Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:42, 15 November 2009

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 5 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Secret ballot or not ? debate and endorsements

All seems confused, the election documentation subpages assume we go by public ballot, yet we had a RFC leaning towards a secret ballot, and the discussion above is not particularly decisive. Well, we need to sort this out.

In case we go by secret ballot; I think we should allow, actually encourage, discussion/debate on-wiki on the candidate. So in my opinion, we should deploy debate subpages - not just say go to the talk page, so with the system Misplaced Pages:ACE09/Candidate name/Debate or Misplaced Pages:ACE09/Debate/Candidate name.

Someone mentioned endorsements above, we could also have endorsement subpages, although they could arguably be merged in the debate subpages. I had also thought of dividing the election in two phases; debate/questions, then secret voting. Cenarium (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the matter needs to be decided forthwith. I suspect a decision either way will surprise a significant portion of the community, and it is thus beneficial to make the final decision quickly. —Finn Casey * * * 02:56, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I started preparing election pages on the basis of an open election, using last year's pages as a template, based on comments above that the AUSC election would be a test run for a Secret Ballot, and that - once complete - the experience from that election would be used to inform a community decision on whether that process is the way to go for ACE2010. I took this from Risker's analysis, above (here), though I may have read too much into that comment. There was an RFC on secret ballots, and the most supported option there was to use a secret ballot - though many comments also assumed a Schluze-style selection method, whereas the committee has recommended Support/Oppose voting (per Risker, here). There has been concern that the community did not have adequate input in the Secret Ballot RFC, or that it was inadequately publicized - which I can't speak to, as I was on wikibreak. We have this new RFC being put together, should a Yea/Nay Secret Ballot question be added to it? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 19:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think we should go with secret ballots based on the previous discussions that concluded with support for the idea. I think the counting method is less crucial, and can be handled by a smaller discussion and consensus than an RfC. Since the RfC was pretty prominently advertised, and there was general approval for the idea, I'd rather not see implementation delayed for redundant approval. Nathan 19:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Is this resolved somewhere? I see multiple discussions but I can't find a decision. Mackan79 (talk) 22:06, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Not yet. I myself am unsure how the final decision will be made, perhaps by Mr. Wales. —Finn Casey * * * 22:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The reasonable thing to do in my opinion would be to declare "no consensus" and run the election the same way that we did last year. I don't think that the smaller RfC from a few months ago should be used, since it wasn't very widely advertised, and it seems pretty clear from this current RfC, that when such a question is widely advertised, there is no obvious consensus to change the system. Discussion can of course continue about secret ballots for future elections, but for this one, I think it would be unwise to switch to a secret ballot, because it would risk invalidating the entire process. --Elonka 22:22, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I think secret ballots are both reasonable and necessary, to be honest - so I feel that the reasonable thing to do is to make sure we use Secure Poll for this election. I don't think there's any risk of invalidating the entire process (!) - in fact, I think using Secure Poll will prove to be a really good thing, and considerably improve the entire process :-) Privatemusings (talk) 22:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Elonka is concerned that enacting the secret voting proposal without clear community consensus would risk invalidating the process. —Finn Casey * 22:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC) P.S. This page is becoming a bit cluttered. Any objections to archiving inactive discussions?

yes, I think you're right, but it doesn't really make sense, does it? - I think not using a secret ballot runs a greater risk of undermining / invalidating the process - re : the archiving, I think that would be a great start, though we made need some further help to try and resolve some of this stuff! Privatemusings (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was quick (I'd missed the whole RFC, actually). Out of curiosity, has anyone suggested to prohibit any comments while voting, if it does remain open? Or maybe there are rules on this already. Mackan79 (talk) 23:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Candidate eligibility

Do we have a candidate eligibility description anywhere? Without explaining why I am asking such a dumb question (I have reasons, sadly), is there a page anywhere that explicitly says "Do not nominate yourself if you have less than 150 edits and/or will be under 18 on Jan 1, 2010"? Manning (talk) 03:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I think there is not strict requirement, but no one with that few edits will be taken seriously. Steal from last year or if there isn't something, you could crib something from RFA, "Successful candidates are likely to be..." Thatcher 03:41, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would assume that if one is not eligible to vote, they would understand that they are not eligible to run. And per Thatcher, it appears to be more of a common sense matter. Newer users who are so bold as to nominate themselves for Committee candidacy are unlikely to be given any serious notice. That's not intended to put down the contributions of newer users - I myself just began getting actively involved in Misplaced Pages processes three months ago :) —Finn Casey * * * 05:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The only formal requirements are that one identifies (or be willing to identify) to the foundation, and the age requirement (a legal issue, I think). Agree that no one with too few edits to vote would be taken seriously, and they can always be asked to withdraw. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 05:42, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

One issue that may be relevant is that, using SecurePoll, the list of candidates cannot be modified once the election has begun: that is, candidates cannot be 'withdrawn' from the election once it has started (equally, new candidates cannot be added). A point for discussion, perhaps? Happy‑melon 23:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

My understanding wasn't that it couldn't be done, but that it needed a manual intervention to do. Perhaps I misunderstood? — Coren  23:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing the list of candidates in any way, at any time, currently requires sysadmin intervention. Even when that ceases to be the case, it still won't be possible to change the list after the election has begun. Removing candidates would leave phantom, uncountable votes, which would break the current tallying system. I guess a system for 'locking' candidates could be implemented, where they would still be on the ballot list but greyed out so they couldn't be voted for, but even that might be problematic. Happy‑melon 11:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the main purposes in withdrawing during the voting is to prevent the embarassment of a 6 support, 100 oppose result. That wouldn't matter here, since results would not be available during the election (presumably). Other candidates have withdrawn due to the timesink of the election (lack of time to be a proper candidate, realization that arbcom will take too much of their time, etc). If they can, they can - if not, I don't think it's a major issue. We did have one candidate exercise their right to vanish during the election, though - and their name was redacted from everything. That would prove difficult here. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 00:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The names on the ballot form can be changed (so an RTV candidate could be renamed to "vanished user"). Happy‑melon 11:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

The chances of a repeat RTV candidate are vanishingly small (see what I did there), but the fact that names can be changed on the ballot is good information to have. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. It was prompted by a bit of Wikilawyering I ran into from a minor. I know there is a statement from Jimbo somewhere that says he will not appoint anyone who doesn't meet foundation rules for CU/OS, which implicitly means you have to be over 18.

For reference's sake, The 2007 election states that eligibility required being over 18 and 1000 mainspace edits.I was travelling during the 08 elections so completely missed them, so I don't know why those conditions were dropped (not that it really matters). Manning (talk)

I think we caught the 1000 edit minimum last year, as well - but after nominations opened. It would be hinky to change the candidate requirements after candidates had already submitted, so we let it go. If there are no objections, I'll go ahead and add that back in today. We link to Jimbo's statement on eligibility somewhere, I'll have to track that down. The age restriction is listed (here, on the nomination page), as is the requirement to identify to the foundation (per a arbcom ruling in November 2007, discussed here). UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 12:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Since it came up in 2006, 2008, and again this year, and since it was in place in 2007, I've added the 1,000 mainspace edit requirement to the nominations page. Hopefully we'll remember it next time. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 21:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Instructions for candidate statements

I know one of my hobby-horses is minimising invitations for bloat, so I'm sorry if eyes are rolling already; bloat is the enemy of wikis. Four hundred words for each candidate is pretty generous, and I'm a little concerned about the "you are free to link to a longer statement if you wish" bit—voter fatigue and a possible arms race between candidates' texts are in my mind. And let's remember that candidates will write more in response to the general and individual questions.

I see that we're also sacrificing the opportunity to point candidates in the right direction as to what we want to know of them. We certainly don't want broad policy statements about where they want to see WP go, etc, do we? Arbs are entrusted with the management of behavioural issues, a difficult and skilled job. They are not members of Congress or Parliament who deal in broad policy matters or governance.

Perhaps candidates might be asked to do something like this:

"Please provide a statement summarizing your skill and experience relevant to the role of an arbitrator, and why voters should choose you. The summary should be up to 400 words in display mode, and may contain up to five diffs or links to examples of your work or your interactions with other editors."

I don't think it's too late to add something like this. Your thoughts?

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009/Candidate_statements Tony (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I like your revised wording VERY much. I would actually slim it down even more to get this:

"Please provide a statement summarizing your skills and experience relevant to the role of an arbitrator, and why voters should choose you. The summary should be no more than 400 words, and may contain links to examples of your work or your interactions with other editors."

Manning (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not too late to add, but somewhat creepy I fear. In general, guidelines like this are similar to at RfA in that if you have to read the instructions to strike the right chord, you're probably not cut out for the job. These are the people who will be entrusted to write principles, findings of fact and remedies that can have quite significant effects and often set the philosophical tone for the project on a given issue (whether they ought to or not), and the candidate statement offers an excellent place to exhibit how prospective arbitrators will construct something like this. As such, I don't think limitations on diffs for example will be productive. On the issue of longer linked statements, a longer, denser or more strident statement will not necessarily be a more popular one, and candidates whose extended statements drift off-topic or trigger voter fatigue will be naturally punished. I would agree with the encouragement to summarize skills, experience and virtue though.  Skomorokh, barbarian  14:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I like Manning's version better than mine. Skomorokh, limitations on diffs and links was a problem in my proposal, yes. But you say, "candidates whose extended statements drift off-topic or trigger voter fatigue will be naturally punished"? I'm rather uncertain of that. I think voters are punished by having to divert to and read "longer" statements, even if they get the gist early in the piece and return to a candidate page. Arbs need to write succinctly; Audit Subcommittee candidates have been allowed only 250 words with no links to "longer" statements, and while the role of arbs is broader, 400 words alone I'd have thought would be sufficient recognition of that. Tony (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we can thrash something mutually acceptable out. I'd re-iterate that voters are less likely to vote for a candidate who fails to engage them, and I don't think voters feel a compulsion to read the longer statements. Furthermore, discouraging extended statements unnecessarily constrains candidates who might make fine arbitrators but who best express themselves at length – Newyorkbrad for example. That said, in defense of the spirit of your proposal, I concur that we can through standardised instructions to both voters and candidates encourage best practices. So for a link to longer statements (which there is no enforceable way to prohibit, I'd posit), we might have a boilerplate that emphasises the supplementary and optional nature of the extended statement:

If you are interested in reading more about this candidate's views, they have provided an extended statement here

I'd be inclined to drop the last section of Manning's version, so that it reads something like

Please provide here a succinct statement outlining why voters should support you. It should be no more than 400 words, and cover the skills and experience you have that are relevant to the role of an arbitrator.

 Skomorokh, barbarian  15:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems to get to the core of it. The 400 word limit is a practical one, as all candidate statements are transcluded onto one page (Nominations, I think). In many cases, candidates look to the previous year for guidance when deciding how to nominate themselves, so we don't want to go too far afield - but focusing the candidate on the details is important, as well. Functionally, since we permit diffs in the statement, there is nothing that would stop a candidate from posting an extended statement elsewhere and linking, but this line would no longer encourage that. Note, also, that the candidate statement can become fodder for individual questions, so we don't want to trim it too badly. This is the candidate's lone chance to speak on their own merits, without the framework of a question or talk page debate - and that's important, too. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, "summarizing your skill and experience relevant to the role of an arbitrator" was the whole point. But I won't press it. Tony (talk) 15:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, what about:

Please provide here a succinct statement outlining why voters should support you. It should be no more than 400 words, and should summarize the skills and experience you have that are relevant to the role of an arbitrator.

Would that work as a middle ground? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 16:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Here's a more concise version:

Please outline (i) why voters should support you and (ii) what skills and experience you would bring as an arbitrator. (400 words maximum, please.)

Thoughts?  Roger Davies 16:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Or if you really want concise, I think "Place statement here. 400 word maximum, please." works just as well. Candidates will no doubt already know the purpose of the statement. Nathan 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• Nathan, "Candidates will no doubt already know the purpose of the statement"—it's to set the scene for both candidates and voters; to focus people's minds explicitly on the skills and experience at issue. Roger's version is fine, or Ultraexact's "middle ground", which I slightly prefer for its explicit "external" framing of "skills and experience ... that are relevant to the role of an arbitrator ". I guess both that version (and Skomorokh's version, which, I didn't even pick out before my last post, sorry) and Roger's version all ask essentially the same things of candidates: that they say, by implication or directly, what they think those skills and experience should be, and state directly how they measure up. I think this amount of direction would be welcomed by candidates. Tony (talk) 10:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should we be telling candidates what they can and cannot say in their statement? It's an election, they might have different reasons for standing than just skills and experience. They should say why they want to be elected, and I'm sure all of them can do that without guidance. Limiting length makes sense; proscribing the actual content of the statements does not. Nathan 15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Nathan, do we really want to know why candidates want to stand? Isn't it what candidates have to offer the community via their role as an arb that matters? Roger's proposal above starts with: "Please outline (i) why voters should support you,". Yup. Tony (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't we be judging them based on their own abilities and initiative, i.e. their own sense of what the statement should say, rather than trying to craft their statements ahead of time to reflect what we would like to read? In what elections in the real world are the content of candidate statements managed? If someone posts a statement that doesn't address their skill and experience, or doesn't specifically state "You should support me for arbitrator because..." what shall we do? Remove the statement until they rewrite one that has been approved by the statement police? Nathan 16:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

We've had lots of different candidate statements in years past, including one that read in its entirety "Voting for me is a vote for straight stone cold chillin. No gimmicks needed.". The instructions should give candidates a starting point, and should set the tone for voters reading the statements - a "This is the sort of thing you could reasonably expect to find as you go through these statements" caveat, so to speak. But, unless the statement greatly exceeds guidelines for size (which are there due to transclusion, not so much for brevity), or unless they include personal attacks, statements should not be refactored or removed in any way. If a candidate's statement leaves something unclear, you can be assured that voters will question it. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 21:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, and that candidate rightly failed (although he got more votes than I expected). It looks like the page went live without statement guidance, although it does counsel against joke or frivolous candidacies. Works for me - folks should write what they want, and if they ignore the instructions and post what are effectively joke candidacies, we should continue to let them as we have in the past. Nathan 16:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Does this discussion have a point? If so, I suggest integrating UltraExactZZ's version into the preloader here.  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:54, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Update on bringing the General Questions under control

Dear colleagues

The number of questions is down to 36 42, from a high of about 44. There was talk above that around November 8, there might be a more concentrated attempt to make the General Questions manageable and digestible for both voters and candidates. I produced a themed presentation early in the piece, and if people think it will help, I could update it closer to time for perusal and discussion here.

Polite requests have been made at the talk pages of most of the users who have contributed questions. A few people are not thrilled about asking a single question. Without wanting to pre-empt what the outcome will be, I'm providing a quick summary of the state of play.

• Ultraexactzz – 1 question
• LessHeard vanU – 1 question
• Tony1 – 1 question
• Davewild – 3 questions (message on his talk page from Stifle) November 2, subsequent message from me, November 6; may agree to remove his Question 2.)
• NuclearWarfare – 6 questions added November 7, but added invitation to merge with others. Tony (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
• Sam Blacketer – 3 questions (message from me October 31; query about the meaning of "group think" by Manning on Question talk page, which I now can't locate).
• Jake Wartenberg – 3 questions (message on his talk page from Stifle) November 2, subsequent message from me, November 6)
• Juliancolton – 1 question (down from 3 in response to request)
• User:Kotniski – 1 question (down from 5 in response to request)
• Tznkai – 2 questions (message from me, November 6)
• Camaron – 3 questions, down from 4 after request, 31 October
• Daniel – 7 questions (instructions tweaked in response to message, November 2; I've asked for further clarification, fearing a gigantic task for candidates who think they should read seven ArbCom cases)
• MBisanz – 1 question
• Finn Casey – 1 question
• Heimstern – 3 questions (request here, but points to his query here about the one-question rule)
• Offliner – 1 question
• Majorly – 4 questions (requested November 4; may agree to reduce)

One arb told me they felt obliged to write something like 60,000 words in responses last year. I'd like to remind users that there's the potential for the "first have a look at what the other candidates have written" factor for general questions, and that in some cases this can be minimised by using different angles in questions to the individual candidates whose worthiness you want to weigh up. Tony (talk) 10:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Note also that there were 106 Questions for all candidates last year, not counting individual questions - so I'd say we're well ahead of the game. Just as with RFA, the best questions here are the ones that cannot be answered with a copy-paste from policy, and I think we have a good set of those. Do you see any obvious merge candidates? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 15:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Earlier, I was making gentle suggestions about merging to pairs of contributors; but I gave up when not one suggestion was taken up (except by LessHeard van U). Maybe my suggestions were unsuitable; maybe people don't want to co-author. That is why it appears that enforcing the one-question-per-user rule is the only way. Next year, I think editors should be forewarned of the need for the GQs to be trim and focused, and that they may be asked to negotiate with one or two other editors who have asked a question on a similar theme. Risker suggested 20 questions; that is still unfortunately large, in my view (12–15, I think, plus statement and individual questions). Tony (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm honestly not seeing any benefit in general questions if they are just going to get trimmed/merged. Next time, I'll just ask every candidate individually to save the hassle. Majorly talk 15:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined towards the same view as Majorly, as I said on Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Questions/General. The current rule is also really easily gameable as anyone could ask a couple of wikifriends to ask a quesion each for them. Perhaps the rule could be changed that any general questions need to get at least 2 editors supporting the question in order for them to be included and that they are grouped by topic with the questioners names removed or at least stressed less - any other questions can and will be asked as individual quesions. This really needs to be discussed and consensus reached on what should be done, not just a new rule imposed that has not been enforced before or given a good discussion by the community. (P.S. Can this discussion be held on one page or the other and not on both as it is causing duplication) Davewild (talk) 16:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The above proposals, while well-intentioned, seem to be overly officious. If the candidates don't wish to answer a question, they don't have to - making up detailed rules regarding which questions are allowable is getting into instruction creep territory methinks. —Finn Casey * * * 02:53, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Finn, the one-question rule doesn't seem to be detailed—and it already exists, clear as day. One could frame a body of questions requiring more than a thousand responses as instruction creep, too, don't you think? While we're at it, why not remove the 400-word limit on candidate statements? Perhaps the resulting "arms race" between some candidates to deliver huge discursive essays would be worth it to avoid the creep of a "400-word limit". Tony (talk) 03:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've updated the sandbox in which the questions are organised under themes. Tony (talk) 09:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks really good, Tony1. Manning (talk) 10:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

No BLP section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I tried to avoid creating a whole theme for just a single question. Do you think it would improve the page? Tony (talk) 12:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure; I raised it because it's the only thing I came to review on questions last year, and I know it remains concern. Ask others who might have broader/different experience than me ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the categorized list of questions from Tony1's sandbox, and coded them into {{ACEQuestions}}. When candidates submit, they'll be asked to transclude that template onto their redlinked questions page. This will preformat the header (with instructions), the general questions, and then provide a space for individual questions, which can be asked as soon as the candidate becomes a candidate. If I'm not around, could someone make sure any new questions are moved over to that template before 00:00 tonight? Thanks. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I've added NYB's two questions and re-numbered throughout. There are now 42 GQs. Daniel is may re-examine his seven questions before the deadline, which is midnight UTC today.

Two queries:

• • GQ41: "Please list all of your accounts, active at any time, and any IP addresses you have made substantive edits from?" Is it OK for candidates to be expected to provide IP addresses? It seems like an impossible task, since IP addresses rotate for many ISP accounts.
  • GQ7: "Arbitrators will have access to at least the following mailing lists: Functionaries-en, checkuser-l, oversight-l, clerks-l, and arbcom-l. How much traffic to you anticipate on each? How much of that traffic will you read? How much of that traffic will you actually read?" This will be extremely difficult to answer for any candidate who is not already an arb or a clerk, or very close to the process. There has been talk above of a non-admin on the Committee; will this question make them look unworthy? Tony (talk) 11:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

One candidate (Kurt Weber) has already begun answering the questions, so it's imperative we get them consolidates asap. Tony, you have my confidence to do whatever needs to be done, and my help if you need any.  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've just fixed the numbering at the bottom, and as far I can see, it's ready to go. NYB has OKed the fixes I made to his; Jake Wartenberg and Majorly have tweaked theirs. Daniel has reduced and clarified. Tony (talk) 00:54, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Been watching this evolve over the past few weeks - am I good to go to copy the questions over and start the mammoth task of answering them? :) Fritzpoll (talk) 07:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Fritz, please. They're ready, well and truly. Tony (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Category

I created a category for this year's candidates, populated by {{Arbitration Committee Elections statement}}. The catch? Some of last year's candidates did not substitute the template when formatting their candidate statements, so the edits we've made to the template not only add their candidate statements from 2008 to this year's category, but they also break last year's ballot. So, if you see last year's candidates under Category:Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee Candidates 2009, that's why. And, if anyone wants to clear the 2008 statements, feel free - or I'll tackle it tomorrow. Thanks. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 21:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've addressed last year's transclusions and the category is in fine shape now. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Number of arbs and terms: consensus

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

Number of seats

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

Term lengths

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

I've raised the matter at at the RfC talk page, too. I believe it would be appropriate to ask an uninvolved crat or admin to officially close at least these two RfCs from the set. The page has been running for more than two weeks. Tony (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree, and per this cross-post, believe it would be a good idea to encourage said uninvolved crat or admin to confirm the voting methodology, perhaps on 24th Nov 00:00UTC (suggested at RfC talk) Privatemusings (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

ps. so if we go for 18 on the committee, am I correct in thinking that we're about to elect 9 new arb.s? Privatemusings (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

maybe it's 8 - I can't work it out! :-) Privatemusings (talk) 03:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

See #Vacancies and #Finalization above.  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As per PrivateMusings comment above about closing the RFC, I'm very curious as to how a crat will close the "public/private" debate. IMO the result of the current poll is guaranteed to be "no consensus". So... do we stick with "public" (the status quo) or go with "private" (the verdict of the previous RFC, which some will argue was controversial). I'm very glad I'm not going to be making that call :) Manning (talk) 05:04, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

FYI I've just posted a comment about this thread at the 'crat noticeboard. (see here) Manning (talk) 05:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It does seem rather clear to me that a definite no consensus finding must allow the continuation of current public voting program. However, I voted for the transparent option... so I am likely partial. Ultimately, I believe Coren indicated (somewhere... not sure where right now) that Mr. Wales will make the final determinaton. Also, the Bureaucrats (well, one of them) has indicated a disinclination to close the RfC. —Finn Casey * * * 07:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Privatemusings: it would be 18 minus the number of current arbs whose terms are not expiring. Please see my post here. On the closing of the "secure voting" poll, if it's going to hold things up, I think the arb terms and number of arbs polls should be closed as soon as possible by an independent crat or admin, since the results are plain. Tony (talk) 10:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Two year terms is a big mistake-- an area where the community might not know best. Maybe Jimbo will exercise authority and overrule the community, because the shortened terms could be so damaging, considering the learning curve and institutional memory needed on ArbCom. At any rate, even though I voted against them, I also read the RFC as applying to new members. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, Jimbo has stated that he intends to perform only a ceremonial role in this election. Only four pre-existing arbs served past the first few months of this year; I don't see a lack of "institutional memory" in the current Committee. Tony (talk) 14:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be suprised if some of those coming off 1 year terms will successfully be reelected as well.--Tznkai (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Also despite the fact that there are no official prerequisites to ArbCom candidature (except age and 1000 edits), in reality most newly elected members have a background as a clerk, crat or similar role. While that isn't the same experience as being on ArbCom itself, it certainly implies a solid knowledge of Misplaced Pages processes and history. Manning (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not actually true, Manning. Of the 10 appointees last year, only 3 were former Arbitration Committee clerks, one of whom was also a bureaucrat and checkuser, and another former Arbcom clerk held checkuser on another project. The remaining 7 included one person who was a mediator, and a MilHist coordinator. The rest of us had varied activities but no specifically defined roles. I'd hate to see good potential candidates walk away because they feel they don't meet some unspoken prerequisite. Risker (talk) 23:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Happy to be corrected, but I think you missed the actual point of my comment. I was saying that I don't think that the 2 year term concept guarantees a lack of "institutional memory". Even if my numbers were wrong, the people elected certainly still had a good enough knowledge of Misplaced Pages processes to be able to serve effectively. Manning (talk) 23:25, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

The term "institutional memory" in this context refers to knowledge of ArbCom internal processes and previous users who came before ArbCom in earlier years (i.e. don't waste time on this one because we discussed it before - see here), not to general Misplaced Pages experience. The only arb still standing from three years ago is FloNight, though we were able to draw on Kirill Lokshin's experience for much of the year as well. Next year (unless arbs standing down run and get re-elected), the most experienced arbs will be Newyorkbrad and FayssalF. Most of the longer-term institutional memory now resides on the functionaries mailing list (in the person of arbs from even further back), where said memory is sometimes called upon and is often very helpful. Carcharoth (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

ACEQuestions template

Apologies in advance for my technical ignorance of how templates work, but it looks to me like anyone who attempts to answer the general questions will end up editing the ACEQuestions template directly. Aren't we supposed to do a "subst" or something like that? Manning (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yup - the template should be substituted, above any existing individual questions. ...Why, did someone not do that? UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 00:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean I correctly identified a problem? I was actually expecting to be vigorously corrected in regards to my deficient technical knowledge, so I am delighted. Manning (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Secure Poll and banned/blocked users

Is there a way to prevent banned/blocked users from voting using secure poll? Deserted Cities (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

yes.--Tznkai (talk) 05:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

A list of eligible voters is prepared in advance of the election; that is how we eliminated accounts with fewer than 150 mainspace edits. Blocks are trickier; once the list is run, nobody can be added to it, so users who get unblocked between the time the voter list is prepared and the end of the election would be disenfranchised. In fact, there is now a page for a debrief on the use of SecurePoll for the AUSC election, with a workshop section to discuss some of these fine points, located at the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Risker (talk) 06:44, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was wondering because I checked my eligibility with the tool given. Then I checked a now blocked user I had some run-ins with, out of curiosity. It said he was still eligible, and I figured this could create an issue. Deserted Cities (talk) 06:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

In the election one blocked user voted and their vote was struck by the scrutineers. MBisanz 06:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

(od) There's a SecretPoll module that checks whether a user is blocked when they go to cast their vote. If they are, they are redirected to a page telling them they can't vote while blocked. What SecurePoll doesn't (yet?) do is to check the electoral roll before tallying the vote to see whether someone was blocked after voting. This needs to be done manually and is important in order to strike votes of subsequently discvered socks. In the recent AUSC election, the scrutineers ran through the list of voters for subsequently blocked editors before certifying the results. I did it also: it was trivially easy because an alphabetical list of voters was available. I was astounded that there was so little comment about individual voters.  Roger Davies 08:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the justification for disfranchising banned/blocked users? I could understand disfranchising permbanned users, but what about somebody who was just banned for few weeks (or even days)? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Recruitment and retention

The hurdles to surmount for ArbCom are probably (i) recruiting well-qualified candidates and (ii) stopping them burning out when appointed. It seems to me that far too much of the election agenda is set by people with various axes to grind about ArbCom and who are using the election as a way of grinding them. This is probably reducing the pool of candidates prepared to stand. At a similar stage last year, we had around twenty candidates, this year we have four so far. How can we encourage people to stand for ArbCom? And how do we ease the pain of running? Demanding that candidates spend two hundred hours answering questions, and writing the equivalent of a novel in replies, and then running a gauntlet of very public (and often very personal) comment, does not strike me as an ideal way to attract the best people. Thoughts?  Roger Davies 09:11, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

As a clerk who sits back and watches what goes on, in my opinion one of the big reasons to not be on ArbCom is the fact that an arbitrator is given no real support or protection by the community. If someone assaulted an elected parliamentary representative on the street they would be arrested and imprisoned. However abusing the arbitrators seems so routine here that somepeople take umbrage at the very suggestion that arbs should be provided any protection. "Well they shouldn't have volunteered if they couldn't handle it" is an appalling justification for this lack of support.

I have numerous ideas for how to fix this general issue, but this is not the time or place for this discussion. Getting back to Roger's very valid point - there are good editors who would make fine arbitrators that are not running, because no matter how much they love this project, it's just not worth the grief and misery of being an Arbitrator. Manning (talk) 11:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Manning that being an arb is tough. This is yet more reason to avoid making the electoral process such an extended hurdle; I'm disappointed to see a large number of individual questions thus far, on top of the already-hefty number of general questions. If we can't judge a candidate's skill-base and trustworthiness with less drama, something is very wrong; a trimmed down questioning process needs to be debated and instituted next year as a priority. This would make a huge difference.

However, I want to emphasise the positives and to encourage our best and brightest to take the step and nominate. The past year has seen unprecedented reform of ArbCom, bit by bit; much of this has resulted from the work of the Committee itself, but the community has played a significant role, too. There is still much to be done, and successful candidates will have the satisfaction of playing a role in a period of dynamic change. There are reasons for optimism that a full 18 arbs can and will arrange their business, allocate their human resources, to moderate the workload of individual arbs so they can continue to contribute their editorial and administrative expertise to the project. I believe the community can and will develop better ways of supporting and protecting members in the normal discharge of their duties.

I'd like to remind potential candidates who may be wavering that being an arb carries significant prestige and the chance to make a difference to the world's most important information-based website. Please put yourself forward if you believe you have the right skill-base; even if you are not elected, you'll have shown that you care. Tony (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you run Tony? Majorly talk 17:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice of you to say that, Majorly, but I decided some time ago not to run for any office on WP, for a number of reasons. Tony (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly encourage qualified candidates to run for this important position. I have found serving as an arbitrator to be overall a very positive experience, despite any venting I may have done about some of the drawbacks to the job, especially recently. Potential candidates with questions about the committee or what is involved in arbitrating are welcome to contact me either on my talkpage or via e-mail. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Just adding what's probably an obvious observation, but I think one of the reasons that many are reluctant or point-blank unwilling to run for ArbCom is the time-commitment involved. I think the sheer amount of time Arbs spend "Arbing" (this is the cool, hip term all of the kids are using) is obviously quite significant, particularly when you factor e-mail list traffic and all of the other unseen work committee members are doing. I think more and more editors today understand just how much work goes into being an Arb (speaking for myself, this is something I've only come to fully appreciate this year as I've noted several Arbs discussing the absurdly high number of daily e-mails, for example) and are unwilling or unable to volunteer that much of their time. Most editors who might make good ArbCom candidates would presumably consider very carefully before running whether they can really commit to the amount of reading and writing that is required, and if they have doubts about that they probably would not run simply because they would not think themselves up to the requirements of the job.

I'm certain there are other reasons for a lack of candidates (at least so far, maybe that will change), but I think perceived workload is a huge factor, and unfortunately there might not be an easy fix for that problem. If there is still a candidate shortage going forward perhaps some current Arbs can offer comments about how the Arbs manage the workload and what is being/has been done to try to keep the amount of time spent Arbing at least somewhat within the realm of sanity. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Invariably, too, the commitment to ArbCom will override time spent actually building the encyclopedia; that's one of the reasons several users including myself opposed Casliber's bid last year, because we thought he was too valuable to lose to ArbCom tasks. :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 23:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely the same works for adminship too? You just can't win can you when it comes to getting the right balance. Too much article work and you're opposed because you're "too valuable". Not enough and you get opposed for not being good enough. Majorly talk 23:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Committee, overall, wants to move towards a more personally and professionally manageable environment for arbs. We should support them in that aim. Tony (talk) 00:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop

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

For the Arbitration Committee,
Dougweller (talk) 09:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Question about Kirill Lokshin

The page states: "The terms of four arbitrators (... Kirill Lokshin ...) are due to expire on 31 December 2009, and three more (...) have stepped down before finishing their terms" But Kirill is not listed as an arbitrator at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee. If he has stepped down, shouldn't his name be moved to the latter section? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It was in that section originally, but someone objected on the grounds that it is better to be clear that the three who have stepped down could conceivably unretire (as Rlevse) has done) and finish out their terms, whereas were Kirill to do so, he would still need to be replaced, as Deskana should have been last year. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:17, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

It's kind of a moot point. The seat he was elected to in December 2006 would be up this year whether he were still arbitrating or not. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Eligibility

I would like to know whether I am free to engage in the candidacy of Jehochman as an Administrator. I am presently subject to sanctions from an action he engaged in. The eligibility software claims I do not exist. Brews ohare (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're rather late to participate in the debate about Jechoman being an administrator. If you're want to know if you're eligible to vote in the December 2009 Arbitration Committee Elections, then it looks as if you had made more than 150 mainspace edits on this wiki before November 1, 2009, which would mean that you are eligible to vote in general. Whether or not doing so in certain ways will result in Arbitration Enforcement against you is something you need to discuss with the Arbitration Committee or at Arbitration Enforcement. Regards,  Skomorokh, barbarian  22:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand what you meant by "to engage in the candidacy of Jehochman as an Administrator". You are under some specific conduct remedies, one of which reads "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions if, despite being warned, Brews ohare repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any normal editorial process or any expected standards of behavior and decorum.". As long as you observe the terms of this restriction, I see nothing that prevents you from participating in this election and discussing the candidacy of Jehochman for ArbCom. Manning (talk) 23:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Collectively, we have generally abided by the principle that short of a complete ban from WP space, or indef block, you maintain suffrage and full voice in the elections so long as you reach the barest of minimum thresholds of behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 02:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Also on Eligibility

A new editor with no edits outside of user space presented a nomination statement on the Candidate Statement page here. Since they did not (obviously) have 1000 mainspace edits, I reverted here and left a helpful notice on their user talk page. I am noting this action for the record. —Finn Casey * 06:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No dispute on that obviously. I'm going to delete the candidate page, although there is no obvious CSD choice. So I'm going to delete it as an "Other" - if someone thinks this is unjustified by all means let me know. Manning (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Test Page would work, in my mind. Good removal, as well. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 13:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The state of the elections

So, we are four days into the nominations phase, approaching a healthy minimum number of serious candidates. General questions have been finalized and are being posted and responded to, and individual questions seem to be being posted effectively also. Nominations remain open until November 24, which is when Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee 2 is due to close. Some questions at this stage:

• Is there sufficient monitoring of election activity by volunteers/co-ordinators? Have we missed anything?
• Do we have all the appropriate pages and election material up and running? Is anything lacking?
• Are we sufficiently prepared for the outcome of the RfC and possible required changes to the election that will need to be implemented before the voting phase?

Feedback, questions and suggestions welcome.  Skomorokh, barbarian  18:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Question page question

Hi, a user has attempted to start a lengthy threaded discussion at my questions page. I moved their statements in response to my answers (not questions, by statements) to the talk page. They reverted me. Please check this and the preceding edits and inform us of the correct procedure. Thank you. Jehochman 02:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Flip side of same concern - faced with concerns and questions, the candidate posted a response alleging bad faith, and removed the clarification of the questions to the talk page.

While it's the candidate's choice to answer or not, it's not their choice to remove clarification or note their response is perceived as misleading or incorrect.

At Arbcom Election 2008 a range of questions had short threaded discussion as further clarifications were asked (example). This is normal. Long discussion removal is also normal. But calling one on-topic response a "lengthy threaded discussion", is inaccurate. Hence I trust it can be reinstated and properly answered in due course. FT2  02:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

FT2 appears intent on edit warring to enforce his view. He's posted the same disputed content three times, even though I asked him to wait for a decision here. I respectfully request that he not be allowed to disrupt my question page by initiating a lengthy discussion there. Questions - fine. I'll answer them. If he wants to discuss my answers or refute them, that belongs on the talk page. This same standard should be applied to all questions page, not just mine. We need to allow everybody to ask questions, and we should not let users hijack questions pages for other purposes. Jehochman 02:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Opposed to unilateral removal. Placing them in a collapse box with a link to the talk page (pending review by the election monitors) is fine and hasn't been disputed. FT2  04:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with that too. Users can read the content and make up their own minds what they think. Jehochman 04:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I favour moving any responses by questioners to the talkpage, with a link to the response after the candidate's answer. Candidates shouldn't be removing editors' comments however; flag a volunteer from WP:COORD9 if there's such maintenance or cleanup to be done.  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I need maintenance on Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2009/Candidate statements/Jehochman/Questions for the candidate in the FT2 section. Thank you. Jehochman 03:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll wait for input from others on my suggestions before implementing them, provided that there's no emergency.  Skomorokh, barbarian  03:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

No rush. I think it is a good idea to exercise discipline to prevent question pages from deteriorating. In 2008 we had open voting. We switched to secret balloting in part to reduce the drama and poisoning the well type activities. The community supports a better approach to these elections. We should carry that spirit to the rest of the election pages. Jehochman 03:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Rendered moot by agreement between me and FT2. Jehochman 04:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's the point. As a candidate, you don't yourself remove questions or comments, however "negative" they seem. I too was asked poisonous and loaded questions at Arbcom Election when I stood, as are some other candidates, they were extremely objectionable to the point of defamation or (seeming) attack, yet I removed none of them. Any user can ask anything related to wiki activities at Arbcom election. Everything's on the table. That's the deal.

Election monitors, not election candidates, make the calls on moving or removing objectionable posts in the election, for transparency. If that was a point of confusion, then a handshake on it and hope you understand it now. Let's leave it to the monitors. FT2  04:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)