Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Policy Changes

This is a poll of the suggested policy changes generated during the RfC process to assess if they have community support. Changes that are ratified in this vote will become part of the current English Wikipedia Arbitration Policy. These suggested changes were generated as part of the Request for Comments on the Arbitration Committee.

Discussion about how this ratification should work and the precise form of the proposals is taking place on the talk page.

Eligibility to vote
Any editor eligible to vote in the parallel Arbitration Committee elections may vote on these proposed policy changes. Editors who are not eligible to vote are still welcome to participate in discussions, but should not cast votes for or against - these will be removed before counting.

Ratification
A Policy Change will be ratified by the community when all of the following are satisfied:
 * More than forty eligible voters cast supporting votes,
 * At the conclusion of the voting period, it has net support (more supporting votes than opposition votes),
 * There is no contradicting policy change with a greater net support.

Discussion
Discussion of the proposals, including general comments and extended explanations of support or oppose votes, should be placed on the linked discussion pages for each group of proposals. Lengthy comments or discussion placed with a vote on this page will be removed.

Voting
Please mark your votes to Support or Oppose once for each proposal you wish to vote for or against. You may vote for any, all, or none of the proposals. You may vote support for one or more contradictory proposals. In the case of a tie vote between contradictory proposals, the deciding vote will be cast by the arbitration committee after the newly elected members have been seated.

Number of members returned per election
Each election will appoint 7 members to the Arbitration Committee.
 * 2008 Proposal 1
 * Note: This would increase each Tranche to 7 members, from 5 currently.
 * Sign with  to endorse, you may mark your vote to be withdrawn if 2.d passes.
 * Sign with  to oppose

Term of office, and frequency of election
The term of office for an Arbitration Committee Member is 24 months. Members are elected in two groups of seven members, staggered over two elections twelve months apart.
 * 2008 Proposal 2.a
 * Note: This change would remove Tranche Gamma, and increase Tranches Alpha and Beta to seven members.
 * Sign with  to endorse
 * Sign with  to oppose

The term of office for an Arbitration Committee Member is 18 months. Members are elected in three groups staggered over three elections six months apart.
 * 2008 Proposal 2.b
 * Sign with  to endorse
 * Sign with  to oppose

The term of office for an Arbitration Committee Member is 12 months. Members are elected in three groups staggered over three elections four months apart.
 * 2008 Proposal 2.c
 * Sign with  to endorse
 * Sign with  to oppose

The term of office for an Arbitration Committee Member is 24 months. Members are elected in four groups staggered over four elections six months apart.
 * 2008 Proposal 2.d
 * Note: This change would create an additional Tranche, Tranche Delta, with five new members.
 * Sign with  to endorse
 * Sign with  to oppose

No change to term of office, and frequency of election at this time.
 * 2008 No Proposal 2.x
 * Note: Maintains the status quo in this area.
 * Sign with  to endorse
 * Sign with  to oppose

Consecutive Term Restriction
No Arbitration Committee Member may serve two terms consecutively. No editor who is currently serving a term as an Arbitration Committee Member may stand for election to the Arbitration Committee; past members of the Committee may stand in any election not immediately following their own term.
 * 2008 Proposal 3
 * Sign with  to endorse
 * Sign with  to oppose

Dispute Resolution
Arbitration is the final step in dispute resolution. Except for emergency situations such as wheel wars, or appeals of community sanctions and other circumstances where dispute resolution is impractical, no case will be accepted that has not already progressed through dispute resolution.
 * 2008 Proposal 4
 * Sign with  to endorse
 * Sign with  to oppose

No Secret Trials
While the Arbitration Committee may accept confidential evidence, proceedings must be as open as they can be. The Arbitration Committee may not convene in secret, or conduct proceedings entirely in private.
 * 2008 Proposal 5
 * Sign with  to endorse
 * Sign with  to oppose

Informing Editors
Editors are to be informed if the Arbitration Committee is discussing their behaviour via closed methods (such as the mailing list). Ideally, they will be informed via email. No Arbitration Committee decision - secret or otherwise - will be made without users directly named in the decision being given the chance to state their case.
 * 2008 Proposal 6
 * Sign with  to endorse
 * Sign with  to oppose

Evidence
Except in exceptional circumstances, at least one week will be given for evidence preparation before any voting takes place (excluding temporary injunctions).
 * 2008 Proposal 7
 * Sign with  to endorse
 * Sign with  to oppose

No New Policy
The Arbitration Committee will not create binding rulings that institute new Wikipedia processes or policy, nor substantially alter current Wikipedia processes or policy except by striking sections incompatible with Wikimedia Foundation requirements.
 * 2008 Proposal 8
 * Sign with  to endorse
 * Sign with  to oppose

No Secret Votes
Votes on all Arbitration Committee decisions by the members must always be made on a public Wikipedia page, with the signatures of the arbitrators attached and available for verification through the history log.
 * 2008 Proposal 9
 * Sign with  to endorse
 * Sign with  to oppose

Remedies
Remedies may only be voted on by the Arbitration Committee if they are in the form of direct sanctions on persons listed as parties to the case.
 * 2008 Proposal 10
 * Sign with  to endorse
 * Sign with  to oppose

Clear Communication
Legalese, Latin terms (legal or otherwise), abbreviations, and other such unclear English are to be avoided wherever possible. Clear and concise communication that all can understand should be a priority of the Committee.
 * 2008 Proposal 11
 * Sign with  to endorse
 * Sign with  to oppose

Official Statements
Arbitrators will only make official statements on their own behalf, or joint statements from a group of Arbitrators who all agree with the statement. Dissenting Arbitrators should be given an opportunity to voice their dissents in public if they wish.
 * 2008 Proposal 12
 * Sign with  to endorse
 * Sign with  to oppose

Redress
Should a significant portion of the community hold concerns over the activity, conduct or capability of a sitting Arbitrator, a Request for Comment may be opened. Their fellow Arbitrators are encouraged to participate. If the Arbitrator in discussion fails to engage in the process, the RFC continues, regardless. The arbitrator under discussion may simply be required to amend their behaviour, however, should the community conclude categorically that an Arbitrator is unsuitable to continue in the position, the Arbitrator is expected and encouraged to step down amicably.
 * 2008 Proposal 13
 * Sign with  to endorse
 * Sign with  to oppose