Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:56, 30 October 2009

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list:

Wikipedia proposals

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

An RfC was held a few months ago to decide whether to hold a secret ballot in this year's ArbCom elections. The result was an overwhelming yes, with support also being expressed for implementing a Schulze method of electing arbitrators. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ArbCom secret ballot.

Back in 2008, there was a strong consensus for a reduction in the duration of arbitrator terms. This can be seen in the 2008 RFC about the Arbitration Committee, where the opinion with the second highest support was SirFozzie's "reduce ArbCom terms" view. A lot of water has gone under the bridge since then, and term lengths were not changed for the 2008 election.

The question of the number of arbitrator seats, and the length of their terms, is again being raised on Jimbo's talk page, and now on the 2009 election talk page. Typically Jimbo has made decisions about these matters after the election, however this year has seen a significant increase in the community wanting a say in these governance decisions. (e.g. User:Giano/The future followed by User:Giano/Findings of "The Future")

If the community is going to decide, or provide Jimbo with a loud signal, we need to do so now. We do not need to come up with a system that will be future proof. We can have another RFC next year to cater to the different needs of the next election.

Poll

This is a poll to gather consensus on how the community feels about the number of arbitrators, the length of their term, and the method by which they are chosen.

Please keep comments to a minimum in the poll sections. Long-form discussion should take place on the talk page, and exchanges which veer off the topic will also be transferred to the talk page.

Please place your views and proposals below the poll.

Sign multiple options if more than one is desirable to you.

Term lengths

Three years

Note: This is the current maximum term length.

But if arbs want to retire earlier thats fine too. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I first proposed the two year term idea. Because we were seeing quite a bit of "arbitrator fatigue". However, After talking with others, including User:Jimbo Wales, I have changed my mind, and think that it should be three years. ALong with that, arbitrators should be free to resign whenever they wish. And short wikibreaks should also be freely allowed. I am wholly against 1 year terms. - jc37 13:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbs are of course welcome to resign earlier, but three years seems reasonable if they want to stick it out. The election process is a time-consuming and distracting one, arbs shouldn't be required to go through it more often than is necessary. It's better to keep their attention on other things (such as cases). --El on ka 18:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Number of seats

12 seats

The Arbitration Committee had 12 seats from inception until the end of 2004.

Based on 10 arbitrators being appointed to serve into 2010, 12 seats would result in only 2 appointments in the upcoming election.

Arbs are not the Apostles and Jimbo is definitely not Jesus, but the more arbs there are, the easier it is for each arb to avoid taking responsibility as an individual. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

15 seats

The Arbitration Committee had 15 seats between 2005 and the end of 2008.

Based on 10 arbitrators being appointed to serve into 2010, 15 seats would result in 5 appointments in the upcoming election.

Skomorokh, barbarian 10:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fifteen is a better number considering four to five arbitrators are inactive at any given time, and the council shouldn't be too large to convolute discussion and slow the process even more. Keegan (talk) 07:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the best model between sharing workload efficiently and not being too unwieldy as to hamper progress. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Preferable. MBisanz ^talk 17:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See reasons on talk. Durova³⁴⁹ 19:57, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Larger numbers actually makes decision-making more difficult. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we go to 2 years, 15 seats is enough, because fewer of the arbs will be inactive through burnout. But we might consider this one time having it 18 seats as a transition. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Jake Wartenberg 21:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A good compromise. Larger numbers require reaching further down the list of candidates to those with less solid community support. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Anything more and each arb doesn't get much of an individual say in the matter. Also, per the above. Them From Space 22:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18 seats

The Arbitration Committee was expanded to 18 seats after the 2008 election, however it only consisted of 16 arbitrators for the first six months, and there are only 13 bums on seats at the moment.

Based on 10 arbitrators being appointed to serve into 2010, 18 would result in 8 appointments in the upcoming election.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skomorokh, barbarian 10:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the size of this community and the amount of necessary fluctuation that always happens with Arbitrators, a larger ArbCom is in the community's best interest (also to weaken "cabal!"-accusations and to allow to reflect on the diversity of users on this project). Regards So Why 12:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More is generally better, but I think there should be some minimum support required in the election (if there isn't already) in case there aren't many candidates. I'd rather have a couple fewer than have some with too little trust. Mr.Z-man 14:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
with the same caveat as Mr. Z-Man. Karanacs (talk) 16:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Note: I think the minimum threshold should be 66% Karanacs (talk) 13:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Davewild (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Manning (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everyking (talk) 07:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With Z-man's caveat. rspεεr (talk) 07:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the only sensible option with the Committe's current workload (which I believe is far too high, but). Moreschi (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To allow for inacitvity, etc., and task delegation. Sandstein 14:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Allow for inactivity, recusals, could this be combined with a minimum number of active arbs (e.g. 9?), and that the active Arbs on a case are decided on before the case opens (no additions during the case, except with clear and transparent notice which and why an arb is being added when the number would drop below the minimum)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because otherwise by the end of the first year we'd have no arbs. I've asked the committee on perhaps 5 or 6 separate occasions to follow through on Jimbo's request for the development of a procedure to replace inactive arbitrators. As the committee has never addressed this publicly in any way, we obviously cannot have a committee so small that attrition renders it completely ineffective between elections. Nathan^T 15:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably easiest. —Finn Casey * * * 17:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With consideration of gauging consensus for reserving one or more seats for non-admin editors. Basket of Puppies 17:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NW (Talk) 17:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only 18 seats? I would have thought that number was on the low side. Mjroots (talk) 18:44, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a larger Committee, but perhaps not require all of them to weigh in on every case. For example, a maximum of 9-10 active arbs reviewing any particular case would seem sufficient. --El on ka 18:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt (talk) 20:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Carter (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Jayron32 21:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Offliner (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it adaptable to the current situation

Personally, I think that there are situations that come up, such as last year's elections, in which there were several who were REALLY close in votes. I think User:Jimbo Wales should be able to expand or contract the number of seats, based upon current events of the election, and current resignations, and so on. - jc37 13:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Election method

For a list of options, see {{electoral systems}}.

Approval voting (Support/Oppose)

Approval voting is the method used in the December 2008 elections, and in previous years, by which a voter may choose to support or oppose each candidacy, but is not required to enter a judgement about every candidacy (see example). Under the SecurePoll method, voters are required to enter judgements about every candidacy, but have the added option of being neutral (see example). The candidates are ranked by the ratio of supports to opposes.

SecurePoll plus Support/Oppose is the best option. It's simple and familiar. Roger Davies ^talk 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The method must be intuitive and non-complex, and must be designed to elect multiple candidates. The Schulze method is specifically designed to elect a single candidate, and is also very complex and counter-intuitive. Cumulative voting is also very complex (allocating portions of one's vote to various candidates) and its main use is in corporate elections where the number of votes each elector has can vary widely. Complicated systems have a tendency to disenfranchise voters who simply want to voice their opinion on individual candidates and not have to do complex calculations to figure out what weight their votes should get. Risker (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simple = best. Also not at all sure that weighted voting methods promote the right sort of candidates for a consensus-driven community; specifically I mean that minority support, regardless of strength, should not cancel out broad opposition, while minority opposition, even if strong, should not cancel out broad support. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Manning (talk) 15:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Preferential voting requires that a voter research all candidates in detail. This makes it simpler, and also allows those with little time to research candidates to just vote for a few candidates. NW (Talk) 17:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The support/oppose system works well. Though as I've indicated in another section of this RfC, I prefer that we stick with public voting, rather than moving to secret ballots. --El on ka 18:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Durova³⁴⁹ 20:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KISS. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose votes should have weight. Preferential voting is a bit scary, and it will only reward those who make an effort to become famous and loved in the run up to the election. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
John Carter (talk) 20:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
Per Boris. Sam Blacketer (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simple, clear, and understandable. DGG ( talk ) 21:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Offliner (talk) 22:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the added benefit of the more complicated methods for our purposes. Sandstein 22:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulative voting

Cumulative voting is a multiple-winner voting system intended to promote proportional representation while also being simple to understand.

An ideal setup would be to give each voter one vote per seat, for them to distribute across the candidates as they see fit (in whole numbers; no fractions). It does not have oppose votes, and it is simple.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this method, while sounding more complicated, would reflect the community's will far better than a simple support/oppose system where one can only give equal preference to different candidates they want to support. Regards So Why 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the method that people actually use in the real world - you know, where things have been demonstrated to work in practice as opposed to both fail in practice and in theory, like we have here. Hipocrite (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No strong opinion on this issue. However, this method seems worth a try. —Finn Casey * * * 17:12, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Jake Wartenberg 21:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preferential voting

Preferential voting is a method by which voters rank the candidates in order of preference, so that winners are selected based on the breadth and depth of support for their candidacies. An example of preferential voting is the Schulze method which was used in the 2008 and 2009 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections.

Only if Support/Oppose is resoundingly rejected. This is over-complicated to start off with. Roger Davies ^talk 13:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Davewild (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Second preference (first is cumulative). Reagrds So Why 13:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Preferential systems are much better at representing the wishes of voters as a whole. They are easy to understand once one grasps the initial concept, as I think the WMF board vote (and their long-standing use in legislative elections) shows. Approval voting is a crude metric that allows the election of candidates which a sizeable minority of voters might strongly disapprove of, encourages tactical voting and cannot express any difference in strengths of support (If I vote for eight candidates, it treats this expressing equal support for all eight, which is likely to be highly distorting). It's time we matured. Skomorokh, barbarian 13:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Everyking (talk) 14:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This system is as complicated as the voter wants it to, giving maximum freedom to the voter. Most of the complications are in the counting instead of the voting. If the voter prefers to make a simple "approval" vote, just put a "1" next to all you approve, and "2" next to those you disapprove, and if you want something more sophisticated feel free. I prefer this over cumulative voting because it allows people to support more candidates than there are seats (if they are mostly interested in preventing someone getting on ArbCom), and making 100% support behind a single candidate an attractive option is not so good if there are multiple seats. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Jayron32 21:07, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public v. Secret Voting

Public voting

Votes are made and signed publicly; anyone can see how a user has voted (this is the method that has been used in previous years' elections).

Go openly as we have always done without any real problems. Seriously, what is trying to be fixed by making everything a secret? We're meant to be open and honest. Arbcom is not a government.Majorly talk 17:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Especially with something as important as ArbCom, which really depends on a perception of community trust, open and public voting is the way go. --El on ka 17:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who watches the watchmen? Hipocrite (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely need to have everything out in the open. Arbcom already handles too many things in secret. Tex (talk) 19:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there are significant problems with this method and there are advantages of transparency and openness. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Primarily to handle sophisticated Poetlister-like sockfarm voting schemes. A public and open vote is harder to game, and easier to remedy if fraud occurs. Durova³⁴⁹ 20:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Being more open also makes it, as Durova indicated, easier to check up on. John Carter (talk) 20:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
--Jayron32 21:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The best reason against public voting, tactical voting, would be greatly reduced by preferential voting, and even without preferential voting, is overwhelmed by problems associated with secret voting. -kotra (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely, to preserve transparency and facilitate discussion. Open discourse is essential in the way we operate and is most necessary in the deciding of our upper-level officials. Them From Space 22:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret voting

Votes are recorded and tallied by MediaWiki; the lists of "who voted" and "which candidates were voted for" are separated, so no one can see which way a user voted.

As I supported on the previous request for comment on this issue. Davewild (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cirt (talk) 20:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is more likely that socks would be caught with SecurePoll as all IP information is available to the scrutineers. Having legitimate elections unbiased by social pressure is very important. — Jake Wartenberg 21:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As per the previous RFC. Voting without fear of retribution or harassment is more important than catching socks. That said, SecurePoll allows everyone to see who is voting, so it is still possible to look for accounts which appear to be socks. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/ArbCom_secret_ballot, where this was generally supported. Please read for pros and cons. Why are we doing this again? Is this RfC advertised widely enough, or should we plan three more just in case? Nathan^T 21:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vote secrecy is very important. Offliner (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The current implementation seems to allow for adequate antisock safeguards, and secret votes are more likely to correctly represent community opinion, since the whole social networking aspect is filtered out. Sandstein 22:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Views

View by John Vandenberg

Three years is a long time to be strapped to these chairs. It is a commitment that many sensible people are not able to make because they have a real life in addition to Wikipedia, or they don't know what the next three years holds for them. Reducing the term to two years will mean more candidates feel comfortable making the commitment, and feel capable of enduring to the end of their term. The argument that shorter terms result in loss of institutional knowledge don't sit well with me. After a shorter term, arbs can seek re-election or retire to be a functionary, where their knowledge can easily be tapped into.

One of the themes of the 2008 arbcom RFC was that arbitrators rarely ever make it to the end of their allocated term, and that the committee becomes unexpectedly short staffed when an arb resigns or retires. One way to alleviate this is to have extra non-voting members in the committee at the beginning of each year, and allocate them to work initially on the constant stream of ban appeals and other auxiliary tasks.

With a committee of 18 people next year, of which only 12 are voting members, six people can be working on the tasks which would otherwise divert arbitrator attention away from case work, and there is a pool of six people who are "in sync" with the committee and are able to rotate into a voting seat to account for inactivity, retirements or resignations.

The goal for 2010 could be to always have 12 voting members active on arbitration pages, while also ensuring that committee members take proper breaks to recharge their batteries.

View by rspεεr: tranches are obsolete

We have a tremendous opportunity to simplify the system here. Let's finish the job and do away with the obsolete notion of "tranches". Instead, we should give every elected arbitrator a term of the same length (which I'm assuming is two years).

Tranches were a system of staggering the expiration dates of the arb seats, even if this meant giving different term lengths to different people elected in the same election. They were devised based on the assumption that most arbitrators would finish their terms. This assumption turns out not to be true, so tranches serve no purpose.

I think many people are assuming this will happen anyway, because there has been no discussion about how to convert the three-year tranches into two-year tranches if we adopt two-year terms, but we might as well make this explicit to avoid confusion. Here's my specific proposal:

An arbitrator who is elected in a yearly election gets to keep their seat until the end of the election two years later.
An arbitrator who is appointed mid-year by some other process (should this situation arise) gets to keep their seat until the end of the next election.
An arbitrator who was elected before tranches were abolished keeps the same expiration date they already had in their tranche.

rspεεr (talk) 08:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by SoWhy: Defending cumulative voting

Risker has outlined above that they think cumulative voting is too complex to be used in ArbCom elections and I think some people considering how to opine in this RFC will share such doubts. I think they are misplaced though. Cumulative voting can be both simple and complex, allowing both simply support/oppose votes and more complex preferences to be cast.
Let me elaborate with an example:

Let's assume the election will be held to fill 8 seats. As a result, each voter will get 8 votes. They can now choose the simple or the complex voting system. If they choose the simple one, they can support as many candidates as they wish but don't have to. Their votes will automatically be distributed equally amongst those candidates. For example, if they support 4 candidates, each one will receive 2 votes while the voter's only thing to do was to choose the candidates to support. The rest is done by the software. This means that the election is very simple for those who wish it to be.

For those who want to rank their candidates, cumulative voting would allow them to choose a different option when voting. They could give multiple votes (although I think there should be a limit per candidate, e.g. 3 votes maximum) to those candidates they prefer over others at the cost of not being able to support 8 candidates. For example, candidate A could receive 3 votes and candidates B and C 2 votes each with the last vote going to candidate Z.

All voters can decide only to use a certain number of their votes but are not forced to do so.

Cumulative voting has also the advantage that there are no oppose votes which are frankly not needed. Since the system means that those with the highest amount of votes will be elected, we also get rid of the need for having to set a bar, i.e. requiring a certain % of support. As such, I think this system would satisfy both the need for simplicity for the majority of users as well as the request for preferential voting that many experienced users probably have. Regards So Why 15:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Finn Casey

A simplification of the present tri-tranche system is desirable. A two-year staggered term length system would give the process both clarity and stability. Electing half the arbitrators each year to a two-year term will be much simpler than the present arrangement. Such a process will also tend to reduce the endemic drop-out problem.

View by Majorly

Seriously, why change what worked perfectly well (with regards to how we vote)? Majorly talk 17:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Jayron32

The Oppose/Support system works well for proposals and many other things at Wikipedia, but for elections where people are being chosen to fill an office, such things become bogged down in discussion, which often spirals out of control. A simple vote works much better in these cases, the "support/oppose" system is too open to hijacking by a few dedicated "haters". Lets instead keep discussion on discussion pages, and let the voting be unsullied by such events. Furthermore, not voting support in an election like this is equal to oppose anyways. --Jayron32 21:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

View by Offliner

Arbitrators should have one year terms only. Two years is very long time in Wikipedia. Personally, I'm extremely disappointed with the low efficiency of the previous and current ArbComs, and I think the community should have reasonably quick way of getting rid of bad arbitrators who cannot organize their work properly. Anything longer than a year is way too long — it allows the arbitrators to become confident that no matter how sloppy they are, they will still be allowed to continue for what is basically an eternity in WP. Cases dragging on for months is simply ridiculous, as is the extreme uncommunicativity of the committee members (it often takes weeks for ArbCom to answer even simple yes-or-no questions.) I'm 100% certain that the job can be done much better than that. We need to keep changing the Arbs in a quick fashion to try to find a constitution that works. I'd also like to note that, in contrast to real life, organizing elections doesn't cost anything in WP, so I really do not see any reason why couldn't organize an election every year. Offliner (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 75: / Line 75: @@
 #I first proposed the two year term idea. Because we were seeing quite a bit of "arbitrator fatigue". However, After talking with others, including [[User:Jimbo Wales]], I have changed my mind, and think that it should be three years. ALong with that, arbitrators should be free to resign whenever they wish. And short wikibreaks should also be freely allowed. I am wholly against 1 year terms. - [[User:Jc37|jc37]] 13:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 #  Arbs are of course welcome to resign earlier, but three years seems reasonable if they want to stick it out.  The election process is a time-consuming and distracting one, arbs shouldn't be required to go through it more often than is necessary.  It's better to keep their attention on other things (such as cases). --[[User:Elonka|El]][[User talk:Elonka|on]][[Special:Contributions/Elonka|ka]] 18:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
-# Arb elections are time-consuming, and it takes time for new arbs to come up to speed; I don't believe two years terms will be helpful and in fact could penalize some of the more effective arbs.  [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 ==Number of seats==
@@ Line 249: / Line 248: @@
 == View by Offliner ==
-Arbitrators should have one year terms only. Two years is ''very'' long time in Wikipedia. Personally, I'm extremely disappointed with the low efficiency of the previous and current ArbComs, and I think the community should have reasonably quick way of getting rid of bad arbitrators who cannot organize their work properly. Anything longer than a year is way too long — it allows the arbitrators to become confident that no matter how sloppy they are, they will still be allowed to continue for what is basically an eternity in WP. Cases dragging on for months is simply ''ridiculous'', as is the extreme uncommunicativity of the committee members (it often takes weeks for ArbCom to answer even simple yes-or-no questions.) I'm 100% certain that the job ''can'' be done much better than that. We need to keep changing the Arbs in a quick fashion to try to find a constitution that works. [[User:Offliner|Offliner]] ([[User talk:Offliner|talk]]) 22:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
+Arbitrators should have one year terms only. Two years is ''very'' long time in Wikipedia. Personally, I'm extremely disappointed with the low efficiency of the previous and current ArbComs, and I think the community should have reasonably quick way of getting rid of bad arbitrators who cannot organize their work properly. Anything longer than a year is way too long — it allows the arbitrators to become confident that no matter how sloppy they are, they will still be allowed to continue for what is basically an eternity in WP. Cases dragging on for months is simply ''ridiculous'', as is the extreme uncommunicativity of the committee members (it often takes weeks for ArbCom to answer even simple yes-or-no questions.) I'm 100% certain that the job ''can'' be done much better than that. We need to keep changing the Arbs in a quick fashion to try to find a constitution that works. I'd also like to note that, in contrast to real life, organizing elections doesn't cost anything in WP, so I really do not see any reason why couldn't organize an election every year. [[User:Offliner|Offliner]] ([[User talk:Offliner|talk]]) 22:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)