Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Policy Changes: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:37, 11 October 2008

Problem with wording

I know I've spoken about this before, but there is still needlessly confusing wording with:

Arbitrators will only make official statements on their own behalf, or joint statements as a plurality. Dissenting Arbitrators should be given an opportunity to voice their dissents in public if they wish.

What are "joint statements as a plurality"?

(I'm almost certain this is actually current practice/policy, but I'm not sure as I don't understand what the wording means.)

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reading that as join statements that are on behalf of only those arbitrators who supported that statement - sort of like a Majority Opinion from a court. If the committee was split on a measure, but it passed, the statement of that measure would only represent the sentiments of the editors in support, and not the entire committee. I believe this stems from the whole OrangeMarlin shenanigans earlier this year; FT2 posted something on behalf of the committee that wasn't actually on behalf of the entire committee. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UltraEx has the correct reading of it. It's a very hard concept to explain in clear but short phrased english. --Barberio (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if I've got this right... If a measure passes but arbitrators don't agree with it, they don't have to defend it or claim to support it? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 10:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam, look at this principle: WP:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland#Allegations. This sentence "A majority of the Committee concludes that the weight of the credible evidence taken as a whole is suggestive of or consistent with a relationship between the two accounts, but various factors prevent a definitive conclusion from being reached" comes fairly close to what's being discussed. Each arbitrator did not vote what he believed, but instead they voted what they thought the majority of arbitrators believed -- a major responsibility duck. Jd2718 (talk) 18:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, under the proposal, such a statement should be forbidden, as it would be an 'Official Statement on behalf of the Entire Committee' which did not respect the individual opinions of the members, or give opportunity for dissent. --Barberio (talk) 18:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd also probably run afoul of 2008.P.9 "No Secret Votes", because it'd essentially be masking a decision. --Barberio (talk) 18:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. This shows all the issues with the RFC -- the proposals are knee-jerk reactions to individual, misunderstood incidents.

In any case, the wording is still extraordinarily confusing. There must be a way of phrasing this that actually says what it means clearly.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Arbitrators Elected

I'm reading the first proposal, and think that some clarification might be in order. Am I right in assuming that this would expand each tranche from 5 to 7? If that's the case, we need to specify that. We also need to clarify that the 7 members so elected do not include additional appointments to fill vacancies - otherwise, look at this election, we'd create a 7 member tranche, then elect 7 (and only 7) arbs to fill 5 of those seats and 2 vacant seats, leaving an extra 2 vacant seats. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 12:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another question -- was it really the opinion of the RFC that there should be elections every six months? I haven't read the RFC (goodness knows I have enough to do without ploughing through that 635kB page -- in the region of 100,000 words!), but that seems far from self-evident. If this ratification is to go ahead, there should be a separation between the votes for the length of terms and the votes for the frequency of elections. For instance, I would support 2-year terms, but not biannual elections (edit: or, good grief triannual elections)

Incidentally, this is a different system to that used for amending the arbitration policy in the past -- the Committee suggested amendments and there was a ratification vote on those amendments. It might be sensible to get an opinion from Committee members before voting on this. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 13:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and the status quo should be an option for the points where there are multiple options. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was a well supported proposal. And the Committee members were invited to participate during the RFC, and arbitrator opinions were given. It was very much felt that the current terms are far far too long, but if you reduce the length of terms, you naturally have to increase the occurrence of elections as well. To keep a longer period between elections, we'd have to deconstruct the tranche system all together. It was pointed out during the RfC that short election cycle is the way the de.wikipedia committee is elected, so it's not that unexpected a change. One of the strongest supported conclusions of the RfC was that 'Three Years is Just Too Long', so we do need to reduce terms somehow, and these are the options the RfC generated. --Barberio (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main discussion of this seems to be at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee#View by SirFozzie 2. I find it always helps to link someone to the proposal you're talking about - as Sam says, the RfC makes for long reading. WJBscribe (talk) 16:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this addition. I don't see it as at all self-evident that decreasing terms means increasing frequency of elections and I shall oppose anything that posits more than one election a year. I agree, incidentally, that three years is too long. In fact, I haven't seen anyone who thinks it isn't. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I considered putting in an explicit 'Status Quo' vote, but thought that considering there's a 40 vote ratification requirement, Status Quo will be maintained if none of the options get sufficient support. --Barberio (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought about that. However, as you are offering choices and saying that the one with most support will be adopted, you need to offer the status quo as an option. Otherwise you are preventing anyone from supporting both the status quo and the option most similar to it, which is an entirely possible situation. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Sam is right that many will not be able to stomach the idea of two ArbCom elections every year. Perhaps there should be a proposal for reduced terms that does not require more frequent elections? WJBscribe (talk) 16:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise proposal has been added. Altho, I'm not really happy adding something that didn't come out of the RfC. --Barberio (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that there are a lot of people who didn't have the time to participate in that RFC. It should be a guideline to avenues to pursue, not prescriptive. I still think it would be helpful to separate the concepts of term duration and frequency of elections. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how you would separate the concept of term duration and frequency of election. Unless you reduce the membership of the arbitration committee to zero, or increase it to infinity, term duration and frequency of election are a mathematical function of each other. --Barberio (talk) 18:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Altho, theoretically, we could put up separated choices of term duration and frequency of election, and adjust by changing tranche sizes. However, I'm not sure how we would cope when the resulting choices require us to elect 8.5 arbitration members every year. Chainsaw? --Barberio (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure some members of the community would support that proposal :-)

The solution is to adjust the numbers of arbitrators overall so that it divides nicely or to have uneven tranches. Either is a viable solution. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 18:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shortening the terms of existing arbs is outside the purview of this process, so once this election is over, we'll have 5 arbs expiring in 1 year, 5 expiring in 2 years, and 7 expiring in whatever duration is selected. It might not be a bad idea to game-plan each approval, and see what the arbitration committee would look like if each is approved. Bear in mind, as well, that part of the reason planning for this election began so early is so that a consensus-based process exists; if elections are more frequent, we have a plan and can implement it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with more frequent elections isn't the planning stage but the scrutiny stage. That is the time-consuming part, both for those standing and for those scrutinising. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two months, beginning to end. Elections every six months are just too frequent. That's four months a year in ArbCom elections. Eight months? Nine months? I can see the argument for maintaining once a year. Jd2718 (talk) 18:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tranches, terms and timings

I've made some changes to this page, which I hope people like. Most of them are cosmetic, but I rewrote the guidelines section to what I think it was trying to say, so do shout if I've completely misinterpreted it.

My main issue is with the 'Election of the Committee' section. It strikes me that people only care about two, possibly three, things: the length of an Arbitrator's term, the frequency of elections, and possibly the number of arbitrators. The mechanics of how many tranches we have is a side effect that not everyone will understand, and that fewer still will care about. So I suggest that we break the 'Term of office, and frequency of election' section into two, and ask people to vote on 12/18/24/36 months term length and 4/6/12 election spacing. This is much clearer and easier for the layperson to understand. I'd also suggest that these 'multiple choice' sections use strict approval voting (only "support" votes, highest one wins). We could rewrite the boolean questions to the same format for consistency if desired. Just a thought... Happy‑melon 21:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I support that. It's not our place to decide what people 'care' about voting for. --Barberio (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not your place to dictate what suggestions we should have a vote for. Quite why only the precise phrasing admitted in the RFC should be allowed to be ratified as policy is beyond me. Other than "this is what was said in the RFC", there seem to be precisely no arguments in favour of this system. (Edit conflict with the following statement.) Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because when we say to the community, and the foundation, 'These are the changes that are going to be made to arbitration policy', we need to be able to say 'Did these changes have full community support, were they fully debated, was the process of their selection a robust process, can you trace back each policy change through the process?' After the vote, I don't want people to block changes on the grounds that one of the answers to those questions is no. These policies are up here because they were selected in a very long and very involved RfC process, we can let the few changed in the election one in because they're in-line with what was supported during the RfC. But we can't now throw open the gates for more suggestions if we're going to have something solid for people to start debating between in a little over a month. --Barberio (talk) 22:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A proper policy making process would ask first what general points are up for debate, then secondly how these specifically should be implemented. To have a multiple choice vote for frequency of elections that doesn't include "annual" as an option is spectacularly stupid and doesn't make me think much of this as a system for generating policy. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was perhaps a single oversight in what was otherwise a very good RfC, perhaps my fault when collating the supported statements into actionable policy changes, but one that wasn't picked up on by anyone else till recently, and as I said the change was in-line with what was supported in the RfC so is fine by me. Otherwise, the process worked fine, and I think it will work fine if we did it again for any other problems with the Arbitration Policy that might come up. I understand and accept that you personally dislike this process, but it was what people came up with to work something out, and I don't see many alternatives being proposed.--Barberio (talk) 22:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the process. I like treating its results as advisory rather than prescriptive. Generally, the points it makes are valid. Where they aren't valid, it's generally because they are redundant or overly vague, rather than muddle-headed. The ratification vote should be true to the spirit of the RFC. I don't think it need be slavish to the wording where the proposals can be more sensibly worked. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree - RfC is a forum for debate and general discussion, it's appallingly bad at generating concrete policy. The spirit of the RfC was to indicate that there was support for altering the election cycle; being bound to use the exact wording thrown out by 638kB of largely incomprehensible argument and counter-proposal would be to hamstring ourselves with bureaucracy, which is the very thing we're trying to avoid. The RfC is a very useful body of discussion to reference for arguments and ideas, but it is not our master - it guides and influences our future decisions, nothing more. Plus we're not actually adding very many viable options. Five of them correlate directly to the options currently available - I've highlighted those in green. ~~One of them is physically impossible.~~ Three of them I think are highly unlikely to ever gain much traction and so are hardly worth bothering about - these are coloured red. The reorganisation would only be adding three viable options. Happy‑melon 07:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also opposed to this because the result would be some self appointed committee, ie us, then going on to make the decision about how many arbitrators and how many tranches there need to be to suit the term and spacing of elections. --Barberio (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		12	18	24	36
		Duration of term (months)
Election spacing (months)	4	3	4	6	9
	6	2	3	4	6
	12	1	3	2	3

The required number of tranches is an absolutely objective value that can be calculated in advance - there is only one possible value (or multiples thereof) that can produce the necessary election pattern and term length. For reference, the table of tranches is on the right. If we rephrase the number of arbitrators question to be "there will be 21 members of the arbitration committee" rather than "there will be seven members in each of the three tranches" then it becomes a trivial exercise to determine how many arbitrators are in each tranche - we simply divide the number of arbs by the number of tranches. If we condone tranches being oversized until the existing terms in them expire, then there is no subjectivity whatsoever - it doesn't matter who calculates the results, because anyone numerate would obtain the same answers. I fail to see where the problem lies. Happy‑melon 06:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you seem to support this very idea in the section above, yet oppose it here. How do you reconcile those positions? Happy‑melon 07:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What happens in the more than likely situation where people vote for 18 month terms and 12 month elections? --Barberio (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you wish. Let's have eight options -- one for each of the plausible options.

I don't think that's a good way to go. Far more sensible would be to deal with problems as they arrive. One obvious option would be to choose the second choice for either term length.

Please don't try to prevent rational options based on your own preferences.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 15:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive discourse between Barberio and Sam Korn collapsed.

Please don't make this about me.

Now, the standard I've been working on is "Does the person voting on this know what they are getting?", with the format I've created, they know exactly what they are getting, and have notes to explain anything that might appear ambiguous.

With your idea, the voter would explicitly not know what they were getting, because those decisions would be made after the vote and depending on circumstances.

In my view, such a 'vote' would not be legitimate, as the voter is uninformed about how their vote will determine the outcome of the process.

The only reason we are doing this is to give the changes to arbitration policy, and selection between the alternative proposals, a cast-iron legitimacy so they will be accepted.

Reducing the legitimacy by putting a post-election committee in charge of deciding how many arbitrators and tranches we will have cuts away that legitimacy.

So no, I object to the idea that it is 'more sensible' to 'deal with problems as they arrive' in this case. --Barberio (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to make this about you. If I have misrepresented you, I apologise. In any case, the voter would not know what he or she is getting, because, as things stand, Jimmy would have to approve the decision.

I honestly don't think we have actually got consensus as to what principles should be up for ratification. You are the only one on this page defending them -- you point to the RFC as consensus, but the RFC doesn't show consensus for your proposals. It shows consensus that changes are needed, but it doesn't show that the specific changes you suggest are the only ones allowable. There are major issues with proposals 1, 2, 5, 6, and 12, even when being generous. We need to sort these out by discussion, not by your rigid sticking to the RFC. The method that should take place here is 1) RFC -- find the issues; 2) discuss the best implementations of the solutions to those issues; 3) ratify the solutions.

The current proposals need to be thought out. Under the current proposals, we could have as few as fourteen and as many as twenty-eight arbitrators in the Committee. If proposal 2.c is accepted, we could have fifteen arbitrators in the Committee or we could have twenty-one. If proposal 2.d is accepted, we could have twenty arbitrators or twenty-eight. These depend on the results of proposal 1. Surely these are bigger changes than the frequency of elections, but they are just as unclear as the issues you point out with my proposal.

Let's have some decent conversation about what proposals are best rather than everyone else trying to persuade you that these are bad ideas.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 16:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me see if I understand you correctly...

You think that, despite my doing the collating as part of the RfC it's self, and opening it up to others to edit, which they did, and having discussion on if it was correct, and there was discussion... That I did not accurately represent the actionable proposals that had been supported during discussion.

So, in order to fix that, you're going to replace them with a load of proposals that weren't supported or discussed in the RfC at all? --Barberio (talk) 17:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying firstly that there are still major issues with the proposals as laid out, that they are not perfectly set out and need further discussion. I am secondly saying that there is not a clear consensus where you say there is one. The RFC does not change that! Its role is to ask for comment, and to suggest avenues for pursuit. A prescriptive approach is not helpful, as the problems in the proposals demonstrate. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:55, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think there are problems with some of the proposals offered up, then you can advocate against people supporting them, and cast your vote to oppose.

But you may not decide that the proposals shouldn't be put up for ratification at all, and substitute your own instead.

I also think you have gravely misunderstood what RfCs are about, they demonstrably have resulted in directed action being taken. I don't think the people who participated considered they were only giving support to give advice for maybe sugesting doing something in the future so long as no one disagreed at later date.--Barberio (talk) 18:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kindness. I can vote against the proposals, even though I think they are not far from the mark because you are unwilling to discuss them because you have consensus on your side. You don't actually obtain truth by consensus. You don't actually force a policy to work because consensus says it does. These proposals are generally sound. Some are redundant; some are misguided. Several others need tweaking and because you are unwilling to discuss it we could end up with vague -- and therefore useless -- arbitration policy. I am not trying to be difficult or obstructive! I am trying to get some half-way decent proposals into something that would actually be constructive and useful. You seem hellbent on going for proposals even if they are deficient Because The RFC Said So. This isn't me trying to resist change, or agitating on behalf of the Committee, or anything like that! I truly think these proposals could have a positive effect, but am very worried that, in the muddle-headed and disconnected way that they are currently presented, they are likely to be thoroughly ineffective or they could indeed have a negative effect. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if you want to propose some alternatives, then demonstrate some consensus support for those alternatives, and we'll include them. I suggest you'd need to find the same level of supporting editors as was found in the RfC summary selection.

I'm not prepared to accept unilateral action on deciding what people may or may not vote for. And while I'm sure in your view there are grave and serious errors that need fixing in the proposals, this is what came out from consensus debate in the RfC. And three people shouting loudly that they know better isn't going to trump that.

Come back when you have twenty people who all support your point of view. Otherwise, I'm going to consider this issue closed, since you persist on arguing like I'm in charge of this. --Barberio (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pretending problems don't exist is of course an excellent fashion of fixing them.

The irony of the comments "I'm not going to accept" and "I'm not in charge" is extraordinary.

Perhaps I should make a post to VPP, cross-posted to AN and anywhere else that springs to mind, asking if there needs to be more scrutiny of these proposals before they are finalised. Would that be sensible? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, if you feel you can gather consensus for some changes to policy that way. Like I said, if you can get around twenty people to all agree on the precise wording of a proposal, I'd be more than happy to see it included in the ratification vote.

If, on the other hand, you just want to gather a like minded group of people to try and remove or alter proposals we already have, I'd consider that to be an attempt at disruption, and going in direct opposition to the RfC's weight of consensus.

So which is it, do you want to put in new proposals, or are you still calling for us to remove or alter the proposals you dislike?--Barberio (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither, as I have consistently maintained. Many of these proposals are broken as they stand, though not irreparably. They need fixing. I don't understand what you seem to take as axiomatic -- that the precise wording of the RFC as you summarised it is the precise wording that will be suitable for amending the Arbitration policy. I shall post to VPP and AN presently. More scrutiny can hardly be a bad thing. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Melon's proposal is welcome. I came to the talk page hoping to find them; they would allow input directly and independently on the issues that I believe editors may find important. I see potentially three discrete questions:

how long should the term be? (12(?), 18, 24, or 36 months),
how frequent should elections be? (6 mo, 9 mo(?), 1 yr)
should the number of arbs be increased by approx 5?

The answers to these three would determine the size of tranches, right? Jd2718 (talk) 04:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've repeatedly said, the problem with separating this out into a 'matrix calculated' vote, is that no one gets to vote on the end result, we just have votes on the inputs to a calculation, with a self appointed committee working out how to wedge it into a suitable number of tranches and arbitrators.

As it is now, people put in a vote, and know what they're voting for. With Happy Melon's system, the only know part of what they're voting for, and don't know what they'll get if they 'win' some of what they voted for but not the others. It's not infeasible to imagine a situation where a clear consensus vote for 12 month terms, and a clear consensus (but not made up of the same set of people) select the 1 year election frequency, then both sets of people are surprised and shocked to learn that this means abandoning the staggered tranche system.

So the clear issue with this is that the result of the vote is not representative of the people's intent when voting.

If it's up for vote, it has to be clear in advance what people are going to get if the proposal passes.--Barberio (talk) 06:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite. What will matter most to each editor, length of term, size of committee, frequency of elections, neither of us know. Maybe one, maybe all three. But the pre-packaged options prevent each of us from voting on what matters most to each of us. And with the exception of the highly unlikely outcome you touted, all involve some number of tranches. Only I don't really care how many, I don't think very many editors will have a strong preference at all, I think 2 vs 3 vs 4 is the least important issue we could look at, I think it is the only 'advantage' of the pre-packaged choices. We should be allowed to vote for what matters. Jd2718 (talk) 14:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That people should be allowed to vote for what matters is my point.

But you are ignoring that people may have an opinion that the number of tranches and size of each tranche does actually matter to them, and want to be able to select between options based on that and not leave it up to the calculation of some post-election committee. --Barberio (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've come to the realisation that the 18-month-term/12-month-election option is easily possible, if we allow the sensible 'cheat' of electing arbitrators in december to come into office in July. Each December, we'd be voting for one tranche that expires at the end of that year, plus a tranche that expires in the middle of that year. So at the beginning of every year, there is one tranche that has just been elected (18 months to go), one tranche that was elected 12 months ago of last year and came into office 6 months ago (12 months term left), one tranche with 6 months to go and a group of people waiting to take those seats when they're vacated in July. It's more complicated than the current system but it's feasible. It's also possible to use the same process to allow the 12-month-term/12-month-election option without losing the tranche system - we can still elect anywhere between two and four tranches with only one election per year. This is a bit more questionable because it's not strictly necessary - it just gives another choice: if we end up selecting this option we would need a further, separate decision on whether to lose the tranche system or not. But we'd have 12 months in which to make that decision. Happy‑melon 17:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a highly unusual and complicated solution, to a problem in an term and election schedule no one has suggested people actually want. But if you think it should be an option to vote on, suggested it below and gather consensus for it's support.--Barberio (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tranches

As the person who (I believe) first suggested the 2-year terms (though it came out of a rather lengthy discussion), I think the only issue with tranches is that there is a want to see the terms staggered "somehow".

I think that the concern regarding terms to be shorter is merely to shorten them. Tranching can be figured out once the length of terms and number of arbitrators is determined (as noted by Happy Melon above). - jc37 11:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever happened to consensus?

I think that there is a rather huge error in suggesting that policy should be voted on. (WP:VOTE)

Number of arbitrators? How long are their terms? Those we can suggest to User:Jimbo Wales, the same way we suggest who he should appoint as arbitrators. That makes sense.

That said, I'm looking at the page and seeing arbitration policy and procedures being set up by voting, and setting up voting procedures by voting. This, in my opinion, is an INCREDIBLY bad idea.

Policy reflects common practice and consensus, that's the "wiki way".

It's policy here, and it's even a foundation issue.

And when I look up this page and see good editors arguing over whether the text of a page can be changed... I wonder if the concept of consensus is dying on the vine as I watch.

This is just really, really, really a bad idea. - jc37 11:20, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, Arbitration policy on the English Wikipedia has always been modified in a slightly different fashion to most policy and has required a vote. Working out which principles to vote on has previously been the job of the Arbitration Committee; having an RFC decide what will happen is a new system. I'm not convinced it is the right one, or that these are the right proposals, personally (in fact, I think some of them are pretty ridiculous), but I can work with it.

And, indeed, the most the ratification vote could do would be to "recommend" these changes to Jimmy, while he continues to exercise his traditional role.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 11:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I almost might accept that except that this really sets a horrible precedent. On-site policy simply should not be determined by a vote.

In other words, everything following term limits, should be removed from the page.

(Incidentally, the term limits section presents all sorts of its own problems. For example, JW being free to have someone serve out someone else's "seat". And attempting to restrict who he can select is also interesting. Technically, candidates already have restrictions placed upon them. Why is this one different than those? Why should this one be determined differently than those?) - jc37 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policy has been voted on (with Jimbo's full support, even) before. I honestly don't get why voting is seen as the root of all evil by some; it seems perfectly sensible to me to vote on this issue. Why don't we see this as more of a straw poll to get an idea of what the community might want? If there's a clear consensus for one or the other option, we could tell Jimbo and the current Arbcom members (assuming they don't know already), and hopefully the desired changes will be implemented. --Conti|✉ 12:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For all the same reasons that we don't "vote" at XfD. And honestly, in reading this discussion page, you should easily be able to see why. People should be able to convey their opinions. And what if the headers don't quite convey what they want to convey? are they now excised from the process? What if they would like to see if others might agree with what they might wish to convey? Is that also excised?

As I said, straight-forward numeric options (such as term length), I could understand having such a poll on. But things such as setting policy on cases and so forth? No, absolutely not.

(Incidentally, when looking over Wikipedia_talk:How_to_revert_a_page_to_an_earlier_version/Poll:_Revert_wars_considered_harmful, I see a fairly straight-forward poll. I don't see it mixed in with elections for some contributive position.) - jc37 13:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I think you're ignorant of the history of Wikipedia Arbitration Policy verses regular Wikipedia Content and Conduct Policy, they are not the same thing. There already is a precedent for voting on Arbitration Policy, thats the way it was put in place by Jimbo at the start. There is already a precedent for ratification of changes to Arbitration Policy by vote, it's been done twice before.

Infact, the only difference here was we've added an RfC where we *did* need community consensus to operate and discuss things. If we were to follow past precedent on this, we wouldn't have used that step, and we'd have gone direct to a vote. So no, your arguments about 'precedent' are totaly invalid because it already is precedent, and no, your arguments about 'having no community consensus involvement' are invalid because we did have a community consensus run process during the RfC.

Your input is appreciated. --Barberio (talk) 14:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you found "precedent" anywhere in my comments. So I'll disregard those comments while waiting for a clarification.

As for the rest, if I am interpreting your comments accurately, the proper response would seem to be: Consensus can change. - jc37 14:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change. However, in regards of the results of the Arbitration Policy RfC, I have seen no indication that consensus has changed since then.

And please re-read your own comments on this page, you will find you've used an argument about setting precedent. --Barberio (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're describing polls of the past to indicate that "voting" should be used for policy determination? The key point here is that even if I were to accept and agree with your assertion that such "voting" may have occurred in the past (which I don't), that doesn't make it right or appropriate here in the present. (Now or ever.)

Consensus is just overridingly key.

A poll (RFC or otherwise), where editors can discuss, is one thing, but an "up or down vote"? No.

And mixing policy with elections...

I find this all to be rather problematic.

And yes, I found my comment concerning precedent. That was more in line with knowing that once something is done once, people may inappropriately attempt to apply that situation to another one (something like how you are suggesting that because you feel that there has been voting on policy in the past, that voting on policy now would be acceptable.) - jc37 16:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've *done* consensus building on this. We had an RfC. It was lengthy. Lots of people got involved. There were lengthy debates. ArbCom members got involved.

And now, we're just ensuring clear legitimacy and transparent support for the products of that consensus building with a vote.

While you're throwing bricks at what's been done, I don't see you proposing any alternatives we could take that would give us a clear mandate to change the Arbitration Policy? If you'd like to come up with an alternative, I'd like to hear it. Otherwise, I don't think you're making any productive contribution here. --Barberio (talk) 17:04, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venting.

This is rambling venting. No need to reply.

Trying to change policy on en.Wikipedia is like trying to climb a mountain tied to a group of people who all have different ideas about how to get up to the top, including one who is digging a hole straight down. A German friend has just told me that rather than waste my time with this, I should learn German, and edit de.wikipedia where things get done without all the politics.

I'm strongly considering taking him up on that, and leaving it up to someone else to work out. --Barberio (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that people have issues with your proposals means neither that they are opposing change in policy nor that they think the approach you are taking is wrong. I really do think much of the change you are proposing could usefully be adopted. I don't think you are going about it in the best fashion. Please don't abandon hope! Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 17:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, there you go again. They're not my proposals. They're the proposals that came out of the RfC. I don't have ownership of them, and they're not mine to alter or decide that they have 'problems'. --Barberio (talk) 18:48, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for not seeing you as the flag-bearer for truth that you so clearly are!

In all seriousness, important discussions need to be had to deal with the real problems that are still present in the proposals (never mind whose they are). Please let's have this conversation rather than the constant refrain of "the RFC said so". Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you think there are problems present in the proposals, you are free to advocate against them, or vote oppose. I don't think you should decide to remove them from the vote and substitute your own.

I will be voting oppose to some of these proposals myself. --Barberio (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you think we should just allow misguided but fixable proposals to go ahead as they are "because the RFC said so"? You would think that we should be discussing what would be best for the encyclopaedia and the project.

You think that we should allow horrendously leading questions to be posited? You think we should allow vague and ambiguous proposals to be voted on without actually saying what they mean? You think we should leave the form of the Arbitration Committee basically to chance, depending which combination of proposals 1 and 2 go through, even if that completely breaks the functionality of the committee?

And all this "because the RFC said so"?

The mind boggles. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to assume Wikipedia Editors are a pack of mindless sheep, who will vote for whatever we put before them, without using their own capacity for thought to assess the proposals. I don't. I think they'll put at least a minimum of thought into voting, and may even be swayed by arguments in advocacy discussions.

If we find that proposals voted in, and then accepted as policy, cause problems in the future, then we can go through this process again to fix them.

And I firmly reject your scaremongering claim of 'leaving the form of the Arbitration Committee basically to chance', elections are not coin tosses. --Barberio (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might to better to ask "shouldn't we be trying to sort out the solutions best for the project" rather than hoping we can fix the problems we solve here and now a year or whatever down the line. Many of the problems are soluble. It is your intransigence and refusal to discuss them that could prevent us actually getting some progress on this matter. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 20:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You came to me with exactly, and so far, only one specifically identified problem. That the proposals all shortened the time between votes.

So after discussion with you, I looked back at the RfC and came up with what I thought was a compromise between the raised problems, and what had been supported in the RfC. And it's currently in the project page as 2008 Proposal 2.a.

I think I deserve an apology from you for declaring that I have been intransigent, refused to discuss and was holding up progress. When it's clear that I discussed, and I was the one to put up a compromise to try and get some progress.

While you've talked of 'problems', you've not identified them. And while you've brought up that not all possible combinations of voting schedules and term lengths are covered, you've not said that any of these alternative are either desirable or had any support, and you've stated your opposition to the ones with shorter voting schedules. The ones that are currently up for vote are the ones which people have indicated are desirable. You seem to think we should make the vote more complicated so we can have an option for something no one said they want, not even you.

Right now, if someone is being intransigent and holding up progress, I wouldn't say it was me at all.

Now, seriously, this is the last time I'm going to reply. Come back when you have a group of other people, and some alternative proposals they all support.--Barberio (talk) 20:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would a general opinion that these points need more discussion be acceptable to you, or would you only accept twenty people, unanimous in agreement that I am right? I reckon the former is likely. The second is absurd. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issues

Issues 1 and 2 need to be considered in a fashion that is coherent. At the moment, the result of voting for any of proposals 2 is completely dependant on proposal 1. Proposal 1 is presented as being a completely separate issue to the various proposals 2a-e, whereas they need to be treated as a contiguous whole. Note that this doesn't mean they need to be voted on together, but they do need to be treated consistently.

It's not presented as completely separate, as it's under the same grouping. And I do think it's pretty clear, but I will add explanatory text to address this. --Barberio (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And altho I assumed people would understand they could always change their mind and withdraw their votes if they saw that 2.d was winning, I've made it explicit that they can mark their vote as being withdrawn if 2.d wins. --Barberio (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, the issues need to be addressed as a whole, not in the bitty way that your wording has it. As far as I can tell, the proposed change is that the Committee should be bigger -- expanding the tranches seems to be a backwards way of enacting that change. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then go find community consensus for an alternative proposal. --Barberio (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need a new consensus to form a coherent set of proposals? Ones that aren't extraordinarily confusing? I do hope not... Do spelling errors need a new consensus? If so, I'll go and revert... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 5 is too vague. It needs to determine what proceedings may not be conducted in private, as the Committee does far more than just RfArs.

Intentional wording, and this was discussed in the RfC, and it's that way for a reason. Reason being that while we do want most things public, some things the fact are going to have to be conducted in private as well, and it's hard to identify what those occasions are till they happen. There was considerable stated opposition on being to exact and prescriptive in this. This wording is a 'spirit of the law' policy, not an exact prescription.

While your concerns are potentially valid, they are ones that should be in an alternative proposal, not a change to this proposal.--Barberio (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that it is too inclusive -- under this proposal, Poetlister should have been informed when under discussion. Obviously not good. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that's a reason you can oppose it, and advocate against it. --Barberio (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 8 is policy.

A lot of people, including some sitting arbitrators, believe it is not current policy. This is one of the reasons we had an RfC.--Barberio (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see it is not actually in WP:AP (though it should have been). Fair enough. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal 12 is still unclear.

It makes sense to me, I think it'll make sense to potential arbitrators who read it, and most people at the RfC could make sense of it even when it was using legalistic language.--Barberio (talk) 21:31, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Irony: I am a "potential arbitrator" and I can't understand it! Perhaps you can give me an example of what it would achieve, and then I'll see if I can make sense of it? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:43, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should have prevented FT2's rouge 'Official Statement' about a non-existant arbitration committee finding about OrangeMarlin. --Barberio (talk) 21:50, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. If that's what it's aimed to do, I disagree on principle, on the grounds that that mess was not due to an arbitrator consciously making decisions on behalf of the committee. Perhaps you could give a hypothetical example, though, so I can see exactly what aspect of that affair it is attempting to remedy? I think it is fairly clear that, even under our current policy, that decision was not accepted and at no time was an official decision of the committee... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I also have less objective issues with 5 and 10, but I think they too are not insoluble. I do not present them under this heading because I don't want to distract from the fact that the above five sections need significant changes to make them a useful proposal for ratification.)

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redlinks question

What are these redlinks on the project page for? Information on these proposals Discuss these proposals Is that going to split discussion? Not judging here, just asking. IronDuke 22:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the plan is to provide advocacy on these issues. Whether it is a good idea to tuck these away on a subpage and therefore to discourage their being read is, I think, open for debate. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:37, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. My initial impression is that this will be confusing, and what is the countervailing good of doing it that way? IronDuke 22:40, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When does voting start?

Like SirFozzie, I was confused. The only reason I didn't vote as well was that I'm still mulling it all over and reading the discussion. Could a stronger statement be put at the top, e.g., "Don't vote yet. Voting begins on [Date/Time X]"? IronDuke 22:44, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main matter that needs consideration

What is the best way to present the question of term length/size of Committee/frequency of elections? Is it the current system, individual voting for each section or an attempt at making a coherent system of suggestions?

I would suggest something like this:

Approximately how large should the Committee be?
- 12-17
- 17-22
- 23-27
- 28-32
How long should arbitrators' terms be? How frequent should elections be?
- 12 month terms, triannual elections
- 12 month terms, biannual elections
- 12 month terms, annual elections
- 18 month terms, biannual elections
- 24 month terms, biannual elections
- 24 month terms, annual elections
- 36 month terms, annual elections (added by Rlevse, this should be an option)

I think that would be the most sensible manner of phrasing the question. I recognise that it is rather different wording to what the RFC suggested, but it has the same effect. When you are playing around with what "tranche" means, setting a precise size (edit: "for a tranche") is meaningless.

I would vote for it if the final option or the second option was successful, but not under any other circumstances. We would have a very painful headache vote-counting if we allowed conditional votes.

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This looks reasonable/less confusing to me, and strongly agree about conditional votes. IronDuke 23:01, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

12 is too small, 23 too big. Ideal is IMHO btwn 14-21.

12 is too short, 18 too short, either 24 or 36 is good.

Any changes to terms and number of members adopted should apply to the 2009 election, I think, not this 2008 one. Procedural changes should be adopted once the 2008 arbs are seated. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to sound like Barberio now... I think your opinion bears out that I have chosen decent ranges, then... The only issue I can see is if we end up with three tranches, when there could be ambiguity between whether 12 or 15 should be chosen and between whether 18 or 21 should be chosen. I'm sure there must be a reasonable way of determining that... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Biannual elections of any sort cause way too much drama and are way too time-consuming. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullpuckey. they last less then a month, and then are done. I'm rather disappointed that after the consensus of the community that the Arbitration committe urgently needs some fundamental fixes, that people are trying to run the clock out on actually making the changes. Right now, if I'm reading some people's views correctly, we can't put any real, fundamental, NEEDED changes in.. till December, 2009? Are we kidding ourselves here? SirFozzie (talk) 03:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are misinterpreting what I said. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a lot of people -- myself included -- did not take part in the RFC because of cynicism. I saw a huge amount of text, much of which seemed to the same old moaning from the same old people. It is fairly rare that an RFC ever comes to helpful conclusions, so maybe you'll have to excuse some of us who thought other things were higher priority. If people disagree with the fundamental premise that AC needs enormous reform, you will see that they might not have the energy to get involved in an RFC that has change as its premise. I think there are some useful changes to be made here, but I am not convinced the current proposals are the optimal way to go about it. The move from "summary of agreement at RFC" to "here's the Community's Consensus That Can't Be Changed" doesn't seem to be an explicit one, and as such does, I think, need proper scrutiny and due consideration. Let's try to have a helpful conversation about the issues themselves and how they are to be best presented, rather than continuing with this absurd game of "we need to make changes" "no you may not: the community has decided".

Goodness knows I'm not trying to sneak changes under the door -- I made public (although maybe slightly less than perfectly clear about what was ! Oops!) announcements about the conversations here. Now can we have a real conversation, please?

Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I chose to pass on the RfC as well) I think these are much better choices. I'd prefer to see the term and the frequency of elections separated, but would not be terribly disappointed. I like voting size separately. There are, I should point out, some odd permutations missing... An election frequency more than 12 months but less than 6? Two year term, election every 8 months? Numbers are awkward, but they might be just the compromise values... Finally, these should be implemented or phased in as soon as practical. That probably means starting with the election in just over 2 months. Jd2718 (talk) 15:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what Sam Corn says. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few issues

A few comments just for starters:

I think consensus should be reached for this, not just a majority (which could be only one vote).
Some of these are already in effect...why is the RFC on arbs there? This can already be done
The proposal on a one-term limit has a loophole, what is someone is appointed to fill a partial term?
The tranches need to be staggered somehow.
If the tranches are changed, some system needs worked out to handle the inevitable perbutations
The Dispute resolution proposal, as I see it, is pretty much how things are now. There needs to be some flexibility in the RFAR process of accepting cases.
"Remedies may only be voted on by the Arbitration Committee if they are in the form of direct sanctions on persons listed as parties to the case." this does not allow for issues that are discovered during the case

— Rlevse • Talk • 22:59, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I apologise for any confusion that Sam Korn might have caused by the post to AN/I and WPP. Altho, I advised him to do so, I did so for him to gather consensus on some alternative proposals he was suggesting, not to announce the election and call for people to start advocating, critiquing or voting on the proposals already there. No, voting is not open yet. This is also not a call to start editing the proposals already up, since the ones up there right now are the ones that had significant consensus support on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee, if you can find or generate similar consensus support for adding alternative proposals please do so, but do not edit or remove existing proposals without overwhelming consensus to override that generated in the RfC. It's probably not the time for advocacy or nitpicking over why you disagree or agree with one proposal over another, there will be plenty of time for that during the nomination process of the main election. Sam shot the gun a little early in announcing this, and the discussion pages and information pages are not there yet. --Barberio (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woo, I didn't mean to announce it! I think I was just a little unclear in what I was asking for! I certainly wasn't asking for voting. (Goodness knows -- and you do! -- that I don't want the proposals to be voted on as they stand.)

I am more than slightly irritated at your apologising on my behalf, however. It is not your place to do so. Furthermore, please stop accusing me of doing things I am not doing. Oh, and please remember this is a wiki... Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 23:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First things first

Shouldn't there be consensus that this vote should take place at all first? — Coren ^(talk) 00:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee. Overwhelming consensus generated that we should do something to fix problems with the Arbitration Policy. Several proposed changes established significant consensus support. Established precedent is that we need a ratification vote to change Arbitration Policy. --Barberio (talk) 00:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative would be to just go ahead and take Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Arbitration_Committee as a remit to change the Arbitration Policy, but I don't think that would stick, and we have to choose between some alternative proposals anyway. --Barberio (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no such consensus there. I see maybe three dozen editors, almost all of whom have had clashes with the Arbitration Committee in the past (which doesn't invalidate their opinions, but certainly has funky self-selection), have varying opinions on a number of inconsistent and often mutually conflicting sections. This simultaneous vote with the arbcom elections are going to be, at best, extraordinarily disruptive and I see no consensus of the editing population at large that they should take place at all, let along in this format and at that time.

There are probably good reforms to be made of the AC, but before the elections get trampled all over by a vote like this I would like to see, at least, an RfC with a single focused question on whether it should take place at all. — Coren ^(talk) 00:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think, for some reason, you are trying to reduce the number of people who were involved in the RfC, to make it seem less significant? The "No Secret Trials" proposal alone had 57 supporting statements, can you remember the last time over 50 people were involved in an RfC, let alone that many supporting a single statement? --Barberio (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And how, exactly, does that proposal gives a consensus to have this vote? — Coren ^(talk) 00:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I assume that the people who were noting their support thought that should be in the policy. Do you think they were just doing it to pass the time? --Barberio (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, members of the ArbCom themselves were involved during the RfC too. --Barberio (talk) 00:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Coren makes a good point and this vote, if it occurs, should occur after the new arbs are approved by Jimbo. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:49, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one is suggesting that these changes be made active before the new members are seated, I do not think the foundation would accept that even if someone tried. And it seems a waste of everyone's time to have to go through a second wikipedia wide voting process so soon after another one has ended. There's no reason not to run the votes concurrently, and maximise exposure for both votes. --Barberio (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reaction to this proposal

I am coming here as an uninvolved 3rd party following the post on WP:AN. I have briefly reviewed the proposal to vote on the individual elements listed, and with the greatest respect to those who have been working on this proposal, feel it is at the very least premature, and perhaps more fundamentally flawed, to attempt to vote on something of this nature this December.

The RFC on Arbcom contained a lot of venting and some discussion by those participating. It provided a good temperature test for what a significant and vocal minority of the community feel needs to be adjusted, but it was a far cry from providing workable proposals for reforming arbcom, if indeed that is needed.

It is not fully clear to what extent any set of proposals on arbcom reform could be enacted by vote, and whether this is the best way to effect change. That being said, if a team of people used the input of the RFC to define or propose a series of coherent alternative policy models for Arbcom, and a significant consensus of the community supported one such model, I am sure it would be enacted. One or more such alternative policy models might well be "as now, except for the following change, e.g. terms reduced to X months, ..." or similar changes as in the proposals here. However, we are far from this level at the present time, and I fear it will take several months to get there. Furthermore, it may well be prejudicial to limit the alternatives to the few specific proposals presented here.

I would suggest those interested continue to develop a variety of proposals with an open mind, and that the positions of different arbcom candidates in the upcoming elections serve as a litmus test for what approaches have lasting support. Furthermore, a few more months of status quo operation will help identify what changes are truly necessary. I would expect a reasonable set of alternatives for discussion and choice may be ready by mid-year 2009, but would be surprised if they were ready before then.

Finally, I've looked at the individual proposals given. A few are motherhood statements, which I would hope the arbcom would adopt in some form or other as standard operating procedure, but would feel uncomfortable legislating to them. The remainder constitute interference in details rather than meaningful reform, and I would personally feel that arbcom operating as now would be preferable to arbcom plus a random selection of these policy changes adopted, and doing so would waste a real opportunity to enact change, if indeed that is necessary. Martinp (talk) 00:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're right, then surely the community will agree, and none of the proposals will meet the 40 supporting vote requirement, let alone get a majority of support.

If you're wrong, then the community will have expressed it's opinion, and we should refer that on to the Foundation.

Either way, I don't see why we shouldn't let the community decide? --Barberio (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barberio, now responding specifically to your "majority of 40+" suggestion. Given that a natural reaction of people who disagree with a proposal is to ignore it during discussion, I also feel that the approach you propose has a woefully inadequate success bar. Should a system like this go ahead, for "legislated" changes to one of our core processes, I would recommend a success bar comparable to some of the most popular RFAs or most successful elected arbitrators, i.e. 70-75% approval and well into a WP:100 or WP:200 level of support. Martinp (talk) 01:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement, forty supporting votes and a clear majority, is set because the voting period is much shorter than that of an RFA. --Barberio (talk) 01:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The RfC on the ArbCom, when I looked in on it, was a lot of really silly venting, informed by some problems which may be real- but I generally agree with Martinp: let it go for a while, and see what happens. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking that the vote, if it occurs, should occur after Jimbo approves the new arbs. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I firmly reject these proposals to deny the community a chance to vote on these changes, either by outright dismissing them, or indefinitely postponing them.

If you opposed the proposals, then argue against them, and use your own vote in opposition. Don't try to make other people's choices for them by denying them a say. --Barberio (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barberio, I'm sorry, I'll have to be more direct, and my apologies if it becomes too personal. I've now skimmed more of the discussion here as well as on the RFC, and I've remembered some of your comments on RFAR talk pages in the last few weeks. I tremendously respect your enthusiasm to effect a positive change here, but I think your approach is wrong-headed. There is no inherent right for the community to vote on changes like this that we or anyone else could be denying. No consensus has been developed around the changes, or about the principle that we should adopt them with a small majority vote (57 supports on a convoluted RFC that contained a lot of knee jerk reactions to current events and was ignored by large swaths of the community is far from consensus). I think you have become emotionally invested in driving these changes forward, and as is usually the case, for the longest time no-one has challenged your thinking. From what I see above, Rlevse, Martinphi, Sam Korn and I, having noticed that you seem to be moving ahead under the assumption that the way you frame the issue has widespread support, have all tried to reason with you, but you are just pushing ahead. You may well exhaust us all - I've already spent more time this evening responding to this and will not respond further. Just like you, I could find any number of policies we have that I find are not satisfactory, and I could probably find some place on wikipedia where a number of people - or even several tens - have opined in a comparable way. But that doesn't entitle me to declare a majority vote on that policy change at some time I find meaningful. We have a reason for insisting on consensus, widespread consensus for important changes, no matter how painful that process is. Best wishes, Martinp (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, ultimately, here's what it comes down to.

If the Arbitration Committee is going to stay legitimately approved of by the community as a functional final step in dispute resolution, then the concerns raised in the RfC need to be, must be addressed.

Pretty much the only way we can do that is by putting changes to the Arbitration Policy up for ratification, to show the Foundation that we have a legitimate mandate to change Arbitration Policy to fix the problems with the way it's been working recently.

If this doesn't happen, then we reach a point where people can't support the current Arbitration Policy or the Arbitration Committee. And we will eventually see people ignoring Arbitration rulings, and the whole system is going to break down.

This vote is pretty much a last chance to fix the broken system before we end up with a critical collapse of confidence in the Arbitration Committee. I feel blocking this ratification vote would amount to a slap in the face for those trying to fix the broken system. --Barberio (talk) 01:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, these all seem like reasonable proposals. I really don't see what the problem is with putting these forward to the community. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no deep crisis of faith in the ArbCom. There are questions. But you don't have even a consolidated statement of the problem you are trying to solve, at least not here. Many of the articles are good. While they might gain community support at some point, this is not the point. Collecting votes on these articles will not automatically place them in policy. Creating policy would require much wider discussion and votes. You severely underestimate the level of support for the current ArbCom and its current powers- including the power to clean up messes in novel ways. You also very likely underestimate the degree to which the current ArbCom has reformed itself. No highly significant failure of the ArbCom has occurred, in that WP has not been greatly disrupted by any decision. Till that time, or till much greater community support and also community zeal is demonstrated, this will not pass into policy. There are probably many other ideas (I certainly have some) about how the ArbCom should be reformed, which would come out given wider community input. I would argue that you should continue with the vote, but make it a vote of articles which you submit to the ArbCom as suggestions which have significant community support, but are not binding. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er... I direct you to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#Contentiousness_and_demoralization and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/C68-FM-SV/Proposed_decision#Duration_of_case_acknowledged in which the ArbCom recognised the disruption and demoralisation caused, and apologised for their part in it. And if you haven't noticed the multiple Arbitration Committee crises and the very low moral and bad feeling they generated, then I suggest you are very poorly informed about the situation.

I also remind you, again, that members of the committee were involved in the RfC process themselves.

If you continue to feel none of these recommendations and suggestions are suitable arbitration policy, you may vote Oppose during the vote. Otherwise, your contribution has been noted, but will not be acted upon, Thank you. --Barberio (talk) 06:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I stand by what I said, and what I said is shown to be true by the low involvement in the RfC on ArbCom. About 50 editors out of 10,000, wasn't it? And you can't make policy like this. And seriously- what's with this link which isn't relevant? And their apologizing for taking a long time, saying however that there were reasons, is nothing. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Widely advertised and discussed topics are how policies are created, so yes he can create policy like this. There is the sticky issue of whether or not the community has a say in how the ArbCom operates, but I figure if worse comes to worse Jimbo can intervene and decide whether he wants to act on the results of the vote/poll. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well -if that is so- then it's time to take a vote on this RfC/Policy creation business, as it has been done. I never saw any warning that policy changes would come out of it. It was an RfC on the ArbCom. RfCs are a chance for people to vent. The wording did not make very clear that it was an RfC set up to change policy of the ArbCom. Any policy so created is not policy to me, nor properly created. This is illegitimate. I don't know what you think you have a right to do, but if someone as well connected as I am had absolutely no idea that the future of the ArbCom really was at stake, you have not done your job properly. I should have been informed on my talk page, or somewhere else I'd be sure to see it, that the RfC would lead to changes in the ArbCom policy. Then I, and many, many others, would have taken the time to participate, and not leave it to a small clique of editors some of whom have a grudge against the ArbCom. No, this is not going to create policy, not if I have anything to say about it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Above all else, it's very important that everyone get over this immediate assocation of "ArbCom > Community". Until that happens, we aren't going to see any kind of improvement at all, whether those improvements stem from complaints raised from obscure cases where the committee committed some kind of misconduct or whether it's from an RfC that was active for several months.

No one has any obligation of any kind to hunt you down and tell you that someone's looking to improve policy because you feel you're well-connected. Posts have been made to centralized discussions, AN, ANI, at least two sections of the village pump, another RfC on what needed to be done to change ArbCom policy, and the talkpage of one of the policy proposals that ArbCom put forth as actual policy without community ratifaction. I don't really know what else could possibly be done.

Barberio is simply doing the same thing that any user has the right to do. One of our pillars, our highest ideals, is that we don't have firm rules. For that to mean anything, we have to be able to discuss changes to those rules. If you want to be a part of that process, then fine; do what the rest of us do and seek out things that interest you. This isn't a presidential election; people aren't going to come spoon-feed you anything. If you want to participate, then participate. If not, then don't. There's no need for any additional "warning" that a process is going to be edited. That kind of process just isn't necessary; once this gets going, it'll probably get sitenoticed so it shows up at the top of every page until you dismiss it, but discussion had to start somewhere. If you disagree with some of the proposed changes, then do something that no one at the RfC did and give concrete reasons why, don't attack it on process. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no deep crisis of faith for ArbCom? If that were true, then I would imagine there would have been more statements from their supporters rather than the reverse. ArbCom itself has acknowledged that there's a widespread lack of support for the contra-consensus activities. The whole mindset that you possess that creates ideas like "submitting it as something for ArbCom to consider rather than making it binding" is exactly the kind of thing that has created this problem, and is exactly the kind of thing that needs to be eradicated so it can go back to being a dispute resolution group rather than an all-powerful group of editors who create policy at will and are completely immune from the community. That in and of itself is a problem, and I'm happy to see it addressed now before it gets too far out of hand. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing

I assume there is no issue with editing these proposals, subject to the usual conventions (WP:BRD etc.)? As it stands, the meat of the document is largely the work of one individual and, whilst I have the greatest respect for his judgment, this should obviously be collaborative effort. I wouldn't have even bothered to ask, except no-one else really seems to have made substantial changes, so I'm just making sure.... CIreland (talk) 03:23, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the current proposals are taken from the parts of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee that had community consensus support. (You can find a summary at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee/Summary.) And as such care should be taken that the contents of those proposals are not altered in a way that isn't in line with what was supported during the RfC. Generally, this means that the meaning of the proposals shouldn't be edited, only corrected for clarity.

If you can find a significant group of people who support adding a new or alternative proposal to the vote, that's perfectly okay. But they shouldn't replace existing ones. --Barberio (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's the organization rather than the lack of a specific proposal that is being questioned. Jd2718 (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough is enough

I'm sorry, but this has simply run out of control. The last time I looked at this page, my Tranches, terms and timings section was at the bottom; now I see ten screens of argument below it, most of which seems to consist of disagreements between Barberio and other editors over whether or not we are 'allowed' to deviate from the exact wordings and styles produced by the RfC. There appears to be confusion, or at least disagreement, over this issue. With due regard to the fact that voting is evil, I deduce from our own policy that this is in fact an issue on which we need the clarity that a straw poll provides; it's the means to begin a sensible discussion, not to end it. Inevitably, both sides claim that their argument is supported by consensus. Let's see if that is the case. Happy‑melon 10:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll: influence of the RfC

“

The policy changes offered for ratification here should be derived exclusively from the RfC or from a similar consensus, in both letter and spirit; and should not, for instance, be reformatted or rephrased.

”

Endorse

Oppose

I'm not denying that the RfC should guide and influence us on what issues should be considered, but hamstringing ourselves to use a confused and confusing method of presentation just because that's all the RfC suggested is lunacy. Happy‑melon 10:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my "a few issues" section above. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jd2718 (talk) 17:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any proposed changes should be subject to the usual consensus process, thus subject to considered change. Fred Talk 21:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Happy-Melon and others speak wisdom. The RFC that was conducted in the past is a wonderful first start on the path to building consensus to change-- but it is the beginning of the process, not the end. --Alecmconroy (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belittle the Strawman Argument

That's not what I said, and it's a strawman argument to say everyone must either endorse or oppose this. What I did way was that the current proposals were proposed elsewhere, by a large number of people in a lengthy process. They should therefore only be edited in line with that, for sake of clarity or to correct errors. I you want to propose alternatives, then form consensus on creating new proposals. It is supreme arrogance to edit this page with a view to deciding what people should and should not be allowed to vote on, without any consensus to do so, and disregarding previous consensus generated during the RfC. While you may disagree with the proposals, and want to substitute your own, you are not entitled to overwrite past consensus with your own individual ideas of what should be, not without demonstrating significant consensus to do so. Which has not been generated. --Barberio (talk) 17:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how this is at odds with the cquote above - it is merely a different way of phrasing it. I haven't seen any suggestions to add entirely new proposals, only people asking (begging, almost) for the existing proposals to be reorganised and represented in a manner that is clearer and less confusing. You object to these requests, objection which a number of people (three so far) feel is misguided. I expect that this poll, which I will not deny I am partisan in, will demonstrate that the majority of people here simply do not agree with your interpretation of the situation; if that is the case, then you are wrong, and will be obliged to come to terms with that. Attempting to sideline this process, and that obligation, by not participating is the real strawman. Happy‑melon 18:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My objections have not been to attempts to clarify existing proposals, and if you look at the page history you'll see some have gone through. My objections are to attempts to substitute alternative proposals for the existing ones, and the over complicated 'matrix voting' idea which will result in people not knowing what they are voting for. --Barberio (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you open to allowing a vote for length of term (clearly defined), another for frequency of election (clearly defined), another for number of arbitrators total (clearly defined)? Nothing complicated there at all. Jd2718 (talk) 18:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem comes, in that still leaves undefined number or tranches, and if the staggered tranche system will still exist. And there was no consensus at all for removing the staggered tranche system, which the matrix vote might unintentionally do! --Barberio (talk) 18:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And it still ultimately diminishes the legitimacy of the vote, by requiring a self appointed post-election committee to decide what the result is, not the voters. --Barberio (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voting on voting on how to vote

Damn, my head just exploded. Stifle (talk) 21:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I never saw anything above indicating additional options couldn't be added. Only that such options should have some sort of consensus elsewhere (as these RFC options seem to have). Otherwise we would find ourselves with people adding all kinds of options and making the vote/poll far more confusing than it need be. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not; ironically, no such suggestions have actually been made! What has been proposed, and unilaterally denied, are suggestions to reorganise the proposals that came out of the RfC, adhering to their spirit but not their letter. That's the real question in this poll: should that be 'permitted'? Happy‑melon 18:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My opposition to the 'Matrix Voting' idea for separating 'term' and 'voting regularity' proposals does not come from the same arguments against altering existing proposal meaning.

It comes because the voter would not then be able to vote on one of the proposals, with any surety as to what it would eventually mean, and that decisions on the 'details' would be taken by a self appointed post election committee. Which renders it a mess, and it would not be a legitimate result.

What's more, it hasn't been established that there is consensus for adding these extra 'options', and it seems very unlikely that some of the aditional 'options' this proposal adds would have any consensus at all. Who's going to vote for four month elections, but keeping the terms the same?

So this is over complicating the vote, to add options there is no consensus for, and diminish the legitimacy of the result by having a committee decide what it really is. --Barberio (talk) 18:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Who's going to vote for four month elections, but keeping the terms the same?" Probably no one. Which is fine. But that should be by their choice, not ours. Clearly no one has appointed me their spokesman, nor has... Jd2718 (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then, so how many options are we going to give them to chose between in this matrix of voting choices, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128? Adding options to these seems to me to just be muddying the waters, and ultimately diminishing voter choice, because, and I keep having to stress this, they won't actually be sure about what they are voting for!

If you think that alternative options to the election changes are needed, then give us the specific options, and see if those ones will be accepted by consensus. Don't make up a new system of polling that reduces the voters ability to make an informed choice in order to 'separate' out what are fundamentally joined concepts. --Barberio (talk) 19:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seven - four for term length and three for election spacing. And there was me about to suggest a compromise whereby people could vote for individual permutations; seems you wouldn't like that either. Happy‑melon 20:13, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually 28 different 'situations' that people are voting for then. Of those 28, how many do you think would have only marginal support if any, if they were presented as an individual permutation, and would get no community support to even put them up for a vote? --Barberio (talk) 21:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, what?? Where on earth did you get 28 from? Happy‑melon 21:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'd mentally including the previous 'options' on 'approximate size of the committee'. Which is another of the variables in the 'term' 'election periods' 'tranche number' 'membership size' relationship. --Barberio (talk) 21:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four times three times two still doesn't make 28. And in either system, the size of the committee is an entirely independent issue, however it's worded. Your answer makes no sense. Happy‑melon 21:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lengthy discussion on this page about new proposals.

I apologise if this seems rude...

Several people have posted lengthy discussion to this page stating that they dislike the current proposals, and would like to remove some of them to substitute their own ideas. Or dislike the idea that current proposals should not have their intent edited, only have errors corrected, or be rephrased for readability.

But you were given every opportunity to raise issues during the RfC. That you rebuffed community decision making, for what ever personal reasons you may have had, doesn't matter a bit. The Majority of the standing Arbitration Committee believed the RfC process was valid, and were involved in it. The process took a long time, starting in May, and the summary of supported statements was created at the start August, and there was an open call for it to be checked over and altered if incorrect, and consensus seems to be that it was a fair summary. It's now the end of September, and we have one month before the election process starts. It is my opinion that these comments come late, and at a time that could derail the process to deny people a vote.

But yes, it may well be that the 'silent majority' all agree with you, and are just waiting for you to act as their champion. However, there has been no demonstrated weight of consensus to support that, and override the weight of consensus demonstrated during the RfC.

So now, I'm going to have to ask you to quit these disruptive and long winding arguments. Just state what your proposals are, and see if you get consensus support for them.

Note this. Generating consensus support for your actions is not negotiable. Claiming someone else's proposals or pre-existing proposals don't have 'sufficient consensus support' for your own liking is not the same as generating consensus support for your own proposal.

If no new proposals get consensus support, well, then we continue on with the process as it is. --Barberio (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who, exactly, died and left you to inherit the title of Grand Protector of the Wiki, Defender of Consensus, and Holder of Truth? The process should be derailed, because the best it can achieve is derail the actual elections that are to take place. There is no consensus to hold this "vote" during the arbcom election. In fact, there wasn't even discussion on the matter. You are trying to shove your desired reforms up everyone's orifices, willy-nilly, and refuse to listen to and address concerns raised by other editors— and you insist everyone else must raise consensus to change your fiat?

I'm sorry I have to be so blunt, but I'm out of patience: you've gone past boldness into the realm of stubbornness and you cannot declare consensus on your own by sheer hubris. Stand down. If you are serious about proposing and working out reforms, as opposed to simply trying to rush through this because you have a cause, then a few months' delay while we (collectively, as in not you by yourself) work out a format for proposals and their acceptance is no hardship, and Wikipedia won't implode in the meantime. — Coren ^(talk) 20:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The process started in May, when a large group of people formed to discuss the RfC, and objection to starting the process was roundly defeated by overwhelming consensus. Then in August we worked out the proposals to put forward to the community, and no one objected. I added this process in to the Elections back at the start of this month, and no one objected.

Now, I wonder why, after all these months, when people had every opportunity to join proceedings, it's only when we get to putting it to an ratification vote that people claiming to represent the 'silent majority' suddenly arrive to shout and scream that this is moving too fast, and we should stop.

The idea that this could 'derail' the 'main' part of the election is laughable. How exactly could it do that? Or are you just inventing something scary to try and stop this process.

And in the end, if there isn't community support for these proposals, they won't pass, so why are you so scared of it? --Barberio (talk) 20:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me where a "large group" of editor agreed there should be a vote at all; let alone during the elections. In other words, put up, or shut up. — Coren ^(talk) 20:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AMEN. This wasn't advertised well enough. It is not legitimate. There is no consensus to hold this "vote" during the arbcom election. I looked at the RfC: there was no clear warning that this would actually be anything but venting, just this: "This RFC will provide an opportunity for the Community to interact in a central discussion, to help shape the future of the Committee, and for how it would and could best serve the Wikipedia community." It didn't say "This RFC will provide an opportunity for the Community to interact to discuss articles which will then voted upon, and the votes will determine policy as governs the Arbitration Committee." This is not legit! ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think "to help shape the future of the Committee" means? Are you seriously suggesting that the people involved with suggesting alterations to the Arbitration Policy, only suggested those as a bit of fun, and had no intent to see them made? --Barberio (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The logical step from "helping shape the future of the Committee" to "creating binding proposals that may not be changed" is a hefty one, you must see that. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:15, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard for me to accept, specifically, that those marking their support under a section marked "Arbitration Committee change and reform", which in it's preamble said "Views specifically about what you feel should change about the current Arbitration Committee process, and why." and held proposals to make specific changes to Arbitration Policy, were marking their support without the idea that they were supporting putting those changes forward as proposed new policy.

It is then hard for me to accept that they were marking their support for those changes, but would be okay with the proposal that was being put forward being radically altered into something else.

It is difficult for me to understand why you are reluctant to gather consensus to support providing alternative proposals. --Barberio (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

?! Have you read what I've been saying on this page? Have you read what other people have been saying on this page? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 21:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've invented this "creating binding proposals that may not be changed", when as I've repeatedly had to state is not true at all. The current proposals can be edited, so long as they still stay inline with what was supported in the RfC. And you'll note that such edits have already been made.

My point of view on this has been consistent, a) Proposals need some initial consensus to say they should be put forward as a policy change, b) the RfC constituted an existing consensus to put forward some proposals for policy change.

If we edit those proposals too far away from what was in the RfC, we lose the consensus support they had. Alternative proposals need consensus to be generated. --Barberio (talk) 21:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I contest (b), to a certain extent -- I don't think it shows the consensus you claim it does.

Multiple people have come here and said "look, we don't think the process as set out is a good one". Do you not want to hear that? Do you need another fifteen people to convince you to listen? You are saying "can" and "cannot" where you have no right to do so. I fundamentally disagree with the approach taken here; I can work with it if there really is consensus, but I do not see that consensus, and I don't think I'm alone in feeling that. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple people have come here and supported the process, several people came here and thought voting was already open and wanted to start right away, and a huge amount of people supported making direct changes to policy in the RfC.

Why do you insist on giving overwhelming and undue weight to the handful of people determined to derail the process? --Barberio (talk) 22:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's hard for me to understand is what you think these "radically altered" proposals actually are. Could you provide some examples? All that I can see from my fourth read of this page are numerous requests to split the term-length/election-frequency issue, and some argument over whether this should be proceeding at all. The latter hardly qualifies as a "proposal" so I must conclude that you honestly think that reorganising the vote as a matrix constitutes a "radical" deviation from the current content. You can argue that until you're blue in the face; the fact is, the majority of contributors to this page simply don't agree with you: they see it as a minor alteration to make the proposal simpler and easier to understand, not a "substitution" of proposals or "putting forward versions that they like", which I think I've also seen somewhere. Happy‑melon 21:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State your Proposals Here

Proposals

You refuse to play my game; so I will take the moral high ground by playing yours. I propose: the issues of 'frequency of elections' and 'length of ArbCom terms' be separated into two distinct questions; that the exact wordings of the RfC for proposal 2a-e be abandoned in favour of clearer separated versions; that proposal 1 be rephrased as "there will be approximately 21 members of the Arbitration Committee" to remove the dependence on number of tranches. If anyone objects to only one of these parts, say the word and I will split them. Happy‑melon 20:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Happy‑melon 20:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this would result in over complication of the vote, put the voters in the position of having to vote for options who's combination they can't be sure of and with no way to know they are ultimately voting for an election format they want, and it would result in a post-election committee making decisions without the direct consent of the voters which would remove legitimacy of this poll. --Barberio (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you expand your concerns over "a post-election committee making decisions" please. What 'decisions' would need to be made that are not simple arithmetic? Happy‑melon 20:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The whole problem is that most people in the community didn't know this was in the works- and probably would not have known even if they had read the "Reason for the RFC" here. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"helping shape the future of the Committee" means suggestions, which might at some future time influence the discussion. Look, where was this announced? Did I just miss it? The recent thing on changes to the RfA process appeared above everyone's watchlist. Did this also? If it did, did it clearly inform people that the suggestions would be voted on and then automatically become policy? Has this vote here been so announced to the community? You are proposing to radically alter the ArbCom here. This cannot be done by stealth. The normal RfC process is not nearly enough exposure. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did appear on the watchlist notification.

It is hard for me to accept, specifically, that those marking their support under a section marked "Arbitration Committee change and reform", which in it's preamble said "Views specifically about what you feel should change about the current Arbitration Committee process, and why." and held proposals to make specific changes to Arbitration Policy, were marking their support without the idea that they were supporting putting those changes forward as proposed new policy.

This was not done by 'stealth'. It was advertised pretty much everywhere. Lots of people were involved, including a majority of the sitting committee. You keep trying to remove legitimacy from the RfC, instead of trying to form consensus in opposition, why? --Barberio (talk) 22:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I have kept saying: there was no clear indication to those coming to the RfC that it was going to change policy. Even if you advertised the RfC, that's not enough. I'm not trying to make your life hard- but others feel the same way. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to a policy or guideline or even an essay that requires one to specify the function of an RfC down to the letter, or even any statements made to the effect that the RfC had any binding effects on policy?

You seem to be a little confused about the RfC process, and what's going on here in general. RfCs always as specific as all that. It's perfectly alright to have an RfC that basically amounts to "Okay, this is a problem; what specifically is wrong, and what can we do fix it?" It doesn't have to be "RfC to determine x,y, z policy changes with regards to the Committee". That's what this part is. I suppose you could call that our discovery process. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for clarification at WP:Requests for arbitration

There is a Request for Clarification at the RfArb page. The question being asked is

"to what extent, and subject to what restrictions, is the Arbitration policy open to amendment or modification by the community; and by what method should such changes be enacted?"

Jd2718 (talk) 21:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A view from Newyorkbrad

I've been following the discussion on this page for a few days and hope I can make a useful contribution.

The designation that the Arbitration Policy is not subject to editing like other policies means that any editor should not simply click the "edit this page" button and change the policy, and assume if the edit sticks, then the policy has been changed. On the other hand, I am sure that the statement that the Arbitration Policy cannot be directly edited was never intended to mean that interested editors were discouraged from suggesting changes to the policy for consensus discussion, particularly proposed changes based on experience and informed observation of the arbitration process as it has developed.

Unfortunately, this summer's RfC on the ArbCom occurred during a time period when I was necessarily away from Wikipedia, so I was not able to contribute to it, or to react to the criticisms of the committee that were contained in it. I would like to contribute to the ongoing discussion now, but the current procedural impasse makes it difficult for me to do so. Some users seem to be taking the position that the proposals should be presented in the specific words developed at the RfC. In that context, neither my nor anyone else's belated suggestions for improving or revising the wordings would be accepted as part of what is to be voted on.

Many of the proposals that Barberio has presented as a summary of those for which the RfC had consensus are fairly straightforward, and I suspect that few users familiar with workings of the arbitration process would object to them, though nuances would be raised and possible modifications suggested. Some of the other proposals represent a correct statement of how the committee should handle the vast majority of cases, but are a bit overstated if they are meant to apply literally without exception. (For example, any proposal that would have excluded the possibility of emergency action in the Archtransit or Poetlister situations needs to have some wiggle-room written in.)

I will take a shot within the next couple of days at revising and updating the arbitration policy, designating the page thus created as a community discussion draft. This revision will seek to build in many of the consensus concepts from the RfC, as well as generally update the policy to reflect how things have worked in practice over the past couple of years. This draft can become a basis for discussion to follow up on the RfC and implement many of the suggested proposals. I suggest that this procedure, while fully intended to empower the community to express its thoughts as to needed revisions to arbitration policies and procedures, would be more useful than an "up-or-down" vote and would also more closely approximate the standard Wikipedia consensus model.

(In particular, the voting method proposed by Barbiero does not address how the community would deal with a situation in which Proposal X is offered, and there are numerous comments along the lines of "X is flawed, but I could support X with modification Y." Would we really then have to wait for a year until the next voting period before we could enact X+Y?)

Hopefully, consensus for the needed changes to the policy will emerge. I believe a reasonable timetable for this discussion would be two to three weeks, approximately ten weeks that remain before the ArbCom elections voting period is completed. After the discussion winds up, if substantial disagreement persists on a whether or how the policy should be modified regarding a specific issue (e.g., length of term), then we can discuss a vehicle for addressing that particular issue at that time.

Finally, to the extent necessary, the proposed changes to the Arbitration Policy could be run by the committee and by Jimbo Wales for final approval. If there is a consensus for sensible changes then I would not anticipate this should be a problematic step.

I hope that a draft revision to the policy, building in many of the proposals from the RfC, may become a more useful framework for discussion than the "should we have a vote or not" discussion into which the dialog has currently become stalemated. Comments please. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, only a few of these proposals are my own proposals. Most of them were proposed by other people during the RfC. And some of them I will be voting oppose to myself.

I also have no objection at all to editing the proposals, so long as they retain what was supported during the RfC. I also have no objection at all to people gathering consensus to add additional and alternative proposals.

I don't think we should wait a year if we need to make changes again to any problematic parts of the policy should that arise, and I hope that the Committee would be able to ask for another vote at any time to make changes to the policy, or someone could propose such. I only put this vote in at the same time at the Committee elections for reasons of timing and convenience. --Barberio (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as a direct reply to Brad's concern over what I assume to be 2008 Proposal 6 "Informing Editors". This would, in the Archtransit or Poetlister situations, have required notifying them, and required you to let them make a statement to you, it would not have stopped you from taking emergency action which you could still do. I think most of the proposals along this line have sufficient 'wriggle room', but as always it's a tricky balance between required 'wriggle room' and required accountability and good practice. --Barberio (talk) 22:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds great to me. I especially like:

"...designating the page thus created as a community discussion draft. This revision will seek to build in many of the consensus concepts from the RfC, as well as generally update the policy to reflect how things have worked in practice over the past couple of years. This draft can become a basis for discussion to follow up on the RfC and implement many of the suggested proposals. I suggest that this procedure, while fully intended to empower the community to express its thoughts as to needed revisions to arbitration policies and procedures, would be more useful than an "up-or-down" vote and would also more closely approximate the standard Wikipedia consensus model. [...] Finally, to the extent necessary, the proposed changes to the Arbitration Policy could be run by the committee and by Jimbo Wales for final approval. "

Many thanks to NYB for offering to help with this. - jc37 22:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I look forward to seeing what will, no doubt, be sensible, coherent and useful proposals. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 22:52, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is good. My basic problem with the whole matter is that -as Sam Corn and others have said- it was never made clear that there would be real binding policy changes which came out of the RfC- RFCs are usually just venting. I therefore think that there should be some room for new proposals. I am also very worried that the committee's future ability to take innovative action might be curtailed. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. To address the "situation in which Proposal X is offered, and there are numerous comments along the lines of "X is flawed, but I could support X with modification Y." issue. As I've said, I have no problem with people gaining consensus to put up new alternative proposals. Perhaps we can explicitly say so, and give a 'write in' page for people to put their suggestions and open it from november, and transfer the ones with support to the Policy Changes page. --Barberio (talk) 22:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and we need to make sure people know about it: that it is to change ArbCom policy, not just some RfC. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:11, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain to me, who these mythical people are, who would propose changes to arbitration policy, state their support for such changes, and do so on a page titled 'Policy Changes', and yet not know they were changing policy?

Are they the same people who did the same in an RfC section titled 'Arbitration Committee change and reform' that had the phrase "Views specifically about what you feel should change about the current Arbitration Committee process, and why" in it? --Barberio (talk) 23:14, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfC section? So, they think it should change. It's an RfC, and not well advertised. People talk around here. It comes to nothing. You should have made it clear you were out to change policy, and you should have advertised it well. Was it announced at the top of watchlists the same as the RfA changes were just recently? Anyone coming to the RfC should have been informed, at the top of the page in a banner or bold print, that the purpose was to make changes to the way ArbCom works. That wasn't done.

Instead you have:

This page in a nutshell: A Requests for Comment to determine what if any community mandated definitions and changes are required to be adopted for the Arbitration Committee and Requests for Arbitration process.

Huh?

So, basically they blew it. But you-all generated some good ideas, and we can go from here to gain community consensus, if the proper advertising is done. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 23:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've repeatedly said, the RfC WAS ADVERTISED ON THE WATCHLIST NOTICE. --Barberio (talk) 00:53, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies if you said it and I didn't catch it. I thought I remembered that it was advertised that way. So, I looked into it, saw it was a lot of people venting, and as with others here I said "It's an RfC, which never amounts to much." There were, so far as I know, no clear indications that it would. If it were just me, then it would be my problem, but it doesn't seem to be just my lapse. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that my suggestion would lead to the dropping of the sterile "vote or no vote" discussion, not a continuation of it. How about if I post my proposed draft in the next couple of days, and we see whether a consensus revision to the policy emerges that addresses the fundamental issues raised on the RfC? Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely Support Brad's proposed proposal proposal (!). I still think that a poll or ballot issue of some sort would be feasible as part of the Arbcom election - but, if there's a way to implement changes without that fuss, then sure - I'm game. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 04:55, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I support Brad in this, yes, I do think we're probably still going to need to put some things up for a ratification vote. --Barberio (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I Support this. I thought we were arguing history. I was just saying I don't think it was correct as it was. If we go from here and do something creative with wide enough input, then that's great. I guess NYB is right we should stop arguing it tho (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely support NYB's proposed proposal (:D) - it's about time we established a clear focus on this. Happy‑melon 08:26, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support this approach as well. I think that getting ideas that work for the Committee and the Community can be done best through working together to form a policy rather than rigidly worded concepts put in proposals that can not be tweaked as needed. FloNight ♥♥♥ 23:42, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, exactly (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 02:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen to that :D Happy‑melon 07:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration? What a novel concept. Of course I wholeheartedly support that way of doing things. — Coren ^(talk) 12:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL Happy‑melon 12:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Brad and Flo on this. We need to get considerably further from the current ad-hoc state of ArbCom, and it will take more than an RFC. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 23:32, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On changing Arbcom Policy (using arb count, term duration, election frequency as an example)

So, let me wade in here and take a stab at things.

I've heard speculation that arbcom policy cannot be changed by the consensus, but requires some extra special process (be it a vote or a dictate from above). I, myself, see no such requirement-- I think all our policies are generated by consensus. If the board wants to change that in the case, they can-- but I don't see any sign they have. Similarly, this is a very important policy, affecting everyone, so it will require very strong evidence of consensus-- just as a change to WP:RS or WP:V would.

With that in mind, let's take look at the stated opinions we saw in the RFC. It seems to me,looking over it, the most consensus was for a proposal that to reduce the length of the terms in some manner. SirFozzie's view on reducing the term got 40 supports (with many of the supports dissenting in part or altering.)

The catch is that, many people did not specify what scheme they explicitly endorsed, but it seemed like there was a near-unanimous view that the CURRENT scheme should be altered.

So, how would people feel about running a quick straw poll to determine what combination of (term length-election frequency-arb count) is most popular. And then, putting THAT combination up as a proposal to replace the current scheme (3 years-yearly elections-variable number of arbs).

The straw poll wouldn't serve to actually demonstrate consensus, it would instead help us focus our deliberation on one particular option, out of the many. And then, a large ratification !vote discussion to establish the consensus for switching from the current (seemingly unpopular) scheme to the proposed scheme. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only if you also add an item about raising our salaries. :-p Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a fifty-percent pay rise would be fair and appropriate, even in the current economic climate. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 19:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a reasonable baseline, but some cases justify an award of extra combat pay. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the point, Alecmconroy. The community has indicated that they suspect the ArbCom terms are too long, and that that may be the cause of some of the issues raised. The community has absolutely no idea what it feels like to be an Arbitrator - there are only about ten members of 'The Community' who have any experience of being on the ArbCom but are not currently members. Surely the Committee is best placed to suggest what length of term would provide the best balance between avoiding burnout and ensuring continuity of experience. Certainly, if they come back and suggest that we make them appointed for life, we might smell a rat there :D. But the RfC, and any straw poll we made now, would I'm sure demonstrate no clear preference, as everyone contributing would be voting for what they guessed they'd think if they were an ArbCom member and knew what it was like first-hand. And there's no guarrantee that the 'winner' of that straw poll would actually be the best choice, since none of us really have anything more than educated guesses to go on. I wouldn't say I'm averse to such a poll (although in such a case I would be adamant that the matrix system would be preferable), but I'm not sure it should influence the results too much. This is an area where there can be no harm in letting the ArbCom decide for itself which system is best, in the knowledge that the Community expects improvements to be made. Happy‑melon 20:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a fine point of view. The suggestions of the actual sitting arbs should carry a lot of weight, and if you choose to cast your support behind their recommendations, that definitely makes sense. Other people may choose to disagree with the sitting arbs. Or it may be that the arbs themselves don't agree, so there is no ability to agree or disagree with them.

It could even be that you think the community shouldn't get to have a say in the matter at all-- in which case, you should be appealing to the board to ask them to dictate an arbitration election policy themselves, taking the matter out of the hands of the community. I don't think that's a very likely scenario, since one of the foundation issues is that we do decide things through the wiki process, but who knows, it might succeed.

In the mean time, though, it seems to me it is up to the wiki process as of this moment, and so the question is-- how can we go about reaching some sort of consensus. A straw poll to figure out which is most popular, at least among the people participating, seems like a reasonable next step.

No-- there is no guarantee that the 'winner' of the straw polls would be the best of the lot. Just a tool to focus consensus. If there's a true consensus that the 'winner' of the straw poll is better than the current system, then that will be a step in the right direction-- with the understanding that future consensus might find an even better policy. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that you appear to be putting the horse before the cart, and looking for the community to contribute before the Arbitrators have even had the chance to have their say (can we assume, Brad, that your draft will have the support of the Committee?). I certainly would not want to see the community disenfranchised from this process; it's vital that the new policy have the support of the Community as well as the Committee. However, I maintain that there is very little point in voting or polling on anything until we see what the ArbCom members themselves think on the issues. My interpretation of the situation is that we should be waiting for Brad to propose a draft on which we can base a sensible, focused discussion, rather than straw polling each other in the dark with no idea what's going on on the other side of the fence. I can see few situations, in other words, where a straw poll at this time is anything other than a waste of time. Happy‑melon 22:12, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would really like to hear some arbitrator views on whether the current terms are too long. I don't consider them dictators who are trying to hold on to power. Normally, people don't ask the involved in these situations, but I think I'd at least like to hear it. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 22:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, then. I didn't expect to polling right this second; There's absolutely no hurry, totally just throwing out one of those "people seem stuck-- here's a way I think we could get moving again".

Another possibility is that whichever option Brad picks will, just through the force of him picking it, almost instantly become the consensus option (consensus at least among those of us who are watching). His words carry alot of weight with people, myself included.

(as a side note-- I wouldn't assume, though, that Brad's suggestion will have the support of the committee; They're a very diverse group, and I doubt they would all have the same favorite option any more than any other similarly-sized group of wikipedians would.) --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking ahead

Looking ahead-- do we have a list anywhere of the combinations that have been seriously endorsed? A very cursory glance at the RFC, I see endorsements for:

12 months duration-4 months between elections = 3 tranches

Sirfozzie suggested

18 months duration-6 months between elections = 3 tranches

Sirfozzie suggest, LaraLove, Giggy, Gizza, Athaenara, Anthøny

24 month duration, 6 months between elections = 4 tranches

Neil

24 month duration, 8 months between elections = 3 tranches

Eluchil404

24 month duration, 12 months between elections = 2 tranches

Sam Korn

36 month duration, 12 months between elections = 3 tranches

MONGO

Are there any combination that have serious support as far as we know? I've done a very quick superficial skimming, and I know _lots_ of possibilities have been mentioned, but I'm not sure which ones have actual support or were merely mentioned for the sake of thoroughness.

Of course, new preferences could always be shouted out as the poll progresses, I just don't want to 'diss' anyone by omitting their favored option. --Alecmconroy (talk)

The current set up works fine.--MONGO 23:30, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Groovy. So we can put you down as 1 support for 36 month duration-12months between election-3 tranches! Definitely possibility that most people will feel no change is necessary. This is a perfect example of why it isn't okay to hop directly from the RFC to the assumption that we have consensus without first going through some intermediate step. The strong consensus of the RFC responders was that the term needed to be shortened-- but that's definitely not the same as the overall community having that opinion. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest 24 month duration, 8 months between elections, 3 tranches as a viable system that would slightly shorten terms without necessarily overhauling the whole system. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)4[reply]

I think this is viable. I hope it is considered. Jd2718 (talk) 03:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, I think, is that elections every 8 months is going to be a nightmare; even though I agree that three consecutive years is just begging for a burnout. I'd be willing to bet that activity levels of arms on their third year drops to minimal at best (actually going out to check that out is left as an exercise to the reader).

How about three year terms, but with staggered time off? Like so: (forgive the ascii art)

Tranche A  |XXXXXX   XXX|XXX   XXXXXX|   XXXXXX   *
Tranche A' |XXX   XXXXXX|   XXXXXX   |XXXXXX   XXX*
Tranche B  |   XXXXXX   |XXXXXX   XXX*XXX   XXXXXX|
Tranche B' |XXX   XXXXXX|   XXXXXX   *XXXXXX   XXX|
Tranche C  |XXXXXX   XXX*XXX   XXXXXX|   XXXXXX   |
Tranche C' |   XXXXXX   *XXXXXX   XXX|XXX   XXXXXX|

Where * are elections. At any time, there are 2/3 of the arbs active, only one election a year (with, I suppose, new arbs being split between the two tranches, and every arb gets 3 months off every 9 (and effectively then serve 24 months out of 36). Also, every arb starts their term active.

Am I crazy? — Coren ^(talk) 04:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another note, there are actually only two patterns although it's not evident at first glance; either you're starting with 3 months or with 6 before your first break. It's not as complicated as first seems. — Coren ^(talk) 04:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More thoughts: that means there would be six "half-tranches"; presuming the intent is to have ~16 active arbitrators at any one time, we'd need to have 4 to each— meaning electing 8 every year rather than the current 5-ish. — Coren ^(talk) 04:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hearty applause at the use of Ascii Table. Ascii Art is "not as clumsy or random as .svg-- an elegant weapon for a more civilized age". :)

As to the idea itself-- would this be better than, say, increasing the size of arbcomas you suggest, 3 year terms, annual elections, but just letting them go active or inactive as their own situations dictates? I can just imagine a lot of arbs who are still feeling fresh not wanting to take three months off, and at the same time, a lot of arbs taking unscheduled inactivity during the time they're theoretically supposed to be active. --Alecmconroy (talk) 06:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I love the ASCII art, I have to agree with Alec here - mandating rest periods is probably not a good idea. Plus Arbs tend to finish the cases they're already active in, so if they take a new case just before the 'time out' period, they'd still be working on it weeks into the three month break. We'd have to implement a 'no-new-cases-timeout' for two months beforehand, which is just getting bureaucratic. A lot of arbs take short breaks already when they think they need it; maybe just prescribing that that's OK would be sufficient. Alternatively, I think the two-circuits idea that I remember reading somewhere (maybe even Brad's idea?) would be workable: more Arbs, but split into two groups and only one group ('circuit') is assigned to each case. That would halve the workload on each arb (assuming similar caseload) which would both increase case throughput (improving the likelihood of there being times with no cases) and allow time for other things. Happy‑melon 08:31, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't expect those would be mandatory breaks per se so much as "periods during which arbitrators are presumed active/inactive"; the point was more arbs with lighter caseload. I would have expected, for instance, that an arb would just not take on new cases during their breaks. — Coren ^(talk) 12:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would astonish me if there wasn't great support for 24 month terms with annual elections. That seems to have all the advantages looked for and none of the disadvantages. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 08:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because I am, in fact, a proud member of the NYB cult, I can't offer any support until I've first heard suggestions from my prophet. But, my gut tells me Sam just nailed it with his prediction. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that elections, regardless of the term lengths, should be bi-annual (every 2 years), annual (yearly), semi-annual (twice a year), or quarterly (4 times a year). Anything else is just confusing. - jc37 08:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anal number theorist in me feels compelled to point out that what with 3 being an even divisor of 12, thrice a year would probably be theoretically feasible. And for that matter, I suppose we could have 12 elections in a year, each one month apart, heheh. Or, if we wanted to do it day-based, 365 has only four divisors: 1,5,73,365. Who's up for an election every 73 days? --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leap years? :P Happy‑melon 11:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally came up with 8 month terms by the simple expedient of taking 24/3 to shorten the term length but keep the three tranches (to make replacement easier and maintain an odd number of arbitors). It seems confusing at first but it works out to elections in August in odd years (2009, 2001, etc.) and April and December in even years (2010, 2012, etc.) which I think is quite manageable. I certainly prefer it to elections every 3-6 months which would mean constant updates to the election pages and nearly as much time in election season as without it. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly can't see anything wrong with 8-monthly elections; the more frequently we hold them, the more efficient we'll become about conducting them, so the less time we'd need to spend faffing around on pages like these :D. There's no golden law that says we have to have elections at the same time each year. You don't actually mean "8-month terms" though, do you? The terms would be 24 months long... Happy‑melon 11:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right with regard to "terms" I meant, of course, "staggered election cycle". Eluchil404 (talk) 19:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would indeed not oppose the second suggestion. I have stricken "(I think)," which I presume refers to me. Anthøny ✉ 20:32, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update

I will be posting my proposed updating/revision of the Arbitration Policy over the weekend. I will link to it here when it is ready and of course, every form of comments and input will be welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool (: ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating and its talkpage. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 00:55, 9 October 2008 edit Martinphi (talk \| contribs) 12,452 edits →‎Update ← Previous edit		Revision as of 19:37, 11 October 2008 edit undo Newyorkbrad (talk \| contribs) Autopatrolled, Administrators 45,086 edits →‎Update: update Next edit →
Line 680:		Line 680:

	:Cool (: ——'''[[User:Martinphi\|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi\|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi\|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 00:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)		:Cool (: ——'''[[User:Martinphi\|<span style="color:#6c4408;border:1px dashed #6c4408;padding:1px;background:#ffffff;">Martin<sup>phi</sup>]]'''</span> [[User talk:Martinphi\|☎]] Ψ [[Special:Contributions/Martinphi\|Φ]]<span style="color:#ffffff;">——</span> 00:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

			Please see [[Wikipedia:Arbitration policy proposed updating]] and its talkpage. Thank you. [[User:Newyorkbrad\|Newyorkbrad]] ([[User talk:Newyorkbrad\|talk]]) 19:37, 11 October 2008 (UTC)