Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Archive 1

Hey
Why don't we just abolish ArbCom and see what happens? I think little would change. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  19:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I started this RfC on the assumption that we are going to continue to have an ArbCom. If you seriously want to propose the abolition of ArbCom, then I think a separate RfC would need to be done. –MuZemike 19:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I say to start a RfC about it, to gather some input. Or at least, reduce ArbCom's "infinite power". —  Kudu ~I/O~ 21:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been an arbitrator for three and one-half years. I must say that if we have infinite power, I sure wish I'd been notified a lot sooner. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:16, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Little would change except that disruptive editors with admin friends wouldn't be banned and admins misusing their tools wouldn't be desysopped. Believe me, I would love to see Wikipedia get to the point we can put ArbCom out of its misery, but that point has not been reached. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion re number of arbitrators
Cerejota has pointed out some valid ways to help manage committee workload. While I agree these are all useful ideas, they are also mostly in place now. Quorum is the majority of active unrecused membership (normally 9 currently), deadlines are regularly set (and missed), we have standing subcommittees to handle various tasks (each of which has its own quorum, e.g. at least 2 Ban Appeals Subcommittee members have to comment on unban/unblock requests). We also have two women on Arbcom now (a higher percentage than women editors), and had three until Shell Kinney's recent resignation. 2009 and 2010, we operated with 9-12 active arbs and were better at all of these things and were quicker to pick things up or to ask for help when things started to go by the wayside. Risker (talk) 02:07, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All valid points, and things I am aware of. However, I think this means that the internal processes need to be fixed if they are not adequate, not the number reduced. Reducing the numbers favors those arbcom members who are able to take on the increased workload a smaller arbcom means, hence favoring a certain point of view, concentrating decisions on too few hands, as few as 5 arbcoms or a third of your proposed number - it means returning to the dysfunctional ArbCOm of the past. As I said, I would rather see a bigger arbcom, or a two chamber arbcom, or some other way to increase the acceptance of cases without affecting speed. However, I do not think there is support for that. There might still be support for status quo. --Cerejota (talk) 02:17, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn. I was about to retract my point in support of the status quo. I think I need to give it some more thought. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, many of the points that are made are essentially unenforceable. Nobody, including other members of the committee, can force an individual arbitrator to meet his or her commitments. What doesn't show in the "leaked" emails is what a large percentage of them are related to the "nagging" to get sufficient opinions on a topic to be considered a quorum (half of active members), or to go vote on a decision/motion/request or to revisit votes because of additional proposals, or determining who will draft a decision, or when the draft decision can be expected (regardless of deadlines). Having to herd fewer cats means increased likelihood of timely decision-making. In my opinion, the suggestion that the committee be split into "teams" to handle different cases isn't going to fly, though. Each arbitrator was elected by the community as a whole and should not be prevented from voting on decisions that (almost invariably) impact on the project as an entity. It's also contradictory to the stated intention of having "better" representation. I'd hope that we can encourage sitting arbitrators and future arbitrators to be realistic and forthright in determining their level of activity on the committee (e.g., letting the group know when they're going to be inactive or have low availability, ensuring that there is someone else willing and able to cover a task, etc), but I do not honestly see how this can be mandated, or what kinds of sanctions could be applied if someone is unable to be as active as they originally thought they would be, aside from some judiciously applied peer pressure. We're all volunteers, too, though; many arbitrators spend 10-20 hours/week on committee-related tasks.  Risker (talk) 16:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A lot of AC matters can only pass with an absolute majority of supporting arbitrators (minus those recused and those explicitly on break) as opposed to the majority of the quorum. Has there been any thought to switching it over to the latter model and implementing a hard deadline for motions (unless extended)? NW ( Talk ) 17:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that has ever seriously been discussed, and I'd be genuinely concerned that it would lead to perverse decisions. For example, if someone made a motion or proposed a finding and only a handful of arbitrators supported it, hypothetically it could still pass. Consider the implications if a proposed finding received support from only 2-3 arbitrators but still passed; oftentimes, a proposal that arbs consider "off-topic" will simply be skipped over rather than actively opposed. The closest we have come to this suggestion is in our recent (public) discussion and motions about how to handle abstentions, which was at least partially motivated by some arbitrators not voting on particular motions or using abstention as a means of commenting instead of voting, as our voting methods at the time had provided no opportunity for comment/discussion. Risker (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Assuming a full committee and a half-Committee quorum, that would mean that at least five of nine arbs would have to support it before it could pass. Even if you lose six members off the Committee, four of six arbs would have to support. I'm not sure that's a terribly bad thing if you combine that with something that would allow individual Arbs to extend voting periods. NW ( Talk ) 18:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand correctly. Are you suggesting that significant decisions that potentially can impact the project as a whole should only require the support of a quarter of sitting arbitrators? I think I might be missing something; this sounds more like the kinds of decisions that were derided just a few years ago. Risker (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is quite routine for the quorum to be set well below the total size of the body. That is the way that the Canadian Parliament, United States Congress, and the Bundestag work. All of which have far more power than ArbCom, and they are not alone in this. According to our article on quorum, Robert's Rules of Order states that the quorum should be "'should approximate the largest number that can be depended on to attend any meeting except in very bad weather or other extremely unfavorable conditions.'" If ArbCom is having a consistent problem getting everyone to show up, then it should adjust its requirements for proposals. NW ( Talk ) 20:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, it's kind of scary to have Arbcom compared to a national-level government body. Bluntly put, we're nowhere near as important; we don't have legislative authority, we don't have fiscal authority and our primary function is dispute resolution, so the comparison isn't really workable. I think you may have missed the bit about never really knowing who is and is not available/willing to participate. Perhaps you mean "develop a stricter inactivity policy and then enforce it ruthlessly", but I'm still not sure that's entirely a great idea, and could have the effect of encouraging dilettantism ("I'll pretend to be inactive when it means I have to do work or vote on things that will make me unpopular, but will show up when I think it is to my benefit.") Risker (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize that all of them are not as important as ArbCom, which is why I said "All of which have far more power than ArbCom". But if they can do just fine operating with a majority quorum (or even less), then ArbCom should as well. And I understand that it's never really clear who is around. But on any given week (or fortnight, if you want to extend it), I would guess that at the very least half the Committee is around at some point to vote on everything. Your interpretation of what I had said ("develop a strict inactivity policy and enforce it ruthlessly") is not really what I had meant, but it would work better than you give it credit for I think. I recognize that at times, some Arbitrators may choose to quietly abstain rather than vote, but I think we can trust most of them to put neutrally arbitrating over popularity. NW ( Talk ) 21:54, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Can the the ArbCom request that the Foundation seek pro-bone help from Arbitration professionals experienced in setting up bodies like this and come up with a comprehensive proposal for discussion? I think one of the problems of this conversation, looking at it from another perspective, is that we are discussing very complex issues at election time, and in a piecemeal fashion. I remain unconvinced size is the issue: I think the issue is structural and procedural, and any good system and process will scale up or down with out any problems.--Cerejota (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, given the fact that the Arbitration Committee does not do what professional arbitrators do, I am not certain what value this would be; they work almost exclusively with two clearly identified parties and, in many cases, are required to select between the possible outcomes proposed by the two parties, and in no case are they able to bind others to the same decision. Technically speaking, the majority of decisions made by the Arbitration Committee are not arbitrable according to the standard meaning of the term "arbitration". As to your main point, I don't think anyone has ever asked that the WMF make those arrangements, and I'm not entirely sure what one would ask for. I will note that many of the points being raised here again were also raised in June/July, and in many prior discussions over the course of the last five years. We wound up with 18 arbitrator seats in 2009 because Jimbo Wales thought we should have that many, not because of any community decision; however, we actually started 2009 with only 17 arbitrators because of a resignation between the end of the election and the appointment of the committee, and were down to 16 before the end of January 2009. In 2010, we operated with 18 for about a month before the first resignation and were down to 16 before the end of February. Even with resignations throughout the year, there were still sufficient arbitrators to make reasonable decisions by the time December came around. This is the first year we have gone more than 2 months with a full slate, and (even allowing for different personalities within the committee), I can say that having this additional number of arbitrators has considerably increased the challenges in getting things done, and has had a noticeable effect on the signal-to-noise ratio. This is not in any way a comment on the *quality* of participation by any of my colleagues. Risker (talk) 18:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I am familiar professionally with arbitration and dispute resolution of various kinds, and there is much applicability in terms of setting up structure and process in those areas, so I think you are construing the term narrowly in the sense of legal arbitration. To resolve that, let me rephrase: lets get some professional help from people who do dispute resolution for a living, not re-invent the wheel. Of course, then subject this to community discussion including fundamental changes, but at least lets get a framework that gives some idea how, say, fortune 500 companies do it (or any such organizations with tens thousands of stakeholders). I think that would be valuable, because it would address the issues in totality, rather than piecemeal. Jimbo might have been right or wrong in his expansion, but it was not out of the blue: there were serious issues with the ArbCom that have to an extent been addressed in a positive manner by the changes, including expansion, and the change of ArbCom from an essentially appointed body who ruled solely on editor behavior to an elected one that basically provides executive and judicial leadership to En-Wiki.--Cerejota (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm. In my experience, arbitration has always been solely between two well-defined parties; it's used for some forms of litigation, but also for contract negotations, labour relations and similar issues. In answer to your question about how big organizations do it, they pay a lot of money to people who do it professionally and have had (very expensive) training to do so. (If the WMF wants to pay for arbitrators to obtain an alternate dispute resolution certificate, I'd be very happy to say yes!) In some cases, prior subject-related knowledge and experience is used to select the (usually single) arbitrator/mediator. I actually would dispute your position that the Arbitration Committee as an entity provides executive leadership to the community; I'm not disputing that there is a place for such leadership, but I don't think it's coming from Arbcom, and I think the community has made it pretty clear that it doesn't want it to, either.  Risker (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is why I suggested "pro-bono" help, for free or as a donation. I am willing to be such professionals could find themselves interested in helping as volunteers.
 * We agree the community cannot reach consensus on it "executive leadership", but I think it is defacto so: WP:ARBMAC, WP:ARBPIA and other topic area/general sanctions are executive in nature as they apply to editors regardless of participation in the actual arbitration - which is essentially making policy, generally an executive function.--Cerejota (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Slates
This doesn't really directly affect the way the election is run or anything, but I kind of wish we had slates. I honestly have trouble keeping track of who's who here. I just don't have a memory for names. Beyond that, how do I know if they're any good or not? I can't keep track of all these people's work. I have enough trouble keeping track of my own work.

Same deal in real life, which is why we have slates and parties in real life. I have little idea what the Massachusetts Governor's Council does and who the candidates are, but I figure whoever my party puts up probably OK (I'll make an exception if there's some claim of corruption or incompetence that comes to my attention, but that's rare).

There's a couple-few long time editors whom I know and trust. If they said "Hey I'm voting for X Y and Z" that'd be good enough for me. Jimbo is one -- he seems to have a good point of view on most things and obviously cares about the project and knows who these people are -- and he offered the Jimbo Slate -- just by indicating who he's going to vote for -- I'd likely go along with that. Hmmm, think I'll suggest this to him. Herostratus (talk) 03:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you may find that many voter guides serve this function quite adequately. Risker (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, see responses to Herostratus's comment at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 170. Btw thanks Hero for the link to the Massachusetts Governor's Council, I am a politics/government junkie but did not know about that one.  It's odd, sort of like a second state Senate.  It's like Massachusetts forgot to modernize its constitution several times along the way and is still somewhere in the mid-19th century, or earlier.  Neutron (talk) 22:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Time between candidacy submissions and voting?
Have we talked about how long it will be between the cutoff date for editors to submit their candidacies and when voting will begin? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, we haven't. I think last year we had a 3-day window between the nomination close and the voting. During that time, any individual questions could be asked by eligible voters. –MuZemike 14:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That seems too short. I would prefer 5-7 days, honestly, especially if we only do two weeks of voting. We should try to give equal amounts of scrutiny to the late candidates as we do the early candidates. NW ( Talk ) 17:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do seem to remember voters guides coming out with positions on me before I'd even finished answering Lar's questions. Granted, I think I did a nearly impossibly thorough job on them, but still, it was kind of off-putting. All that to say, a dedicated time to ask questions, answer questions, and form and articulate opinions is appropriate in my mind. Jclemens (talk) 01:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Doing the most conservative estimate (i.e. if the voting window is 21 days, we extend the time between candidacy submissions and voting to 7 days, and we end balloting no later than December 11), given that we will continue to have a 10-day candidacy window as before, that should push the proper beginning of the election (i.e. the nomination period) all the way back to around November 3. –MuZemike 02:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Last year's two days was indeed too short. I'd say five. 10 + 5 + 10 first pref, or 14 + 5 + 14 second pref. Tony   (talk)  03:08, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing why we need to have everything done by December 11. If Arbs start a few days late because they haven't caught themselves up yet, then that's their issue. Ideally, they would be identifying either during the voting process or before in anticipation of needing to anyway. NW ( Talk ) 03:12, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well as that may be, Risker's Dec 11 close of polling has unanimous support--in large part because there's nothing in opposition to it, but that's not going to change until and unless there's a specific proposal for a non Dec 11 deadline. RfC inertia favors that close date the longer it is presented without alternative. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The concern has been (as what Risker has mentioned) is that, if we push the deadline up more, say a week, then that will be a week less for the new incoming arbitrators to get settled, which includes identifying to the WMF, getting on the mailing lists, getting situated, etc. Keep in mind that Christmas is right there, so many won't be on--wiki. –MuZemike 20:55, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Recommend shortening the length of this RFC
I note that this RFC is scheduled to end on 1 November. This could create some serious conflicts if (a) the voting must end by 11 December and (b)the length of time for voting is extended beyond 14 days: the nomination/question period would have to begin before the RFC was complete. It is necessary that the election process be finalized before it begins. Suggest ending this RFC after 30 days (i.e., no later than 18 October). Risker (talk) 15:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, given the results on that straw poll, we may have to just to make sure everything runs on as planned and as scheduled. –MuZemike 15:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. We're getting some good dialogue and participation already, so things may well start to gel much more quickly than the original targeted end date. Jclemens (talk) 01:43, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If you are going to change the end date, I would suggest doing it now. Otherwise there could be some hypothetical person out there thinking they still have a few weeks to post something and have it considered by the other editors before November 1 -- only to find that the RfC is closed a day or two after they post their proposal.  While that hypothetical person should really be posting their ideas now anyway, that would not stop them from complaining that the RfC was closed prematurely -- and one thing we don't need more of on this project are disputes regarding procedures.  Just a suggestion.  Neutron (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also noting my agreement with Risker's comment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Risker, on all counts. --Elonka 06:04, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Would 15 October be an appropriate close date for the RfC, then? –MuZemike 07:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No I do not like that a few insiders are making an effort to shut down public discussion prematurely. Insiders have already had the chance to comment, but the wider audience may need more time to become aware of the RFC and decide to participate.  If it looks like consensus is moving towards a long election period, the preparations can commence before the RFC ends.  Meanwhile, discussion can continue on many of the finer details as these don't need to be worked out so far in advance. Jehochman Talk 16:05, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes. Closing the RfC on October 15 sounds reasonable, and would give us sufficient time for nominations and Q&A. --Elonka 14:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not any more, I think it would be reasonable to allow three weeks after the revised closing date is announced. So if the new date were announced today, the closing date would be October 18.  (Added note:  I just saw that Oct. 18 is the date Risker proposed in the first place, but that's a coincidence.) Neutron (talk) 18:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tick, tick, tick... This RfC seems to running out of gas already anyway.  Neutron (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I am wrong about the RfC running out of gas, since HJ Mitchell has now posted a new and serious proposal for the voting method to be used in the election. Probably not one I will support, but it's a serious proposal.  But I still think that with a 3-week lead time, the RfC could reasonably be closed.  Neutron (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just let it run. Consensus can change.  Meanwhile, anything that needs to be done can get started based on results to date. Jehochman Talk 15:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jehochman. Tony   (talk)  15:22, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Look at the ranks assigned to voting systems. User:HJMitchell's option is now listed. Neutron in particular, please revisit that section. Lightmouse (talk) 15:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the personal invitation. In turn, I would invite you to remove that ranking section.  It is not necessary and it confuses things, even more so now that there are "regular" RfC-type proposals posted both above it and below it, to the point where you had to ask HJ Mitchell if you could move his section.  Couldn't we just do this RfC one way, the way MuZemike set it up?  Please?  The RfC process for multi-part issues like this is already conflict-prone and hectic enough without adding another layer of complexity to it.  People can't even agree on how long the RfC should last.  Neutron (talk) 18:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Fundamental mechanics
I think what Tony1 means is that, regardless of whether we fill up to 18 or 15 arbitrators, we would fill all seats even if one or more of the candidates' percentages fall under the minimum percentage. I don't know if we want to do that, as that would undermine community consensus if we did. –MuZemike 02:49, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I mean: the notion of a % benchmark under this S/S+O contrivance is incompatible with another rule established by community consensus: that the Committee comprise a certain number of arbs (currently 18). We are now hurtling towards a situation in which the election is unlikely to fill all vacancies, thus breaching that consensus—unless you're prepared for multiple elections in December to make up the difference. Tony   (talk)  03:05, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I still don't see how your two proposals differ from each other in effect. Mind you, I'm pretty zombified reading Abortion evidence, so can you explain for me how they're different? Jclemens (talk) 03:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm making one proposal, not two—that a benchmark (especially anything above 50%) is setting up the election process to breach community consensus on how many arbs the Committee should comprise. Last year, for example, you wouldn't have been elected if there'd been a 60% threshold. There were 12 vacancies, and only nine were ≥ 60%; John Vandenberg, you, and Shell Kinney, in 10th, 11th, and 12th positions with 57.7%, 56.7%, and 56.7% respectively, would have been ineligible, and we'd have left ourselves with a Committee of 15 arbs, not the 18 the community decided it wanted . Two more candidates, in 8th and 9th positions, fell over the proposed 60% threshold by a hair's breadth, with 60.4% and 60.6%, respectively. Given a few more tactical oppose votes (the bleedingly obvious way to maximise the effect of one's support votes), we'd have been left not three, but five short of the 18 the community had decided on (minus PhilKnight and Chase me ladies)—13, not 18 arbs.
 * We can't have it both ways. Either:
 * (1) you don't specify how many arbs the Committee will comprise, and you have a benchmark S/(S+O); or
 * (2) you do specify the arb numbers, as now, and either:
 * (a) fill all vacancies, regardless of the contrived S/(S+O) scores; or
 * (b) make it quite clear that Jimmy will have to come in and appoint his own arbs to make up what a flawed electoral process has failed to deliver.
 * Which is it to be? Editors overleaf are proposing mechanisms that are mechanically at loggerheads with each other. Tony   (talk)  03:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think the two are necessarily at loggerheads -- and this is from someone who supports a 50 percent threshold, though as you point out, even a 50 percent threshold can result in less than the intended number of arbitrators being elected. I believe there was a statement last year that if not enough candidates reached the threshold, there would then have to be a discussion about what to do about it.  There would be one or more vacancies on the committee, and they would either be filled through some process (like another election, or something else), or they would remain vacant.  Essentially the community would be saying "the full membership of the committee is 18, but you need at least ___ percent to get elected."  As I said on the RfC page, I hope that the number is 50 percent -- not because it creates a higher probability of filling all the seats (which it does) but because I don't think a minority of voters should be given veto power over who gets elected.  Neutron (talk) 19:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutron, an electoral system designed to succeed on hope? It's likely to be very messy, don't you think? We are very lucky that the past two elections have just scraped enough candidates over the notional 50% mark; now we have people wanting 60%, and a widespread assumption that voters' tactical opposes = I don't want that candidate to be an arb (not a safe assumption). We need an election that is designed to deliver the numbers if a set size of the Committee is what the community wants; or a simple maximum 18 arbs, but fewer is fine if the election doesn't deliver enough new ones. Tony   (talk)  09:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

We should probably encourage everyone to vote the same way: Support means you positively want someone on the Committee, Neutral means you can accept them, Oppose means you don't want them. If that's made clear, then it makes more sense to set the bar (if we have to have one) in terms of (S+N)/(S+N+O). Which is still no guarantee, but at least it makes it less likely that there won't be enough candidates with a satisfactory percentage. --Kotniski (talk) 12:03, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You serious? You may as well rename the "neutral" option "Support" since that's what it's effect is. If you don't want a real neutral option, at least make that clear and remove it, instead of two yes and one no choice. With your interpretation, only two people would have been rejected, and the one with the lowest score (support 49, Oppose 451), was pretty close to being approved with you system (if the bar set on 50%), scoring 46.94% DS Belgium (talk) 14:28, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. Neutral is neutral.  It does not necessarily mean the voter can or cannot accept the candidate.  It just means the voter has decided not to push one of the other buttons on that candidate.  It should not count for anything.  (My proposals on the RfC page make this clear, and nobody has posted a contrary proposal so far.)  Neutron (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think there can really be a truly neutral option. Unless you vote neutral for every candidate, then you are clearly not entirely neutral about any of them (if you vote neutral for A, and support/oppose for some B, then you are saying that you want A less/more than you want B). We simply give people a three-point scale on which to assess candidates (we could give them a two-, or five-, or 100-point scale instead - maybe we should). The instruction we gave last year, that said something like "voting neutral is equivalent to not voting...", is quite misleading - you cannot "not vote" for selected candidates, so the claim makes little sense, but it may well make people think that voting neutral is equivalent to "not voting" for someone in a normal two-choice election, thus encouraging them to vote neutral for their non-preferred candidates, instead of voting "oppose" which is what they should do if they want to give their preferred candidates the best chance. (But then if people vote oppose tactically like that - we don't know in fact how many people already do - then we can hardly compare the percentages we get with the percentages at RfA, for example, where there is no such tactical advantage to voting against.)--Kotniski (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Voting "neutral" on a candidate IS equivalent to not voting on that candidate. That is not a misleading statement.  Neutron (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see that it can possibly have any genuine meaning. How can you "not vote" on a candidate, other than by voting "neutral"? You are just saying that something is equivalent to itself, while possibly implying (to people who are famliar with other sorts of elections) something that isn't true.--Kotniski (talk) 08:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, we are still courting disaster overleaf: editors (whether the same ones or different) are supporting methods that are at loggerheads. The community has previously decided that ArbCom will be of a set size (at least that elections should top them up to that size). Now we're saying that elections don't fill all vacancies unless we have enough candidates over a certain threshold. The two notions are incompatible. Can someone please explain to me what will happen when we can't fill all vacancies? Tony   (talk)  02:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't fill all the vacancies. NW ( Talk ) 01:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tony, you might want to get your disasterometer adjusted. Neutron (talk) 05:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * NW, you'd better start lobbying overleaf where there's strong consensus for filling all 15/18 vacancies. It can't go both ways. Tony   (talk)  06:40, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

What Tony1 is getting at (and I think what others are also getting at) is that, if we don't get enough arbitrators that meet the minimum percentage requirements, we would leave those seats open or unclaimed. I can see how this may be a concern if anything resembling WP:CUOS2010 has occurred (disclaimer, I am not neutral in this regard, as I ran for that same election). In the worst-case scenario, nobody meets the minimum percentage to be elected to ArbCom, and all we will have are the 9 remaining arbitrators to serve the following year. However, this will be accompanied by near-endless discussion about the legitimacy of ArbCom, I am sure. –MuZemike 07:23, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Should ArbCom also represent minority viewpoints?
The theory behind ArbCom is that it is run by community members for the benefit of the community. But ArbCom is routinely criticized for the decisions it makes as people often feel ArbCom didn't make the decision they wanted (i.e. ArbCom didn't make the decision hoped for by a random individual editor). In reading through some of the comments, I got the feeling that some editors felt ArbCom was not representing them. It is certainly true that ArbCom should represent the majority of what the community wants, but should it also represent the viewpoints of lesser groups of editors? I'm wondering about things like representative democracy. tyranny of the majority, voting is evil and other related stuff. I don't know what the answer is, so I would like to hear from others what they think. All input is welcome. - Hydroxonium (T•C• V ) 01:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an interesting point; however, the community has done a pretty good job at doing this without any particular guidance. In the current committee we have bot operators, bureaucrats, people with a solid dispute resolution track record, editors from all the major English-speaking countries in the world, feature article writers, OTRS agents, people with strong connections to wikiprojects, people with no connection to wikiprojects, a higher percentage of female participants than Wikipedia has in its general editorial population, techies, non-techies, and Newyorkbrad. I'm actually pretty impressed with how successfully the community has come up with such a diverse group! I think the question you ask is too big to be answered without a very extensive discussion with lots of community input; that will take much longer than can be completed in the next few weeks. I encourage you to draw community focus to it in the new year, so that there is ample time to discuss and, if desired, to set the wheels in motion for a very different kind of Arbcom. Risker (talk) 02:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I chuckled at your description of the editors on ArbCom :) NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

The best way to ensure that minority views are represented in ArbCom is to perhaps endorse Tony1's statements and fill in all vacancies, even if some of the top 9 (or 6 if ArbCom is reduced to 15 members) candidates didn't receive support votes from 50% of voters. The voters who didn't receive support from 50% of voters will, by definition, represent only a minority of the voters. If we only approve the candidates who won 50% of the the voters' support and leave vacancies, then minority views probably won't be represented, since having the support of 50% of the voters would make them, by definition, representatives of only the majority. If there are fears that minority views may be overrepresented, then we should reduce the number of Arbitrators to 15. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My experience is that any candidate who expresses "views", minority or otherwise, has next to no chance of being elected. Which is perhaps a good thing, since we're not electing policymakers - but on the other hand, it means the people we elect will not be the sort of people who are prepared to rock the boat and admit to any failings (or significant room for improvement) in the way Arbcom operates.--Kotniski (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know. I think it would be best to be avoid having the election devolve into block voting. If we allow it to devolve into that, then only a single, like-minded block – the majority – will be represented. Perhaps the reason behind the current ArbCom's diversity is that we didn't require every single member to be backed by over 50% of the voters. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all persuaded by claims of ArbCom's diversity (it reminds me of a scene in Yes Minister that I think I've alluded to on these pages before, where Sir Humphrey says to a meeting of civil servants something like "you couldn't get a more diverse group of people than us", and a tableful of identical grey suits nod in enthusiastic agreement). Even if there's some diversity of background, there doesn't seem to be any diversity of thinking as concerns improving our methods of dispute resolution - or if there is, it's suppressed in favour of groupthink and compulsory mutual admiration.--Kotniski (talk) 09:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but bwuh? We have people from Australia, several in the UK, all over the US, (in fact it plays merry hob with discussions, when someone from Australia asks a question, someone from the US answers during their time, and then someone from the UK responds, but due to the time zones, this takes four days). We've tried to improve this with online chats (both voice and text). As for the accusations of groupthink, the public doesn't see the sometimes VERY rancorous debates that go on privately. However, if you want to see proof that we don't have group think, take a look at any recent proposed decision. We've had a few contentious issues that split very evenly (I can think of one recent one that sent shockwaves that was a 6-5 vote). It's just that we understand that public conflict has a good possibility of inflaming the very dispute we're attempting to resolve (which is about as counterproductive as can be). As to ideas on how to improve DR, personally I'm all ears! (and while I'm thinking of it, Michael: I cannot think of any past arbitrators who were elected with less then 50% of Support votes (in a Support/Oppose breakdown.) It may not have been in there, but I doubt there are many people who WOULD accept such a Poisoned Chalice). So call it an unwritten rule that's in the process of being written.) SirFozzie (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can these "rancorous debates" not be held in public rather than in private? For one thing, those who are doubtless being discussed would be able to correct the unintentional lies about them that are being bandied about? And far from inflaming the dispute, you would be setting an example by showing how disagreements should be settled (because presumably these debates you describe as "rancorous" are nonetheless civil and on-topic and all those things). I'm not saying that you're always unanimous on the actual motions you pass, but you don't seem (as a body) to be able to engage with suggestions from outside that the whole process should be managed differently, or to learn from (or even admit to) your collective mistakes.--Kotniski (talk) 11:27, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, usually they're not. Because "correcting the unintentional lies being bandied about" isn't that far from "attacking Arbs because they believe the situation is different from the way I believe". It would become a mad race to "judge-shop" (that is, attempt to minimize the arbitrators who disagree with you, and maximize those who agree with you). Besides, as I said (and you seem to be ignoring), a lot of what goes into the proposed decision is already on-wiki. Someone sees a part of the Proposed decision they disagree with, they state so and offer an alternative for voting. (that 6-5 remedy I mentioned earlier, for example, was offered five days after the original proposed decision was posted, as a result of that discussion, both on and off wiki). You may perceive groupthink or some vast monolithic entity but nothing can be further from the truth.


 * As for the second part of your statement, if I were a lawyer (I am not), I would object that it assumes facts not in evidence. For example: in the most recent election, several of us whose terms had expired (and were in the running for a fresh term on the Committee) were asked about the Climate Change case and how it was handled. As far as I can remember, all of us who were asked admitted that it wasn't the Committee's best day. There were reasons for that (both internal and external), and we vowed to look at what happened in that case and try to make sure that it didn't happen again. Several of the things that we've tried over the last nine or so months has been attempts to apply what we've learned from past cases (for examples, being more proactive about shutting down unhelpful sniping between the parties in the latter stages of cases, as well as being more firm about evidence submission limits, in an attempt to keep arbitration cases focused and allow cases to run smoother). So to say that the Committee ignores suggestion on how to manage to process differently or that we don't "admit to or learn from our collective mistakes" is highly subjective at best. SirFozzie (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well yes, it's my subjective impression, acquired from almost every occasion I've interacted with Arbcom or its members (most recently in the case of the confidential information leak, where suddenly it turned out that it really doesn't matter to Arbcom whether it succeeds in keeping people's information secret or not, despite our always having been assured that this is one of its most solemn duties). You obviously have more direct experience, so I hope you're right and I'm wrong, but my subjective impression remains that Arbcom's addiction to secrecy and defensiveness means that incompetence and suboptimal process get fossilized in.--Kotniski (talk) 08:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you get the idea that any Arbcom member was less than horrified at the revelation of personal information as a result of the leaks. In fact, the reaction has been to lock up the archives so that they are inaccessible to any arbitrators for any useful purpose; only those who have retained copies of old emails (a different kind of security hazard) or had made copies of the archives at some point are able to do any form of searching to locate relevant previous messages. This has, in my mind, had adverse effects on multiple cases, particularly those revisited in amendments and clarifications; however, the hypothetical concerns about access to non-public information are apparently addressed. As to suboptimal process, there's definitely room for improvement; at the same time, there's much more being done in a more effective manner than when I joined in 2009. Each new intake of arbitrators has brought new life and new ideas to the Committee, and at least some new ideas have been taken on every year, including many that have originated in the community. Risker (talk) 18:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Where I get the idea that Arbcom members were not horrified - by talking to some of them, who basically said it's people's own stupid fault for believing that Arbcom would protect their private information, and anyway, most of the information wasn't very private, so it didn't really matter that the whole lot had been revealed. Anyway, I'm glad a sensible solution has now been put in place as regards the archives (well, sensible up to a point - a truly sensible thing to do would be to keep the really confidential stuff genuinely private, and to have rest of the arbitrators' deliberations conducted in public to start with). And I hope your impression is more accurate than mine about the committee's ability to improve the way it functions.--Kotniski (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, you are right, much of it isn't "private" as such, it is messages sent by email because it is the most effective means of communication: reminders to vote, to review clarification/amendment requests, discussion on who will draft a case, updates on things that are outstanding. Frankly, I don't think it is the world's business if Arb Y going on holiday or if Arb X has a family emergency that will affect availability. (That's Security of Personal Information 101, and I'm often flabbergasted at things people make publicly available online about themselves.) I'm not actually persuaded that our process is really effective at this point - hiding information even from ourselves is a bit silly, and has significantly accentuated the tendency of arbitrators unfamiliar with the history of certain disputes to underestimate the seriousness of certain issues; nonetheless, we've not closed the door on other possibilities to make the useful information more accessible. I do think people tend to seriously overestimate the amount of deliberation that happens on the mailing list; however, I am disappointed that the amount of public deliberation has not really improved in recent months. It's not that much more was happening on the list, but that it tends not to happen at all. Risker (talk) 19:44, 26 September 2011 (UTC)


 * @SirFozzie: I'm wrong then. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Guides and inclusiveness
I believe that placing links from the official election templates to the guides is undemocratic and leads to corruption of the elections. We should not be giving powerful insiders such a central platform to state their views, nor should we be placing the official imprimatur of the election on these guides. Jehochman Talk 13:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Given that any editor who chooses to may write a "guide," I don't see how it is "undemocratic." There should be a statement on the template that the "guides" are not official statements and are the opinions of their authors only.  (I seem to recall such a statement last year, but I could be wrong.)  Also, your concerns might be mitigated if the word "guide" is not used in the template -- how about just "Editor's Opinions," since that is all they are?  As for "corruption," if somehow every "guide" ended up endorsing the same candidates, you might have a point, but last year the opposite was true.  For every opinion on a guide, there was a conflicting opinion on another guide.  That sounds pretty "clean" and democracy-like to me.  Neutron (talk) 14:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The template is official. The guides aren't.  Anybody can write a guide and publish it in their own userspace, link to it from their comments and even their signature.  We should not allow people to post their own personal opinions within the navigation template of the election pages. Keep the personal opinions in the areas designated for such. If you look at who has been writing guides in past elections, it is insiders who spend a lot of time on Wikipedia (who else would write a guide?).  Guides may be a turn off for the casual editor and reinforce the effect of vested contributors forming self-supporting cabals. We should be more open; there should be nothing in the elections that suggests certain user opinions deserve more attention than others. Jehochman Talk 15:47, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't remember what the template looks like, but I would support a proposal that the template, itself, should explicitly include a very clear statement that the guides are not in any way official. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:57, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How about a subpage for all the guides, and a link to that page from the templates. This would provide sufficient space to post a clear explanation of what they guides are and the criteria for inclusion.  The template is rather small and doesn't have enough space for explanations or if lots of people want to write guides.  There's only room for a select few.  Better to move them all to a dedicated page and have a single link from the template. Jehochman Talk 17:54, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * With the advent of secret balloting, the candidate subpages are hardly being used at all. I would much rather voters have many alternate viewpoints to read from rather than candidate statements and a few well-hidden talk pages. I think it's clear that consensus is against your point of view, Jehochman, and we should be using something along the lines of Template:ACE2010. <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 14:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Written as a true guide writer, seeking to maintain his level of influence. You are making dubious assertion of consensus, and you have an inherent conflict of interest as one of the guide writers who takes advantage of the present situation to gain undue exposure for your personal opinions.  How about having a page to discuss each candidate?  Oh, wait, don't we have that?  It sucks that a few insiders want to be more equal than all the rest. Jehochman Talk 16:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, making personal attacks here is not helpful. Instead, the answer here is pretty simple:  If you don't like what other guides are saying, why not just create your own? There is no limit to how many guides we can have, so there is no "inner circle" here.  Anyone who wishes to create a guide, is welcome and encouraged to do so, and all guides written in good faith can be included on the template. --Elonka 16:37, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Elonka, given our history of conflict and your past requests that I refrain from commenting on your activities, I find it very odd that you would show up here to lecture to me. NuclearWarfare's presumptuous tone is inappropriate. I don't mind what most of the guides say, and in fact, I like to read them. My position is purely philosophical--to be an inclusive online community we should not use the official page navigation template to advertise the views of a select few insiders.  The average editor does not have time to write a comprehensive guide, whether or not they are invited to do so.  The opinions of all editors should be given equal exposure on the election pages. The template should link to pages where any editor may express their views, without the hefty burden of having to write a complete guide.  From those opinion pages users could link to their guides. The Signpost could include links to guides in its election coverage.  User can link to their guides from their own user and talk pages.  There are plenty of opportunities to gain exposure without defiling the template.  Template links to the guides give a false impression that the guides are official, when in fact they are just personal opinions. Jehochman Talk 16:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:LOC seems to be missing the election guide writing cabal. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  16:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not anymore. Jehochman Talk 17:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realize, of course, that the page to which you have added something that you seem to want people to take seriously has a big sign on the top of it that says please do not take this page seriously. It's also interesting that while you say you want to protect the Average Voter from "powerful insiders", you posted that thing on a page dominated by inside jokes known only to, I assume, "powerful insiders."  I don't understand a lot of the jokes on that page, but I guess that is because, by any measure, I (whose highest "permission", after more than six years, is the one I got when I had been registered for 4 days and made 10 edits) am not an insider, powerful or otherwise. By the way, is there a list of these "powerful insiders" so I know who to watch out for?
 * Are you kidding? That page looks to be absolutely earnest. Jehochman Talk 02:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On a more serious note, as (presumably) one of the kind of editors who you are trying to protect from the cabal of people who express opinions about ArbCom candidates, I want to express my sincere appreciation, but your efforts are not really necessary. We great masses may be unwashed, but we are not sheep waiting to be herded by "powerful insiders."  We can read something, and then something else that conflicts with it, and then a third thing that partially conflicts with the first two, and then if we are really interested we can read the talk pages of the writers and pages where the writers (not to mention the candidates and election officials) have been involved in ArbCom cases and RfC's and AN/I discussions and things, and decide who (if anyone) we want to trust enough to follow their opinions, or some of their opinions.  To me, the fact that the guides last year offered conflicting opinions seals the deal.  I couldn't follow all of the "powerful insiders" even if I wanted to, because they don't agree with each other.  In fact, last year I picked up on some things in checking up on certain guide-writers that made me more likely to vote against a candidate they were supporting.  So I'm just saying that us peons can handle this on our own, thanks.  Neutron (talk) 02:30, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You seem to be a neutral party so I'll take your word for it. Jehochman Talk 02:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I think even powerful insiders found VM's guide to be one of the most insightful. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

While echoing John V's comments (I laughed just rereading that), I think the reality is this: People have always felt free to seek out trusted others' opinions. By doing these above-board in guides that are linked helpfully from a central template, we're giving the electorate a service, and letting them see what a variety of folks think about the candidates: it's open, above-board, and as transparent as anything can be. I find the suggestions that it corrupts the electoral process curious, and would respond with the question: where is a less corrupted, real-world process that you would have us emulate, Jehochman? Jclemens (talk) 17:18, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a real world place so the analogy is poor. (Where I live it is illegal to campaign within a certain distance of a polling place. Political activists aren't allowed to place pamphlets in the polling area.)  Many of the guide writers actively seek to promote a slate of candidates they favor.  Nothing wrong with that, except when the activity happens within the official template, rather than on one of the designated opinion pages.  Why are the opinions of these people being given so much promotion and the appearance of authority, and not others?  Why are guide writers so protective of their privilege.  It's just a template.  It needs to be kept short and sweet.  Why clutter it up with everybody's voting guides? Make a page where people can link their guides and put a single link in the template to that page.  With a dedicated page there would be room for everybody to post a link to their voting guide or analysis. Jehochman Talk 01:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * While that certainly seems like it would be a visually more sparse way to present the guides, I'm not sure how reducing it from a bunch of links, to a link to a page of links, would address the corruption problem, which I saw as the more problematic of your assertions. Jclemens (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The corruption is the power of a few insiders to influence other voters by publishing false crap or settling scores via the guides. By placing the guides on a separate page and making room for disclaimers and the inclusion of more guides, this corrupting effect can be mitigated.  Jehochman Talk 00:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said before, you seem to think very little of your fellow editors. And I am not talking about the guide-writing cabal, I am talking about the average editor who you apparently think is just sitting out here waiting for some "powerful insider" to tell him or her what to do.  I doubt very many such people really exist.  Neutron (talk) 01:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please speak for yourself and do not put words in my mouth, especially insulting words. I am quite sure that there are voters who will vote "per so-and-so".  If you look at past elections or other types of community votes, such as RfA, you will see this happening quite often.  We should not be featuring opinion pieces from a small number of editors in the template.  It is wrong. Jehochman Talk 13:34, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

(personal attack and re removed.) KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe we can save some time and cut to the chase here: if Elonka writes the kind of guide she has in the past, will it be delinked from a central template? We need some limits on what representations editors can make about their version of off-Wiki events (knowing that a rational candidate can't or won't respond in kind). Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Might I ask what in particular that you are talking about? --Elonka 16:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should focus on any particular guides.  My concern is relevant to all the guides, including those I very much enjoy reading.  It is uncomfortable to have links directly from the election navigation template to userspace pages.  Like some other folks here, I am a webmaster by profession, and am wearing my web design hat at the moment. It would be better to have an official election page linking to all the guides.  This would provide more room for greater inclusion, and it would create space for a clear explanation of what the guides are and what the standards for inclusion may be.  Having all this spelled out clearly would help prevent controversies that have impacted past elections. Jehochman Talk 19:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to include a mandatory header on each guide that is included on the central template. It could include a short preamble, etc. John Vandenberg (chat) 18:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you think we should use this:

Statement by User:
Comment ~


 * Users who endorse this statement:

instead of this:

Statement by User:USERNAME
Comment ~


 * Users who endorse this statement:

so the user doesn't have to type the username in ===Statement by User:USERNAME=== ? I also want this to be done (this can be ignored)

Statement by
Comment ~


 * Users who endorse this statement:

Thanks. —dargereldren T C G E R 16:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since I'm not even sure what you are talking about, I would say no, thanks. Neutron (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What this would do is allow someone to copy the code, and not need to place their own name in User:Username as REVISIONUSER will detect who added the statement and automatically add their name. So if I saved this comment with User: in it, it would actually save as Monty845 . Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  23:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Fifteen does not divide by two
There is currently strong support for continuing two-year terms and the tranche system. This means that the seats will be divided into two tranches. Fifteen, Risker's proposed number of seats, does not divide into two. Obviously this can be resolved by declaring one tranche to be bigger than the other, but that is rather inelegant, and also raises the legitimate question of which tranche should be the bigger one, the one which is being re-elected, or the one that is being topped up. Would it not be much simpler simply to have a Committee with an even number of seats? <b style="color:forestgreen">Happy</b>‑<b style="color:darkorange">melon</b> 19:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Even numbers also have the chance of "hung jurys" (9-9). If when it all churns out, this is still an issue down the road, we could go seven/seven, with a one year term for the 15th person. (so it would be eight in each election). But it's a minor issue at best. SirFozzie (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * (EC with Sir Fozzie) Reducing the number of seats is going to make things "inelegant" anyway, regardless of whether the resulting number is even or odd.  (I have just decided to "vote" to keep the committee size at 18, but not for that reason.)  If the committee size is reduced to 15, then this year's election would select six arbs for two-year terms. (It has to be that way because in 2010 nine people were elected for two-year terms that terminate at the end of 2012, and none of those nine have resigned.)  Then in the 2012 election you would have to do something particularly "inelegant" in order to "rebalance" the tranches from 9-6 to 8-7, or 7-8.  Either way, in 2012 you would have to elect nine people, but not all for a full two-year term.  One way would be to elect eight people for two-year terms and one person for a one-year term.  That election would establish the eight-person tranche.  Then in 2013, with six two-year terms expiring and one one-year term expiring, you elect seven people for two-year terms.  That's it:  After that you elect eight, then seven, then eight and so on.  Of course I suspect that long before any of this happens, the size of the committee would be changed again (and again and...)  If you really wanted to, you could change this plan so that in 2012 you elect seven people for two-year terms and two for one-year terms, and then in 2013 you elect eight for two year terms, then seven, etc., though it really doesn't matter.  It's all arbitrary (pun intended) anyway. But it can be done, however inelegant it may be.  And none of this takes into account that there might be resignations along the way, which creates additional one-year terms and possibly special elections.  Neutron (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think having an even number of seats increases the risks of a split ArbCom. The main reason would be that it is rare for the entire ArbCom to participate in any given decision. For various reasons, one or more members are usually inactive or recused.   Will Beback    talk    06:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Of course fifteen divides by two. 15 / 2 = 7.5. One arbitrator for each tranche can serve half a year more or less.  More importantly, given the number of potential resignations, we need not worry about the presences of an extra arbitrator. Jehochman Talk 12:18, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't even become an issue until next year anyway. We have nine people whose terms run until the end of 2012, so in order to have a committee of 15 people, this year we would have to elect six people for two-year terms.  Then before the 2012 election we can worry about how (or whether) to even it out to 8-7, 7-8, 7.5-7.5 or whatever.  The world would not end if it remained 9-6, though I think that would be disturbing to most people's sense of order.  Neutron (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Why does the vote about continuing the game of 'oppose voting' not permit oppose votes?
This RFA includes two different voting systems:
 * "Oppose voting" How would a shortfall in successful candidates be dealt with?
 * "First past the post". For example: What should the minimum support percentage be .... It's ironic that 'oppose voting' isn't possible in a vote to determine support of 'oppose voting'!

Which country regards 'oppose voting' as a fair system? Instead of re-inventing the wheel, why don't we pick a respected system? Lightmouse (talk) 10:40, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose voting is an unnecessary complication. Instead of giving every voter two votes (bits) per candidate (1, 0, or -1), just give them one (0, 1) and make everything simpler and more civil. Jehochman Talk 12:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Jehochman, that seems to solve everything. Thank you. Tony   (talk)  12:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, this sentiment you two have going is not echoed by the broader community at this time.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  13:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Has the community been asked if they want a conventional voting system? Lightmouse (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's being asked. PaoloNapolitano is suggesting what basically amounts to plurality-at-large voting. The conventional voting systems available to us are limited, since:
 * The election will results in multiple winners.
 * We're voting at-large.
 * There aren't any well-defined sides (ie. political parties) or minorities, so we can't use a proportional representation system.
 * Anything that can be described as block voting is basically the only conventional option available to us. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Please note that my comment isn't an endorsement of block voting; I'm just stating the facts. The reality is that block voting or one of its variants is the only conventional voting system applicable to Wikipedia. I'd also like to say that our current voting method is basically an upvote / downvote version of block voting. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh dear, what a mess. The section called What should the method of voting be? seems to be more about what 'abstain' and 'no votes' mean. The choices of systems recognised in national elections haven't been presented in a way I recognised. Thanks for letting me know, though. I'll go and comment there. Lightmouse (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, but I was only answering your Has the community been asked if they want a conventional voting system? question; I wasn't suggesting an alternate voting system. I was stating facts; I wasn't trying to resolve the issue being discussed. Tactical voting is still possible without having an "oppose" option. Removing the "oppose" option will simply mean that voters will tactically use their "support" votes and "no votes" to upvote / downvote candidates instead. I doubt that we could devise a voting system that's free of tactical voting. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I know you were only answering my question by giving me a link. I don't hold you responsible for what I found at the link. Yes, Arrow's impossibility theorem says all systems are flawed. It doesn't mean the flaws in all voting systems are equally desirable in democratic countries. Lightmouse (talk) 16:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Lightmouse, we are not reinventing the wheel. Support/Oppose voting already is the wheel on Wikipedia.  I checked back for four ArbCom elections and it has been used in every one.  I read somewhere that there were one or two elections at the beginning that used a different system, but this one has been used consistently for at least half (the most recent half) of the ArbCom's existence.  And by the way, in response to another comment above, you do not necessarily need organized parties or groups to have "proportional representation."  Single transferable vote is a PR system and it was proposed in last year's RfC, but it didn't get much support.  It introduces an element of complexity that I don't think is attractive to many people, especially those accustomed to U.S.-style elections.  Plus it would require someone to decide what the quota is, and I can just imagine that discussion. And it would be inconsistent with the idea of a percentage threshhold for election - in fact, the whole purpose of PR/STV is to elect some candidates who are supported by a minority of voters. I was expecting both STV and another system (which is much more complicated) to be proposed again this year, but they have not, which I think is just as well.  In an ideal world my sympathies are with some form of PR, but I don't think that's going to fly on Wikipedia.  Neutron (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, Lightmouse, although I think you have now figured this out, the first two options in the "voting methods" section (proposed by me) are just variations on the status quo, while PaoloNapolitano's proposal is basically, the persons with the most votes win (which in some countries they call "first past the post", but in the U.S. we usually just call it "an election." Personally I would be ok with first-past-the-post, but after looking at the past several RfCs on ArbCom elections, I didn't see any chance for that getting a consensus.  I therefore proposed the status quo (with different details regarding the "name" of an abstention/Neutral/No Vote, though in each of "my" options there would be only one "third" option, and it would not "count.")  The reason I proposed anything at all is that I was concerned that someone might propose a really complicated system (which is used in Wikimedia Foundation board elections and which was proposed for ArbCom last year) and I wanted to make sure that the status quo (Support/Oppose) was also available as an option right from the beginning. Believe me, Lightmouse, if you don't like Support/Oppose, you would really not like the method used in WMF elections. I know something about elections, and I don't even understand that system. Neutron (talk) 18:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I like the idea that neutrals don't count. I've said I'd prefer 'first past the post' as used in UK/US. The justification for 'oppose voting' is that secondary preference is important. If we accept ranking, then don't make it a perverse negative rank (support, no vote, oppose), simply make it a positive rank (1st choice, 2nd choice, no vote). Lightmouse (talk) 19:27, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In a 1st choice/2nd choice system, how do you determine who has been elected? I have never heard of such a system.  Admittedly, before I became involved with Wikipedia I had never heard of Support/Oppose voting, either.  But I have heard of it now, and it seems to work reasonably well for Wikipedia's purposes. Neutron (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)