Wikipedia:Arbcom electoral reform

The Election of Members of the Arbitration Committee is an annual process by which trusted members of the community are installed onto the Arbitration Committee. These elections are high-profile events that generate wide interest from hundreds of editors. Each election is operated under a set of guidelines generated by discussion, usually held shortly before the election itself. This page is intended to generate additional discussion on the processes and procedures used to elect arbitrators, and to do so in an orderly manner without the time pressure of an imminent election.

In years past, several concerns have been voiced about the process. These were listed for discussion, which took place as part of the planning phase of the 2008 Arbcom Election. Some reforms were adopted, others not. More information may be found at WT:ACE2008 and its archives.

I. Franchise
Editors must meet certain requirements before voting, and votes were subject to certain restrictions. In previous years, these requirements were as follows. All examples assume an election that begins on 1 December 2008, for clairity.


 * 1) Voters must have a registered account with 150 mainspace edits before 1 November 2008.
 * 2) Only one vote per voter per candidate.
 * 3) Candidates could not vote for (or against) themselves.

Votes from ineligible or anonymous voters could be indented by any editor; votes from sockpuppets or other banned users could be removed on sight.

Several editors expressed concern that the requirement of 150 mainspace edits were either too strict or too lenient. Arguments in favor of increasing the limit included the fact that using automated tools to accrue 150 mainspace edits would be trivial.

II. Questions and Discussion
In prior elections, candidates would be asked questions from the community. These questions could be posted at any time, starting when the candidate declared his or her intent to stand for election, all the way through the voting phase of the election. This resulted in some confusion; some questions asked late in the process went unanswered, and - in at least one case - the questions asked caused a candidate to withdraw prior to voting. Some editors asked the same or similar questions to all candidates, but ended up skipping a few, implying that those candidates might not have a serious chance to win the election.

Another concern was a candidate who entered the election late in the nomination phase, and who was still answering their first questions after voting started.

Some minor changes to the questioning of candidates might serve to alleviate these concerns. I would therefore propose that:


 * 1) Nominations be taken for two weeks, beginning 1 November 2008. Questions for all candidates may be submitted during this time.
 * 2) Once nominations are closed, a Question page will be transcluded for all candidates. This question page will have the stock questions asked of all candidates. Editors may then ask additional questions of individual candidates, as they see fit - but all nominees will be answering questions at the same time.
 * 3) Voting would begin on 1 December, allowing 2 weeks and change for questions and discussion.

This proposal would set the field before discussion takes place, giving editors a full view of the potential candidates before questioning them. It also puts the candidates on equal footing, as they all have the same amount of time to answer questions and present their reasons for wishing to be an arbitrator.

III. Discussion during voting
In the past, particularly the 2007 election, long comments or discussions included with votes were moved to the talk page, directly linked from the vote, and preserved. Some discussion took place over what the most appropriate threshold would be for such moves; should 2 sentences be the limit? A particular word count, or a number of diffs? How about 5 formatted lines? What about replies to votes, should one reply and a response from the voter be allowed, or should ALL discussion be moved?

A standard needs to be set up front, either sticking to 2 sentences for the vote and 2 replies (one reply and a response from the voter), or setting some other standard.

IV. Voting
As noted above, votes from ineligible editors are typically indented. A group of editors volunteered for this task in the 2007 election cycle, though any editors may do so as needed. Some editors left helpful messages on the inelgible voter's talk pages, while others did not.

Being mindful of WP:BITE, and in the hopes of staving off drama, I would propose that a set of instructions be approved for dealing with non-standard or unacceptable votes. For user notifications, I would propose a set of templates or, alternatively, a recommended set of text.

In the interests of fairness and transparency, it is always best to be sure before taking action. Editors should feel free to request additional input before removing a good faith vote from the count.