Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2

Voter eligibility

I think we should include the question of voter eligibility requirements in this RfC. It looks like the current plan is to allow votes from anyone with an account that was registered before 1 November and had at least 150 edits before then, but I think those requirements are too minimal; something like 500 edits and three months would be better, in my opinion. Everyking (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the current requirement is 150 mainspace edits before the deadline, which with a typical editing pattern, may be closer to what you are looking for. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I still think it's worth putting the matter before the community to see what level of eligibility requirements has the most support. Everyking (talk) 03:02, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No objection from me, as long as people think there's enough time at this point to gather enough input and implement it before the election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

do you think there's enough time, brad? I reckon it's a bit late (without prejudice as to the merits of the idea) Privatemusings (talk) 03:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That was my first reaction as well, but I'll leave it up to the volunteers who are organizing the election. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

someone's organising this election? ;-) (are you sure we're not assuming that someone's at the wheel, when maybe we're all sat in the back?) Privatemusings (talk) 04:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We are organizing it on typical wiki principles: whoever shows up and organizes. If everyking (or someone else) wants to change voter eligibility via RFC, the onus is on them to get that to happen.--Tznkai (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

< well ok, but what do you think the status quo is, Tzn? - if you're up for it, just make the call on how big the committee is going to be, who's eligible to vote, how the voting will work, and how long the folk elected's terms will be... I sort of feel these...um.. rather central details are a little vague at the moment, and that's a bit silly! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked, I had not staged a coup and declared myself Supreme Dictator of Wikipedia - as amusing as that might be for a few minutes at a time. As these are still technically advisory elections, Jimbo has the procedural ability to simply declare some things by fiat, and my best guess is his doing so would be roughly in accordance to the emerging consensus in the RfC (to which my best guess is 18 seats total, for 2 year terms, support/oppose voting, and possibly secret poll, but also possibly traditional public voting. There is a bit of a muddled mess there) and that there will be an acceptable bitching/moving forward ratio if and when he does so. Failing that, we'll simply just muddle through.--Tznkai (talk) 07:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) What I can tell you is that Jimmy would much rather have all those things set and known in advance. He's been reading things up and consulting for a while, I expect he's been keeping an eye on this page and will eventually announce something on the topic — and I don't expect stunning revelations or surprises: most likely he'll go to two year terms and 18 seats as there is clearly consensus for both of those in the community and strong support within the Committee for both. It seems also fairly clear that preferential voting is out given that it does not have very strong support (and that the necessary discussion about which preferential voting system to use—if any—has yet to take place at all).

As for secret ballots... well, this one is considerably more difficult to assess. The community is pretty much split on the matter, so it's much less clear. I know Jimmy starts with a slight preference against secret ballots, but I also know he's giving this serious consideration. I expect that the fact that the AUSC election ended without a hitch, with good participation, and without problems will factor in any decision — he may be waiting for the announcement of results and postmortem from that before chiming in. (Said announcement to come shortly, incidentally). — Coren ^(talk) 14:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not too keen on adding another question so late in the game; it would not be proper if a handful of people got to decide the issue where scores of others participated in the older discussions. Is there reason to believe that suffrage is a contentious issue?  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A post-mortem (and results!) on AUSC elections would help a lot as far as settling the secret ballot/public voting question.--Tznkai (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We just got the final okay from the scrutineers; I expect results to be posted today. — Coren ^(talk) 18:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of arbs and terms: consensus

Could I remind editors that these RfCs were held to establish community opinion for the current election. Otherwise, they'd probably have been postponed until next year. It seems as clear as daylight that 18 seats and two-year terms win hands down; it is particularly telling that the preferences for these outcomes were each one of four choices, which is likely to spread voting more evenly. Community opinion, as of today, is:

Number of seats

• 12 seats: 5 supports (4.9%)
• 15 seats: 27 supports (26.5%)
• 18 seats: 63 supports (61.8%)
• "Flexible" (let Jimbo decide): 7 supports (6.9%)

Term lengths

• 6 months: 2 supports (1.8%)
• 12 months: 13 supports (12.7%)
• 18 months: 9 supports (8.8%)
• Two years: 78 supports (69.6%)
• Three years: 10 supports (8.9%)
• "Flexible" (let Jimbo decide): 1 support (0.9%)

I believe the community should adopt these outcomes forthwith. I am posting a note to this effect at the election talk page, and a query as to whether an uninvolved crat or admin should be asked to officially close these RfCs, which have been running for more than two weeks. Tony (talk) 02:45, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur, for what its worth.--Tznkai (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

me too - I think these matters could usefully be considered closed at this point. Further, the issue of whether or not to use Secure Poll could be settled by the same person, perhaps to the schedule suggested above by User:Ultraexactzz ('I propose closing the RFC at 00:00 on 24 November') Privatemusings (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The result of the election secrecy poll appears rather clear also. A clear consensus does not exist, and is unlikely to develop in the short time remaining. WIthout a clear consensus, the current method will not be changed, except by decree of Mr. Wales. —Finn Casey * * * 07:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Although my own opinion is that 18 arbitrators turned out to be too many, it does appear that there is a pretty strong weight of community opinion here (and I suppose 18 also builds in for some attrition). As for the term length, if we were to move to two years, can I assume that the arbitrators elected in previous elections are grandfathered (I'm finishing my second-year of a three year term)—or do I need to decide whether to start printing reelection posters? :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

NYB, you've pointed out an assumption that probably should have been clarified in the RfC text for the terms. I've always understood the RfC to involve new terms only. It would seem manifestly disruptive, not to mention unfair to existing arbs and those who voted for them in previous elections, for their terms to be changed mid-stream. Tony (talk) 03:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's my view that it would be reasonable to say that objections to existing terms should have been explicitly raised before this point. Bad luck brad. Privatemusings (talk) 03:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say grandfathered. The onus was on those voting to specify if they wanted to alter already extent terms.--Tznkai (talk) 03:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

(reindent) - Although the RFC proposal wasn't explicit, the preamble cast this entire RFC in terms of the upcoming election. As a result I certainly thought I was voting on the term for newly elected Arbs, and not sitting members. as I see it, NYB was elected to a three year term (not directly, but by virtue of being the higest vote getter in 2007, and it being known that a three year term was available). Also if the new arrangement WAS applied retroactively, then the arbs currently on a one year term would need to have their terms increased. Manning (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tznkai. The people elected in 2007 and 2008 for three year terms ought to be able to finish those terms; it would be unfair to force them to run for reelection when they, and I assume a large majority of the voters, would not expecting them to. It ought to have been explicitly stated in the RfC if this sort of thing were going to be changed retroactively. NW (Talk) 03:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I took existing terms into account in my "tranches are obsolete" view, which seems to have been largely overlooked. Anyone want to comment on it? rspεεr (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Any attempt to create an ex post facto diminshment of current Committee terms would be inappropriate. All current arbitrators will not have their terms adjusted. —Finn Casey * * * 07:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

This will make tranches semi-obsolete. We'll end up shifting into a about 9 two year seats up every year, with adjustments for resignitations. --Tznkai (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

How about we apply two year terms beginning with those elected this year, and the currently sitting arbitrators (unless their terms expire this year) will all come up for election next year (even if the term was originally three years)? As Tznkai suggests above, this would enable us to still have one regular election per year and have some renewal. If we only had one election every two years, ArbCom lethargy would get so bad that they would get virtually nothing done. Everyking (talk) 04:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

We can burn that bridge when we get to it, but I expect that a good number of arbs will be persuaded to stand even if they are not forced. I will take embarrassing pictures at the next Cabal Christmas party to ensure it, in fact. But yes, 18 every two years would be a terrible idea.--Tznkai (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Near as I can figure, based on {{ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent}}, Of the 10 arbitrators whose terms do not expire at the end of 2009, 6 will have 1 year remaining on their terms, and 4 will have two. So, to create two equal tranches of 9 arbs each, we should elect 5 arbitrators to 2 year terms and 3 to 1 year terms. Tranches would then alternate elections. Who gets what term might come down to preference (if a candidate asks for a shorter term, for example, or if a sitting arb asks to shift tranches), or Jimbo's discretion. No sitting arb should have their term shortened, except by their request. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 06:20, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, no, no, please. We've just had this wonderful poll that says 2-year terms are optimal. We also know that a percentage of arbitrators will resign every year. Please let everyone be appointed for 2 full years, period. One or two of those two-year appointees will resign before the next election regardless. Even with grandfathering in, we will probably be filling the majority of seats on the committee every year. One-year terms have been soundly rejected, and certainly should not be almost half of the appointments. Risker (talk) 07:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Currently there are four sitting arbs with two years on the clock, and six arbs with one year on the clock. If we appoint all eight new arbs to two-year terms, we will have 12 arbs on two years when we really want 9. I'd say that losing three arbs in the first year of their term (or in some cases their second or third year) is not at all implausible. I'd say the opposite is more likely: this time next year we'd be having the same discussion the other way because the tables may well have turned completely. If there's one thing the tranche system has taught us, it's that fancy games with term lengths and staggering just do not work when there's such a high burnout rate. Happy‑melon 08:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Risker. This RFC was to determine the parameters for the upcoming election.

I would like to see that we fall into a steady pattern where the majority of arbitrators endure their term to the end, and the number of seats available each year is stable, but I think we will need to take another look at it some time before the next election.

In regards to grandfathering, I tried to be clear about this from the beginning by prefacing each option with a note like "Based on 10 arbitrators being appointed to serve into 2010, 18 would result in 8 appointments in the upcoming election."

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Why is the calculation I made about the need for "5 arbitrators to 2 year terms and 3 to 1 year terms" being repeated? I stated this explicitly in the view I posted on the RfC. The reason having 8 people appointed from this election to 2 year terms doesn't work is because you end up with 6 arb seats for election in December 2010, and 12 in December 2011. People have said that resignations will balance things out, but that depends entirely on who resigns and when. If someone resigns in their final year (a not uncommon event), it makes no difference whatsoever. i.e. Elect 8 arbs to 2-year terms in the December 2009 elections, and you end up with 12 on 2-year terms and 6 on 1-year terms. If no-one resigns during 2010, you have 6 seats available for the December 2010 election. If any of the 6 arbs with 1-year seats resigns in 2010, you still only have 6 seats for the December 2010 election. It's only if one of the arbs on a 2-year term resigns (that would either be one of the 8 newly-elected ones, or one of the 4 elected to 3-year terms in December 2008), that the number of seats for election increases. You would need three of the 12 to resign to bring the number of seats up for re-election in December 2010 to nine. Now consider if only two resign - leaving 8 seats to be filled in December 2010. That would mean that the following year (2011), you would have 10 seats expiring at the end of the year, and 8 not expiring until the year after. Again, if one of the 10 resign, it makes no difference, but if two of the 8 newly elected arbs resign, then you are back to the situation where 12 of the 18 seats are up for re-election in December 2011. In any system where you stagger the rotation, you need to make periodic adjustments to keep the numbers balanced, and natural attrition by resignation is not always neat or tidy enough to keep the numbers balanced, and sometimes in fact unbalances things further (e.g. no-one resigns in 2010, but two of the arbs elected in December 2010 resign the following year (2011), then you end up with 14 of the 18 arb seats being up for re-election in December 2011). The same unbalancing would decrease the number of seats available in the alternate year, in this case, from 6 in December 2010, to only 4 being up for re-election in December 2012. With a bit of bad luck, you end up with zero seats for re-election one year, and all 18 the next. Having said that, I can see that appointing people for 1-year seats can be a problem (it can make arbs more political if they intend to stand for re-election). Maybe the solution is to only have 5 seats available for 2-year terms, and to leave the three "1-year" seats empty. This would result in a committee of 15, with three empty seats, but would ensure that 9 seats could be contested in December 2010 (the 6 arbs with terms expiring then, plus the three empty seats). Carcharoth (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a comment at the 'crat noticeboard inviting them to review this thread and (potentially) close the non-controversial parts of this RFC. See Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Partial_closure_of_ArbCom_RFC. Manning (talk) 05:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Err...just asking: Why specifically crats? There are plenty of admins perfectly capable of closing any non-controversial parts. bibliomaniac15 05:28, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cos more people will accept crat X's word as impartial than will accept admin Y. Simple :D Happy‑melon 08:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Risker and John Vandenberg. While it would be desirable for all arbs to see out their full term, there is strong evidence that this is not a practical expectation. Elections have functioned and will continue to function as a means of "topping up" those numbers, replenishing them back to what the community has determined is an optimal starting point each January.

Thus, there is no reason why the number of seats on offer at every December election should be the same. Theoretically, this number will trend towards nine as the terms of the three-year arbs gradually expire and given no attrition in the meantime, but if it is exactly nine for a particular election, that will be a coincidence and nothing to feel particularly satisfied about. What does matter is that there's sufficient overlap for experience and skills to be passed on to new arbs; I can't see that it will be an issue with a Committee membership of 18. Tony (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

What's up with "Theoretically, this number will trend towards nine as the terms of the three-year arbs gradually expire and given no attrition in the meantime"? You can calculate exactly what will happen if the three-year arb terms expire naturally and there is no attrition. It settles into a 6 seats for election one year, 12 seats for election the next year pattern. Those numbers only change if an arb resigns in their first year (or for the grandfathered three-year arbs, if they resign in their 2nd year). Arbs resigning in their final year have no effect whatsoever (as their seat would have been up for election that year anyway). If in one of the years where 6 will be up for election at the end of the year, a first-year arb resigns, then the balance is restored by one (7 will be up for election that year instead, and 11 the next). On the other hand, if a first-year arb resigns in the year where 12 are up for election at the end of the year, then that unbalances things even further (13 that year, and 5 the next year). There is probably a technical term for this sort of system where applying change in one half of the oscillation period increases the amplitude of the oscillation, and applying change in the other half damps the oscillation. I should in fact know that term, but it's been too long since I studied that sort of maths/physics. Carcharoth (talk) 00:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

See, the whole thing that makes this thought experiment so unrealistic is the "no attrition" part. We know there's tons of attrition. Carcharoth, your oscillating model is correct given the situation that Tony described, but that's a situation we're pretty sure won't happen -- it assumes all the three-year arbitrators will finish their term or at least resign with less than a year left.
Anyway, given a non-zero probability of arbitrators resigning before their election year, there are more chances for this to happen when there are more newly elected arbitrators. So this process will, in fact, trend toward a constant number of seats to be filled, and we can safely eliminate the archaic notion of tranches. rspεεr (talk) 03:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to use probability. The essential point is that when a first-year arb resigns and you open up the seat for election that same year, you are calling the election for that seat early, and that introduces an imbalance. The next time that happens (the resignation of a first-year arb), the effect will depend on the timing. If it is the following year, the imbalance will be corrected, but if the next "first-year arb resignation" is two years after the last such resignation, then the imbalance will be increased. The general case is 2n+1 and 2n (odd and even years). Remember that second-year arbs resigning don't have any effect on all this. I'll try and explain this in more detail below. Carcharoth (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of everything you have said, and what I added to it was probability. That was the entire point. It's of course true that sometimes it gets more balanced, and sometimes it gets less balanced, but on average it gets more balanced, and the probabilities come out like this because it's only first-year arbs that count.
Think of it this way: every year is either a "balance year" or an "imbalance year", depending on whether a newly-elected arbitrator would balance or imbalance the ArbCom election schedule by resigning that year. There are more newly-elected arbitrators in balance years than in imbalance years. That's why they're balance years -- because too many arbitrators just got elected. So the system tends toward balance. rspεεr (talk) 10:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with both Carcharoth (for unlikely no-attrition assumption) and Rspeer. The upshot is that we are very unlikely to see unmanageable oscillations. Tony (talk) 04:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Poll on tranches

So people do have an opinion on tranches after all.

Would it be reasonable to make this a question on the project page? I'm thinking the topic should be "Tranches: keep or eliminate"? The two options would be:

• Keep tranches. The elected arbitrators will be placed into two "tranches" that determine when their term expires, so some arbitrators will be elected for one year instead of two. The tranches will be balanced so that at least half of the seats will be open at each election.
• Eliminate tranches. All arbitrators elected from now on get 2-year terms. The number of seats to be filled at each election will be determined only by the number of retiring arbitrators and the number whose terms naturally expire.

Comments? Objections to the wording? Objections to asking the question at all? rspεεr (talk) 04:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Everyking (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Either system would work fine, but I suppose an RfC section would be OK to discern general community opinion. The time of the election is fast approaching, so the RfC shouldn't be open for too much longer. —Finn Casey * * * 04:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to this, but adding it to the RFC might slow things down. You are unlikely to get the same people coming back to give opinions on later questions, so you may get different answers. My view is that arbitration seats that are vacated over a year early should either be filled early at the next election, or left empty until the following year. Which of these two options is chosen should be done automatically depending on whether the number of seats up for election already that year is more or less than 9. This may sounds complicated, but in practice it would work. What it would mean is that with the current imbalance looking to be something like 6/12, then first-year arb resignations in 2010 (when there would be 6 seats, less than 9, up for election at the end of the year) would result in those seats being filled early (at the next election), reducing the imbalance to 7/11 if one first-year arb resigned. However, in 2011, when the number of seats up for re-election at the end of the year will be 12 (if there are no resignations), if any first-year arbs resign, you would leave their seats empty until the December 2012 elections. Second-year arbs resigning would, as always, have no effect on any of this. The only problem is what to do when a first-year arb resigns when the balance is at 9/9 - you would have a choice between leaving the seat empty and only electing 9 as normal at the end of that year, or you would have the choice of having 10 elected. My preference would be to keep it as close to 9 as possible each year, and accept that some seats will remain empty. Within reason of course - you would set a limit on the number of empty seats at any one time. On a committee of 18, I would say don't leave more than 3 empty after an election (i.e. let the number fluctuate naturally between 15 and 18, and don't insist on topping up to 18 every time). The reason, in case anyone thinks this is too complicated, is that I think electing to an 18-strong committee, 6 people one year and 12 the next, is not good. If in one year you have 9 good candidates (in terms of support in their votes), but only 6 seats available, and in another year you have 9 good candidates but 12 seats available, then you lose out on 3 well-supported candidates one year, and get 3 arbitrators in the other year with less community support than would be ideal. It's not important for this year though (as there are 8 seats for election), so I would hold all the arguments about tranches until after this election. Carcharoth (talk) 06:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but I don't think enough people are asking for a perfect balance of elections that it's worth overturning the fixed number of arbitrators. (Remember, we're coming off of a system where Jimbo put people in tranches on random whims and we didn't even know how many seats were up for election, and most people were still okay with that.) rspεεr (talk) 08:08, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I don't see why they should be eliminated in the first place, though things would need to be rearranged if two year terms are implemented. When an arbitrator resigns, a special election should be held within a month or so to fill that person's term (or the person who finishes tenth in the December elections fills out the resigning arb's term in case of multiple resignations you just go down the line). Of course, with shorter terms less resignations are possible (I assume that's why people want shorter terms). Deserted Cities (talk) 14:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

Interested editors are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. SecurePoll was recently used in the Audit Subcommittee election, and has been proposed for use for the upcoming Arbitration Committee election at this current request for comment (RFC). Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Tranch member replacement

Traches are much superior as they guarantee a stable transfer from one set of members to another. I'm not sure what is meant by "some arbitrators will be elected for one year instead of two" - all should be elected for the same term, the start times of those terms should be staggered into to groups. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 19:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe it means that if open seats exist in because of a resignation, they're filled for only the remainder of the term, not for a complete new term. Same thing with expansion. Of course its difficult to say what will happen because we don't know if the committee will switch to 2 year terms (or stick with 3 year terms) or how many arbs there will be. Deserted Cities (talk) 20:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think either of those are in much doubt any more. The statement essentially notes that, if an arb is elected and vacates their seat within a year of their election, a by-election will be held to fill the seat at the next opportunity; with tranches, that by-election will be for a term of only one year, while without tranches, they would serve a full two-year term. That's the difference. Happy‑melon 21:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm even more confused now - but I don't think it matter, the essence is the principle of tranches, yes? So everyone (exceptions due to resignation aside) would serve for the same turation duration, the period of those terms would be staggered (presumably into two or three groups)? I think some thought would need to go into how to replace (I don't think it is a good idea for replacements to serve beyond the natural period of the member they replace, and maybe a system of co-opting member and/or leaving seats vacant depending on the length of time until the next election for that seat would be sometimes appropriate). --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 21:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Essentially there are three options when a seat becomes vacant very early in its term (within the first year for two-year terms, which we seem to be heading for). Option one is to leave the seat empty until its original term would have expired. On a committee chart, that would look something like this:

The other options are to repost the seat for election at the earliest available opportunity (ie the next election, even though the seat would not normally be up for renewal then). And here we have two options: either we keep every arbitrator's term the same length, which results in imbalances in the number of seats up for renewal at each election:

Or, we insist on fixed tranches (ie the times at which a seat comes up for renewal are fixed), which results in arbitrators having variable term lengths:

In a small example like this, none of the systems demonstrates a clear advantage over any other; a larger committee example would explore the possible permutations more thoroughly. I hope this clarifies the distinction between them, however. Happy‑melon 22:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup. That's what I was thinking. It's something that can be left until later to decide anyway. It's not enormously pressing or would have a great influence on any decision - a similar problem exists whether there is a tranch system or not. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 00:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

It affects this election, though, because it dictates the lengths of the terms that are filled. If we retain a system of tranches, some Arbs elected this year need to serve only one-year terms, while if we abolish tranches, they should serve two-year terms. It doesn't affect the way people will vote in this year's election, but it does affect the election itself, so we need to decide soon, preferably before people start voting. Happy‑melon 08:23, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Different term lengths are a needless complication, especially now that Jimbo has said he intends to play "a purely ceremonial role". The notion that a pre-existing "slot" has to be filled by a replacement until it expires involves another layer of decision-making as to which candidates fill the second year of a pre-existing two-year term, and which candidates will take up a fresh two-year term from scratch. This is all too much. The simplicity of fresh starts for every successful candidate is natural and compelling. Can you imagine getting consensus for a set of complicated rules as to who fills what "term space"? Tony (talk) 10:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC) PS Why are different colours used in the charts above? That is tranche mentality, and makes the charts themselves complicated. Tony (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The colours are purely to show the candidates appointed as a result of each annual election; otherwise the bars would all run into each other and be indecipherable. How on earth do they entail a "tranche mentality" when they can be equally-effectively used to illustate a non-tranche election process? Happy‑melon 12:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Colours: yep, you're right. Tony (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, to tranch or not to tranch, that is the question - how do we fill posts left by resignations (regardless of the answer to that question) I mean is another question again. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 10:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If the answer to "how do we fill posts left by resignations?" is "leave them empty" then you automatically have a tranche system; you're saying that the 'seat' has a term independent of the person who's sitting in it. If you elect to fill empty seats whenever possible, then you have the choice of keeping the tranche system, or dropping it. So the questions are somewhat intertwined. Happy‑melon 12:35, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing with open versus secret voting

I've seen the issue of canvassing brought up in a couple of places that now seem to be archived. I'd had the thought that canvassing should be prohibited (and maybe even discouraged) only if the election is open. Mostly there is the issue that if the ballot is secret, and there is no good way to detect the effect of canvassing, then there is a problem that the policy becomes a more direct disadvantage for those who follow the rules. But, I think this issue may also relate to the size of an election; it seems that open voting is most often for small communities where you want accountability from the voters, and you’re concerned about the integrity of every vote. This contrasts with secret balloting, which seems to suggest more of an interest in getting the most wide-spread, unconstrained opinions. Also, there’s the thought that canvassing may be less influential in a secret ballot where people may feel freer to ignore it. Mostly the first point suggests to me that if Wikipedia goes fully democratic in these elections, with secret voting and the rest, then it should probably accept the prospect of campaigning as well. Mackan79 (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

To me, the restriction on canvassing seems to be motivated by a desire not to make of every small debate on a single issue a (personal) battleground, and to limit the potential influence of (small) groups of editors who might engage in "vote hopping". For the arbitration committee elections, where participation is much larger than in any particular AfD etc. discussion, these arguments, in my view, do not apply. I therefore see no reason to limit canvassing with regard to the arbitration committee elections.  Cs32en  00:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom responsiveness and workload

(In response to Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee_2#View_by_Offliner.) I will be very blunt and honest: People need to realize that arbitrators are volunteers with real lives and professions. The main problem is an absolutely ridiculous workload combined with the obligations of the position. Delegating work and establishing subcommittess can help, but it will in no way resolve the full problem (and to believe otherwise is a bit Pollyanna in my opinion). The oft-mentioned idea of using sub-panels for cases and the like sounds great, but in practice will almost certainly create more problems than it solves (including more delays and sprawling bureaucracy).

There are only two sure fire ways the speed and responsive issues will be handled, and both are extremely unlikely to occur.

First, the community can shoulder more responsibility and off-load substantial portions of the work that ArbCom bears. This potentially includes (but is not limited to or necessarily inclusive with) reinstituting some form of community ban process, instituting a community-based ban appeals process, permitting administrators greater leeway, implementing some form of binding mediation, increasing the robustness of our dispute resolution processes, and so on. If you have not noticed, it is an easier time pulling teeth from a lion than getting any such measures through to community approval.

The other potential solution is to pay arbitrators a firm, professional wage to allow them to devote themselves full time to the position. That has about a snowball's chance in hell.

Continuing down the path ArbCom has this year will help alleviate the issues, but the only remotely realistic solution is for the community to step up and develop better processes. Indeed, it is my opinion that the need for ArbCom at all indicative a failure in community processes. One cannot even state that privacy matters require an ArbCom to handle, as we have OverSighters and OTRS volunteers who deal with private, sensitive information day in and day out. Of course, all my opinion and you're welcome to some grains of salt. Vassyana (talk) 10:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Areas_for_Reform#In_addition_to_arbitrating_disputes.2C_should_ArbCom_have_other_responsibilities.3F and other sections trying to deal with those very topics. In fact, most of that page is relevant to the discussion here. Collect (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Vassanya, it seems to me like admins have been given a lot more authority in the past year or so. Stuff gets resolved on ANI every day by singlehanded admins and brief discussions, that would have taken arb cases not that long ago. I'd hope that would decrease the arb workload. I also very surprised when someone said the number of arbcom desysoppings of misbehaving admins has been steady at about 10 per year for the past 4 years. It's obvious that the level of misconduct that it took to desysop someone was much higher 4 years ago, so if the number of desysoppings is staying steady, it means the admins are behaving better and therefore can be trusted with more responsibility. As for paying arbs, that won't fly, but it had occurred to me that AUSC should perhaps have instead been a paid auditor from completely outside Wikipedia, hired under nondisclosure by the WMF so they are independent of any editor factions, and unlikely to leak private info. It seems to me that AUSC is potentially subject to the exact same drama as the bodies that it's supposed to audit. 69.228.171.150 (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)