Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008

Kick Off

I think it's great that this has been unprotected, and I look forward to engaging positively! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To do list

I've put this on the main page (it's really a draft) - I think there's merit in reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of past processes with some rigour at this stage - that's really the most valuable first step in my book... As a guide, I'd say it might be sensible to try and have everything pinned down by november.. which gives us an appropriate amount of time for discussion, brainstorming and decision making, I'd say.... feedback most welcome! Privatemusings (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've added a few items to the list of pages we'll want to prepare. Also, on the list of open seats; Is NewYorkBrad's seat up for a by-election, as well? Or will that seat remain vacant? In the past, inactive arbs have been replaced at election, with the caveat that they could claim an "extra" seat if they return. I also note that the Arbcom RFC had several proposals for increased membership, a Delta tranche and shorter terms, and so on; I hate to open the can of worms, but is there any shot of those proposals gaining traction before this election? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

A proposal that gained a lot of support (hmm... let's see if I can find it - and more importantly link to it) involved expansion of the Tranches to seven members and introduced Tranche Delta. The smoothest way to do this would be to vote seven into Tranche Beta this election, seven into Tranche Gamma next election (December 09), a new seven into Tranche Delta in December '10 and seven into Tranche Alpha in December '11. This would extend terms to four years, as opposed to the current three years, unless we held elections twice a year instead. Here is that suggestion, put forward by User:Neil -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think quite a few people think that the 3 year terms are already too long. Going to 4 years could be problematic. From the RFC WP:ARBCOMRFC#View_by_SirFozzie_2--Cube lurker (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... yes that's a very good point. I would have to suggest elections every six months then (2 year terms) or every nine months (3 year terms). I know the next four elections, should the seven by four expansion be approved, would be awkward affairs (due to a change in the voting system) but thereafter I'm sure we'd cope. The necessary fuss of more frequent elections would be countered by the increase in work that the Arb Com could handle quickly and efficiently. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 23:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd support elections every six months. It might lead to less criticism of Arbcom, and on wiki times seems to move quicker. Six months is quite a long time. Hiding T 18:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any reason why NYB's seat shouldn't be up for by-election, unless Jimbo fancies appointing someone directly. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 23:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the time since NYB's resignation, I'd say that's unlikely at this point. I'll add the seat to the list, pending clarification. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Voting system

I'd like to see a change in the voting system this year. In previous years, members have been appointed with the highest percentage support, but this doesn't take into account the fact that they've got serious opposition from the community (e.g. high support and high opposition). Endorsement voting works well, where users only support candidates - this way we'd get people with the highest support. If we went along with this system, I'd strongly suggest a new "discussion" page is set up where people can voice their concerns about candidates and discussion about each candidate can happen. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree the system needs looking at, Ryan - I'd be tempted to suggest some sort of Preference based voting - equally, I'd be happy to appoint some sort of committee with the mandate of selecting the best available system. The Schulze method is apparently very good, and was recently used (as you'll know) in the elections to the board of trustees.... it's only downside is that it's very difficult to intuitively understand (or understand at all!!). Another 'drama reduction' measure I think I'd like to talk about (and am tempted to support even at this early stage) would be some sort of secret ballot - again, like the elections to the board of trustees... whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I wasn't a huge fan of the Shulze method - a lot of people didn't understand how to use is, but with more than one user being promoted, I think preference voting is the way forward - that was, the most preferred users from the wider community get elected. The thing is, the Shulze method, if everyone understands, is quite a good syetem to get the most preferred candidates elected. I also think a secret ballot is good - it increases the probability of all the candidates staying till then end and means tag team voting is cut significantly. We need a well advertised discussion page for each candidate however if we go along this route, so concerns can be raised rather than taken to a low traffic talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A secret balloting system will mean coding and server-space; I know we had an outside firm doing the board elections this time around, but didn't we have one of the devs setup a server for the secret balloting two board elections ago? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Most prefered may not be ideal for arbcom. There is something to be said for prefering candidates with no significant oposition over candidates very popular with one group but highly unpopular with another.Geni 04:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I am opposed to a "only support" system, unless each user is limited vote for only one to three candidates. A candidate who is highly controversial but a "big name" can easily gain 200 supports and 300 opposes, and I think it is utterly wrong to put such a candidate ahead of a more quiet and uncontroversial candidate with 100 supports and 0 opposes. The Schulze system is actually quite good, even if people don't know how to use it. The only knowledge of the system is that you put a small number next to those you like, and a big one next to the ones you don't like. However, implementing that system in an open poll is unworkable, and will require a ballot system. Finally, I prefer a secret ballot for two reasons. First, I want to remove any concerns that an ArbCom member will be biased against those who opposed their candidacy. Second, the open poll is altogether too much affected by what other people have voted. That leads to votes along the lines of "This person has garnered much opposition so I can't trust him either", skewing the result. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Sjakkalle that a "support only" system is not appropriate for this kind of election. It would have led to the extraordinary decision to appoint a 100-fold opposed candidate in 2006, for example. This would not be good for legitimacy or confidence, especially given the (to my mind) obviously preferable appointments that resulted. Splash - tk 09:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

We have the discussion over voting system every year, and always finish up with the same up-or-down system. It has not to my knowledge noticeably malfunctioned, and this has not principally been to do with Jimbo's divine prerogative, i.e. he has basically gone down the list of 'most net support'. That said, Schulze is a nice system but as observed by Sjakkalle would only work with ballots. Splash - tk 09:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As to open or closed balloting, well. The theory of arbitrator bias is mainly just a theory - generally, we've had such clearly-supported candidates that are such good Wikipedians that this has never emerged from the dustier corners of election theory. I don't see any reason for this year to be different. More serious is the RfA-avalanche effect where people have their decisions either taken from them or made for them by the sheer weight of support/oppose. More worrying to most people than arbitrator revenge is being the 'lone rebel' pariah (or 'few rebels' pariahs). It's bound to chill in both the support and oppose directions. I would therefore prefer a closed ballot, but do recognise that the open ballot with limited discussion provides a useful sociological steam-release valve that might be stoppered-up in a closed system. Splash - tk 09:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• I'd like to ask that we keep the voting the system the same as it's always been; as Splash says, I don't believe it has been shown to be faulty at this point. Highest percentages win - it's simple, everyone understands it, it's not subjective, it scales, and it's worked thus far. The Schulze system is far too esoteric and confusing; please, please let's not use that. Also, keep the ballot open. Closed ballots can lead to suspicions of vote-rigging, and I'm not sure about the "pariah" effect Splash mentions - I never had any problems from being the first person to oppose Newyorkbrad last year (and it was 208-0 at the time I voted!). Neıl ☄ 12:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• I think I agree with Neil, same basic voting system as last year, please. If you do change it, please at least don't switch to secret ballot though, ok? The stuff about getting the guidelines down well in advance, using templates to help make it clearer what is going on when votes are struck, comments moved, etc, all seems like goodness to me though. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
• Agreed with Neil and Lar. Simple and straightforward is the way to go, no secret ballots. This is especially important now, when the legitimacy and transparancy of the ArbCom is such a contentious issue. GlassCobra 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Schulze method worked perfectly for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees elections in June 2008. And it will certainly also work perfectly for Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections. CataTony 09:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't advocate any method of voting that would actually serve to limit the drama surrounding arbcom elections. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Elections are not held for entertainment. CataTony 14:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

You do not apparently live in the United States. In this instance, though, I was being sarcastic - but I'm sure some watch these elections for the ZOMG Drama - this is Wikipedia, after all. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Strongly agree Ryan P system "support only". 'Zilla plan stand arbcom election this year! [Short pause to graciously receive storm of jubilation from little users. ] Who dare oppose her? Nobody! [/me thoughtfully blow tiny puff of atomic deathray to demonstrate point. Wisps of evil-smelling smoke rise from talkpage. With great dignity: ] Zilla integrity. Not wish favored by voting system. (Even though landslide support for 'Zilla obviously foregone conclusion.) And open voting please. Reasons given in votes interesting. Closed ballot boring. bishzilla _ROARR!! 13:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC).

• I definitely think the voting system needs to enable voters to oppose candidates, either through support/oppose sections like the previoius years voting system or by ranking the candidates like for the board vote. Candidates who would get very strong opposition (regardless of if they get strong support as well) should not get elected (even though last year I remember voting for two candidates who I think would have been elected if it was support only). On balance would oppose a secret ballot as I think transparency is more important than the quite reasonable reasons for supporting it. Davewild (talk) 17:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Changes are welcome to the process, however it's my strong opinion that for these positions, the elections should be open (in plain public view) and provide ample opportunity for opposition arguments. The first is to maintain transparency towards the community, while the second is because, at least from what I've seen, opposition arguments provide more useful information about the user. But that's just my "IMHuO...". :) - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• I highly doubt that you can run either preferential voting or Schulze method as the way to vote for ArbCom. The election is designed to have multiple winners, therefore, neither of these work. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• The Schulze method can be used, in a straight-forward manner, to calculate a ranking of the candidates. And then the top five candidates of this ranking are deemed elected. CataTony 08:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

• Its too complicated. Keep things as they have always been. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I doubt that he was only humorous. Later, he wrote comment1 and comment2.

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

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

Well, the users don't have to "learn a voting system". They only have to know that they should rank the candidates, instead of just supporting or opposing them. CataTony 07:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Given the very significant number of people who found the Shulze system difficult to understand during the WMF Board elections, I disagree with your statement. It was also a complex enough system that an external firm was engaged to ensure its smooth operation and to remove any appearance of bias. English Wikipedia does not have the financial wherewithal have the ballotting tallied by an external firm, nor the money to pay for an independent programmer to write the voting software. I can tell from the fact that 100% of your edits relate to this voting method that you seem to hold it in high regard; however, there are certain practicalities that make it impractical for even a large community such as this. Risker (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the Software in the Public Interest organization conducted the latest WMF Board elections had nothing to do with the adoption of the Schulze method. Already in earlier elections, SPI tallied the vote [1]. CataTony 08:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you have missed my point. The current scheme, where individuals sign their votes, is straightforward and accountable, requires no additional software, can be interpreted quickly and easily, and does not require any software to tally. Candidates know at all times where they stand, and may withdraw early on if it is clear they will not be successful. The Shulze system is not transparent, there is no way for candidates to gauge their progress, and it costs money that we do not have. The Foundation, given its separate obligations from Wikipedia and its charitable status, has determined that certain funds will be set aside to ensure independent monitoring and assessment of the WMF Board elections. There is no Foundation funding for election processes of individual projects, and the individual projects are not in a position to raise funds through other means; even if they were, I cannot imagine the community considering purchased services for elections to be anywhere near a top priority for scarce funds. Risker (talk) 08:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

How much did the WMF pay to the SPI for conducting the Board elections? CataTony 10:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

<-- While I can appreciate any SPA's views (and an SPA devoted to a voting system is a first?[2]), I think this key matter ought to be decided based on the consensus of experienced users posting under their primary accounts. That aside, I stand by my statement that Schulze is needlessly complex for AC elections; will require people to spend too much time analyzing how to vote rather than who to vote for and why; will require far too much time sorting and tabulating; apparently may require us to pay for that same group that did the Board elections; lacks immediate and obvious transparency as the vote progresses of the results and outcomes; if it's not broken, why break it now? There is no point in even pretending this is not a straight vote or election (no "Voting is evil" nonsense and fundy dogma) so let's just do what works, which is a pure election where people can worry about the candidates rather than the Goldberg variation complexity of the election process. rootology (T) 13:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Root, if and when it is proven that the current system we have been using is in some way producing wrong results, then we should investigate other methods, but finding more complex ways to spend money is certainly not a headache we need at this point in time. MBisanz ^talk 13:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

To Rootology: Secret ballots and voting software are not something completely new to Wikipedia. We already used the BoardVote software for the ArbCom elections in 2004 and 2005. That discussion is on secret ballots and BoardVote.

To Rootology: This is Pathoschild's answer to my question about the costs.

To MBisanz: Of course, it is not possible to "prove" that a voting system "produced wrong results" in some objective way. CataTony 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

In favour of secret ballots:

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

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

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

Tawker: I think Boardvote is the way to go and here's why

1. Anon, no flame wars over who voted for who / no hurt feelings / loss of trust / etc
2. Technical measure to prevent duplicate voting
3. Overall easier interface for everyone

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

In favour of open ballots:

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

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

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

CataTony 18:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Board Election Voting System and SPI's interest within it

Please pardon my incredibly delayed entry into this conversation. As several of you know, I recently had surgery on my wrists and got so behind on WP stuff...

I want to clarify one thing, though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As a previous committee member, but not speaking in any official capacity, - Philippe 15:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Election committee

I'd strongly suggest appointing an election committee to oversee procedures. Last year it was quite disorganised if I'm being honest - We didn't really know what was going on. Also, just about any user could strike another users vote out for not having suffrage - I think it would work better (and be more respected) if only members of an election committee could do this. It would also help organise procedures regarding sock voting - more responsibility will mean greater checks are made. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

heh... (after ec) - strongly agree.. we can take some time to discuss roles and responsibilities (and allow a good, solid field of folk to put their hands up for such a task...) - it'd be good to get consensus here for such a committee, and maybe we can aim for October to 'swear them in' - I'll add it to the 'to do' for now... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

geez I'm a bird brain... it's there already... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The only reason the Board Election Committee was able to be effective is because it had direct authority (foundation:Resolution:Election Committee Officers - March 2008; "The qualifications of voters, the deadline for nominations, and all other matters related to the conduct of this election are to be determined by the commission, subject to review by the Board") from the Foundation to make decisions without the community being able to overrule it. Given that this isn't possible with this election, a committee is slightly pointless - every detail requires a consensus of the community, rather than a committee, so I cannot say that I see the point of a committee for these elections. In effect, the committee would just be doing what the community agrees on, so therefore it seems a redundant layer of bureaucracy.

Of course, if the community is willing to delegate decision-making power to a committee, then it will obviously be of some use. However, until that happens, I can't see what benefits having a committee would bring.

Cheers, Daniel (talk) 04:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Last time it ended up being Mtmelendez and a few others who put together the voting pages, question pages, and so forth, and who monitored the election during voting. It was quite impromptu, using the same rules for franchise and such as with the previous election. We still had several complaints of "Who came up with these rules? Why was there no community input?" So, so long as the community has a crack at whatever proposals we come up with, I think we'll be fine, committee or no. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Unless a committee's authority comes from an indisputable source, there will always be disruptive bitching, ignoring, and general insolence. That is why I don't think a committee as such is the way to go for these elections. Daniel (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

<- "if the community is willing to delegate decision-making power to a committee" - I'd certainly support this - it's exactly what I'm suggesting. I would like the committee folks to have a similar mandate to the arbcom clerks in some ways (as an example)- after a few days discussion here, I'll try and write up a proposal on a sub-page, which could go ahead if it gets broad community consensus... Privatemusings (talk) 04:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

But then I'm sure the community will want to hold an election to appoint people to this decision-making committee, which will be simply lame in my opinion. Daniel (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

no elections! no voting! - hows about a good 'ol consensus based discussion?! That way, I can force you on to it without you even consenting to 'stand' :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll probably not be getting involved with this election at all except for supporting a handful of candidates :) Daniel (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Ditto. I tried to bring some organization into the process and almost got crucified for it. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

We've always found it best to spread the work amoung well whoever felt like doing it. It is unlikely to be worth the hastle it would take to set up an election committe.Geni 04:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

There's always complaints about the process, whether it's too disorganized or whether it's too bureaucratic (i.e. too "unwiki"). I think that establishing a committee or "spreading the work among whoever felt like doing it" will probably bring the same amount of opposition, just from different sides of the community. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 19:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Some Thoughts on Procedure and Policy

When the whole Arbcom RFC shenanigans began, I put together a page of proposals and ideas for the next election. The full page is at Wikipedia:Arbcom electoral reform. The Highlights:

1. We need to determine who votes. Some have said that 150 Mainspace edits are too many - others, that that's too few. We also need to set the cutoff date for those edits - last year it was 1 November.
2. Questions - Some candidates were opposed for not answering questions, despite the fact that they became candidates at the last minute (2 or 3 days before voting began). Others were concerned about questions for "All the candidates" that bypassed the long-shots. I'd propose a 2-week declare-your-candidacy phase, during which questions would be submitted. Then, a 2 week period of Candidate Statements, Discussion, and a page with all submitted questions in one spot, available to all candidates for 14 days, to answer as they wish.
3. Discussion - How much is too much on the voting page? We had half a dozen rules-of-thumb last time, and there was some heartburn over it. We should set a standard - maybe 2 sentences, 100 words, or an unlimited vote, one reply, and then a reply to that; anything else is moved to the talk page with a link.
4. Poll Workers - I'd propose a set of templates/rules for election helpers, so that everyone who is helping is responding to similar votes in the same way, and - most importantly - so that voters who have their votes indented are told why.

Count me in on whatever committee is forming around this process - and I'd add that Mtmelendez was heavily involved last time around, and should probably be pinged now as well - which I will do if I remember. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Some comments in the same order:

1. I think raising this is mainly people trying to set a 'distrust threshold'. People try to do that all the time on Wikipedia, and are repeatedly stopped. In this particular case, there is no basis for thinking that e.g. 300 edits would have made more than a marginal difference to the support/oppose ratios, and even less basis for expecting it to have changed the result (particularly given the divine prerogative of appointment that completes the process). In short, changes to the edit franchise are a solution looking for a problem that has never occurred. A cut-off date, however, is sensible. It should be before the opening of nominations, ideally, to squelch any off-site co-ordination. (Which is also a never-yet problem, but increasingly possible).
2. Yes, nominations should close in advance. Doesn't stop people not answering questions, but that's their problem. All q's to all candidates is sub-optimal though, as people might quite legitimately have a question about a specific aspect of a certain candidate. Encouraging people to ask both centralised and specialised questions will lead to much more performance art ("look Mum, how fancy a question I can ask") than is necessary. There should be a numeric limit of e.g. 3 centralised questions per editor plus e.g. 2 to a specific candidate. Some finessing of this will be required to prevent abuse. Splash - tk 09:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
3. People should not be fiddling with others' votes, as mangling their comments destroys the context in which a vote is made. If rather overly-manufactured concerns of page-length really do distress people, then simply ban on-page responses; people have to give a link beneath their vote to their reply on the talk page. Splash - tk 09:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
4. Some standardisation of operational issues is probably a good idea.

Splash - tk 09:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm less concerned about what the standard is (I think 150 works well, personally) than the fact that we nail down a standard as early as possible. I have no objections to the current 150 mainspace edits 30 days before voting standard.
2. For Questions, I'm thinking of a master list of questions for everyone that would be transcluded/templated/copied over to each candidate's Question page. Additional questions could be added by individuals - we can't limit that much - but these could very easily be submitted in the same way. Adding some focus on the discussion pages would help, as well - that way, something that comes up during voting could be addressed without giving the appearance that the candidate had a question go unanswered (when it was posted during voting).
3. The only way would be an all-or-nothing approach. What was done several times last go-around was to move the entire comment to the talk page, preserving the voting term ("Support", or whatever), and crosslinking the two. An example is Support number 126 for Giano, last time around, which was crosslinked to the talk page, here. Most voting page talk pages had a section for this sort of thing. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

1)no we throw the exact requirements in at the last minute to make gameing harder

2)ceneralised global questions are a really bad idea. If you think a question is really important enough to ask all candidates you can go to the effort of adding it to all their question pages.Geni 20:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Keep (150 undeleted mainspace edits + 30 days before) as is. Anyone I don't want to vote I'll just expunge all their edits, Geni.) Questions are already out of hand, I'd oppose centralising. - brenneman

No problem with questions posted the same way we've done them in the past; I still think we should have a longer timeline that includes a question/discussion period, though. Let me see if I can work something of a proposal up. 150 Mainspace+30 days works for me, as well; it was on my list of discussion items from 2007, so I mentioned it here - no worries. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with a question discussion period is that you risk streching the election out even further.Geni 08:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the idea was actually to split the nomination period (which ran from 1 November to 30 November last year) into two phases; the nomination period (14 days), where qualified candidates throw their hat into the ring, and the question/discussion phase (14 days), where the candidates answer questions and discussion can take place with the full field. We then take a couple days to finalize the voting pages and whatnot (though we have the 14 day question period to do this as well), and voting begins, Per below. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Possible Timeline?

Per above, we might run something like this:

Saturday 1 November 2008 - T-30 days - Editors must be registered and have 150 mainspace edits by 23:59 UTC on this date to vote.

Monday 3 November 2008 - T-28 days - Nominations open (14 days)

Monday 3 November 2008 - T-28 days - Invitation for questions ("Think about what you'd ask/add it to this list if you want to ask everyone")

Monday 17 November 2008 - T-14 days - Nominations close

Monday 17 November 2008 - T-14 days - Question pages opened/Questions transcluded/etc. - Question Phase Begins

Monday 24 November 2008 - T-07 days - Voting pages created/Discussion pages created/Quickvote Created

Monday 1 December 2008 - T-00 days - Voting Begins

Monday 15 December 2008 - T+14 days - Voting Closes, Vote Pages protected for 3 weeks, Votes Reviewed for socks

Friday 19 December 2008 - T+18 days - Final Vote totals/percentages/statistics confirmed

Monday 29 December 2008 - T+28 days - Jimbo Wales Certifies Election/Announces Winners/Declares Consensus/Comes down from on high/etc.

Thursday 1 January 2009 - T+31 days - New Arbitrators take office

It ends up being 2 days shorter, mainly because I based it on a 1 December voting date, and started noms on the 3rd of November instead of the 1st. The ending steps, checking for socks and whatnot, are speculative, obviously. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the period leading up to it should be shortened a bit. I like slitting the noms/questions to an extent, since this way users can't sneak past the questions, but a month just feels long to me. Wizardman 23:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think we could easily knock a week off. We'd then have 21 days; 10 days for nominations, 10 days for questions, and an extra day to add in somewhere. We're more flexible if people don't mind off-setting the days; I had everything hitting on mondays to avoid having anything important required over Thanksgiving (November 28 in the US) or Christmas Eve/Christmas Day/Boxing Day (December 24-26, though much less important - Jimbo can step away from the turkey and presents if he so wishes). UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Essjay seat?

Would it be worthwhile contacting Jimbo to suggest the Tranche Alpha seat that was held for a very short while by Essjay (and never filled again after his departure) also be put up for election this year? That's another option open to us, and would allow two extra arb's to come in this year (Essjay's seat, + Newyorkbrad's). AGK ^{(talk ◊ contact) 21:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)}

If so, the new arb should be placed in Tranche Beta for the sake of easyness-to-understand. Because, face it, replacing Essjay's seat would put six arbs in one tranche. As Beta is up for election, we'd put the new arb in here. NYB's replacement would make up the five in Alpha. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 22:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh please. There is no "Essjay seat". Essjay was appointed to replace DMcdevit, served for approximately 10 days, and was then replaced by Mackensen. There were never six people in Tranche Alpha. This election is for Tranche Beta (five seats), and any seats that remain unfilled in other tranches at the time of the election. Risker (talk) 22:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Risker... My mistake. There's no need for the snap, yeah?

I guess I misread the chart. I think you're incorrect in your statement there, though: Essjay and Mackensen were appointed at the same time, the latter to fill the seat vacated by the retiring Dmcdevit, and the former, to a new "expansion" seat.

AGK ^{(talk ◊ contact) 22:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)}

Woah! My bad. Don't bite. From AGK's statement, I genuinely thought that for a short while, there was a sixth seat in Tranche Alpha. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

As did I, Escape Artist... And apparently there was, although I've now found out it was only in existence from Essjay's appointment until the end of 2007 (although obviously he retired long before the end of 2007, and it has never been filled since). There is, of course, always an option of re-creating the seat, as per Jimbo's rationale in originally creating it. AGK (talk ◊ contact) 23:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left a message on Jimbo's talk page so he'll turn up here to clarify the situation re:which-seats-are-up-for-grabs? soon enough. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 23:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, reviewing talk pages of both Essjay and Mackensen indicates that Anthony was correct, and they were both appointed to Arbcom on February 24, 2007. So there was an approximately 8-day period where there were indeed six seats on Tranche Alpha. Given how that worked out, I am very hesitant to suggest this as a precedent that should be repeated. Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I need to go find a trout... Risker (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

*Drops in.* Essjay and I were appointed simultaneously; I was appointed to fill Dmcdevit's seat, while Essjay's was an entirely new seat. For those keeping score, I believe Deskana took my seat, while Essjay's was not filled. Whether it "exists" or not is somewhat irrelevant; Jimbo is free to appoint additional arbitrators as the need arises. Mackensen (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Ballot question

This year there have been several initiatives concerning arbcomm.

I'm curious if it would be "allowable" to suggest allowing one or more of those initiatives to be added to the ballot for everyone to vote upon?

Though, I'll admit that while suggesting it, I'm on the fence about it myself, since these "elections" are only guides for Mr. Wales to decide who the members are.

But perhaps the results of such initiatives might also be "guides" to help him determine if a change to arbcomm has support of the community.

But then again, are we opening a floodgate that may not be closable?

For transparency, the initiative I'm suggesting concerns reducing the lengths of the arbitrators terms (2 years, 4 tranches of 4 members, elections every 6 months) - Something which Mr. Wales said he would take under consideration when I asked him about it on his talk page - which is another hesitation on my part. Would suggesting this here, indicate an attempt to bypass his opinion? The answer is (I hope) an obvious: No. Especially since he makes the final determination in either case.

Further thoughts welcome. - jc37 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There seem to be a variety of proposals from the WP:ARBCOMRFC about how many Tranches we should have and how many Arbs we should have in each Tranche. Maybe a strawpoll should be conducted to see if there is any consensus on the issue. I've left a message on Jimbo's talk page so he'll turn up eventually. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 23:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

There is a useful summary of the proposals that have gained traction at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Summary, and I note that several deal with Eligibility to run and terms. For example, there's a proposal to set a 1-consecutive-term limit, in order to limit burnout and inactivity. Other proposals would shorten terms from the current 3 years to 12, 18, or 24 months. As noted, above, a Tranche Delta is proposed to go with 2 year terms and elections every six months. It'd be interesting to have a ballot determine the terms of arbitrators also being elected by that ballot, and we'd already have an election format running. This might be worth considering. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Too many questions

I think the process of users asking short open questions of every candidate which require the candidates to invest a disproportionate amount of time answering them is suboptimal. People asking questions should at least realise that spamming the same question to everyone is a serious draw on the candidates' time. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

• How about there be no questions for all candidates, but users may ask up to three candidates specific questions. General questions are gathered by Signpost over November and each candidate fills out the general questionnaire between declaring and voting. Or something along those sorts of lines. I don't know. Candidates need to be open to the community, but the community can't abuse that openness. And a lot of the questions for all candidates could be fairly well predicted and gathered through the signpost. Just tossing thoughts out. Hiding T 16:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there is an excessively large volume of questions being asked. I see a number of possibilities for countering this, if it is agreed that the volume of questions is greater than desired:

• Set an maximum number of questions permitted to be put to each candidate, essentially having the candidate's question page "locked down" once this limit has been reached. (I don't think this is the best option, as the 'slots' available may be taken up by a small number of editors (who each ask a wide variety of questions, for example), or by questions of "low quality".)
• Compile a "central bank" of questions, having possibilities submitted in good time; the highest quality questions may then be selected, and put to each candidate. If voters wished to ask individual candidates specific questions (perhaps explaining a past action; requesting elaboration on a point of his or her statement; and so on), this may be done outwith the formal question process, or on a separate (sub?)page of the candidate's nomination space. (Downside: this may simply result in questions being forked between two pages–it all depends on the individuals asking the questions.)
• Directly use, or develop a model based heavily on, m:Board elections/2008/Candidates/Questions#Instructions.

Then again, we may instead decide that our current system is fine. If anything, they do act as something of an "indicator" of a potential arbitrator's anticipated activity rate. If he or she cannot keep up with at least the majority of the responding-to-question flow, it raises worries that the candidate will be able to meet the time demands of holding a seat on the Committee.

Anthøny 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Anthony hit it in a nutshell. If an Arb prospect can't handle up to 100 questions or so over a month, he'll never keep up with Arb work. rootology (T) 05:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Terms and seats

Given there is a proposal which appears to have good support that the community would like to see arb-com be expanded in numbers and terms reduced, are we looking to start that process here, with the community electing seven arbitrators serving two year terms? This would call for a June election for the next tranche, whether we elect an additional two at that point? Or should we elect this tranche to an 18 month term? Or elect two tranches of seven arbs now:

• Tranche Beta on 18 month term expires June 2010
• Tranche Delta on 6 month term expires June 2009

We could either have the top seven in tranche Beta and the next seven in tranche Delta, allow Jimbo to sort or allow electors to choose. The latter would create possibly a mess of the election, so perhaps the first is the better option, as the second may prove contentious. This would give us four tranches:

• Tranche Delta expiring in Jun 2009 - at this point elect seven in tranche for two years
• Tranche Gamma expiring in Dec 2009 - at this point elect seven in tranche rather than five for two years, barring anyone who has served two consecutive terms
• Tranche Beta expiring in Jun 2010 - at this point elect seven in tranche for two years, barring anyone who has served two consecutive terms
• Tranche Alpha expiring in Dec 2010 - at this point elect seven in tranche rather than five for two years, barring anyone who has served two consecutive terms

and then

• Tranche Delta expiring in Jun 2011 - at this point elect seven in tranche for two years, barring anyone who has served two consecutive terms

So by 2011 we have 28 serving arbs, in four tranches serving two year terms, and by June 2011 arbs can only serve two consecutive terms. I think that gets across what Neil is suggesting and appears to have been endorsed by the community here. Thoughts? Hiding T 11:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will like the idea of a tranche being elected for six months, considering the fuss an election entails. Perhaps phasing things in more gradually (the group to be elected this December sits for 2 1/2 years)? Neıl ☄ 13:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The idea for a six month tranche is that they would be the tranche with the lowest support in the coming election, so they would have a short term to establish themselves, possibly learn the ropes and for the community to judge them. But yes, electing this group for 2 1/2 years is another way forwards. That still leaves the question of how many seats are up? Seven, six or five? Hiding T 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Why exactly is it thought necessary to nearly double the size of the Arbitration Committee? Without other substantive changes to the way the committee works, it simply means twice as many people reading the the cases and then going off-wiki to argue amongst themselves about what to do. I suggest that, rather than make changes in numbers as part of this process, the discussion continue at the RfC and perhaps on the Arbitration Committee policy page, until there is a community consensus about what Arbcom processes need to be changed (e.g., assigning tranches to cases) and how big it ought to be. Risker (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

If we have 28 arbs, we just split the committee in half and alternate cases. So first case up gets assigned to Alpha and Gamma, then next case up is assigned Beta and Delta. The many reasons for expanding the committee are outlined in the link provided. Hiding T 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

But wouldn't that be a pretty major change in how the Arbitration Committee works? I thought this page was for organizing the next election, not to change the fundamentals of Arbcom. Personally, I'm all for shorter terms, but doubling the size of Arbcom doesn't sound like a good idea to me (as I already said in the RfC). And if we split the committe in half.. what then? Two separate Arbcom mailing lists? A case not being accepted even though there are active arbitrators.. who happen to be in the wrong tranche? --Conti|✉ 15:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay. There's a consensus to expand the arb-com. That means there needs to be more members elected. Hence discussion at this page regarding next election. Does that make it clearer? Whatever is decided will impact on the coming election, whether it is the length of term or the number of seats elected. I'm not sure how you organise an election without determining what is being elected. Hiding T 15:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Another way forwards is to then change how arb-com works. Perhaps have cases accepted once seven arbs have indicated acceptance, regardless of those arbs refusing to accept. Therefore on a committee of 28 it would take 22 refusals for a case not to be accepted, since there are only 6 remaining arbs to comment. This would mean arbs having to be a lot more active. Perhaps if after seven days seven arbs have not accepted a case is rejected. Anyone else fot anything? Or are we going to ignore the consensus to expand arb-com? Hiding T 15:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't really see the consensus for this change in the first place, since I wouldn't interpret 26 people endorsing and 8 people opposing that part of the RfC as a consensus. This needs wider input, especially from current and former arbitrators, IMHO. --Conti|✉ 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Conti. That is hardly consensus, and certainly not the kind of consensus one would expect to make a major change in our Dispute Resolution process. Risker (talk) 16:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I don;t really see the value in disputing whether a consensus exists or not, that's an effort in futility. We obviously disagree on that fact and there's no way forwards from that. Since Conti is open to the idea of shorter terms, there's obviously room for us to move discussion to that area. Hiding T 16:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

You think making the committee bigger is going to make it quicker?! That's about the most ridiculous idea I've heard. Bigger committees are slower. The answer might well include shorter terms (I'd suggest two years, with annual elections), but I'd suggest that the committee is too big, rather than too small. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sam's right. Having more members absolutely slows things down. There is probably a theorem about this somewhere. Paul August ☎ 22:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I am quietly confident you have heard many ideas, and that a fair proportion of them will have been more ridiculous than the one you dismiss here. Either that or you have led a very sheltered life. ;) It seems reasonable to assert the mood is for a term of two years, even if there is some vocal opposition to expanding the committee at this particular instance, which I would hope can be weighed against the previous support for it and also when more voices are heard. Hiding T 16:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

It's probably far too late to start discussing this for action this year. Especially considering the RfC produced multiple contradictory suggestions on it.

I also share Sam's concerns over if enlargement of the Arbitration Committee would actually be helpful or not, and oppose it myself. --Barberio (talk) 17:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I share similar thoughts to Sam. Furthermore, there's no community consensus for increasing the number of seats on the committee -- and, even if there was, per Risker: there's not much time to implement at this late stage (for this year, at least)… Anthøny 18:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got to agree that it is too late at this point in time to go around changing the size. Since Arbcoms in general are regulated by the WM Foundation for purposes of privacy access, etc has anyone contacted them to see if they have any min. voting requirements for arbcom elections? MBisanz ^talk 19:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That's not how I read the foundation's role and statements, you have an interesting take on it there. Hiding T 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Introducing 14 arbs in the December elections would create a majorly complex election. I would suggest electing 7 arbs in Beta now, 7 into Gamma next June and then create Delta next December. This would shorten the terms to two years and the expansion would be gradual. If a bigger arbcom proves to be too big, we can always start to vote in 5 again. _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 12:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Term

So it looks like the expansion idea is stone dead, but there still seems to be support for a two year term this time. That would mean we would have two tranche's expiring in 2010 though. SO how are we to go forwards in shrinking the terms? Hiding T 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest composing a note to Jimmy and arbcom-l, explaining why you think the change is a good one (e.g. accountability, burnout, the relative lengths of an arbitrator's appointment and Wikipedia's history &c.). You would also mention that there is significant support for this among the community (I haven't seen many people who think that three years isn't too long). Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm losing track of how consensus works on Wikipedia. And the will. Hiding T 23:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

This is different to most things, of course, because arbitrators are appointed by Jimmy under advice from the electoral process. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should do it the other way around and first get a consensus among the community, and then tell Jimmy that we'd like to shorten the terms of the Arbitrators. Wikipedia:ARBCOMRFC#II. Timescales is a good start, but I'm not sure if it's enough for this kind of change. Once again, I'd be curious what the current and former arbs think of this. --Conti|✉ 01:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

• shrug* As you like. I was only giving my advice! You have one former arbitrator's opinion -- I rather think if you want some more you might have to ask. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

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

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

There are two remedies for that.

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

Those 2 measures would probably solve much of it. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 23:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Illustrations?

Individual candidate statement pages, or candidate discussion pages, contain illustrations? 'Zilla campaign manager already create highly persuasive election poster. All right put Bishzilla election pages? Or make pages too slow? bishzilla _ROARR!! 10:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC).

• Drawings fine if colored in and you've not gone over the edges. If it was up to me, I'd say make the pages they can get moved if needed, but you might have to write a letter to Jimmy, the committee and the foundation just to check. Hiding T 13:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Bishzilla, I'm afraid I can't understand what you're saying. Is it, you'd like to create graphics for each candidate? Anthøny 14:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
    • What the mighty 'Zilla is asking, in her most eloquent manner, is would it be fine with the powers that be if the most magnificent 'Zilla could place her election poster on the Candidate Statements page. For example, see last year's candidate statement page. If that's not possible, how about on her "Questions for the Candidate page? For example, see friend Giano's page from last year. She would just like to show off the beautiful and persuasive poster. Tex (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
      • [..Much relieved. ] Eloquent. In nutshell, that be it. 'Zilla most eloquent manner. bishzilla _ROARR!! 16:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC).

Since the underlineing code used to generate the image will be counted towards the character limit I doubt it would be worthwhile includeing an image of any significance. While yes it would probably be posible to do so useing an SVG I don't think it is a good idea.Geni 10:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy changes from the RfC

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

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

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

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

Additional seat

Paul August has resigned from the Arbitration Committee; he will complete cases in which he is currently active but will not participate in any future cases. Unless something extraordinary happens, there will be a sixth seat available in the coming election. Risker (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's wait a couple days before listing it, just in case something changes. MBisanz ^talk 18:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Input from last year's process

8 months on, some thoughts:

1. The timing cycle could be improved. Last year it was nominations Nov 1 - Nov 30, and elections open Dec 3. I'd change that, nominations Nov 1 - Nov 24, elections open Dec 1. (Less sure about "q&a only after nominations", there'd be way too much going on, you want more time to spread them out, consider, write, and digest the results.)

   Rationale - users don't need 30 days to decide whether to stand, but once they stand, a week (not 2 - 3 days) between standing and election will ensure even latecomers can have a good range of questions and discussion. This felt like quite a big item as a candidate last year, although it may seem minor from outside.

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

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

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

Slate campaigning

I seem to remember, and I might be confusing the boardvote and the arbcom vote, but there is wording somewhere saying candidates may not run on a slate "Vote for the Honest Group of X, Y, and Z", do we want to have such a rule in this case? do we want to explicitly permit slates? Any other ideas? MBisanz ^talk 17:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Anything that would lead to the creation of factions within the Arbitration Committee is a bad idea. There is nothing wrong with candidate A saying "I think candidates B and C would also make good arbitrators," but would prefer not to see "Vote for the A, B, and C team" or the like. Having said that, I don't think a formal rule against "slates" is necessary; the voters can readily use their own judgment about whether to support candidates who list themselves on one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd add that a group of candidates posting "Vote for Team Honest: Insert Slogan Here" around the project would be less than successful, as they'd probably rack up opposes for campaigning/canvassing. But candidates are not prevented from voting (except for themselves), and can show (and share) support in that way. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Brad, with the addition that since we haven't seen such campaigning before its unnecessary to restrict it in advance. I do remember that a number of users (myself included) posted a list on their userpage of candidates they were supporting - not quite the same thing, although I guess it could have been mistaken for a slate. Avruch ^T 19:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The creation of factions within the Arbitration Committee? Give me a break. Mike R (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Voting system / who wins?

this should hopefully be an easy one to confirm! I'd like us to clearly establish how the votes will be tallied, and the fact that Jimbo will appoint the 5 / 6 (or x) candidates by percentage of support. This is my understanding of 'how we do things' - but I think it's worth confirming... :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

• Jimbo should hand the process over to the community. --Duk 05:02, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I understand where you're coming from, Duk - but I write as someone who's always enjoyed watching the the car trundle up to Buck Palace with the victorious election winner in the UK's general elections, to take tea with the queen. I always enjoy imagining what sort of conversation must occur..... "can I offer you a biscuit, and would you mind forming a government? Now do be good, and don't break it, Gordon, one would not be amused...." etc.! Regardless of the technical means the incoming arb.s utilise to formally take their seats, I think it's a good idea for us to confirm exactly how this election will be 'won'... :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Jimbo's neither the queen, nor a queen to my knowledge, but the crown fitted! - I'm just being playful with a longstanding analogy! :-)

That's funny, calling Jimbo a queen. --Duk 05:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawals

This may seem something of a technicality but it's come up in the past can we please have it accepted that a withdrawal is perminant if you withdraw after nominations have closed?Geni 10:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable idea. MBisanz ^talk 11:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Geni, I presume you mean "if an editor withdraws from the election after the time at which nominations are no longer accepted, he or she may not re-join the election that year"? (Just getting unambiguous wording to ensure we're talking about the same thing here.) Anthøny ✉ 18:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

True, we would not want a withdrawal in the 2008 elections from prohibiting the person from ever running for Arbcom. MBisanz ^talk 19:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That is correct yes.Geni 18:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: All open seats

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

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

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

not really a good idea for maintaining continuity of process, etc. MBisanz ^talk 12:09, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz, Jimbo didn't know what he was talking about in that quote. Go read this response by Thatcher. There is a separation of powers between the Arbcom and the Administrator community. Administrators are not the arbcom's bitches. --Duk 15:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This much is not true. ArbCom was created as a "joint venture" between Jimbo authority (whatever that is) and the community's authority (whatever that is). But it does have a community mandate. Three year terms are too long, although I'm not sure everybody, at once, is the answer either. But it is neither here nor there, for this isn't the place to discuss this. WilyD 12:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like the terms of members to be shortened a bit, but that's not really a discussion for the elections page per say. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 12:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Also note that for the last 3 elections (ie effectively all current Arbcom members), Jimbo has agreed with the community's decision:

• December 2007 - top 5 per vote were appointed
• December 2006 - top 7 per vote were appointed
• January 2006 - top 8 per vote were appointed, plus the reappointment of 3 past arbitrators (each of whom had stood for election and gained 69 - 75%) to enlarge the committee.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

for the last 3 elections... Jimbo has agreed with the community's decision. Yet more evidence that Jimbo isn't needed. --Duk 15:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Why should we allow Jimbo veto power over the community's decision? The fact that he normally accepts the community's decision doesn't mean we should give him the choice to do otherwise. Everyking (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Discarding staggered elections would be a mistake. The institutional memory would be lost, and we would be left with a slate of all brand new arbitrators. With no experience in the arbitration process, with the arbitration wiki or the issues faced by the mailing list, with perhaps no experienced checkusers on the arbitration committee and none with an experience of using the oversight tool... You think we would be better off? I don't see it. I think we should reduce the term, so that the turnover is higher. Arbitrators burn out or lose touch, and it makes sense to have a more frequent reaffirmation of their support in the community. Dispensing with staggered tranches, though, would be a serious error. Avruch ^T 15:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't find this argument convincing at all. We don't need "institutional memory"; it has never been demonstrated that this has helped anything. In actual practice, arbitrators with long terms tend to resist or ignore the community's wishes and form an elite decision-making group completely divorced from the community that elected them. We should have a full election this year and each subsequent year; at only one year, these terms would be so short that it wouldn't be practical to stagger terms, because that would require holding mid-year elections. I suspect a handful of them could be re-elected, so we would probably not have a completely new ArbCom anyway. Everyking (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's "never been demonstrated": we've never had the opportunity, because the current system works so well. Why try to fix what isn't broken? I think it's your "arbitrators with long terms tend to resist or ignore the community's wishes and form an elite decision-making group completely divorced from the community that elected them" statement that is lacking evidence. Reducing the length of terms is an idea that deserves serious consideration, but for a completely different reason: burnout. But I think many (most?) people consider one year to be too short a term for precisely the reason you've indicated: it puts elections too close together. Plus it doesn't allow for arbitrators to gain experience and pass that knowledge on to others. You're confusing two issues and proposing one solution that doesn't really fix either of them properly :D (also)Happy‑melon 21:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

In response to MBisanz, I don't think we should worry about being fair to the arbitrators; we need to be fair to the community, and what's fair to the community is to have a more representative and responsible ArbCom. The arbitrators are supposed to hold their seats in order to help the project, so it seems silly to suggest that they ought to remain in those seats simply so that we can be "fair" to them, even when that doesn't serve the project's interests. Everyking (talk) 19:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

But MBisanz' point is that many of the sitting arbitrators have performed flawlessly in a very difficult task. Unceremonially turfing them out onto the street in the middle of their terms is likely to hugely alienate them and is patently unfair; but that means that the community risks losing a number of gifted and popular arbs. It's equally "silly" to be saying we should be throwing the baby out with the bathwater and depriving ourselves of our good arbs just because we have issues with some of them. (also)Happy‑melon 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, if they're performing flawlessly they could just run again and be elected again. Haukur (talk) 21:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the more human reaction would be to be pissed off at being treated so badly. They're volunteers just like you or I, and it's pretty harsh to repay them for those hundreds of hours of freely-given time by kicking them out like that. If just one of them is sufficiently put out to not stand for re-election, then that's a completely unnecessary loss. (also)Happy‑melon 21:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If you think the current system works well and the current arbitrators are performing flawlessly, then it makes sense that you wouldn't want to shorten their terms. What I see, however, is cases being dragged out for months and eventually being closed with outcomes contrary to the desires of the community. To me, that indicates serious problems, and I think holding a full election in December would go a long way towards addressing them. Everyking (talk) 21:29, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a quite impressive misinterpretation :D! No, I don't think all the current arbitrators are performing flawlessly, I think that some are (as MBisanz said). I do want to shorten the ArbCom term. I agree that cases are unnecessarily prolonged and are sometimes controversial, and that that represents a problem. I completely fail to understand how throwing out the entire ArbCom will go any way to fixing these issues. (also)Happy‑melon 21:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

What alternative ideas do you have in mind to fix the problems? I have proposed something concrete and simple that I believe could tremendously improve ArbCom performance. If we had an alternative reform proposal, we could compare and contrast them and determine which would be likely to achieve the best outcome. Everyking (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

You've proposed something concrete and simple, but with no reason to believe that it will actually fix the problem! My support would be for a more comprehensive packet of reforms from some of the better ideas to come out of the RfC, such as explicit statements of "no new policy", "no secret votes", etc, to resolve the recent concerns over arbitrator conduct. I suspect that these remedies have already been adopted de facto by the ArbCom in the interests of avoiding further drama, whether or not they are written into the de jure policy. In the interests of avoiding burnout and improving case throughput, which are entirely separate issues, I would favour four tranches of seven arbitrators serving for two years; either separated into two circuits, or just requiring a quorum of arbitrators to 'sign on' to any particular case. This would keep our arbitrator body fresh and full, and the larger numbers reduce the impact of individual resignations or indispositions, while not increasing the difficulty of obtaining decisions. (also)Happy‑melon 22:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather talk specifically about how we should conduct this election. I take it you are favor of holding this election in the default manner—a few seats will be filled, subject to Jimbo's approval. If people want to go ahead with that method, all right, but let's see community consensus for it, so the process will have greater legitimacy. In the past, this method has simply been imposed by fiat, and I think it's time we make the decision for ourselves. Everyking (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a completely different issue again: why are you trying to consider so many different ideas in one thread? For the record, however, yes that's exactly what I think should be done: the terms of the five members of tranche beta expire, some number of arbitrators are appointed to replace them. (also)Happy‑melon 22:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I freely concede that neither I nor the committee as a whole are "performing flawlessly" now, nor has the committee ever done so, nor is the committee, howsoever comprised, likely to do so at any future time. However, as one of the more active arbitrators right now, I can attest that it would be highly unhelpful if I had to basically take a month off from deciding cases in order to answer candidate questions again. Shortening the terms in this way would also raise questions akin to those surrounding perceived infringements on judicial independence in the wake of controversial actions or decisions. Discount as you will for my self-evident self-interest, but this proposed change is not recommended. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear: the "proposed change" you refer to is 'annulling the terms of all arbitrators in the December 2008 elections'?? (also)Happy‑melon 22:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I cannot imagine why it would be necessary to devote a full month to answering questions at the expense of ArbCom duties; I ran for ArbCom in the past, I answered questions, and I don't recall it being taxing or time-consuming at all. I don't quite understand the point you're making about judicial independence; perhaps you could elaborate on that. Everyking (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The number of candidate questions seems to increase dramatically over time. I can attest that last November (the month allotted for questioning), I spent far more time answering the candidate questions than doing anything else on Wikipedia, and a quick scan of the questions page for me or any of the other candidates should help confirm this. As for judicial independence, the concern is that an arbitrator might, consciously or more likely subconsciously, have an actual or perceived motivation in a manner calculated to please the electorate rather than resolve the case in the fairest and most appropriate manner. I do not believe that any of my colleagues would actually act in this fashion, any more than I believe that most real-world judges in similar circumstances do so, but the suspicion would always be there. (And to anticipate a potential objection to this point, there is a big difference between saying that arbitrators should decide cases in a fashion acceptable to the community, and acting in such a way as to be deemed as acting in the face of concern they might be penalized for making a decision unsatisfactory in the near term to a substantial faction.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Answering candidate questions is a valuable thing that enables the community to evaluate where an arbitrator stands, and it does not seem demanding to ask them to do this once per year. As for your other point, part of the purpose of my proposal is to make the arbitrators more responsive to the community, so I can't see it as a bad thing that they might change the way they vote based on anticipation of community disapproval. Everyking (talk) 22:47, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

This is based on the presumption that the correct vote coincides with the popular vote. Part of the reasons why sound judicial systems give tenure to their judges is because doing their job right unfailingly means making some (or even most) people displeased. Binding, or even just influencing, decision to popularity is just institutionalized mob rule. — Coren ^(talk) 01:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Isn't mob rule the entire concept behind wikipedia, the encyclopedia everyone can edit?--Cube lurker (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. The whole consensus-building, voting-is-evil mentality is designed to minimise the 'sheep mentality' or 'snowball' effect which is characteristic of mob rule. We're not anarchic, which is the epitome of mob rule; we are also not democratic, which would be the other solution. Our policies are supposed to be governed by an innate sense of right and wrong; we recognise that that internal compass is not infallible and in some editors is entirely missing, so we elect a group to be the ultimate guardians of our behavior. When they produce a 'compass bearing' which is different to our own, we have to accept the possibility that we might be wrong, or the probability that they have access to priviledged information that reveals the real truth. Both options are difficult to accept, so the 'easy option' of just shooting the messenger needs to be prevented, or we will very rapidly run out of people willing to take on that role. That's the basic principle of judicial independence. (also)Happy‑melon 08:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

That was half in jest, but I do strongly believe that arbcom is elected to do the will of the comunity, and not to be our overlords who "protect us from ourselves".--Cube lurker (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

If all ArbCom members had to re-run for their seats, what would happen to open arbitration cases at the time? I doubt that Wiki-drama will completely cease for the month of so that we have no arbitrators and I seriously think that, should this happen, some people might try to game the system. After all, what better time to impose your POV on that article than when there is no one around to examine the situation for a month? We simply cannot suspend the entire process for one month. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 11:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators don't have to resign their seats in order to run for re-election. Why can't they answer questions and handle arbitration duties? Besides, most of them don't handle arbitration duties anyway, as we can observe from recent cases. This is an very inactive group of people; one might even argue that it's barely functional. Everyking (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The outcome of the election would then directly affect the outcome of any cases. Say Arbs A B and C look like they'll bring sanctions against user:Foo - it's then in user:Foo's interest to cause as much disruption as possible to the re-elections of those Arbs. If the Arbs are not re-elected by the end of the case, they won't be able to vote to impose sanctions. However I'm sure we can work out a way around this. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 01:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

How much disruption could this person cause without being blocked for it? Also, I think in the past arbitrators have continued voting on cases that were opened before the ends of their terms; I remember Fred Bauder was still voting on things after his term expired at the beginning of this year. Everyking (talk) 07:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If user:Foo was an admin then he could cause a lot of disruption, whether it be the election pages or a subtler elsewhere. Or if Foo was a popular user with lots of Wiki-friends? An army of sock/meat puppets? If the arbs finished the cases that they started, whether re-elected or not, this wouldn't be as much of an issue. The idea as a whole: baby and bathwater spring to mind. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 18:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

@Everyking: Fred was still voting on cases even though he was no longer an arbitrator because the cases in question were accepted before the new arbitrators took their seats on the committee. It's standard practice for handling the arbitrator change-over. Interestingly, cases accepted before the next year's tranche officially begin duty often have an extra tranche of users arbitrating, should both all of the new arbitrators and all of the old arbitrators (assuming they are not re-elected, and only so long as the case was accepted whilst they were still on the committee) chose to be active on the case. Anthøny ✉ 18:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

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

Let's just put up the new proposed terms for ratification during the vote. Those that pass can go into immediate effect. Those that modify terms, will change the terms of the current sitting members, but no one's term will expire till the next round of elections. (Which if the changes to elections are ratified would be sooner.) --Barberio (talk) 00:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not very enthusiastic about the proposed term changes on that page. I think having one annual election for all arbitrators is both the simplest method and the one that would achieve the best results. Most of the arbitrators need to go: they're divorced from the community, apathetic towards community concerns, and apathetic towards their arbitration tasks in general. Those few arbitrators who might be worth re-electing would have an opportunity to get in touch with the community again and attain a renewed community mandate. Everyking (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but it does not appear many of the other people who've edited this page share your specific viewpoint, and if Barberio, the arch-reformer of ArbCom, thinks something is "very outlandish, and probably disruptive idea", I'm inclined to strongly suggest that maybe this idea, in its current form, is not one that has the community support. MBisanz ^talk 09:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I can admit that my idea seems to have minimal or non-existent support. I'm surprised that someone would go so far as to describe it as outlandish and disruptive, though, and I feel I've made a good case for it here. Oh well—at least I tried. Everyking (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Shortening the terms in this way would also raise questions akin to those surrounding perceived infringements on judicial independence in the wake of controversial actions or decisions. You are not a judge and you are not independent. That said, I do not think the terms of existing arbitrators should be cut off, but I do think that each term from now on should only be for one year (or maybe various odd lengths in order to get us re-situated onto a rotating schedule of one-year terms). --Random832 (contribs) 16:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Obviously I know I'm not a judge. (Compare the last principle in the decision in the Mantanmoreland case.) Hence, "akin to." I am curious, though, from whom am I not independent? Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom as a whole is not as far as I know meant to be independent from - well, originally, Jimbo, but IIRC the official line is that he has his power because of the community, so indirectly the community. But I do think it's reasonable to have somewhat long terms (though maybe not quite so long as they are now) for the same reason that, say, senators have long terms, to insulate the group as a whole from short-term swings in public opinion (that is also why the senate, and IMO the reason for the arbcom as well, is never all up for reelection at once) --Random832 (contribs) 13:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hey, I'm a little late here on this discussion, but from inside looking out, I'd advise people not to worry about arbitrators' feelings when debating things like this. We're here to serve the community. If the community wants to radically change ArbCom, our personal reactions to it should be the least important consideration. And technical problems of how to accomplish such transitions would be just that -- technical problems. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 04:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  Well, I assume that we've established now how change of ArbCom policy will take place. By going through a public RfC process, then putting the changes up for ratification by the general community. Do you think that this has been a fair and valid process from your point of view so far? --Barberio (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

  My point of view is pretty much irrelevant, other than as one-more-person, so I've stayed away from the discussion. (I never did much like design-by-committee; I'm an implementation and debugging guy.) My only two bits is from experience: three years is too long. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Pages and header created

I've created a bunch of pages for the elections, including /Candidate_statements and /Menu; /Voting is forthcoming.

Queries

• Are we retaining last year's minimum requirements to run for the Committee (1000 votes as of November 1, 2008)?
• Are we retaining last year's maximum word count for candidate statements (400 words)? Too short, perhaps, or just right?

All are invited to work on, expand, and mercilessly change my work. :-) Category:Wikipedia Arbitration Committee Elections 2008 is available for tracking of ACE2008-related pages.

Anthøny ✉ 16:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I assume you mean 1000 edits? That seems like a reasonable number although I'd prefer something close to 3-4K. 400 words seems like a good number. MBisanz ^talk 16:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree with keeping the statements that short or shorter. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 04:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The idea is that anyone with 1000 edits knows enough to realistically assess their chances - and to assess them quite low in most cases if 1000 edits is all they have. Haukur (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Manning Bartlett actually did quite well last year with ~1200 edits (60% or so, I think), so it does happen that 1000 edit people do well. Wizardman 13:42, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, he actually had 2,239, but fair enough point, 1,000 hopefully idiot-proofs it. MBisanz ^talk 13:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

A sometimes overlooked bonus that comes with having few edits is that you have less of a record to scrutinize—that can be helpful to a candidate, because having a limited history makes it easier to appear perfect, but it can be deceptive to voters. I'd support a requirement of no less than 3,000 total mainspace edits, and at least 1,000 mainspace edits in 2008. Everyking (talk) 06:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Installing a minimum requirement of 1000 mainspace edits would not be a fair move in my view, and indeed seems to attempt the elimination of a certain type of candidate (one which is very much "project space-based"—a very common type of Wikipedian) from the election. Whilst the minimum raw edit requirement is understandable, the minimum article space requirement proposal seems to be a move which is more the purview of the voters (it is they should decide which type of Arbitrator they wish to sit this year) rather than the Election maintenance folks. (Of course, it does stand to reason that an editor with several thousand edits, but under 1000 mainspace edits, would be disadvantaged due to his or her lack of involvement with the core of the encyclopedia; the key difference in principle there, however, is that such a candidate is disadvantaged—indeed, to the point of being unsuccessful in his or her candidacy—as a result of the Voters' choices, rather than of the editors generating the minimum candidate requirements.) Anthøny ✉ 06:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, we could just say no requirements at all, and let the voters decide it all, right? But I think it's better to have a more tightly organized process in which only serious candidates with substantial encyclopedia contributions get to run. That way, we'll have a shorter list of candidates and a more focused process. Furthermore, there is the problem I mentioned above, which is that candidates with fewer contributions can sometimes seem deceptively "perfect". As long as the candidates have a reasonably substantial number of mainspace edits, we will have enough history to properly judge their candidacies. Everyking (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We tried the no limit aproach we got a bunch of no hoper candidates who didn't realise what they are getting into. 1000 is enough to make sure that everyone has some idea what they are getting into without restricting anyone who has the faintest chance of getting elected.Geni 00:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to the 1000 mainspace edits in a year requirement. Someone may have perhaps a few hundred edits at most in a year but end up contributing multiple featured articles in difficult subjects, while someone with 10000 mainspace edits in a year may have spent all their time mistakenly correcting 'spelling errors' like espresso to expresso. However, neither ability to make featured articles, or ability to trot up a large number of individual edit actions, are really relevant qualifications to acting as a member of an arbitration panel.

To use one of my famous convoluted analogies. A bakery doesn't hire it's accountant based on how many loaves of bread he baked in the last year, they hire one on their ability to be an accountant.

Why not just make a statement that demonstrated experience as a Wikipedia editor is a requirement for the post, and candidates are required to give a short, 250-500 word, summary of their significant contributions to Wikipedia either in content or in policy. As well as a requirement to give a short, 250-500 word answer to the question "What is Wikipedia?". This turns a 'edit count hurdle' into a check that the candidate is willing to answer a simple essay question demonstrating significant experience, and their understanding of the purpose of Wikipedia.

I think we can agree those are relevant basic tests for a candidate. It might also stop us returning candidates to the office who can't draft a proposal on their own. --Barberio (talk) 19:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

That is subjective. We are looking for objective criteria.1000 edits across all namespaces appears to have worked in the past and there is no pressing need to change it.Geni 20:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No, ability to complete two essay questions is objective, their contents are subjective. We don't need to assess the contents beyond filtering out obvious gibberish, the mere requirement to provide an essay question answer will weed out people who aren't able to produce one.

The assessment would be

• Is the answer in the approximate range of 250-500 words?
• Is the answer intelligible English language?
• Does the answer try to address the question?

All of which are much more objective assessments. And as surprising as it may seem, this is a relatively high bar on entry and will filter out people just doing it for the Lulz.

While edit-count is an objective measure, it's not a meaningful objective measure in selecting candidates. Shoe size is an objective measure too. --Barberio (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Objective? Please provide a mathatical description of the method of judgeing the second and third requirement.

The edit count requirement isn't meant to select candidates. Not even meant to stop people running for the lulz. Selecting candidates is a matter for the voters.Geni 23:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Er... Voters would have a hard time selecting candidates excluded from the process because of an edit count.

And if you really think that "Is this intelligible english" is a more subjective question than objective, I wonder how you cope identifying the cnksibtcjbb c hdugvbdh efhh hjd wugaba? --Barberio (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

We know that someone with less than 1000 edits has no real chance of being elected we know there is a correlation between low edit count and not realiseing what you are getting into. Thus a 1000 edit requirement deals with the problem of people not knowing what they are getting into without impacting the outcome of the vote. Is "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously" intelligible english?Geni 18:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Check the requirement being proposed by Everyking again, it's 1000 edits *during 2008*, if we open nomination in November, that's a 100 mainspace edits per month. There are many worthwhile editors of the wiki that don't have that sustained edit count, and it'd rule out anyone who had taken a short sabbatical this year.

And no, we *don't* categorically 'know' there is any such correlation between low edit count, and competency to be part of the ArbCom.

And yes, "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously" is intelligible English, just meaninglessly so. But it wouldn't try to address the question, or be between 250-500 words. --Barberio (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I know what everyking is proposeing but I'm argueing for the status quo. I never said "competency to be part of the ArbCom" I said not knowing what you are getting into. Since you appear to have defined intelligible English as uses real words a markov chain genorator could pass your test.Geni 21:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I assumed you were arguing against my oposition to the 1000 per year limit, and proposal of an alternative instead of it?

And No, a Markov Chain Generator could not be nominated, because we could make a very objective observation that Markov chain generated gibberish was not addressing the question. If in the future, we create an AI that could answer the questions, I welcome their candidacies! --Barberio (talk) 21:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope not gibberish you accepted colourless green ideas sleep furiously is intelligible English which means you accept any gramiticaly correct sentance containing real english words as intelligible English. If you wish to use "addressing the question" as a criteria please describe that in a robust manner.Geni 02:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Actualy, markov chain generators do not reliably generate intelligible English at all, and are prone to various problems in generating sentences. And I don't know of any program that can reliably generate a large amount of intelligible english.

As for a 'robust description' of "Addressing the question", the answer is "If consensus agrees that the text was not attempting to address the question". If there are some people who think it was addressing the question, then it passes.

Remember, this is explicitly not a test of competence to stand, it's a very very very low bar on entry, to filter out people 'doing it for the lulz'. I suggest the essay question requirement because that can then be used by voters as part of their decision making too. --Barberio (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Does User:Bishzilla write intelligible English? Haukur (talk) 16:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Bishzilla writes very intelligible english for a monster. Also passes the hypothetical 1000 mainspace edits in the past year, so would be eligable to stand under that rule too! --Barberio (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Leaving aside Barberio's hypothetical case of an editor who manages to produce FAs in only a handful of edits, in practice we can assume that anyone with less than 1,000 mainspace edits in 2008 isn't someone who is substantially active in the mainspace, to the extent necessary to understand matters with the kind of depth we need on the ArbCom. I feel that one of the major problems with the ArbCom is that arbitrators are, for the most part, not just out of touch with the community (as I argued in the section above), they're out of touch with the editing process and the practical needs of the encyclopedia as well. Even if they were highly active at one point, Wikipedia is constantly changing, and a high level of activity in past years isn't sufficient for an arbitrator. There may very well be some people who have exceeded 1,000 mainspace edits in 2008 but still aren't really all that active, due to the nature of their edits, but this measure will suffice to bar most insufficiently active candidates.

I don't agree with the baker/accountant analogy, either. Arbitrators need practical understanding of the problems of editing in order to arrive at intelligent solutions during arbitration cases, and the only way to get (and keep) that understanding is to consistently edit encyclopedia articles. In the case of bakers and accountants, they have clearly distinct tasks, and skills developed in one trade will not help in the other. With arbitration, the process of considering complex cases and reaching appropriate decisions requires substantial experience in the editing process—editing serves as ongoing education for arbitrators, and to me requiring 1,000 mainspace edits in 2008 for candidates is equivalent to expecting an accountant to have a high school diploma. Everyking (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What you are trying to do here is to set candidacy criteria that will rectify perceived problems with the past and current ArbCom. It is not your place (or mine, or any other individual editor) to determine who is or is not a suitable candidate. The vote will select those candidates that the community as a whole feels are best suited to further the ArbCom's mandate; if consensus agrees with you that people without 1000 mainspace edits are unsuitable, then those candidates will not be elected. The entry criteria are intended solely to weed out the 'Lulz' candidates: people who nominate themselves purely for the fun of it, with no intention of discharging the office properly if they were elected. To do that we need to set the bar no higher than somewhere below which we can all agree that no one stands any hope of being elected. Your proposal simply does not meet that requirement, while the 'status quo' of 1000 edits total probably does. We're all open to suggestions as to how to improve the functioning of the ArbCom, but preselecting candidates simply isn't a workable one. (also)Happy‑melon 11:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Happy-Melon, candidacy requirements must be minimal, and not intended to shape the outcome of the election, but only exclude spam candidacies. --Barberio (talk) 18:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

Per [3], I've added another seat up for election. MBisanz ^talk 15:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Timeline - Calling the question

We had (briefly) discussed an altered timeline, which ran something like:

Saturday 1 November 2008 - T-30 days - Editors must be registered and have 150 mainspace edits by 23:59 UTC on this date to vote.

Monday 3 November 2008 - T-28 days - Invitation for questions ("Think about what you'd ask/add it to this list if you want to ask everyone")

Monday 10 November 2008 - T-21 days - Nominations open (14 days)

Monday 17 November 2008 - T-14 days - Question pages opened/Questions transcluded/etc. - Question Phase Begins

Monday 24 November 2008 - T-07 days - Nominations close

Monday 24 November 2008 - T-07 days - Voting pages created/Discussion pages created/Quickvote Created

Monday 1 December 2008 - T-00 days - Voting Begins

Monday 15 December 2008 - T+14 days - Voting Closes, Vote Pages protected for 3 weeks, Votes Reviewed for socks

Friday 19 December 2008 - T+18 days - Final Vote totals/percentages/statistics confirmed

Monday 29 December 2008 - T+28 days - Jimbo Wales Certifies Election/Announces Winners/etc.

Thursday 1 January 2009 - T+31 days - New Arbitrators take office

This would incorporate the 21 day proposal from Wizardman, where there are two weeks for nominations and two weeks for questions, but they overlap - There are 7 days between the close of nominations and the opening of the election during which candidates can answer questions, even if they joined up late in the process. This also keeps everything on Mondays, for simplicity's sake. And, as before, we avoid major events on any of the holidays during this period. Jimbo announced winners on 26 December last year, which was a Wednesday; since it's a friday this year, I moved it to the following Monday - though, obviously, winners will be announced when they're announced, which is fine.

I think it's important to ensure that there is consensus on this item, particularly the date for suffrage (150 mainspace edits by 1 Nov), so I'm sort of calling the question. Thoughts? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with any of those dates. — Coren ^(talk) 18:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, I support the 21 day proposal. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Where do we put in the ratification vote for the policy changes? --Barberio (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Barberio, Are you referring to a vote on whether to adjust the election procedures, or a vote on a proposal to adjust the Arbitration policy (such a vote being held parallel to this year's Election, as has been suggested in the past)? Anthøny ✉ 20:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

See above section Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008#Policy changes from the RfC. These pretty much have community support already from the RfC, but some decisions between alternates need to be made, plus some may not get full support again after everyone's had a chance to settle down from the big discussion and problems ArbCom have had this year. The ratification on a couple are all but a formality, but it's best to follow precedent that changes to the arbitration policy need community voted on ratification. Some of the changes do change how the election process will work in the future. --Barberio (talk) 01:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

A link to the ratification vote page should probably be put in the quickvote page when it's created, for instance. (Incidently, I've not seen anyone else edit the vote page for it yet? Surely I can't have got it perfectly right on my own?) --Barberio (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me tinker a bit. I'm thinking that we should have a "candidate" page for each of the policy subheadings, and then each such candidate page would lay out the proposals under that category. Each individual proposal would have its own voting subpage. You know, as I'm reading this, I can see questions coming up - it might be worthwhile to appoint an advocate for each proposal or set of proposals; they could serve as the "candidate". The alternative would be to redirect the question page to the Voting talk page for each proposal, since there will presumably be some discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget there will need to be sufficient time between announcement and commencement to allow for identification to the Foundation. --bainer (talk) 01:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Last year, winners were announced on the 26th, and I know of no problems with getting the proper identifications in place before the 1st. It might be simpler to remove that date, since it is not binding on Jimbo at all - and we would trust that he would approve the winners with sufficient time remaining in the year to identify themselves. The other option, if there is some delay, would be to seat the arbitrators only when they are confirmed to have properly identified themselves. Since new arbs don't hop in on old cases, the only issue would be if we got a new case in that first week of the year. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

another bang of the drum :-)

I hope nobody minds me returning to a thread which has lay fallow further up the page for a while - my feeling is that this is of increasing importance, both as time passes, and as more arb.s resign... I believe we need to have a solid answer to the 'who is being elected' and 'how will the election winner be judged' questions.

I'd assume (and propose, and support) the straight forward election of 7 people to the vacant seats, with seats 6 and 7 filling the recently resigned posts, and hence being up for re-election sooner than their peers. By 'straight forward' I mean 'highest percentage of support' - and I really hope that this is uncontroversial enough to get broad approval well ahead of time :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)and feel free to edit the below mercilessly to aid clarity!

In fact, to that end, here's an 'ol wiki straw poll;

I support this system

• Privatemusings (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly support. Everyking (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Of course. No idea why people value Jimbo's opinion over the opinion of the community, or indeed, their own opinion. Bizarre. naerii 12:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support, trust the community. Wikipedia is not one man's plaything. DuncanHill (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a question

go ahead :-)

I have further input

no worries... :-)

I oppose this proposal

• We leave it to Jimbo. MBisanz ^talk 03:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What's this "we" crap. Please speak for yourself. --Duk 16:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice to see you again Duk; my we have a way of bumping into each other alot; my statement remains that I oppose this proposal since we, the Wikipedia community, entrust the role of community founder to Jimbo Wales and therefore should leave such matters to him. MBisanz ^talk 16:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing broken, nothing to fix. — Coren ^(talk) 03:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• I trust Jimbo. Utan Vax (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

so do I :-) - in fact I'm not really certain that signatories to this section are necessarily even in tension with the above?! - this doesn't seem to me to be 'opposition' to the idea that the 'highest percentage of support' system is a bad one. I think signatories here are saying 'we're happy for Jimbo to make the call' - I'd pretty much agree, except that I'm asking for his input as to how he's gonna do that before votes are cast, which seems to me to be a good idea! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'd actually rather see "approval voting" which counts only supports, not neutrals or opposes. But I'm not sure this proposal will actually decide anything one way or the other. ++Lar: t/c 13:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I (think) I agree actually, Lar (both about the approval votes, and the fact that this discussion may not be of particular influence) - but I still think it's worth having, and I think it would be a good thing to confirm this stuff ahead of time :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

• Jimbo is generally going by the percentages, but I like the idea of somebody checking to make sure there is no gaming. Numbers sometimes don't tell the whole story. Jehochman ^Talk 14:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose a removal of the layer to the system that Jimbo provides, until such times as the proposal can fill the void with a new check/balance. We really do need something to make sure we're not doing something stupid (as per Jonathan, above: numbers sometimes don't tell the whole story), and unless there's a better idea on the table, Jimbo more than suffices. (I suspect there will be very little playing around with the results this year by Jimbo, anyway.) Anthøny ✉ 20:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose, because whether God-King or constitutional monarch we need a check on the "tyranny of the majority". The very last thing we need is to turn into one of those web communities that periodically has palace revolutions and changes its mission. Jimbo provides continuity and clarity of vision: this project is about the encyclopaedia, and the community is a secondary and subservient entity. As we have ever more articles and the community spends ever more of its time on internal politics, format wars and deciding exactly how many articles we need on each episode of The Simpsons, we need Jimbo more not less, to remind us that we should not seek to become more like those who imitate us only poorly. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

what do you think of the suggestion below that the board could / should play such a role, Guy? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 21:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Answering this seriously, I note that Jimbo was the author and/or a major proponent of the founding principles that still guide Wikipedia today. Not that you are not qualified to function as our godking and final authority, Privatemusings; :) but I think Jimbo is the man best qualified for the job. Sacking him now would simply be a lynching for lynching's sake. Anthøny ✉ 22:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but I'm a big fan of the constitutional monarchy! - and mentioned this a bit further up the page! (besides, I'm not sure the tiara would match my thongs!) - I like the idea of having Jimbo formally appoint the arbs following an election, but maintain that it's probably 'best practice' for the system by which the appointments will be made to be clarified :-) - Interestingly, I'm getting more and more feedback that the system is in fact perfectly clear, and that Jimbo always picks the 'highest percentage of support', in which case my banging on could be resolved fairly simply... hopefully we can get confirmation soonish :-) Privatemusings (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Come on, Anthony! The existence of a king is sufficient reason to overthrow the king. I mean, you don't think people would dump tea into the harbor just because they disagreed with a minor proviso in the tax code. Come on man-- you're Scottish. You paint your face blue, I'll dress up like an native american and throw away some tea... If we can get somebody from the France to storm the Bastille and talk somebody from India into going on a hunger strike, and we got us a anti-monarchist shin-dig. :)

That said, this definitely isn't the time or place for that argument. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Not the time or place to 'decide' or 'bang the drum' for this

Quit it. Seriously. Next 'proposal' to change the number of people elected or function of the committee, I just remove from the page out of hand. We've had a recent lengthy RfC on various proposals to change arbitration policy, we worked out a set of changes that will be up for ratification vote. These kinds of changes are *MOST STRENUOUSLY NOT* to be decided by a group of self selected people running the election. --Barberio (talk) 04:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

(unhidden - really just to make the table of contents links at the top work, and the link I've dropped in to Jimbo's page - no biggie I hope)

my post may not have been clear enough, but I really do want to avoid conflating some of the more radical 'proposals' with what I hope is a simple request to answer what I see as a pretty basic question (sure, I asked two above, but let's kick off with just the one!); how will the election winners be judged? - I just see it as a bit... um.. unusual? to run an election process without confirming ahead of time how the victors will be determined! Re : MB and Coren - sincere apologies if the answer to my question is really really obvious (it wouldn't be the first time I've missed something like that!) - but could you possibly just indicate your understanding of how this will work? (or maybe asking for your understanding of how Jimbo judges the matter is a more appropriate question?) - thanks! best, Privatemusings (talk) 07:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Agree that this page is perfectly appropriate for proposals and this should not be hidden. Everyking (talk) 07:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I sort of agree, kind of. This page is perfectly appropriate for proposals on how we generate a list of editors, ranked by the percentage of editors who support them as taken from the total number of editors who support and oppose them. How that list is turned by Jimbo into new arbitrators is beyond the purview of this page, I think. If the community's will is unclear from the RfC, then I'm not sure what we can do here - though I seem to recall someone analyzing the last few elections to see how far Jimbo strayed from the results of the voting. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Any Change to Arbitration Policy itself has to be made in a very public fashion, with wide spread community consultation, as happened during the ArbCom RFC. So no, this page is not an appropriate place, because currently it's just being used by the people interested in setting up the election method.

The RfC was pretty widely advertised, and when it came down to it, people just weren't willing to support the complete removal of the Foundation from the process, and ultimately it's them who decide to accept arbitrator, Jimbo acts on their behalf by tradition.

If you're going to propose removal of Jimbo/Wikimedia from the election process, it's going to get tricky anyway as we don't have that kind of authority in the first place. And you'd probably have to go about getting yourself or like minded people elected to the Wikimedia Board. --Barberio (talk) 15:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm under the impression that the Foundation aren't involved at all, Barb - but it's certainly worth checking :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Arguments against direct election?

Are there any arguments in favor of allowing Jimbo veto power over the community decisions in this election? The two votes presently in favor of letting Jimbo keep his prerogative seem to favor it simply cause it's "the way it's always been done". I'd like to know if anyone has a reasoned opinion about why it's better to let Jimbo make the final decision. Everyking (talk) 12:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I like the last resort panic button. While it's vanishingly unlikely to happen, having someone who is generally considered sane get the last tweak may prevent a lot of problems. Remember that our "election" process is fraught with fraud and deception (because of the anonymity, and lack of accountability); while the fraud tends to go every which way and cancel out on average, it nonetheless exists. — Coren ^(talk) 12:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Given the countless number of uncertainties, proven best perhaps by the PoetGuy saga that fooled all of us, I like the idea of Jimbo as a pressure valve. MBisanz ^talk 13:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, it's not even something the Wikipedia Community has authority on it's own to change. For a variety of reasons, including some legal ones, the Wikimedia Foundation *must* have final veto over selection and appointment of Arbitrators. And it's really a board level decision to change how they do that. --Barberio (talk) 15:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

What legal reasons? I'm not aware of any. The foundation has ultimate veto over anything anyway, by virtue of they own the site and can take Office actions. But, I'm not aware of any law requirements requiring them to have say over selection of the arbitration committee. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 08:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

(per above) - my understanding is that the Foundation isn't involved at all in the appointment of Arbitrators... this is certainly worth checking etc. - might it be possible to link to some further info. on how this works? (I'll ask around too...) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 05:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

There are at least a few strong reasons why this serves the project well.

1. It isn't abused. A negative, but an important one. In the last 3 elections, the community's view was that which was carried out. (Minor exception - January 2006 to reappoint two existing arbitrators as positions 9 and 10, or some such.) So the odds are good that unless there is a serious problem, it will be that way in future.
2. The community is only part of the recipe. In brief, the mandate of Wikipedia is a community to write an open encyclopedia. If the community goes off the rails, now or future, or endorses matters that do not support that aim, then Jimbo (or some outside overriding mandate) can and should step in. This isn't an experimental democracy or a game of life, it's a community given that control with the good faith understanding it will use it well. A dead man's switch exists in case that ever were to change. The community may at some hypothetical time fragment into factions that do not all have the best interest of the project at heart, or stonewll each other, or some other matter may arise in the next 20 years.

It may not please some who are communal power advocates. But the position now is what it was then - the right to leave, and the right to fork. While we all stay, the project has directions and one person to ensure we don't forget it in future is a sensible final precaution given volatile human nature. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 08:30, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

While Jimbo has always made good decisions in previous elections, I'm not entirely comfortable with giving that power to one man. Wouldn't it be better to give the whole board the power? It doesn't need to involve lots of bureaucracy - just declare that the winners of the election become arbs and the board has the power to object within a month. In the vast majority of cases, the board will do nothing, on occasion a member of the board may have concerns and can call a board meeting to discuss them. The foundation already has some involvement in the process, since arbs are almost always checkusers and therefore have to identify themselves to the foundation. Giving the foundation (via the board) the power to stop someone because an arb for other reasons is a natural extension of this. If the board believe this would be inpractical, they could delegate the power to a committee of board members, or even just to an individual member (Jimbo, say), but acting as a representative of the board and accountable to them, rather than acting on their own volition. --Tango (talk) 14:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. Aside from the issue of giving the power to one person, I feel there is an issue of impartiality—Jimbo actively takes positions in enwiki affairs, he exercises powers occasionally, and it is generally understood that there is a segment of the community favored by Jimbo and a segment that is not. I would feel much more comfortable if we instead reserved veto power for the foundation, and appointments were deemed automatic by community vote unless the foundation said something. I don't think the foundation would alter the decisions except in truly exceptional cases, and I don't think there be would much risk that they would play politics with the process. Everyking (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

We (community) actually never did give that to one man in the first place. That's a fairly major misconception. Rather, historically, we (this community, me, you) were given the rights we have on enwiki, and over time a few more. But formally appointing and removing arbitrators and oversight of the committee as a whole, was not one of those. The Foundation aren't tasked with overseeing individual communities in detail either. On this wiki, that's Jimbo's final say-so. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

History isn't relevant - what the community says, goes. If the community decide they don't like Jimbo's ArbCom we can just make a new one and ignore any rulings by his. There is no actual need for an officially sanctioned ArbCom apart from CU, any group that admins are willing for enforce the rulings of has the same power as ArbCom. I doubt we'll ever get to the position of having to do that, since the foundation in general and Jimbo in particular aren't stupid and won't try and fight the community if there's a clear consensus, but if it comes down to it, the community would win. --Tango (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by 'win'. If a user disobeys the arbcom, they will be sanctioned (probably blocked) by an admin, or in extremis by an ArbCom member. If an admin reverses that block, they can be desysopped by the stewards. If the stewards refuse to obey the arbcom, a developer (employed directly by the foundation) can write the rights changes directly into the database tables. No one, no matter how large a group or however well-placed, can exist on wikimedia wikis in defiance of the Foundation and on en.wiki that authority is devolved to the ArbCom. As FT2 says, that authority was devolved from above, not instituted from below. The only thing the ArbCom can't do is force you to stay - the right to leave and the right to fork are the only absolutely inviolate rules that no one has the power to change. Of course, the situation where the ArbCom and Foundation reign supreme over an empty wiki hardly counts as a 'victory', for anyone involved. But the belief that the ArbCom are somehow empowered by the community, and hence beholden to them, is simply not the case. The community exists in symbiosis with the Foundation: they provide the technical resources and administrative framework, and we provide the free content that their charter requires. The only sense in which one is dependent on the other is that without one, the other could not survive. And that cuts both ways. Happy‑melon 14:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

If there were a consensus among admins to ignore an ArbCom ruling, the stewards would end up desysopping the lot of them and then the site would dissolve into chaos. At which point all the admins would be resysopped by a desperate foundation that can't cope with all the complaints from people unhappy with their article saying they're gay. That's a win for the community. It will never come to that, though, it would require immense stupidity from the foundation and I'm confident they aren't immensely stupid. Where the power comes from in a de jure sense is pretty irrelevant, the community has the de facto power. --Tango (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Desysopping the entire admin body would simply destroy the Community, and not something that would ever happen - even if the Foundation adopted a course of action so wildly at odds with the Community to drive 99% of en.wiki admins to rebellion, that would still leave 16 of them 'loyal' to the Foundation. They wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater - they'd know how badly they needed those people who were prepared to go along with them. But the point is the symbiosis: the Foundation and the Community have to work together even though our interests are sometimes misaligned. The ArbCom and Jimbo are the main intermediaries who have to negotiate the compromise between the two, as well as dealing with all sorts of other crap from both ends. The whole situation is only really kept stable by a healthy mutual respect; saying that anyone has 'power' over anyone else is disingenuous. Happy‑melon 17:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrators have to identify to the Foundation whether or not they are checkusers as access to the mailing list means they often have access to CU data. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Policy Change Referendum Voting Thing

OK, I've attempted to create what would be the "Candidate Statement" page for the policy proposals. The draft may be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Policy Changes/Election. It includes the first three proposals, and groups all of the myriad options under proposal two (term of office, tranches, etc) into one item. Each proposal would, in theory, have a discussion page (which takes the form of the Question page for candidates). Eventually, each would also have a voting page, where the supports and opposes would go. The amboxes make everything look hinky, so please correct my formatting - but, ideally, each of the four sets of proposals would get a page like this, which would be transcluded onto the Policy Changes page. I included space for the link to discussion on the proposal, including the support from the RfC to move it forward, as there is no set of userlink-style resources to evaluate these proposals. Please review. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think this is needlessly complicating matters? Separate pages for discussion on the options, that sounds like a good idea, but separate pages for each item to vote on, makes it more effort, and would turn people off voting. It seems a lot easier to have one page for conducing the vote on the policy changes. --Barberio (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I've put in some redlinks to pages and talk pages for the major groups of proposals onto the page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Policy Changes. This will keep the discussion and advocacy of the individual policies off in their own pages, while putting the actual voting in one page. --Barberio (talk) 19:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits and a rename made to the page for elections. Most of the election changes came from the RFC, and I've linked to the section there rather than a diff, so discussion that took place can be viewed. Since all the other sections only have proposals from the RfC, this is what I'll do for those ones as well.

If you're going to create the other pages, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Summary lists where those policies came from, but you should link to the same sections on [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment not the summary page to show the discussion that took place.

Further discussion of the proposals can now take place on the talk pages of the subarticles, which are also red-linked at the moment on the voting page. --Barberio (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that these proposals would come to a vote in the same manner as Arbitration Committee candidates, and each candidate gets a voting page, for a variety of reasons. In my mind, either these are serious proposals that deserve the full dog-and-pony show of an arbcom election (The most prominent community input we get, I believe), or they're not and a straw poll would suffice. We can't do it both ways. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that the voting should be consolidated on one page until such a time as it needs to be split for size purposes. Discussion can be separated, but as Barberio says, fragmenting the voting too much will probably put some people off, which is not what we want. Happy‑melon 21:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

There's value to that, but it would be difficult to justify moving votes from one page to another during the voting period itself. Plus, there are structural reasons why I prefer to have each vote on a separate page. It helps to check for duplicate votes, for one. It also would help to keep the voting clear - there's only one place to support or oppose on each page, making confusion impossible. Third, if someone votes without being able (i.e. they lack 150 mainspace edits on 1 November), it's easy to check their Wikipedia-space edits for other votes on other pages; this would be trickier (though not impossible) on a single page. We could transclude the voting pages onto a single page, as we do with the candidate statement pages; this way, everything would be in one place (as with RfA, for example), but the votes themselves would go to subpages. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 03:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

If, by transclusion, you can make it so someone can put their own votes down by only having to read through one page, then yes.

If they have to read through multiple pages in order to make a vote, then no. --Barberio (talk) 15:34, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, here's what I would suggest, then. Each proposal has a subpage entitled "Vote", just like the candidates. That page transcludes the proposal itself (in lieu of the candidate statement), and then has headings for "Support" and "Oppose". Editors then add their names where they wish to vote. Each of these pages is then transcluded to a main Voting page, where all proposals (or each of the four groupings, or whatever) are listed. It would be similar to RfA or AfD; all of the active RfAs are on one page (WP:RFA), but editing one to comment brings you to the RfA itself, which is just one candidate. We could <noinclude> header instructions and links, so that someone could read the full list, vote on one item, and then click to go back to the full list. It sounds much more complicated than it is. We had over 8000 distinct votes last election, so we need subpages; but this would keep the proposals together. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I could live with that, as long as we include some clear instructions. Happy‑melon 10:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, is there a reason we couldn't open voting for the ratification on november 1st? The proposals aren't likely to change after then, and people can always come back and change their vote until we close voting 15 December. I'll go ahead and change the 'policy changes' page to say that voting is open from November 1st and closes 15th December? --Barberio (talk) 20:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that would cause confusion - some voting starts on one date, some on another? Again, if these proposals are part of the Arbcom election process, then they need to be fully part of it - which means two weeks of heavily-advertised voting in December, alongside the candidates for arbcom. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Ultraexactzz - full integration with the main ArbCom elections will give this poll the greatest possible authority. Happy‑melon 21:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but in that case should we remove, or lower, the 40 support requirement? This is something I carried over from previous ratifications which had much longer time periods. --Barberio (talk) 21:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

You'd get 40 votes, no doubt. Hell, the vast majority of RFAs get that, and this would be advertised. If you got any less than that, it wouldn't be much of a consensus. Just like an RFC that most of the community didn't take part in isn't consensus. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To reply to your final comment. The RFC was advertised pretty much everywhere suitable on the wiki, including the Watchfor notices. Anyone who wanted to get involved in the debate almost certainly knew about it, and got involved. And I think it was probably the RfC with the highest rate of community involvement that we've seen. If I thought that on that alone I could say 'The community fully supports these changes', I would have, instead we've brought all the proposals that were accepted as having significant support up for a ratification vote. I'm not sure what you see wrong with this process? --Barberio (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

And I think in future, yes, the requirement for putting arbitration policy changes up for ratification is having had an RfC showing great support that these changes should be made. --Barberio (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I didn't take part in the RFC because I was too busy to take part helpfully. It wasn't a matter of it being unseen. I fail to see how the proposal "we should have two-year terms with biannual elections" can only be voted on as one piece when it is clearly two issues. Incidentally, you know you are innovating in policy here? Not that there's anything at all wrong with that, but this is a new way of changing policy. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a new way of changing the arbitration policy. And yes, it's my innovation. The reason for that is because we have a lot of people calling for changes to arbitration policy including arbitration committee members themselves, and *someone* had to come up with a way to change arbitration policy that demonstrates legitimate community support, and no one else has done it yet. --Barberio (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

"Not that there's anything at all wrong with that" Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Another option for voting?

Forgive me if this has been proposed before, but I would like to propose another system. Instead of simply going off of percentage, why don't we subtract oppose votes from support votes? Then take the percentages and add x percent of votes to each total. Thoughts? Geoff Plourde (talk) 15:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Too complicated - the adage that every equation halves the sale of a book applies equally to wiki. More pertinently, what advantage would it offer over the current system? Can you give examples of past votes where your proposal would have been superior? Happy‑melon 16:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, but one I don't think in practice would attract any improvements in the system, if adopted.
Anthøny ✉ 13:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Note from FT2

Any user who is considering running for the Arbitration Committee, and is likely to be a plausible candidate for the community, and who wants to discuss Arbcom or any related matters in private to be better prepared (for example, to gain an understanding of some aspects, or check some assumptions and facts before or after deciding), is welcome to contact me for the purpose.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 18:40, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

(This is cross-posted from User talk:MBisanz/ACE2008. -- how do you turn this on 23:21, 11 October 2008 (UTC))

Questions: which model to follow?

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Questions/For all.
I have developed a possible model to follow, with regards to a "questions portal page", as suggested on WP:ACE2008.

The intention of that page is for questions to be asked once, to which all candidates can respond on the one location. Compare, m:Board_elections/2008/Candidates/Questions/1. This "one questions location for all candidates" page is intended to run parallel to the standard individual-questions-page-for-all-candidates system we've used in every ArbComm election to date.

Thoughts? Anthøny (talk) 10:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Parallel? Why have both? I certainly think one system would be better. The latter, preferably. Though this may be a problem if someone wants to ask a question that doesn't have anything to do with the other candidates. -- how do you turn this on 11:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

One page where a question is asked and all candidates answer, is highly attractive, and I have thought hard on this one, and realized that I would have a very serious concern about an unintended side effect. I find myself very concerned that placing all answers to a question side by side, will have an unintentional and subtle "chilling" effect on the breadth and individuality of answers received.

In the 2007 elections, each person faced their own questions. Their style of reply (whether detail or general, packed with diffs or containing few, long or short, out on a limb or mainstream) was theirs alone. Initially I'm sure many candidates checked what others were saying, but you can't do that so easily all the time, and you're writing your page, in your style. The reader read 30 or 40 answers, and got a good sense of that users style, attitudes, the themes they nominated upon. All of that would be in the new format. But the much closer "side by side" method will disturbingly encourage much more "following the pack". I wrote reams, it was my style - if I was side by side with 20 users writing 10 - 15 lines, for question after question, would I not have been tempted to change my style more? I think so, it's human nature for a lot of people; even those who are very independent might have slightly modified their style, perhaps without realizing it, to some style closer to the "page average". Or perhaps read more commonly others views and made it a "head to head" where one tries to appeal to all the users ones opponents do, plus a few more, rather than simply state one's own view.

It's a concern for me, as I see in it the seeds of moving from "what a user is like" to "political" or "cause less (or no) offense" style answers.

What might be nicer is maybe a list of central questions, which each candidate answers on their own page. The Q&A pages for candidates would then have two sections - questions being asked to all candidates, and questions just for that user:

(user name)'s question page

== Questions being asked to all candidates ==
=== 1. (question) ==
=== 2. (question) ==
=== 3. (question) ==
== Questions specific to (user name) ==
=== 1. (question) ==
=== 2. (question) ==
=== 3. (question) ==

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I like this idea, and understand what you're saying. For example, to use you as an example, in the 2007 elections, your answers were probably the longest out of everyone's. I'm not sure how well such answers could go together. I'm not saying this is the case at all, but it could give different users advantages and disadvantages unintentionally. As you say, every candidate is unique. I do agree a "set" amount of questions could be answered on one page (for example, answering what user rights/privileges they have). But I also agree, that some of the more "tough" questions asked of candidates would probably be better separately. -- how do you turn this on 16:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I only just saw this when I saw this edit on my watchlist. Hopefully I won't be seen as hopelessly compromised.

My concern with mandating that all questions be asked of all users is that there won't be the opportunity to scrutinise individual users as well as should be the case. I understand that the questioning process can be abused. I am concerned, however, that adopting this system will have unhappy consequences.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

If you honestly think that your question is important enough to be asked of all candidates you can go to the effort of adding to every candidate page.Geni 18:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Identification

There is a good chance that any person wishing to sit for Arbcom may need to identify to WMF. Of course the majority of Arbitrators do, but at present it is not a requirement that a user will do so. I think this is unavoidable, and worth raising prior to nominations. I've raised it on arbcom-l also.

Access to non-public data is governed by the Foundation's Access to nonpublic data policy. It contains the following provisions:

The intent of this policy is to ensure that volunteers who have access to nonpublic data covered by the Wikimedia Foundation privacy policy are personally and legally accountable.

1. Only persons whose identity is known to the Wikimedia Foundation shall be permitted to have access to any nonpublic data or other nonpublic information produced, collected, or otherwise held by the Wikimedia Foundation [...which is covered by...] the Wikimedia Privacy Policy.

2. Any volunteer who is chosen by any community process to be granted access rights to restricted data shall not be granted that access until that volunteer has satisfactorily identified himself or herself to the Foundation...

It is already agreed (WT:ACE2007#Ruling on age limit) that users standing must meet the age requirement for non-public data. Rationale for the belief that identification is unavoidable is in that thread, and also as follows:

1. A user appointed to the Committee, even if they do not request Checkuser or Oversight, will join the arbcom mailing lists. This automatically gives "access to... nonpublic data or other nonpublic information produced, collected, or otherwise held by the Wikimedia Foundation" even if they do nothing else. (See also [4].)

2. A user who avoided arbcom mailing lists, and is not party to dialog or emails containing non-public or personal data about users, would effectively be so "out of the loop" (based on experience of arbcom activities) that they could not substantively do the role. Even if not every case involves such data, it would only take one or two significant points to involve such matters, and the Arbitrator would probably be unable to fully review the whole case as his/her colleagues could.

   (I haven't formally counted what proportion of activity and threads include at least one email with such discussion but I'd hazard a guess roughly as follows: 30 - 50%, rising sharply for the more significant and high profile cases, and for appeals. Enough.)

3. The presence of an Arbitrator who was unable to be sent emails that touched on, or contained quotes of, non-public information, would be highly disruptive and difficult for other arbitrators, who must discuss these with their colleagues on a daily basis, usually via their mailing lists.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have added "be willing to identify to the WMF if appointed" as a criterion.[5] Anthøny (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I really think it's a bit extreme to require all candidates to provide identification, but I think it's more or less accepted that it may be necessary to provide ID to the WMF after being elected, but before being appointed. If nothing else, processing and verifying the ID credentials of 50+ hopefuls would probably take up a whole bunch of time for WMF volunteers that could be more productively spent on something else. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC).

I asked Cary and he does not care about doing it before, during, or after the election. MBisanz ^talk 05:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but why waste his time doing ID for the obviously nonviable candidates that are going to pop up? I've no idea how much work is involved, but it seems silly to do all that work (and not just for Cary, but for the candidate who has to find and send the appropriate authorisation), not to mention the potential for privacy violations, for candidates who stand no chance at all of being elected. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC).

My thought would be that ineligible candidate User:X runs, wins, refuses to identify, is not seated on arbcom, spends the next year reminding everyone how he was denied his seat because the Foundation is ageist/etc. To identify, all one must do is email/fax a copy of their driver's license/passport to the Foundation, so there is not that much paperwork involved. MBisanz ^talk 05:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, when I say "nonviable" I'm talking about people like User:X who may just barely meet whatever entry criteria we set, but who have a profile or history that will more or less prevent them ever being elected. Say, a 21 year old with 500 mostly-automated edits, and a history of lighting more fires than putting them out. This person, although technically eligible, will never ever be elected, so what's the point in wasting the time validating their identity and age?

Now, I'm fine with requiring a user to disclose their identity to WMF in order to be elected, but it seems like it would be a lot of fiddly mucking about to do "a little bit" of paperwork for fifty people, when we can possibly get away with doing it for under ten. That's why I think we should require identification as FT2 has suggested, but we stipulate that a person is not required to do so until after they have been successfully elected (but probably prior to appointment by Jimbo).

If anyone refuses to identify themselves for any reason, we can then always point at this notice and say "Well, you knew it was a condition of being elected". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC).

Okey, works for me , but I'm reserving the right to call shenanigans if someone tries to lawyer the identification process after the election. MBisanz ^talk 08:22, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

There is the point, however, that since identification is a si ne qua non requirement of being actually appointed, someone who does not or cannot do so at the time of nomination is a huge waste of everybody's time in the whole voting process. I think the prerequisite identification would be a valuable filter. — Coren ^(talk) 19:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Proposal: Identification as a prerequisite

[Forked into separate section for navigation.] Quite so. Additionally: the only argument against pre-identification is that it's a waste of time to have every candidate identify. Cary has already stated that he's fine with folks identifying before; from that point of view, that rationalisation is somewhat moot. I move to make pre-identification a prerequisite for running this year right here and now. Anthøny (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have created {{ACEidentity}} for the purposes of noting which candidates have identified, if this goes ahead.

Identification:     Candidate has identified.

Identification:     Candidate has not identified.

Identification:     Identification is in progress.

Example, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Candidate statements/Example. Anthøny (talk) 19:59, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Given all the concerns about the privacy of identities, I would think that we would want as few disclosures as possible-- i.e. identifications AFTER the election as a final step before actual appointment. Most of the candidates aren't going to be appointed to arbcom-- why make them all identify? Just make sure they all know they'll have to before they could serve. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hold on - where is Cary's post on this subject? Where is the Foundation's description of what information will be collected, how it will be kept secure, how long it will be kept, and how it will be destroyed if no longer required? This sort of stuff isn't covered in the Foundation's privacy policy. Unlike candidates for the WMF Board, arbitrators have no fiduciary responsibility mandated by law. Let's not kid ourselves, privacy is a very big deal on this project, and this is moving the goalposts a very long way. Note that I have changed the title to include the word "Proposal". Risker (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

MBisanz privately contacted Bastique. If Cary could be asked to pop by here and confirm that he is indeed willing to accept identifications from candidates pre-Election, it would be all the better. Anthøny (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, if you nominate yourself for the ArbCom you must be willing to identify yourself and trust that the Foundation isn't going to be misusing that identification. Otherwise, you obviously have no intention of actually serving if elected (given that those would be requirements). Yes, it means that you need to make an affirmative step when you nominate yourself— I would expect this to weed out frivolous candidacies if nothing else.

If you don't trust the Foundation with your identity before the election, something which is a legitimate concern, then what would make you suddenly trust it after the election? — Coren ^(talk) 20:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, with Arbitrators gaining Oversight rights, and most having CheckUser right, identification is required for Arbitrators. Since data is apparently discussed on the list, it would be nonsensical for someone to run who wasn't willing to identify, or who was under 18. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 20:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the end of the world, I don't know that any candidate would have a huge problem with it, but it's just good practice to not collect information you don't need. The easiest way to guarantee that something doesn't get stolen is to make sure you never possess it in the first place.

As always happens, some candidates are going to find out that, although they weren't previously aware of it, they are actually extremely unpopular, or at least untrusted. Those with hurt feelings will probably will regret having revealed their identities, and if those people are outed later, they may allege a leak from within the foundation.

In short, we could do five times the amount of work, and all we'd get for our trouble would be potential problems. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Does it actually matter if the identification is received before or after? As long as it's received some time between nominating, and say, a week after the new Arbitrators are announced, it shouldn't be an issue, should it? As someone said, it's a waste of time dealing with IDs for people who run but aren't successful. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 21:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And it's a waste of time dealing with election for people who cannot or will not identify themselves to the foundation. The only question are, in practice, (a) How likely is it that someone who gets pick then does not identify themself, and (b) how many candidates will rethink their participation if they are presented with the requirement to identify beforehand. For the record, I think (b) is a positive, not a caveat. — Coren ^(talk) 21:57, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Identification simply says that person is over 18. No other personal information is ever revealed. I personally don't see what the problem with identifying beforehand is, but some people seem to. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Identification includes providing evidence of identity, not just age. Cary is quite rightly not concerned about Arbcom elections, which is why he doesn't specifically comment. His requirement will be Foundation's policy compliance. Foundation policies include a requirement that any user with access to WMF non-public data (so defined) must identify, or not be given that access.

My observation is that access to non-public information is integral to Arbitration Committee work. The norms and process for that identification would be the same as for any user, who requests access to a project role, that involves access to data covered by the WMF's non-public data policy.

Basis of observation, and background to this: Arbitration Committee ruling on age limit, WT:ACE2007#Ruling on age limit and WT:ACE2008#Identification. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; I might not have been clear. I meant that some people may have been wary of identifying because of fears of personal data being "leaked", or their identity being public knowledge. The only thing that is public knowledge is the fact the person is over the age of 18. It is, of course, essential that ArbCom members identify themselves, due to the nature of their work. The point of this discussion is determining when to do so: before voting, or after once the new Arbitrators are announced. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I like Anthony's template, given that identification for me was as simple as taking a picture of my driver's license with my digital camera and emailing it, I'm not seeing the time strain either way. Given the deceptions we've had over the last year with PoetGuy and Archtransit (as recently as yesterday at commons with Archtransit), it is a nice, tiny, extra safeguard to have everyone identified before/during the election. Given that the pre-election stage is nearly a month long, that should be plenty of time. Risker, the new privacy policy was released this week, page 6 of wmf:Image:Privacy Policy 10.14.08.odt - NeoOffice Writer.pdf describes the circumstances under which the Foundation (Cary) could disclose the information. Basically it is the same level of protection required by CheckUsers, but since Cary's job is on the line (as opposed to the volunteer checkusers), it is a pretty good protection. Now if you review the wmf:Access_to_nonpublic_data_policy document, it clearly says

Only persons whose identity is known to the Wikimedia Foundation shall be permitted to have access to any nonpublic data or other nonpublic information produced, collected, or otherwise held by the Wikimedia Foundation, where that data or other information is restricted from public disclosure by the Wikimedia Privacy Policy.

It goes on to say that the type of identifying data required is

...which may include proof that such user is at least 18 and explicitly over the age at which they are capable to act without the consent of their parent in the jurisdiction in which they reside.

So I'm not seeing how requiring pre-identification from someone who actually intends to serve an an arbitrator is that much different than what we've always done. MBisanz ^talk 22:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree that identification is required under the Foundation's policy. It would be quite impossible to do arbitration work without access to private data. There doesn't seem to be any way round this in my opinion, and that's fine by me.

I'm not convinced, however, that identification is useful before we have chosen our arbitrators. It seems like a lot of unnecessary work both for the candidates and for Cary. I think the situation that would make it worth it is a pretty remote possibility.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A user who was appointed then played round with identifying might well find the response was withdrawal of invitation, rather than playing along. Arbitrators are expected to be above that, and to have considered and checked matters if they had concerns. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 22:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming any user who got the level of support needed for Arbitrator-ship would be the kind who wouldn't do that; I expect they'd be fully prepared, and willing to work with the system, not against it. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 22:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Sam, I don't mind either way, before or after the election. But given traveling and holiday schedules, it might be a nice option that people can identify before if they want and that Athony's template can keep track of it all. Not required before, just a "By Jan 1 (?) you should have identified" sort of thing. MBisanz ^talk 22:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that identification beforehand is a good thing (disclaimer: I made no secret of my intent to run, and I obviously have no problem with this), because:

• It ensures that anyone who runs qualifies for the position should they be selected;
• it requires a positive act, possibly weeding out candidacies "for the heck of it" which distract the voters from evaluating the other candidates (this has been observed in previous elections, but is admittedly not a major problem); and
• it significantly reduces the probability of attempts to game the system.

In all fairness, there are drawbacks as well:

• It identifies people who have not been selected to serve to the Foundation who otherwise wouldn't have had to;
• it may impose a dissuasive barrier to some less confident candidates; and
• there is the legitimate (albeit not necessarily justified) fear that this information, which is very private, is then lost or misused.

I think that the workload to identify the candidates is a red herring; not only has Carey already confirmed that it is not a problem in itself. So the end result is that the primary factor is that some people will have their identities known to the Foundation who otherwise would not; but if they were sincerely being on the ArbCom, then they were necessarily prepared to have that information known. Given the fact that the Foundation takes privacy very seriously (as has been amply and regularly demonstrated in the past) then I can't think of a reason why we'd not streamline the election process by starting the identification at nomination time. — Coren ^(talk) 23:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. All in all, I think requiring candidates to identify pre-Election is a net-positive. Adjusting the election procedures to ask candidates to quickly identify is a good move. Anthøny (talk) 00:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

It is all very lovely that MBisanz and Cary had a private chat. Cary needs to come here and say the same thing, and also tell people exactly and precisely what the Foundation's policy is with respect to requiring personal information, and what they do with it. Not one person commmenting in this thread, including present and former arbitrators, is qualified to speak on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation on this point. As self-identification is not explicitly discussed in the Foundation's privacy policy, this is not a minor point. There is zero net positive in pre-election identification. I will point out that in our recent Checkuser appointments, none of those who self-nominated were requested to self-identify as part of their self-nomination; this is clear based on the rights logs, and at least one checkuser confirming that he was not required to provide personal identification until after the offer of appointment.

I work with huge amounts of personal private information on a daily basis, and such a cavalier attitude toward the collection, use, retention and destruction of such information in a project where personal privacy has been a major issue just leaves me shaking my head. Risker (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: I've asked Cary Bass to comment on this issue, both specifically and in a general sense, because of course there is no doubt that successful candidates would have to identify themselves to the Foundation. My request to him is here on his user page. We have to be reasonable and understand that this question relates to his work as the Foundation's Volunteer Coordinator, and because it's a "work" question we should not expect him to answer it outside of his usual business hours. I hope for his sake that doesn't include Saturday evening. Risker (talk) 00:56, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why any conversation I had on IRC with someone who asked me some questions is even mentioned in this discussion, and I'd certainly like it if people stop referencing any conversation I might have had with them. It's kind of creepy to learn of your own discussions on IRC days later on the wiki.

There are posts ad nauseum either on mailing lists or on meta about the retention of data as well as the method of submission and what happens to the data after identification. Members of Arbcom and others can certainly repeat what's already been said by the Foundation about the issue. Asking me to continue to repeat the same information again and again takes my time away from other valuable resources. As I'm certain there are literally hundreds of people who watch this page, someone can find the information you're looking for, without demanding my time to make the same "official statement" over and over.

I would like to add that the insinuation that any staff member of the Foundation that is delegated to perform the task of identification might leak anyone's personal information is baseless and absurd. It is baseless because there's no evidence, in all the identifications that have been made (See m:Identification noticeboard for a list), that anyone's personal information has been leaked. It is absurd to even consider that I might be "personally motivated" to leak someone's information; in my capacity at the foundation I have handled private information of a wide variety of individuals in a wide variety of matters, many of whom did not have ideal relationships with myself or the foundation. Even if I had personal feelings about any of the candidates, it certainly would not affect the way I handle their information. Bastique ^demandez 03:04, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised anyone is even suggesting the Foundation is leaking anything. How ridiculous. -- How do you turn this on (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I don't myself mean to suggest they would leak, and (hopefully) that's not what any here is saying. It's just good data handling to only collect what you need. For one thing, right off the bat, even if we trust the humans involved, computers get compromised all the time.

For two, "Don't collect what you don't need" shields the foundation from false allegations of leaking-- it is impossible to leak what you never had. This is why police officers on a traffic stop will insist that you hand them only your identification, rather than you entire wallet-- if they were never in possession of your wallet, it is impossible for them to have mishandled it.

I'm just saying-- I estimate that the probability that we'll have to deal with one of top-8 most trusted people on the project being unwilling to identify if actually elected is basically zero. On the other hand, the probability that a disgruntled losing candidate might try to stir up trouble by alleging mishandling of information is distinctly non-zero. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Cary. I'm sorry if you felt annoyed by the requests to make an 'official statement' of any kind; I suppose the justification was that this really is a first-of-its-kind situation (an individual project demanding candidates pre-identify; until now, only WMF-wide elections [steward, Board of Trustees] seem to have required that).
I suppose a useful compromise would be to simply make it all the more clear to candidates that, if elected, they will have to identify before taking their seats. I'm going to create an editbox with a pre-loaded notice that gives a few disclaimers to candidates whilst they're creating their statement. (I'll link here in a moment.)
Anthøny (talk) 11:11, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Abcom is in theory at least chosen by the community. If the community choses someone who isn't prepared to identify that is it's choice.Geni 13:16, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

• Actually, the community chooses a candidate on the assumption that s/he is willing to identify. If the candidate later reveals he isn't willing to identify, then he's mislead the community, and in my view, the appointment is void. Anthøny (talk) 13:47, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not the case I was thinking of. The community may want to chose someone who refuses to identify.Geni 13:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

And the point would be what, exactly? The community would chose someone who would then not be on the ArbCom? Please remember that the requirement to identify is a Foundation issue; the community has no say in the matter. What you propose, at best, is to have a Pope at Avignon. — Coren ^(talk) 14:21, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The person could be on arbcom if a rather ineffective memeber. The point would be that the rules for running the election are not meant to make it easy for the community to pick the candidate it likes. Not for the people seting the rules to pic the candidate type they like. If someone who refuses to identify manages to win (I suspect it would be imposible but they should be free to try) that would suggest the community accepts that it is legitate not to trust the foundation's data handleing procedures. If that were to happen (I really really doubt it would) perhaps the foundation would feel the need to review those policies. The ability for people with non standard views to run for arbcom is an important check and balance in en's relationship both with itself and with the foundation.Geni 15:14, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually no, the person could not be on ArbCom at all; there is no community leeway here: members of ArbCom are and must be identified, and someone who is not identified cannot be a member of ArbCom. — Coren ^(talk) 17:31, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Not so. They couldn't be on the arbcom mailing list. They would not be allowed acess to priverlaged information but that does not de jure prevent them from being part of arbcom. Heh I understand some wikis have arbcom memebers who are non admins.Geni 22:08, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, you have sort of made my point for me, Coren. It is a Foundation issue, not something to be decided by individual wikis, and any questions about it need to be addressed to Foundation personnel; nobody in this thread with the exception of Bastique is in a position to answer them authoritatively. This appears to be the first time where an individual wiki has proposed to require pre-identification as part of the self-nomination process; the Foundation's policy on access to nonpublic data says "Any volunteer who is chosen by any community process to be granted access rights to restricted data shall not be granted that access until that volunteer has satisfactorily identified himself or herself to the Foundation".(emphasis mine) I'm not quite getting why en.wp would want to require, for this one particular role, an identification policy that goes far beyond that of the Foundation itself. Please note that candidacy for an Arbcom is not comparable to candidacy for the Foundation Board (the only other place where pre-identification is required). Foundation Board members are required by law to be publicly identifiable. Arbcom members need only to self-identify to the Foundation (not the whole world), and only in response to an internal policy. Risker (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you got this pretty much backwards. Board members are, indeed, required to be identifiable - not candidates. The reason why pre-identification was required was to ensure that all candidates, if elected, could actually serve. Handling of identification of candidates that were not selected is exactly analogous to what would happen here. The data handling policies of the Foundation are nothing but a red herring in this case: they remain exactly the same whether identification is made at the time of nomination or after the vote. There is no legitimate reason to request or expect that running for ArbCom can be made pseudonymously given that the position absolutely requires that identification be made. Anyone who wishes to run without identifying is, in effect, stating that they refuse to serve (given that they refuse to fulfill the only absolute qualification). If one wants to remain pseudonymous, one needs to not request positions of access to private information. — Coren ^(talk) 17:29, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

(The though occured to me that, as well, someone could run and refuse to identify themselves if they fully expected that they could not be elected and that identification would be moot— this is even worse for two reasons: if they indeed have not been elected then they have wasted a great deal of community effort; if they do get elected against their expectation then they would either have to identify themselves in the end, or would have not only wasted community effort but displaced another, viable, candidate). — Coren ^(talk) 17:37, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the appropriateness of requiring advance identification depends in part on how many candidates there are. If there are 10 candidates for 6 or 7 positions, it would be perfectly reasonable to ask everyone to identify. If there are 50 candidates, it would probably be excessive to ask the Office to verify more than 40 extra people, even though Cary has indicated that he is willing to do so.

If we don't go with advance identification, then it will be simple enough for someone to post a question to all the candidates: "Are you willing to identify yourself to the Foundation Office immediately upon being elected?" Anyone who doesn't answer that question with a yes isn't going to be elected anyway. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The corollary to that question is whether requesting advance identification will affect that number downwards. I would expect that a number of "what the heck" candidates for ArbCom will reconsider if nominating oneself involves more than simply writing and transcluding a page. Sorta of a "you must be this serious to run" sign on the door... whether that is a good thing or a bad thing on its face is open to debate (I think that's a good thing). — Coren ^(talk) 17:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I just wish I worked at the office, because I want to see Bishzilla's birth certificate. :) Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking officially here

First, I am extending Thebainer's term by a year. I have not done sufficient study to determine whether this means I am moving him to another tranche or... what. I seek the advice of all knowledgeable persons about the details.

Second, I am watching the excellent preparations for the elections and I would like to take this time to clarify the appointment process.

As in previous years, according to our longstanding customs, I will appoint from those users gaining 50% or more of the vote; and while in previous years this has usually been the top candidates by percentage, in fact this is discretionary, and there may come a year when I may not agree that some specific user who gained a high percentage would be a good, safe, and trusted appointment for the community. While this has not happened in any previous election yet, it is worth noting it could. Please be aware that I am often privy to private counsel and information which may not be available to ordinary voters, and the confidences that I hold are a heavy weight upon me which I bear with seriousness and concern for the future of the project.

I anticipate following tradition and appointing directly in order of elected percentage, with any possible expansion seats appointed based on both election percentage and experience within Wikipedia.

To my knowledge and belief, the current ArbCom is fully in support of our monarchist tradition. I will not act contrary to their advice, given in private, and these traditions will continue so long as the Foundation and the ArbCom support them.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)