is made. If rather overly-manufactured concerns of page-length really do distress people, then simply ban on-page responses; people have to give a link beneath their vote to their reply on the talk page. Splash - tk 09:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  4. Some standardisation of operational issues is probably a good idea.
Splash - tk 09:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  1. I'm less concerned about what the standard is (I think 150 works well, personally) than the fact that we nail down a standard as early as possible. I have no objections to the current 150 mainspace edits 30 days before voting standard.
  2. For Questions, I'm thinking of a master list of questions for everyone that would be transcluded/templated/copied over to each candidate's Question page. Additional questions could be added by individuals - we can't limit that much - but these could very easily be submitted in the same way. Adding some focus on the discussion pages would help, as well - that way, something that comes up during voting could be addressed without giving the appearance that the candidate had a question go unanswered (when it was posted during voting).
  3. The only way would be an all-or-nothing approach. What was done several times last go-around was to move the entire comment to the talk page, preserving the voting term ("Support", or whatever), and crosslinking the two. An example is Support number 126 for Giano, last time around, which was crosslinked to the talk page, here. Most voting page talk pages had a section for this sort of thing. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 14:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
1)no we throw the exact requirements in at the last minute to make gameing harder
2)ceneralised global questions are a really bad idea. If you think a question is really important enough to ask all candidates you can go to the effort of adding it to all their question pages.Geni 20:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Keep (150 undeleted mainspace edits + 30 days before) as is. Anyone I don't want to vote I'll just expunge all their edits, Geni.) Questions are already out of hand, I'd oppose centralising. - brenneman

No problem with questions posted the same way we've done them in the past; I still think we should have a longer timeline that includes a question/discussion period, though. Let me see if I can work something of a proposal up. 150 Mainspace+30 days works for me, as well; it was on my list of discussion items from 2007, so I mentioned it here - no worries. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The problem with a question discussion period is that you risk streching the election out even further.Geni 08:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the idea was actually to split the nomination period (which ran from 1 November to 30 November last year) into two phases; the nomination period (14 days), where qualified candidates throw their hat into the ring, and the question/discussion phase (14 days), where the candidates answer questions and discussion can take place with the full field. We then take a couple days to finalize the voting pages and whatnot (though we have the 14 day question period to do this as well), and voting begins, Per below. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible Timeline?

Per above, we might run something like this:

Saturday 1 November 2008 - T-30 days - Editors must be registered and have 150 mainspace edits by 23:59 UTC on this date to vote.
Monday 3 November 2008 - T-28 days - Nominations open (14 days)
Monday 3 November 2008 - T-28 days - Invitation for questions ("Think about what you'd ask/add it to this list if you want to ask everyone")
Monday 17 November 2008 - T-14 days - Nominations close
Monday 17 November 2008 - T-14 days - Question pages opened/Questions transcluded/etc. - Question Phase Begins
Monday 24 November 2008 - T-07 days - Voting pages created/Discussion pages created/Quickvote Created
Monday 1 December 2008 - T-00 days - Voting Begins
Monday 15 December 2008 - T+14 days - Voting Closes, Vote Pages protected for 3 weeks, Votes Reviewed for socks
Friday 19 December 2008 - T+18 days - Final Vote totals/percentages/statistics confirmed
Monday 29 December 2008 - T+28 days - Jimbo Wales Certifies Election/Announces Winners/Declares Consensus/Comes down from on high/etc.
Thursday 1 January 2009 - T+31 days - New Arbitrators take office
It ends up being 2 days shorter, mainly because I based it on a 1 December voting date, and started noms on the 3rd of November instead of the 1st. The ending steps, checking for socks and whatnot, are speculative, obviously. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 18:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the period leading up to it should be shortened a bit. I like slitting the noms/questions to an extent, since this way users can't sneak past the questions, but a month just feels long to me. Wizardman 23:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I think we could easily knock a week off. We'd then have 21 days; 10 days for nominations, 10 days for questions, and an extra day to add in somewhere. We're more flexible if people don't mind off-setting the days; I had everything hitting on mondays to avoid having anything important required over Thanksgiving (November 28 in the US) or Christmas Eve/Christmas Day/Boxing Day (December 24-26, though much less important - Jimbo can step away from the turkey and presents if he so wishes). UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 03:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Essjay seat?

Would it be worthwhile contacting Jimbo to suggest the Tranche Alpha seat that was held for a very short while by Essjay (and never filled again after his departure) also be put up for election this year? That's another option open to us, and would allow two extra arb's to come in this year (Essjay's seat, + Newyorkbrad's). AGK

If so, the new arb should be placed in Tranche Beta for the sake of easyness-to-understand. Because, face it, replacing Essjay's seat would put six arbs in one tranche. As Beta is up for election, we'd put the new arb in here. NYB's replacement would make up the five in Alpha. -- Escape Artist Swyer The mess I've made 22:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh please. There is no "Essjay seat". Essjay was appointed to replace DMcdevit, served for approximately 10 days, and was then replaced by Mackensen. There were never six people in Tranche Alpha. This election is for Tranche Beta (five seats), and any seats that remain unfilled in other tranches at the time of the election. Risker (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, Risker... My mistake. There's no need for the snap, yeah?
I guess I misread the chart. I think you're incorrect in your statement there, though: Essjay and Mackensen were appointed at the same time, the latter to fill the seat vacated by the retiring Dmcdevit, and the former, to a new "expansion" seat.
AGK
Woah! My bad. Don't bite. From AGK's statement, I genuinely thought that for a short while, there was a sixth seat in Tranche Alpha. -- Escape Artist Swyer The mess I've made 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
As did I, Escape Artist... And apparently there was, although I've now found out it was only in existence from Essjay's appointment until the end of 2007 (although obviously he retired long before the end of 2007, and it has never been filled since). There is, of course, always an option of re-creating the seat, as per Jimbo's rationale in originally creating it. AGK
Well, reviewing talk pages of both Essjay and Mackensen indicates that Anthony was correct, and they were both appointed to Arbcom on February 24, 2007. So there was an approximately 8-day period where there were indeed six seats on Tranche Alpha. Given how that worked out, I am very hesitant to suggest this as a precedent that should be repeated. Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I need to go find a trout... Risker (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

*Drops in.* Essjay and I were appointed simultaneously; I was appointed to fill Dmcdevit's seat, while Essjay's was an entirely new seat. For those keeping score, I believe Deskana took my seat, while Essjay's was not filled. Whether it "exists" or not is somewhat irrelevant; Jimbo is free to appoint additional arbitrators as the need arises. Mackensen (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ballot question

This year there have been several initiatives concerning arbcomm.

I'm curious if it would be "allowable" to suggest allowing one or more of those initiatives to be added to the ballot for everyone to vote upon?

Though, I'll admit that while suggesting it, I'm on the fence about it myself, since these "elections" are only guides for Mr. Wales to decide who the members are.

But perhaps the results of such initiatives might also be "guides" to help him determine if a change to arbcomm has support of the community.

But then again, are we opening a floodgate that may not be closable?

For transparency, the initiative I'm suggesting concerns reducing the lengths of the arbitrators terms (2 years, 4 tranches of 4 members, elections every 6 months) - Something which Mr. Wales said he would take under consideration when I asked him about it on his talk page - which is another hesitation on my part. Would suggesting this here, indicate an attempt to bypass his opinion? The answer is (I hope) an obvious: No. Especially since he makes the final determination in either case.

Further thoughts welcome. - jc37 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be a variety of proposals from the WP:ARBCOMRFC about how many Tranches we should have and how many Arbs we should have in each Tranche. Maybe a strawpoll should be conducted to see if there is any consensus on the issue. I've left a message on Jimbo's talk page so he'll turn up eventually. -- Escape Artist Swyer The mess I've made 23:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
There is a useful summary of the proposals that have gained traction at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Summary, and I note that several deal with Eligibility to run and terms. For example, there's a proposal to set a 1-consecutive-term limit, in order to limit burnout and inactivity. Other proposals would shorten terms from the current 3 years to 12, 18, or 24 months. As noted, above, a Tranche Delta is proposed to go with 2 year terms and elections every six months. It'd be interesting to have a ballot determine the terms of arbitrators also being elected by that ballot, and we'd already have an election format running. This might be worth considering. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Too many questions

I think the process of users asking short open questions of every candidate which require the candidates to invest a disproportionate amount of time answering them is suboptimal. People asking questions should at least realise that spamming the same question to everyone is a serious draw on the candidates' time. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

  • How about there be no questions for all candidates, but users may ask up to three candidates specific questions. General questions are gathered by Signpost over November and each candidate fills out the general questionnaire between declaring and voting. Or something along those sorts of lines. I don't know. Candidates need to be open to the community, but the community can't abuse that openness. And a lot of the questions for all candidates could be fairly well predicted and gathered through the signpost. Just tossing thoughts out. Hiding T 16:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that there is an excessively large volume of questions being asked. I see a number of possibilities for countering this, if it is agreed that the volume of questions is greater than desired:
  • Set an maximum number of questions permitted to be put to each candidate, essentially having the candidate's question page "locked down" once this limit has been reached. (I don't think this is the best option, as the 'slots' available may be taken up by a small number of editors (who each ask a wide variety of questions, for example), or by questions of "low quality".)
  • Compile a "central bank" of questions, having possibilities submitted in good time; the highest quality questions may then be selected, and put to each candidate. If voters wished to ask individual candidates specific questions (perhaps explaining a past action; requesting elaboration on a point of his or her statement; and so on), this may be done outwith the formal question process, or on a separate (sub?)page of the candidate's nomination space. (Downside: this may simply result in questions being forked between two pages–it all depends on the individuals asking the questions.)
  • Directly use, or develop a model based heavily on, m:Board elections/2008/Candidates/Questions#Instructions.
Then again, we may instead decide that our current system is fine. If anything, they do act as something of an "indicator" of a potential arbitrator's anticipated activity rate. If he or she cannot keep up with at least the majority of the responding-to-question flow, it raises worries that the candidate will be able to meet the time demands of holding a seat on the Committee.
Anthøny 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Terms and seats

Given there is a proposal which appears to have good support that the community would like to see arb-com be expanded in numbers and terms reduced, are we looking to start that process here, with the community electing seven arbitrators serving two year terms? This would call for a June election for the next tranche, whether we elect an additional two at that point? Or should we elect this tranche to an 18 month term? Or elect two tranches of seven arbs now:

  • Tranche Beta on 18 month term expires June 2010
  • Tranche Delta on 6 month term expires June 2009


We could either have the top seven in tranche Beta and the next seven in tranche Delta, allow Jimbo to sort or allow electors to choose. The latter would create possibly a mess of the election, so perhaps the first is the better option, as the second may prove contentious. This would give us four tranches:

  • Tranche Delta expiring in Jun 2009 - at this point elect seven in tranche for two years
  • Tranche Gamma expiring in Dec 2009 - at this point elect seven in tranche rather than five for two years, barring anyone who has served two consecutive terms
  • Tranche Beta expiring in Jun 2010 - at this point elect seven in tranche for two years, barring anyone who has served two consecutive terms
  • Tranche Alpha expiring in Dec 2010 - at this point elect seven in tranche rather than five for two years, barring anyone who has served two consecutive terms
and then
  • Tranche Delta expiring in Jun 2011 - at this point elect seven in tranche for two years, barring anyone who has served two consecutive terms

So by 2011 we have 28 serving arbs, in four tranches serving two year terms, and by June 2011 arbs can only serve two consecutive terms. I think that gets across what Neil is suggesting and appears to have been endorsed by the community here. Thoughts? Hiding T 11:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will like the idea of a tranche being elected for six months, considering the fuss an election entails. Perhaps phasing things in more gradually (the group to be elected this December sits for 2 1/2 years)? Neıl ☄ 13:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
The idea for a six month tranche is that they would be the tranche with the lowest support in the coming election, so they would have a short term to establish themselves, possibly learn the ropes and for the community to judge them. But yes, electing this group for 2 1/2 years is another way forwards. That still leaves the question of how many seats are up? Seven, six or five? Hiding T 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Why exactly is it thought necessary to nearly double the size of the Arbitration Committee? Without other substantive changes to the way the committee works, it simply means twice as many people reading the the cases and then going off-wiki to argue amongst themselves about what to do. I suggest that, rather than make changes in numbers as part of this process, the discussion continue at the RfC and perhaps on the Arbitration Committee policy page, until there is a community consensus about what Arbcom processes need to be changed (e.g., assigning tranches to cases) and how big it ought to be. Risker (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
If we have 28 arbs, we just split the committee in half and alternate cases. So first case up gets assigned to Alpha and Gamma, then next case up is assigned Beta and Delta. The many reasons for expanding the committee are outlined in the link provided. Hiding T 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
But wouldn't that be a pretty major change in how the Arbitration Committee works? I thought this page was for organizing the next election, not to change the fundamentals of Arbcom. Personally, I'm all for shorter terms, but doubling the size of Arbcom doesn't sound like a good idea to me (as I already said in the RfC). And if we split the committe in half.. what then? Two separate Arbcom mailing lists? A case not being accepted even though there are active arbitrators.. who happen to be in the wrong tranche? --Conti|✉ 15:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay. There's a consensus to expand the arb-com. That means there needs to be more members elected. Hence discussion at this page regarding next election. Does that make it clearer? Whatever is decided will impact on the coming election, whether it is the length of term or the number of seats elected. I'm not sure how you organise an election without determining what is being elected. Hiding T 15:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Another way forwards is to then change how arb-com works. Perhaps have cases accepted once seven arbs have indicated acceptance, regardless of those arbs refusing to accept. Therefore on a committee of 28 it would take 22 refusals for a case not to be accepted, since there are only 6 remaining arbs to comment. This would mean arbs having to be a lot more active. Perhaps if after seven days seven arbs have not accepted a case is rejected. Anyone else fot anything? Or are we going to ignore the consensus to expand arb-com? Hiding T 15:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I don't really see the consensus for this change in the first place, since I wouldn't interpret 26 people endorsing and 8 people opposing that part of the RfC as a consensus. This needs wider input, especially from current and former arbitrators, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Concur with Conti. That is hardly consensus, and certainly not the kind of consensus one would expect to make a major change in our Dispute Resolution process. Risker (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I don;t really see the value in disputing whether a consensus exists or not, that's an effort in futility. We obviously disagree on that fact and there's no way forwards from that. Since Conti is open to the idea of shorter terms, there's obviously room for us to move discussion to that area. Hiding T 16:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
You think making the committee bigger is going to make it quicker?! That's about the most ridiculous idea I've heard. Bigger committees are slower. The answer might well include shorter terms (I'd suggest two years, with annual elections), but I'd suggest that the committee is too big, rather than too small. Sam Korn 16:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I am quietly confident you have heard many ideas, and that a fair proportion of them will have been more ridiculous than the one you dismiss here. Either that or you have led a very sheltered life. ;) It seems reasonable to assert the mood is for a term of two years, even if there is some vocal opposition to expanding the committee at this particular instance, which I would hope can be weighed against the previous support for it and also when more voices are heard. Hiding T 16:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's probably far too late to start discussing this for action this year. Especially considering the RfC produced multiple contradictory suggestions on it.

I also share Sam's concerns over if enlargement of the Arbitration Committee would actually be helpful or not, and oppose it myself. --Barberio (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I share similar thoughts to Sam. Furthermore, there's no community consensus for increasing the number of seats on the committee -- and, even if there was, per Risker: there's not much time to implement at this late stage (for this year, at least)… Anthøny 18:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I've got to agree that it is too late at this point in time to go around changing the size. Since Arbcoms in general are regulated by the WM Foundation for purposes of privacy access, etc has anyone contacted them to see if they have any min. voting requirements for arbcom elections? MBisanz 19:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
That's not how I read the foundation's role and statements, you have an interesting take on it there. Hiding T 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Introducing 14 arbs in the December elections would create a majorly complex election. I would suggest electing 7 arbs in Beta now, 7 into Gamma next June and then create Delta next December. This would shorten the terms to two years and the expansion would be gradual. If a bigger arbcom proves to be too big, we can always start to vote in 5 again. Escape Artist Swyer The mess I've made 12:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Term

So it looks like the expansion idea is stone dead, but there still seems to be support for a two year term this time. That would mean we would have two tranche's expiring in 2010 though. SO how are we to go forwards in shrinking the terms? Hiding T 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest composing a note to Jimmy and arbcom-l, explaining why you think the change is a good one (e.g. accountability, burnout, the relative lengths of an arbitrator's appointment and Misplaced Pages's history &c.). You would also mention that there is significant support for this among the community (I haven't seen many people who think that three years isn't too long). Sam Korn 21:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm losing track of how consensus works on Misplaced Pages. And the will. Hiding T 23:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
This is different to most things, of course, because arbitrators are appointed by Jimmy under advice from the electoral process. Sam Korn 23:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should do it the other way around and first get a consensus among the community, and then tell Jimmy that we'd like to shorten the terms of the Arbitrators. Misplaced Pages:ARBCOMRFC#II. Timescales is a good start, but I'm not sure if it's enough for this kind of change. Once again, I'd be curious what the current and former arbs think of this. --Conti|✉ 01:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • shrug* As you like. I was only giving my advice! You have one former arbitrator's opinion -- I rather think if you want some more you might have to ask. Sam Korn 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Illustrations?

Individual candidate statement pages, or candidate discussion pages, contain illustrations? 'Zilla campaign manager already create highly persuasive election poster. All right put Bishzilla election pages? Or make pages too slow? bishzilla ROARR!! 10:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC).

  • Drawings fine if colored in and you've not gone over the edges. If it was up to me, I'd say make the pages they can get moved if needed, but you might have to write a letter to Jimmy, the committee and the foundation just to check. Hiding T 13:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)