Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004

For the Arbitration policy ratification vote there were several hundred admins and many other eligible voters. With the one week timeline, just 28 people heard about it and voted before the polls were originally to close. If I didn't assume good will I'd assume that this short timeline repeat performance is trying to be a farce rather than a serious vote. This is a wiki. It's online. People often don't even visit once a week. It takes time for people to learn about these things to know that they can stand and more time to learn that the vote is open and vote. One week is grossly inadequate for either stage. Jamesday 23:46, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Both I and Cam, as well as quite a few others from IRC, seem to think that a more sensible timing would be 2 weeks for votes, starting on the 31st (so standings in by the 30th). Thoughts?
 * James F. (talk) 23:49, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Also, given that we have three members on LOAs and one AWOL (-)), perhaps we should expand them number of short-term placements? 3? 4? Of course, this depends on the number of candidates we get for this not terribly fun job.
 * James F. (talk) 00:04, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * How about just accepting any candidate who gets at least 80% support, perhaps up to a maximum number specified by the current committee. Angela. 00:42, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)


 * If we're going to be using the exisiting software (and, really, we should, if for no other reason than that it's already there and so we won't be further delayed), it's approval-voting, so 80% support isn't something so easily calculated and also it isn't designed for...
 * What about a hard limit of a maximum of 6 (to balance with the 6 currently active members), and the first 6 who get more than 75% of the particpant voters' approval?
 * James F. (talk) 01:03, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Assuming that we're electing two new arbitrators, how about promoting the two candidates who receive the largest number of "yes" votes? Going by percentages seems a bit unfair, especially to users who've been around for a while and work on naturally contentious subjects. For example, would we want someone who received 20 yes votes and 10 no votes not to be promoted while someone who received 5 yes votes but no votes in opposition to be promoted? 172 22:49, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * The way the software works, you can only vote yes for a person or not vote yes for a person, so the base is the same for all. What happens when none of the candidates receive the needed percentage? So far all of them look unacceptable to me. anthony (see warning) 10:28, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

On an unrelated matter, I assume that it would be... impolitic for current ArbComm members to make any public representations for or against any one user standing to be a member, lest this be seen as an annointment / cabal-like action?

James F. (talk) 01:03, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm just going to vote along with everyone else. Fred Bauder 01:12, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion I made on the arbitration mailing list was to have a relatively large pool of arbitrators (lets say 30, but the exact number isn't important - it could just be as many as get x% approval) from which we draw smaller panels (of, say, five) to deal with one case each. This will make the workload of each individual arbitrator much more managable and allow all of them to properly look at the case they're dealing with (there are also, of course, reasons to oppose such a system). This would be quite a serious change in the format of the arbitration committee, though, so ought not to be rushed through. If we're looking to have a fairly quick vote, I think it would be best to just try and fill the two places that have been vacated. I know two people doesn't sound like much, but I do think it would make a difference. We can continue to discuss other ways of organising things and, hopefully, have some alternative method in time for the December elections.

Incidentally, I wouldn't be too concerned if we had two weeks each for nominations and voting, but I hope things won't be dragged out longer than that: these elections are a kind of emergency measure to fill gaps left in the committee by people leaving; they need to happen quite soon if they're to have any meaning. The seats will in any case be up for re-election in December, which isn't very far away.

I won't be voting or making any comments on the candidates myself, by the way. --Camembert


 * These sorts of changes would be a significant re-working of the policy, so perhaps we should discuss this there?
 * Expediting this would be a Good Thing, though, I agree.
 * James F. (talk) 01:29, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You're right - I'll mention there what I've said above soon (probably not tonight though - dropping asleep...). --Camembert


 * I strongly support Camembert's idea here. Snowspinner 18:05, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Moving forward
So as I read this, you want elections to start one week from today. That's fine, but how long is this going to remain a draft? Should we be moving forward? &rarr;Raul654 03:38, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Candidate statement
Moved to Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004/Candidate statements

Questions
Before we have any candidates we need to know the following:
 * 1) how many new Arbitrators do we need?
 * 2) *At least 2, plus any others who get at least 75% of the votes, up to a maximum of 6?
 * 3) who can vote?
 * 4) *Anyone who first edited at least 3 months ago?
 * 5) who can run? [added by Anthony]
 * 6) *Anyone with an account?
 * 7) what percentage of votes does someone need to become an Arbitrator?
 * 8) *The first two places will go to those with the most votes. A remaining 4 places are available to anyone receiving at least 75% support?
 * 9) when will campaigning start?
 * 10) *Now!
 * 11) when will the voting start?
 * 12) *Start of August 1?
 * 13) when will the voting end?
 * 14) *August 7, midnight?

Someone also needs to adapt Special:Boardvote to work for this. Angela. 14:35, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)
 * I've added some proposed answers above. Angela. 18:44, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

For who can vote, I propose anyone who has at least 10 edits to the article space as of July 15, 2004 and is not under a hard ban. Also, I added a question. anthony (see warning) 14:57, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC) [comment modified after reply (I added "to the article space")]


 * 10 edits? Isn't that rather... low? We had a limit of 500 for the last vote. What about 100 edits, 1 month here?
 * As for who can stand perhaps 500 edits, 3 months here?
 * Also, would newly-elected non-sysop Arbitrators be made sysops, too? When we were initially created, all but one of our member were sysops. Perhaps this would be a bad thing?
 * James F. (talk) 15:31, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

In my opinion the only purpose of qualifications for voting is to weed out sockpuppets. If someone managed to make a number of sockpuppets 10 days ago and posted with them 10 times without getting caught, in anticipation of some upcoming vote, well, I just don't think that's going to happen. I see no reason why arbitrators need to be sysops. In fact, it's perhaps better if they're not active as sysops while arbitrators. For running, I'd suggest no qualifications at all. Let the voters decide if the person meets their standards. anthony (see warning) 15:52, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Why would you assume that the only reason for voter qualifications is to weed out sock-puppets? The arbitration committee is a part of the internal functioning of Wikipedia.  It is reasonable to expect someone to participate in the project for a substantial amount of time before we allow them to have a say in who sits on the committee.  A new user is unlikely to even know what the arbitration committee is unless they've been causing problems.  Isomorphic 22:38, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I think Mark's observation is dead-on. &rarr;Raul654 23:34, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

It's not my assumption of what is, it's my opinion of what should be. I see no reason for any qualification other than to weed out sockpuppetry. Arbitration affects everyone, so the arbitrators should be chosen by everyone. anthony (see warning) 10:25, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It would be easiest to require users to have been registered for at least 3 months. The Boardvote software wouldn't need changing then. Angela. 06:55, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. I'd prefer it to be shorter but I'll let the people actually affected by this complain if they wish. anthony (see warning) 20:01, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Candidate statements
Unless someone strongly objects in the next hour or two, I'm going to add a statement that candidate announcements should go on Arbitration Committee Elections July 2004/Candidate statements, and I'm going to put my statement there (and copy 172's from above as well). &rarr;Raul654 23:42, Jul 25, 2004 (UTC)

Number of arbitrators
Should we elect some reserve arbitrators to fill temporarily vacated seats due to people going on hiatus or having temporary outages? Snowspinner 18:28, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * I suggest the two getting the most votes go on the permanent committee. Anyone else getting at least 75% of the votes (up to a maximum of 4 perhaps) are kept for the reserve committee to fill in when people are missing). Angela. 18:46, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * Another idea would be to have people voting separately for who they want on the permanent and reserve committees. This allows people to express a preference for their favourite two by voting them into the permanent position, but still approve of any others they wouldn't mind holding the reserve posts. Angela. 18:50, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * I think the first idea is better. Snowspinner 19:52, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Is anybody going to get 75% approval? I calculated percentages for the board election once, and as I recall only one candidate actually received support from even 50% of the people who voted. I would suggest we keep the election simple - the two candidates with the most votes get the two open positions.

A reserve committee sounds nice in theory, but given the legalism people so often apply to the arbitration process, it likely would require some overly complex procedure to determine when a reserve arbitrator would fill in for a permanent arbitrator. --Michael Snow 20:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think it would be fairly simple - those members of the arbcom who are listed on the arbitration committee page would be temporarily replaced by reserve arbitrators. Maybe we could also later put into place some policy whereby reservists vote on all cases under a "Reserve" section, and if, after some pre-determined period, not everyone has voted on a case, the reserve votes are counted until the full committee size has been voted. But that would be something that would have to be added to the policy later, I think. Snowspinner 20:23, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Does this mean they will be getting a new term, or will they be filling the term they are replacing? Apparently there are staggered terms? anthony (see warning) 20:03, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The arbitrators being elected to the positions vacated by Eloquence and UninvitedCompany are filling unexpired terms. These positions are up for election again at the end of 2004. --Michael Snow 20:07, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I see, so "permanent committee" just means they are able to actually vote on issues. As for the liklihood of many people getting 75% approval, right now it looks like mostly trolls are running, so it's doubtful. anthony (see warning) 20:21, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Mostly trolls? That's awfully rude. Ambivalenthysteria 23:53, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I think having hot-spare Arbitators is a bad idea; it adds to the bureaucracy, and diminishes their interest. People should be either Arbitrators or not, not some half-way comprimise. If people do well, they are likely to do so for the next elections (which will be for 3 years, AIUI, instead of 6 months) in just 5 months' time. How about having a hard maximum of 4 new Arbitrators, and a hard miniumum of 50% of all voters' votes (75% is apparently too high)? Also, a RON option would be good...

James F. (talk) 00:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I support James F.'s idea. Johnleemk | Talk 12:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I think a minimum approval rate is likely to produce problems, particularly if the minimum voter experience is set low enough that sockpuppets can easily throw the vote. Snowspinner 12:43, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * Then they'd probably deserve it – anybody who can see three months into the future and register a few sockpuppets certainly can be useful – imagine, blocking users before they start edit wars/trolling/even arrive. Johnleemk | Talk 12:12, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Timeline issues
People have raised concerns about providing enough time for candidates to sign up and for people to study the issues and vote. At the same time, we need to get the election done quickly so the new arbitrators can start work. Right now, no dates have actually been set, and I think that needs to be agreed on quickly.

Suggestions above range from one week to two weeks, both for the candidate registration period and the election itself. I would say that it's pretty clear that Jimbo's idea on the mailing list of 2-3 days won't fly. But unlike the board election, this one doesn't require a translation process or Foundation-wide publicity. So about ten days seems like it should be adequate. That would let us complete the process by the middle of August, which is about as long as I think we can afford to drag this out.

So, my specific suggestion is as follows - since Jimbo endorsed the proposed election late on Friday, July 23, use midnight UTC that evening as the starting point. The rest of the timeline could be:
 * Candidate registration closes at midnight UTC on Monday, August 2 (10 days from start)
 * Election opens on Wednesday, August 4 (everybody seems to like having one day where the candidate pool is set before the election actually starts)
 * Election closes at midnight UTC on Friday, August 13 (10 days from when it opens)
 * As soon as possible thereafter, election results are published and new arbitrators join the committee

Any objections to this timeline? If not, I plan to put this on the page soon, so we have something concrete to work with. --Michael Snow 18:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I support. If anything, I think it's too slow - what's the point in electing people in August just to re-elect them in December? Do it ASAP. &rarr;Raul654 18:14, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hopefully both the people who think it's too slow and those who think it's too fast can accept that this is a reasonable compromise. --Michael Snow 18:21, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * How about: close it July 31st (end-of-July Jimbo hoped for), freeze candidate page and revert any changes to it, election starts August 2nd, closes August 8th, results and new AC menbers start asap thereafter? 7 days seems quite enough - David Gerard 20:53, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's like herding frogs...

Why don't we just do something, anything, to get some more people on the arbitration committee, accept that it's not going to make everyone happy, and get on with it so that we've at least helped the problem along instead of debated it at great length? Snowspinner 21:00, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)


 * BAN IT! BAN IT! Er, sounds good to me! - David Gerard 21:27, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We can deal with not making everyone happy, but in order for the committee to enjoy the respect and support of the community, we also need to avoid making people too unhappy. Some people have serious concerns with a too-short timeframe, because the idea of an election is to let everyone vote, rather than figuring that the survey taken from a smaller sample is representative enough. But yes, obviously people want to do something, which is why I tried to move things forward by making a concrete proposal.

I agree that we need to get on with it, so I'm going to add the timeline to the page now. I will use my proposal, rather than the shorter one, because I'm still trying to take into account the concerns voiced originally. Also, I note that most of the support for a shorter time period is from people who are already candidates. I want to avoid creating the impression that existing candidates are trying to rush on before competitors can join the race (though I don't believe any of the candidates are acting out of such motivation). --Michael Snow 22:17, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am particularly interested in knowing why. Not why these two are resigning, I can see their point; rather, why these two are resigning rather than the de facto no-votes I constantly see in arbcom decisions. If everybody who actually votes goes away, we might as well give up on the Arbitration Committee. - Hephaestos|&#167; 03:13, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Huh? Ambivalenthysteria 04:28, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't understand either. Eloquence refused the appointment and has never voted, and UninvitedCompany left/resigned pretty early in the committee's existence. The vacancies have been around for a long time. I would be happy with fewer non-votes too, but we don't have a clear method of removing arbitrators who underparticipate. Though if any of them feel they can't devote the time necessary, they are welcome to resign, and we could have this election cover any additional vacancies as well. --Michael Snow 16:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Eligibility for re-election
I'm curious. Will those who are elected now be able to run for re-election in December 2004? I can't tell from the wording on the main page.

Thanks,

Acegikmo1 22:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure they would be. We have no rule against that, nor do we have any kind of term limits at this point. --Michael Snow 23:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Edit conflict! Thanks for fixing it.  Acegikmo1 23:09, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, my addition was commented out, since apparently not everyone is sure this issue has been decided. I think it's implicit in Jimbo's posts about the committee, both when it was established and in discussing this election. The elected arbitrators will only serve for a brief time, sort of like a trial period, and it seems sensible to let them run for re-election. Does anyone actually object to allowing arbitrators to run again? If objections come up later, we can always discuss changing the policy. --Michael Snow 16:43, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

A definition of 3 months
I think the 3 months requirement for voting is an excellent one. I also think it needs questioning slightly. Can anyone tell me whether the 3 months is calculated from the 3rd, the 4th, the 13th, or some other date in August? What of a user who has switched usernames, or who has sought attribution of anonymous edits (but not yet gotten it)? I just want to make sure we have clear guidelines. Thanks, Jwrosenzweig 23:55, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * I think it is 3 months as calculated from the time that voting starts (00:00 UTC Wednesday, August 4). I think that if you don't meet that criterion at that time, regardless of other circumstances, i.e. changed usernames or edit attribution, then you just don't get to vote :-/ - blankfaze |  (&#1073;&#1077;&#1089;&#1077;&#1076;&#1072;!)  00:02, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * And before anyone decides to complain - the 3 month thing is hardwired into the software. So there aren't any appeals and quibbling with people won't make a difference. &rarr;Raul654 00:11, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Please Raul. We all know it could be changed, and quite easily, if we all agreed that it should be. anthony (see warning) 01:12, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * It could be changed by a developer, if there were a *lot* of support. As a general rule, they don't do anything otherwise. But since that doesn't appear to be the case, there's no sense in quibbling about it. &rarr;Raul654 01:21, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, three months means 90 days before you vote, not before the vote starts. It won't take account of name changes or anonymous edits unless the names or edits were merged with the user's current account by a developer. Angela. 03:33, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes that's correct. 90 days is easier to calculate than 3 months, you can just subtract the unix timestamps and compare with 7776000. This time is calculated when the user attempts to vote, and is saved into the vote log. -- Tim Starling 08:54, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

Will we release vote totals?
We faced this question last time, yet we forgot to ask it ahead of time this time. Will the vote totals be released? How do the candidates feel about this? anthony (see warning) 13:44, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I for one would appreciate it if they were to be released. Ambi 14:12, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I concur. I'd be interested, being a candidate.  -- Merovingian  &#9997;  Talk  15:52, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * I believe Danny has said he intends to release them. (I agree with this). &rarr;Raul654 16:13, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * It's the only sensible way - David Gerard 16:51, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

They will be released. Danny 20:04, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think the consensus for release of complete vote results is strong enough that this will be the expectation for any future elections. Candidates for any office should understand this when they choose to run. --Michael Snow 05:14, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)