Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Archive 1

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 Claims~ 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 Talk to me 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--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 Talk to me 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 Talk to me 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 Claims~ 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 See the mess I've created or let's have banter 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 See the mess I've created or let's have banter 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 Claims~ 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. Glass  Cobra  16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Schulze method worked perfectly for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees elections in June 2008. And it will certainly also work perfectly for Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections. CataTony 09:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't advocate any method of voting that would actually serve to limit the drama surrounding arbcom elections. UltraExactZZ Claims~ 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 Wikipedia, after all. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly agree Ryan P system "support only". 'Zilla plan stand arbcom election this year! [Short pause to graciously receive storm of jubilation from little users. ] Who dare oppose her? Nobody! [/me thoughtfully blow tiny puff of atomic deathray to demonstrate point. Wisps of evil-smelling smoke rise from talkpage.  With great dignity: ] 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     ROA R R! !    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 (Talk) 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 &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 01:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The Schulze method can be used, in a straight-forward manner, to calculate a ranking of the candidates. And then the top five candidates of this ranking are deemed elected. CataTony 08:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Its too complicated. Keep things as they have always been. Spartaz Humbug! 21:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I see more and more alliances at Wikipedia of the form "I will vote for your RfA, when you vote for my RfA" or "I will support your AfDs, when you support my AfDs" or "I support your request to be unblocked, when you help me getting some other users blocked". All these alliances have the tendency to change Wikipedia into an experiment in Internet democracy or into a social networking. I am strongly in favour of secret ballots, because open ballots advance the formation of such alliances whereas secret ballots work against them. Diprotodon 14:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * ? Such agreements would probably fall under canvassing, which would have repercussions. Even with a secret ballot, such individuals could collaborate if they trusted each other. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 16:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This is one of the most blatant vote trading attempts this year. Diprotodon 17:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * As near as I can figure, that was a user attempting to be humorous. Their level of success is unclear. However, I note that the user in question struck the vote less than an hour later, per this diff. The RfA closed at 68/0/0 5 days later. I agree that there are probably other examples, but something blatant like that would be relatively simple to deal with. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt that he was only humorous. Later, he wrote comment1 and comment2.
 * Of course, it is clear that I had to use such a blatant vote trading attempt to show that manipulation attempts really occur at Wikipedia. But that doesn't mean that vote trading attempts are usually done in such a blatant manner that it is "relatively simple to deal with them". Usually, manipulation attempts are arranged in a more subtle manner. Diprotodon 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Shulze is too confusing to too many people, and no one should be expected to have to learn a voting system--they only have to learn the candidates. I suggest either the endorsement idea above, where no one is allowed to put down opposes, to keep it clean, or just do it like previously/RFA/BFA style. rootology ( T ) 05:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, the users don't have to "learn a voting system". They only have to know that they should rank the candidates, instead of just supporting or opposing them. CataTony 07:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Given the very significant number of people who found the Shulze system difficult to understand during the WMF Board elections, I disagree with your statement. It was also a complex enough system that an external firm was engaged to ensure its smooth operation and to remove any appearance of bias.  English Wikipedia does not have the financial wherewithal have the ballotting tallied by an external firm, nor the money to pay for an independent programmer to write the voting software. I can tell from the fact that 100% of your edits relate to this voting method that you seem to hold it in high regard; however, there are certain practicalities that make it impractical for even a large community such as this.  Risker (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The fact that the Software in the Public Interest organization conducted the latest WMF Board elections had nothing to do with the adoption of the Schulze method. Already in earlier elections, SPI tallied the vote . CataTony 08:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you have missed my point. The current scheme, where individuals sign their votes, is straightforward and accountable, requires no additional software, can be interpreted quickly and easily, and does not require any software to tally. Candidates know at all times where they stand, and may withdraw early on if it is clear they will not be successful. The Shulze system is not  transparent, there is no way for candidates to gauge their progress, and it costs money that we do not have. The Foundation, given its separate obligations from Wikipedia and its charitable status, has determined that certain funds will be set aside to ensure independent monitoring and assessment of the WMF Board elections.  There is no Foundation funding for election processes of individual projects, and the individual projects are not in a position to raise funds through other means; even if they were, I cannot imagine the community considering purchased services for elections to be anywhere near a top priority for scarce funds.  Risker (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * How much did the WMF pay to the SPI for conducting the Board elections? CataTony 10:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- While I can appreciate any SPA's views (and an SPA devoted to a voting system is a first?), I think this key matter ought to be decided based on the consensus of experienced users posting under their primary accounts. That aside, I stand by my statement that Schulze is needlessly complex for AC elections; will require people to spend too much time analyzing how to vote rather than who to vote for and why; will require far too much time sorting and tabulating; apparently may require us to pay for that same group that did the Board elections; lacks immediate and obvious transparency as the vote progresses of the results and outcomes; if it's not broken, why break it now? There is no point in even pretending this is not a straight vote or election (no "Voting is evil" nonsense and fundy dogma) so let's just do what works, which is a pure election where people can worry about the candidates rather than the Goldberg variation complexity of the election process. rootology ( T ) 13:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got to agree with Root, if and when it is proven that the current system we have been using is in some way producing wrong results, then we should investigate other methods, but finding more complex ways to spend money is certainly not a headache we need at this point in time.  MBisanz  talk 13:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * To Rootology: Secret ballots and voting software are not something completely new to Wikipedia. We already used the BoardVote software for the ArbCom elections in 2004 and 2005. That discussion is on secret ballots and BoardVote.
 * To Rootology: This is Pathoschild's answer to my question about the costs.
 * To MBisanz: Of course, it is not possible to "prove" that a voting system "produced wrong results" in some objective way. CataTony 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- I strongly feel that the present existing system of a plain vote that is utterly, 100% transparent, and that can be reviewed in any and all ways by any and all users with not one slight bit of transparency or secrecy, is the best method. Honesty in elections is the only way to guarantee absolutely free, fair, and proper elections that people can have faith in. In other words, if it's worked perfectly fine the past couple years, why change it? I think that the elections should be hosted on standard en.wikipedia.org pages (not any arbcom wiki), with every page related to the election process simply semi-protected (regular pages AND talk pages--no suffrage, you don't need to comment--log into your proper accounts). There are more important things to deal with. There is exactly zero need to change the existing incredibly simple process, and less than zero need to add even the slightlest veneer, layer, hint, or even suggestion of lack of transparency. Every edit seen in plain light by any editor, and the same for every vote. It's worked fine, there's no reason to change it. Let people support or oppose whomever they want. If someone doesn't get elected, then thats that, and they shouldn't have been elected. It does not mean the election system is unfair--elections aren't supposed to be fair to those being elected. If the voters don't want them in, they don't belong in, simple as that. :) rootology  ( T ) 17:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


 * When we discussed the open ballots vs. secret ballots issue in 2006, 5 users were in favour of secret ballots and 3 users were in favour of open ballots.


 * In favour of secret ballots:


 * Ilyanep: Personally, I didn't vote at all in the last election because I think that open elections can cause problems. A lot of candidates dropped out mid-race. And there seemed to be some bickering IIRC. Boardvote seems to me to be a much better solution.


 * Stephanie Daugherty (Triona): I have zero confidence in any election process that makes individual votes visible. While it may seem open, the process of open ballot elections permits a level of bullying, favoritism, fear of retaliation, and groupthink that defeat the purpose of a free election. If Special:Boardvote is good enough for board elections, it should be good enough for ArbCom elections also. For these reasons, it's doubtful that I'll be participating in this election.


 * [ælfəks] on open ballots: Bad bad bad idea. [ælfəks] on secret ballots: Much better. Votes are hidden for one thing.


 * Tawker: I think Boardvote is the way to go and here's why
 * Anon, no flame wars over who voted for who / no hurt feelings / loss of trust / etc
 * Technical measure to prevent duplicate voting
 * Overall easier interface for everyone


 * Kusma: If the usernames of people who have votes are public as in the Board elections, the community can check for duplicate votes and suffrage. The amount of transparency offered in the board elections was sufficient for me, and I would definitely prefer a secret ballot. As the ArbCom is elected and not discussed and decided by consensus, let us run proper elections.


 * In favour of open ballots:


 * Xaosflux: With open voting the entire community can serve as "election officials", being able to input on duplicate votes/members failing to meet sufferage, and other issues. With closed, we have to enlist election officials to handle all of this, not even looking at the transparency issue.


 * Jimbo Wales: I have no objection in principle to a secret ballot, but the standard wiki voting system is much more in line with our traditions and appears to produce better results. When we used Special:BoardVote, we saw a significant amount of trolling and negative campaigning.  With the wiki system, we get much better behavior.  Additionally, even though Special:BoardVote is theoretically "approval voting", the fact of the matter is that people have tended to use it incorrectly (in my opinion) leading to very low rates of approval.  Wiki voting tends to produce high levels of support, and this is important for the confidence and credibility of the committee.


 * Ral315: While I agree there are some possible issues with public voting, I didn't see them as a problem in any way in the 2006 election. I'm not opposed to keeping public voting for the next election.


 * CataTony 18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Board Election Voting System and SPI's interest within it
Please pardon my incredibly delayed entry into this conversation. As several of you know, I recently had surgery on my wrists and got so behind on WP stuff...

I want to clarify one thing, though.

Software in the Public Interest received NO payment, and the board election committee NO funds for conducting the Board of Trustees election. While we did have support from the WMF office, such support was required in amazingly small amounts (usually limited to asking Brion or Tim to confirm something, or run a list of email addresses, or such) - sufficiently small to be described as "de minimus", I think.

We were lucky enough to have a couple of extremely skilled programmers on the committee (notably, User:KTC and User:Pathoschild) who were able to step up and write code to support the modification of the boardvote application to handle the Schulze method voting. We also were able to ask Dr. Schulze to confirm that the output was appropriate to the intent of the voting method.

I agree that the committee had an inherent benefit in that we had authority divested from the Board of Trustees.

One thing I would point out is that as a multi-year member of the committee, I think it's safe to say that the committee actually USED that devolved authority to a much smaller degree this year than before (at least the previous year and my anecdotal understanding of the year before that).

So, in short, it is not correct to say that SPI was compensated, directly or indirectly, for their assistance with the election. In fact, they absorbed some of the cost (again, fairly insignificant), in that they hosted the boardvote wiki on their servers, used their resources to set it up, and accepted the bandwidth that took place in the voting period.

I'm available and happy to answer any further questions about the role of the Board of Trustees Election committee, or SPI's involvement in it.

As a previous committee member, but not speaking in any official capacity, - Philippe  15:29, 18 October 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 See the mess I've created or let's have banter 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 Claims~ 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 (Talk) 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 (Talk) 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 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 Claims~ Evidence 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Some comments in the same order:
 * I think raising this is mainly people trying to set a 'distrust threshold'. People try to do that all the time on Wikipedia, 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).
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Some standardisation of operational issues is probably a good idea.
 * Splash - tk 09:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.
 * 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).
 * 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 Claims~ 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 Claims~ 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 Claims~ 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 Claims~ 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 Claims~ 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 ( talk ◊ contact ) 21:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 Talk to me 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 ( talk ◊ contact ) 22:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 Talk to me 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 ( talk ◊ contact ) 23:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I've left a message on Jimbo's talk page so he'll turn up here to clarify the situation re:which-seats-are-up-for-grabs? soon enough. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 23:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * 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 Talk to me The mess I've made 23:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There is a useful summary of the proposals that have gained traction at 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 Claims~ 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, Board elections/2008/Candidates/Questions.
 * 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)
 * Anthony hit it in a nutshell. If an Arb prospect can't handle up to 100 questions or so over a month, he'll never keep up with Arb work. rootology  ( T ) 05:19, 29 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 (smoddy) 16:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sam's right. Having more members absolutely slows things down. There is probably a theorem about this somewhere. Paul August &#9742; 22:34, 21 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  talk 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 Talk to me 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 Wikipedia'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 (smoddy) 21:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm losing track of how consensus works on Wikipedia. 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 (smoddy) 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. ARBCOMRFC 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 (smoddy) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I've sent an e-mail to the WikiEn-l mailing list, cc'd to Jimmy and arbcom-l, about this issue. Please weigh in with your thoughts there. I think that this particular issue requires the unique intervention of Jimmy to make a change, so the mailing list is as useful a forum as any particular page to hold the initial discussion. Avruch  T 23:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I had thoughts about this. The issue is less the actual length of term. It's more, that those appointed (as it stands) can be pretty much nothing except arbitrators. Every wiki hour switches to disputes, bad acting, flames, decisions, and that eventually wears people out. It's not the duration per se, 3 years is fine. its that it's 3 years doing nothing but arbcom work.


 * There are two remedies for that.


 * Firstly, the tasks the committee does, need to be delegated or passed to more people. Today's re-affirmation of the June announcement about enlarging the Checkuser team, is a step on the way. Other things might follow.
 * Secondly, users who become arbitrators should be encouraged to sit on the next 3 months cases, then take a months break from the front line, do some editing or wiki-gnoming, mentor or coach someone, work on a favorite project, or get away from it a while, before coming back to 3 more months cases (not "by the calendar", but as they feel right). Keeping people on a treadmill 24/7 till its too much, is a bad idea.


 * Those 2 measures would probably solve much of it. FT2 (Talk 23:18, 21 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    ROA R R! !    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)
 * Bishzilla, I'm afraid I can't understand what you're saying. Is it, you'd like to create graphics for each candidate? Anthøny  14:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * What the mighty 'Zilla is asking, in her most eloquent manner, is would it be fine with the powers that be if the most magnificent 'Zilla could place her election poster on the Candidate Statements page. For example, see last year's candidate statement page.  If that's not possible, how about on her "Questions for the Candidate page?  For example, see friend Giano's page from last year.  She would just like to show off the beautiful and persuasive poster.  Tex (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * [..Much relieved. ] Eloquent. In nutshell, that be it. 'Zilla most eloquent manner.   bishzilla     ROA R R! !    16:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC).
 * Since the underlineing code used to generate the image will be counted towards the character limit I doubt it would be worthwhile includeing an image of any significance. While yes it would probably be posible to do so useing an SVG I don't think it is a good idea.Geni 10:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy changes from the RfC
Someone above made the suggestion of including in this vote, a vote to ratify the policy changes suggested by the RfC. I think this is a very good idea, and should be implemented.

Personally, I think the voting system should be something like this format Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee/Poll using approval voting to chose between a selection of policy changes in an area or making no change.

I think that changes to how many and how often elections are, should be made to elections following this one only. Because it'll cause confusion if we have election returns that may change based on the result of a side election. But changes to arbcom behaviour and term can become effective immediately. --Barberio (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Rough outline of the ratification process page for the election up at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Policy Changes. --Barberio (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Additional seat
Paul August has resigned from the Arbitration Committee; he will complete cases in which he is currently active but will not participate in any future cases. Unless something extraordinary happens, there will be a sixth seat available in the coming election. Risker (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's wait a couple days before listing it, just in case something changes.  MBisanz  talk 18:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Input from last year's process
8 months on, some thoughts:


 * 1) The timing cycle could be improved. Last year it was nominations Nov 1 - Nov 30, and elections open Dec 3. I'd change that, nominations Nov 1 - Nov 24, elections open Dec 1. (Less sure about "q&a only after nominations", there'd be way too much going on, you want more time to spread them out, consider, write, and digest the results.)
 * Rationale - users don't need 30 days to decide whether to stand, but once they stand, a week (not 2 - 3 days) between standing and election will ensure even latecomers can have a good range of questions and discussion. This felt like quite a big item as a candidate last year, although it may seem minor from outside.
 * 1) Last year there was no real ability to get input from the current committee members by the candidates. candidates had to guess what they'd find, and discuss their guesses. The things that work and things that don't, were sometimes obvious and sometimes pure assumption. I'd favor candidates proactively asking questions, to have a better understanding when they write their statement or answer their Q&A's. Perhaps even an "Arbcom guide to the committee" to give answers to some of the more perennial topics and realistically "what to expect".
 * 2) Related to this, there should be input from the committee to the community, what kinds of attributes seem to make for good candidates. Many users will have their own ideas (rightly so), and many points will be obvious, but views like this from current arbitrators can only be helpful.
 * 3) The system of overseers patroling the election pages and keeping comments short, worked well. Give more thought to negative posts though. Perhaps require all negative posts to link to a note on the talk page. The problem candidates face is if someone says something negative, they must ignore it (doesn't look good), respond to it (gives it oxygen and adds drama on the vote page) or hope a rebuttal is seen on the talk page (may add oxygen). Candidates cannot easily rebutt a dubious allegation mid election, and its unfair to put them in that position, so other users need to ask the "why?" and "do you have evidence?" questions for them if that happens. I'd suggest anyone leaving a negative comment, should be required to provide some detail or evidence, even if just a statement of personal impression, on the talk page, to back it, where the candidate or others can fairly discuss it. (And the community as a whole catches them if apparently ill-unfounded and asks the poster of the talk page comment for details, evidence or discussion.)
 * 4) Separate from the election, communication and attitudes to communication are fairly crucial once elected. I would very strongly encourage candidates to consider what ways they would make themselves available to communicate with other arbitrators, so that complex cases are discussed more fluidly, as time has shown that intermittent communication is stressful and does not help Arbitrators to be effective. Easy accessibility by voice (cell/skype), text (IRC/skype/IM/email), and the like, are all examples of additional ways in use in the community that facilitate communication, even if they are only used "for committee business" to engage with trusted others.

A couple of brief thoughts. May have more another time. FT2 (Talk 19:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree on the timeline - and I have a proposal up the page that matches yours fairly closely. Even if we do a 21-day pre-election cycle, we could have 14 days for nominations from 10 November to 24 November, and then we could also overlap the questions, so that we ask for questions on 3 November, and transclude them on 17 November. The candidates get their questions at the same time, and new candidates have questions right off the bat - and still have a full week after nominations close to expand their answers. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Slate campaigning
I seem to remember, and I might be confusing the boardvote and the arbcom vote, but there is wording somewhere saying candidates may not run on a slate "Vote for the Honest Group of X, Y, and Z", do we want to have such a rule in this case? do we want to explicitly permit slates? Any other ideas?  MBisanz  talk 17:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Anything that would lead to the creation of factions within the Arbitration Committee is a bad idea. There is nothing wrong with candidate A saying "I think candidates B and C would also make good arbitrators," but would prefer not to see "Vote for the A, B, and C team" or the like. Having said that, I don't think a formal rule against "slates" is necessary; the voters can readily use their own judgment about whether to support candidates who list themselves on one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd add that a group of candidates posting "Vote for Team Honest: Insert Slogan Here" around the project would be less than successful, as they'd probably rack up opposes for campaigning/canvassing. But candidates are not prevented from voting (except for themselves), and can show (and share) support in that way. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Brad, with the addition that since we haven't seen such campaigning before its unnecessary to restrict it in advance. I do remember that a number of users (myself included) posted a list on their userpage of candidates they were supporting - not quite the same thing, although I guess it could have been mistaken for a slate. Avruch  T 19:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The creation of factions within the Arbitration Committee? Give me a break. Mike R (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting system / who wins?
this should hopefully be an easy one to confirm! I'd like us to clearly establish how the votes will be tallied, and the fact that Jimbo will appoint the 5 / 6 (or x) candidates by percentage of support. This is my understanding of 'how we do things' - but I think it's worth confirming... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Jimbo should hand the process over to the community. --Duk 05:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think I understand where you're coming from, Duk - but I write as someone who's always enjoyed watching the the car trundle up to Buck Palace with the victorious election winner in the UK's general elections, to take tea with the queen. I always enjoy imagining what sort of conversation must occur..... "can I offer you a biscuit, and would you mind forming a government? Now do be good, and don't break it, Gordon, one would not be amused...." etc.! Regardless of the technical means the incoming arb.s utilise to formally take their seats, I think it's a good idea for us to confirm exactly how this election will be 'won'... :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC) Jimbo's neither the queen, nor a queen to my knowledge, but the crown fitted! - I'm just being playful with a longstanding analogy! :-)
 * That's funny, calling Jimbo a queen. --Duk 05:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawals
This may seem something of a technicality but it's come up in the past can we please have it accepted that a withdrawal is perminant if you withdraw after nominations have closed?Geni 10:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a reasonable idea.  MBisanz  talk 11:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Geni, I presume you mean "if an editor withdraws from the election after the time at which nominations are no longer accepted, he or she may not re-join the election that year"? (Just getting unambiguous wording to ensure we're talking about the same thing here.) Anthøny   ✉  18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * True, we would not want a withdrawal in the 2008 elections from prohibiting the person from ever running for Arbcom.  MBisanz  talk 19:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That is correct yes.Geni 18:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: All open seats
I propose that all seats on the ArbCom be included in this election and that we discard the staggered election system we have used up until now. Long terms of two or three years, along with Jimbo's special appointments, have contributed to ArbCom distance from the community and absenteeism, resulting in an ArbCom that works too slowly and often produces unpopular decisions. I see no reason why the community cannot make a decision here and now to change the system. Everyking (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah, the idea idea is patently unfair to people like NYB, Flo, Jpgordon, and Kirill, among others who have done excellent jobs as arbitrators and should not be forced to re-run before their term is up. Also, iirc, Arbcom (and eventually Jimbo) owns the arbcom policy and as Jimbo just said this week:


 * I would personally desysop any admin or group of admins seeking to defy the ArbCom, because the ArbCom is a valid part of our longstanding traditions.|User talk:Jimbo Wales


 * not really a good idea for maintaining continuity of process, etc.  MBisanz  talk 12:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * MBisanz, Jimbo didn't know what he was talking about in that quote. Go read this response by Thatcher. There is a separation of powers between the Arbcom and the Administrator community. Administrators are not the arbcom's bitches. --Duk 15:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This much is not true. ArbCom was created as a "joint venture" between Jimbo authority (whatever that is) and the community's authority (whatever that is).  But it does have a community mandate.  Three year terms are too long, although I'm not sure everybody, at once, is the answer either.  But it is neither here nor there, for this isn't the place to discuss this. Wily D  12:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I would like the terms of members to be shortened a bit, but that's not really a discussion for the elections page per say. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * As MBisanz says. It is a tough role, and people can and do burn out on it, but that's not going to be remedied by mass removing the ones who haven't :)


 * Also note that for the last 3 elections (ie effectively all current Arbcom members), Jimbo has agreed with the community's decision:
 * December 2007 - top 5 per vote were appointed
 * December 2006 - top 7 per vote were appointed
 * January 2006 - top 8 per vote were appointed, plus the reappointment of 3 past arbitrators (each of whom had stood for election and gained 69 - 75%) to enlarge the committee.
 * FT2 (Talk 14:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * for the last 3 elections... Jimbo has agreed with the community's decision. Yet more evidence that Jimbo isn't needed. --Duk 15:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should we allow Jimbo veto power over the community's decision? The fact that he normally accepts the community's decision doesn't mean we should give him the choice to do otherwise. Everyking (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discarding staggered elections would be a mistake. The institutional memory would be lost, and we would be left with a slate of all brand new arbitrators. With no experience in the arbitration process, with the arbitration wiki or the issues faced by the mailing list, with perhaps no experienced checkusers on the arbitration committee and none with an experience of using the oversight tool... You think we would be better off? I don't see it. I think we should reduce the term, so that the turnover is higher. Arbitrators burn out or lose touch, and it makes sense to have a more frequent reaffirmation of their support in the community. Dispensing with staggered tranches, though, would be a serious error. Avruch  T 15:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't find this argument convincing at all. We don't need "institutional memory"; it has never been demonstrated that this has helped anything. In actual practice, arbitrators with long terms tend to resist or ignore the community's wishes and form an elite decision-making group completely divorced from the community that elected them. We should have a full election this year and each subsequent year; at only one year, these terms would be so short that it wouldn't be practical to stagger terms, because that would require holding mid-year elections. I suspect a handful of them could be re-elected, so we would probably not have a completely new ArbCom anyway. Everyking (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course it's "never been demonstrated": we've never had the opportunity, because the current system works so well. Why try to fix what isn't broken? I think it's your "arbitrators with long terms tend to resist or ignore the community's wishes and form an elite decision-making group completely divorced from the community that elected them" statement that is lacking evidence. Reducing the length of terms is an idea that deserves serious consideration, but for a completely different reason: burnout.  But I think many (most?) people consider one year to be too short a term for precisely the reason you've indicated: it puts elections too close together.  Plus it doesn't allow for arbitrators to gain experience and pass that knowledge on to others.  You're confusing two issues and proposing one solution that doesn't really fix either of them properly :D <small style="color:red">(also) <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 21:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to MBisanz, I don't think we should worry about being fair to the arbitrators; we need to be fair to the community, and what's fair to the community is to have a more representative and responsible ArbCom. The arbitrators are supposed to hold their seats in order to help the project, so it seems silly to suggest that they ought to remain in those seats simply so that we can be "fair" to them, even when that doesn't serve the project's interests. Everyking (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * But MBisanz' point is that many of the sitting arbitrators have performed flawlessly in a very difficult task. Unceremonially turfing them out onto the street in the middle of their terms is likely to hugely alienate them and is patently unfair; but that means that the community risks losing a number of gifted and popular arbs.  It's equally "silly" to be saying we should be throwing the baby out with the bathwater and depriving ourselves of our good arbs just because we have issues with some of them. <small style="color:red">(also) <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, if they're performing flawlessly they could just run again and be elected again. Haukur (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the more human reaction would be to be pissed off at being treated so badly. They're volunteers just like you or I, and it's pretty harsh to repay them for those hundreds of hours of freely-given time by kicking them out like that.  If just one of them is sufficiently put out to not stand for re-election, then that's a completely unnecessary loss. <small style="color:red">(also) <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 21:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If you think the current system works well and the current arbitrators are performing flawlessly, then it makes sense that you wouldn't want to shorten their terms. What I see, however, is cases being dragged out for months and eventually being closed with outcomes contrary to the desires of the community. To me, that indicates serious problems, and I think holding a full election in December would go a long way towards addressing them. Everyking (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a quite impressive misinterpretation :D! No, I don't think all the current arbitrators are performing flawlessly, I think that some are (as MBisanz said). I do want to shorten the ArbCom term.  I agree that cases are unnecessarily prolonged and are sometimes controversial, and that that represents a problem.  I completely fail to understand how throwing out the entire ArbCom will go any way to fixing these issues.  <small style="color:red">(also) <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 21:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What alternative ideas do you have in mind to fix the problems? I have proposed something concrete and simple that I believe could tremendously improve ArbCom performance. If we had an alternative reform proposal, we could compare and contrast them and determine which would be likely to achieve the best outcome. Everyking (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You've proposed something concrete and simple, but with no reason to believe that it will actually fix the problem! My support would be for a more comprehensive packet of reforms from some of the better ideas to come out of the RfC, such as explicit statements of "no new policy", "no secret votes", etc, to resolve the recent concerns over arbitrator conduct. I suspect that these remedies have already been adopted de facto by the ArbCom in the interests of avoiding further drama, whether or not they are written into the de jure policy. In the interests of avoiding burnout and improving case throughput, which are entirely separate issues, I would favour four tranches of seven arbitrators serving for two years; either separated into two circuits, or just requiring a quorum of arbitrators to 'sign on' to any particular case.  This would keep our arbitrator body fresh and full, and the larger numbers reduce the impact of individual resignations or indispositions, while not increasing the difficulty of obtaining decisions. <small style="color:red">(also) <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 22:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd rather talk specifically about how we should conduct this election. I take it you are favor of holding this election in the default manner&mdash;a few seats will be filled, subject to Jimbo's approval. If people want to go ahead with that method, all right, but let's see community consensus for it, so the process will have greater legitimacy. In the past, this method has simply been imposed by fiat, and I think it's time we make the decision for ourselves. Everyking (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a completely different issue again: why are you trying to consider so many different ideas in one thread? For the record, however, yes that's exactly what I think should be done: the terms of the five members of tranche beta expire, some number of arbitrators are appointed to replace them. <small style="color:red">(also) <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 22:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I freely concede that neither I nor the committee as a whole are "performing flawlessly" now, nor has the committee ever done so, nor is the committee, howsoever comprised, likely to do so at any future time. However, as one of the more active arbitrators right now, I can attest that it would be highly unhelpful if I had to basically take a month off from deciding cases in order to answer candidate questions again. Shortening the terms in this way would also raise questions akin to those surrounding perceived infringements on judicial independence in the wake of controversial actions or decisions. Discount as you will for my self-evident self-interest, but this proposed change is not recommended. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: the "proposed change" you refer to is 'annulling the terms of all arbitrators in the December 2008 elections'?? <small style="color:red">(also) <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 22:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I cannot imagine why it would be necessary to devote a full month to answering questions at the expense of ArbCom duties; I ran for ArbCom in the past, I answered questions, and I don't recall it being taxing or time-consuming at all. I don't quite understand the point you're making about judicial independence; perhaps you could elaborate on that. Everyking (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The number of candidate questions seems to increase dramatically over time. I can attest that last November (the month allotted for questioning), I spent far more time answering the candidate questions than doing anything else on Wikipedia, and a quick scan of the questions page for me or any of the other candidates should help confirm this. As for judicial independence, the concern is that an arbitrator might, consciously or more likely subconsciously, have an actual or perceived motivation in a manner calculated to please the electorate rather than resolve the case in the fairest and most appropriate manner. I do not believe that any of my colleagues would actually act in this fashion, any more than I believe that most real-world judges in similar circumstances do so, but the suspicion would always be there. (And to anticipate a potential objection to this point, there is a big difference between saying that arbitrators should decide cases in a fashion acceptable to the community, and acting in such a way as to be deemed as acting in the face of concern they might be penalized for making a decision unsatisfactory in the near term to a substantial faction.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Answering candidate questions is a valuable thing that enables the community to evaluate where an arbitrator stands, and it does not seem demanding to ask them to do this once per year. As for your other point, part of the purpose of my proposal is to make the arbitrators more responsive to the community, so I can't see it as a bad thing that they might change the way they vote based on anticipation of community disapproval. Everyking (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is based on the presumption that the correct vote coincides with the popular vote. Part of the reasons why sound judicial systems give tenure to their judges is because doing their job right unfailingly means making some (or even most) people displeased.  Binding, or even just influencing, decision to popularity is just institutionalized mob rule.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 01:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't mob rule the entire concept behind wikipedia, the encyclopedia everyone can edit?--Cube lurker (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Not in the slightest. The whole consensus-building, voting-is-evil mentality is designed to minimise the 'sheep mentality' or 'snowball' effect which is characteristic of mob rule.  We're not anarchic, which is the epitome of mob rule; we are also not democratic, which would be the other solution.  Our policies are supposed to be governed by an innate sense of right and wrong; we recognise that that internal compass is not infallible and in some editors is entirely missing, so we elect a group to be the ultimate guardians of our behavior.  When they produce a 'compass bearing' which is different to our own, we have to accept the possibility that we might be wrong, or the probability that they have access to priviledged information that reveals the real truth.  Both options are difficult to accept, so the 'easy option' of just shooting the messenger needs to be prevented, or we will very rapidly run out of people willing to take on that role.  That's the basic principle of judicial independence. <small style="color:red">(also) <b style="color:forestgreen;">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange;">melon</b> 08:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That was half in jest, but I do strongly believe that arbcom is elected to do the will of the comunity, and not to be our overlords who "protect us from ourselves".--Cube lurker (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If all ArbCom members had to re-run for their seats, what would happen to open arbitration cases at the time? I doubt that Wiki-drama will completely cease for the month of so that we have no arbitrators and I seriously think that, should this happen, some people might try to game the system. After all, what better time to impose your POV on that article than when there is no one around to examine the situation for a month? We simply cannot suspend the entire process for one month. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 11:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbitrators don't have to resign their seats in order to run for re-election. Why can't they answer questions and handle arbitration duties? Besides, most of them don't handle arbitration duties anyway, as we can observe from recent cases. This is an very inactive group of people; one might even argue that it's barely functional. Everyking (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The outcome of the election would then directly affect the outcome of any cases. Say Arbs A B and C look like they'll bring sanctions against user:Foo - it's then in user:Foo's interest to cause as much disruption as possible to the re-elections of those Arbs. If the Arbs are not re-elected by the end of the case, they won't be able to vote to impose sanctions. However I'm sure we can work out a way around this. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 01:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * How much disruption could this person cause without being blocked for it? Also, I think in the past arbitrators have continued voting on cases that were opened before the ends of their terms; I remember Fred Bauder was still voting on things after his term expired at the beginning of this year. Everyking (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If user:Foo was an admin then he could cause a lot of disruption, whether it be the election pages or a subtler elsewhere. Or if Foo was a popular user with lots of Wiki-friends? An army of sock/meat puppets? If the arbs finished the cases that they started, whether re-elected or not, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. The idea as a whole: baby and bathwater spring to mind. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 18:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * @Everyking: Fred was still voting on cases even though he was no longer an arbitrator because the cases in question were accepted before the new arbitrators took their seats on the committee. It's standard practice for handling the arbitrator change-over. Interestingly, cases accepted before the next year's tranche officially begin duty often have an extra tranche of users arbitrating, should both all of the new arbitrators and all of the old arbitrators (assuming they are not re-elected, and only so long as the case was accepted whilst they were still on the committee) chose to be active on the case. Anthøny   ✉  18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a very outlandish, and probably disruptive idea. We've come up with a set of proposed changes to the terms and elections of arbcom members from the RfC. While Term length changes can be enacted immediately, sweeping the entire committee out for a big super election would be needlessly disruptive and sounds like grandstanding.

Let's just put up the new proposed terms for ratification during the vote. Those that pass can go into immediate effect. Those that modify terms, will change the terms of the current sitting members, but no one's term will expire till the next round of elections. (Which if the changes to elections are ratified would be sooner.) --Barberio (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not very enthusiastic about the proposed term changes on that page. I think having one annual election for all arbitrators is both the simplest method and the one that would achieve the best results. Most of the arbitrators need to go: they're divorced from the community, apathetic towards community concerns, and apathetic towards their arbitration tasks in general. Those few arbitrators who might be worth re-electing would have an opportunity to get in touch with the community again and attain a renewed community mandate. Everyking (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but it does not appear many of the other people who've edited this page share your specific viewpoint, and if Barberio, the arch-reformer of ArbCom, thinks something is "very outlandish, and probably disruptive idea", I'm inclined to strongly suggest that maybe this idea, in its current form, is not one that has the community support.  MBisanz  talk 09:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I can admit that my idea seems to have minimal or non-existent support. I'm surprised that someone would go so far as to describe it as outlandish and disruptive, though, and I feel I've made a good case for it here. Oh well&mdash;at least I tried. Everyking (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Shortening the terms in this way would also raise questions akin to those surrounding perceived infringements on judicial independence in the wake of controversial actions or decisions. You are not a judge and you are not independent. That said, I do not think the terms of existing arbitrators should be cut off, but I do think that each term from now on should only be for one year (or maybe various odd lengths in order to get us re-situated onto a rotating schedule of one-year terms). --Random832 (contribs) 16:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Obviously I know I'm not a judge. (Compare the last principle in the decision in the Mantanmoreland case.) Hence, "akin to." I am curious, though, from whom am I not independent? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbcom as a whole is not as far as I know meant to be independent from - well, originally, Jimbo, but IIRC the official line is that he has his power because of the community, so indirectly the community. But I do think it's reasonable to have somewhat long terms (though maybe not quite so long as they are now) for the same reason that, say, senators have long terms, to insulate the group as a whole from short-term swings in public opinion (that is also why the senate, and IMO the reason for the arbcom as well, is never all up for reelection at once) --Random832 (contribs) 13:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm a little late here on this discussion, but from inside looking out, I'd advise people not to worry about arbitrators' feelings when debating things like this. We're here to serve the community. If the community wants to radically change ArbCom, our personal reactions to it should be the least important consideration. And technical problems of how to accomplish such transitions would be just that -- technical problems. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 04:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I assume that we've established now how change of ArbCom policy will take place. By going through a public RfC process, then putting the changes up for ratification by the general community. Do you think that this has been a fair and valid process from your point of view so far? --Barberio (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My point of view is pretty much irrelevant, other than as one-more-person, so I've stayed away from the discussion. (I never did much like design-by-committee; I'm an implementation and debugging guy.) My only two bits is from experience: three years is too long. --jpgordon&#8711;&#8710;&#8711;&#8710; 15:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)