| Revision as of 14:30, 20 August 2008 editDiprotodon (talk | contribs)6 edits →Voting system← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 10:10, 21 March 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Menu}} | |||
| {{shortcut|WT:ACE2008}} | {{shortcut|WT:ACE2008}} | ||
| {{todo|target=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008|nocats=yes}} | |||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 100K | |||
| |counter = 6 | |||
| |algo = old(8d) | |||
| |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2008/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{archive box|auto=long}} | |||
| == The argument that Carcharoth won the election == | |||
| ==Kick Off== | |||
| I think it's great that this has been unprotected, and I look forward to engaging positively! :-) ] (]) 01:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''The following was discussion occurred on ]:''' | |||
| == To do list == | |||
| As could be expected, one of the candidates (Vassyana) has a higher ''percentage of supporters'', but another candidate (Carcharoth) has a higher ''net number of supporters'': | |||
| I've put this on the main page (it's really a draft) - I think there's merit in reviewing the strengths and weaknesses of past processes with some rigour at this stage - that's really the most valuable first step in my book... As a guide, I'd say it might be sensible to try and have everything pinned down by november.. which gives us an appropriate amount of time for discussion, brainstorming and decision making, I'd say.... feedback most welcome! ] (]) 01:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Carcharoth 237 119 '''118''' 66.6% | |||
| :Vassyana 197 95 '''102''' 67.5% | |||
| This is happening because candidate C. has 45,000 edits, whereas candidate V. has only 11,000 edits. Fewer people know anything about candidate V., and therefore they do not to vote for him, one way or another. Obviously, ''net number of supporters is the more appropriate metrics''. The percentage works against candidates that are more dedicated to the project. In a more extreme case, candidate A might receive 100 net votes (150 support and 50 oppose), but candidate B might receive only 10 net votes (10 support and zero oppose; nobody cares about candidate B). Why should candidate B be elected?! (a support of100%). Obviously, candidate A has a 10 times higher number of votes.] (]) 03:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I've added a few items to the list of pages we'll want to prepare. Also, on the list of open seats; Is NewYorkBrad's seat up for a by-election, as well? Or will that seat remain vacant? In the past, inactive arbs have been replaced at election, with the caveat that they could claim an "extra" seat if they return. I also note that the Arbcom RFC had several proposals for increased membership, a Delta tranche and shorter terms, and so on; I hate to open the can of worms, but is there any shot of those proposals gaining traction before this election? ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 12:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::A proposal that gained a lot of support (hmm... let's see if I can find it - and more importantly link to it) involved expansion of the Tranches to seven members and introduced Tranche Delta. The smoothest way to do this would be to vote seven into Tranche Beta this election, seven into Tranche Gamma next election (December 09), a new seven into Tranche Delta in December '10 and seven into Tranche Alpha in December '11. This would extend terms to four years, as opposed to the current three years, unless we held elections twice a year instead. ], put forward by ] -- <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 19:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think quite a few people think that the 3 year terms are already too long. Going to 4 years could be problematic. From the RFC ]--] (]) 20:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Hmmm... yes that's a very good point. I would have to suggest elections every six months then (2 year terms) or every nine months (3 year terms). I know the next four elections, should the seven by four expansion be approved, would be awkward affairs (due to a change in the voting system) but thereafter I'm sure we'd cope. The necessary fuss of more frequent elections would be countered by the increase in work that the Arb Com could handle quickly and efficiently. -- <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 23:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'd support elections every six months. It might lead to less criticism of Arbcom, and on wiki times seems to move quicker. Six months is quite a long time. ] <small>] </small> 18:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :: I can't see any reason why NYB's seat shouldn't be up for by-election, unless Jimbo fancies appointing someone directly. -- <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 23:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Given the time since NYB's resignation, I'd say that's unlikely at this point. I'll add the seat to the list, pending clarification. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 00:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Could be counter-argued that the first one was opposed by more people, and therefore a greater percentage of the active Misplaced Pages community. Orderinchaos 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Voting system == | |||
| ::That counter-argument is already dealt with by Biophys. Basically, the reason A has more opposes is because they have put themselves out there. The significant amount of supports counterbalances and outweighs the number of opposes, as indicated by the "net support" number, which is the only TRULY fair way to judge a candidate, in my view. SDJ 15:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I'd like to see a change in the voting system this year. In previous years, members have been appointed with the highest percentage support, but this doesn't take into account the fact that they've got serious opposition from the community (e.g. high support and high opposition). Endorsement voting works well, where users only support candidates - this way we'd get people with the highest support. If we went along with this system, I'd strongly suggest a new "discussion" page is set up where people can voice their concerns about candidates and discussion about each candidate can happen. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 01:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I agree the system needs looking at, Ryan - I'd be tempted to suggest some sort of Preference based voting - equally, I'd be happy to appoint some sort of committee with the mandate of selecting the best available system. The ] is apparently very good, and was recently used (as you'll know) in the elections to the board of trustees.... it's only downside is that it's very difficult to intuitively understand (or understand at all!!). Another 'drama reduction' measure I think I'd like to talk about (and am tempted to support even at this early stage) would be some sort of secret ballot - again, like the elections to the board of trustees... whaddya reckon? ] (]) 01:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::To be honest, I wasn't a huge fan of the Shulze method - a lot of people didn't understand how to use is, but with more than one user being promoted, I think preference voting is the way forward - that was, the most preferred users from the wider community get elected. The thing is, the Shulze method, if everyone understands, is quite a good syetem to get the most preferred candidates elected. I also think a secret ballot is good - it increases the probability of all the candidates staying till then end and means tag team voting is cut significantly. We need a well advertised discussion page for each candidate however if we go along this route, so concerns can be raised rather than taken to a low traffic talk page. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 02:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::A secret balloting system will mean coding and server-space; I know we had an outside firm doing the board elections this time around, but didn't we have one of the devs setup a server for the secret balloting two board elections ago? ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 04:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Most prefered may not be ideal for arbcom. There is something to be said for prefering candidates with no significant oposition over candidates very popular with one group but highly unpopular with another.] 04:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| '''My reply:''' | |||
| :I am opposed to a "only support" system, unless each user is limited vote for only one to three candidates. A candidate who is highly controversial but a "big name" can easily gain 200 supports and 300 opposes, and I think it is utterly wrong to put such a candidate ahead of a more quiet and uncontroversial candidate with 100 supports and 0 opposes. The Schulze system is actually quite good, even if people don't know how to use it. The only knowledge of the system is that you put a small number next to those you like, and a big one next to the ones you don't like. However, implementing that system in an open poll is unworkable, and will require a ballot system. Finally, I prefer a secret ballot for two reasons. First, I want to remove any concerns that an ArbCom member will be biased against those who opposed their candidacy. Second, the open poll is altogether too much affected by what other people have voted. That leads to votes along the lines of "This person has garnered much opposition so I can't trust him either", skewing the result. ] ] 08:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Biophys and SDJ, you tread on dangerous ground-- the road you speak of, though good intentioned, is a road to hell. | |||
| :I agree with Sjakkalle that a "support only" system is not appropriate for this kind of election. It would have led to the extraordinary decision to appoint a 100-fold opposed ] in 2006, for example. This would not be good for legitimacy or confidence, especially given the (to my mind) obviously preferable appointments that resulted. ] - ] 09:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :We have the discussion over voting system every year, and always finish up with the same up-or-down system. It has not to my knowledge noticeably malfunctioned, and this has not principally been to do with Jimbo's divine prerogative, i.e. he has basically gone down the list of 'most net support'. That said, Schulze is a nice system but as observed by Sjakkalle would only work with ballots. ] - ] 09:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :As to open or closed balloting, well. The theory of arbitrator bias is mainly just a theory - generally, we've had such clearly-supported candidates that are such good Wikipedians that this has never emerged from the dustier corners of election theory. I don't see any reason for this year to be different. More serious is the RfA-avalanche effect where people have their decisions either taken from them or made for them by the sheer weight of support/oppose. More worrying to most people than arbitrator revenge is being the 'lone rebel' pariah (or 'few rebels' pariahs). It's bound to chill in both the support and oppose directions. I would therefore prefer a closed ballot, but do recognise that the open ballot with limited discussion provides a useful sociological steam-release valve that might be stoppered-up in a closed system. ] - ] 09:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *I'd like to ask that we keep the voting the system the same as it's always been; as Splash says, I don't believe it has been shown to be faulty at this point. Highest percentages win - it's simple, everyone understands it, it's not subjective, it scales, and it's worked thus far. The Schulze system is far too esoteric and confusing; please, please let's not use that. Also, keep the ballot open. Closed ballots can lead to suspicions of vote-rigging, and I'm not sure about the "pariah" effect Splash mentions - I never had any problems from being the first person to oppose Newyorkbrad ] (and it was 208-0 at the time I voted!). ] ] 12:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *I think I agree with Neil, same basic voting system as last year, please. If you do change it, please at least don't switch to secret ballot though, ok? The stuff about getting the guidelines down well in advance, using templates to help make it clearer what is going on when votes are struck, comments moved, etc, all seems like goodness to me though. ++]: ]/] 14:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Agreed with Neil and Lar. Simple and straightforward is the way to go, no secret ballots. This is especially important now, when the legitimacy and transparancy of the ArbCom is such a contentious issue. ]''']''' 16:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*The ] worked perfectly for the ]. And it will certainly also work perfectly for Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee elections. ] 09:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I can't advocate any method of voting that would actually serve to ''limit'' the drama surrounding arbcom elections. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 12:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Elections are not held for entertainment. ] 14:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::You do not apparently live in the United States. In this instance, though, I was being sarcastic - but I'm sure some watch these elections for the ZOMG Drama - this is Misplaced Pages, after all. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 14:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::BEFORE the election, a good argument could certainly have been made that the next election should use "net support" rather than "percentage support". But making that argument after the results are in doesn't work very well, because there's no way to distinguish whether you're arguing about electoral theory or whether you're arguing candidate merits. Indeed, it's easily possible you could be arguing that one electoral system is better than another simply because, in your experience, it gave the "correct" results in this election. | |||
| ::::Strongly agree Ryan P system "support only". 'Zilla plan stand arbcom election this year! Who dare oppose her? Nobody! Zilla integrity. Not wish favored by voting system. (Even though landslide support for 'Zilla obviously foregone conclusion.) And open voting please. Reasons given in votes interesting. Closed ballot boring. ] '']'' 13:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC). | |||
| *I definitely think the voting system needs to enable voters to oppose candidates, either through support/oppose sections like the previoius years voting system or by ranking the candidates like for the board vote. Candidates who would get very strong opposition (regardless of if they get strong support as well) should not get elected (even though last year I remember voting for two candidates who I think would have been elected if it was support only). On balance would oppose a secret ballot as I think transparency is more important than the quite reasonable reasons for supporting it. ] (]) 17:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Imagining other elections that could have occurred in alternate universes in which Carcharoth would have won isn't helpful-- if we lived in a universe where net support mattered, people would have changed their behavior accordingly, making sure that they took the time to "pile on" support even if a clear percentage difference occurred. There's no way we can determine who would have won that kind of an election. | |||
| Changes are welcome to the process, however it's my strong opinion that for these positions, the elections should be open (in plain public view) and provide ample opportunity for opposition arguments. The first is to maintain transparency towards the community, while the second is because, at least from what I've seen, opposition arguments provide more useful information about the user. But that's just my "IMHuO...". :) - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">] <sup><small>(])</small></sup></span> 19:02, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's a little like looking at the stats from a basketball game and then trying to deduce which team would have won if they had been playing a game where only three-point-er counted. There's just no way to tell. If the game HAD been scored that way, all the players would have forgotten about fouling, dunking, free-throw shots, etc, and instead they would have just tried to make three pointers-- it would have been an entirely different game. You can't just look at the results from an NORMAL game, see who made the most three-pointers, and then jump to the conclusion that you now know which team would have won if they were playing 3-pointer-only basketball. | |||
| *I highly doubt that you can run either preferential voting or Schulze method as the way to vote for ArbCom. The election is designed to have multiple winners, therefore, neither of these work. - ] | <sup>] / ]</sup> 01:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::For better or for worse, the election was held with the understanding that the votes were tallied according to percentage votes. The results are in, Carcharoth didn't win, and nothing can be said to change that, I'm afraid. The only question now is whether it would be good for the project to appoint someone who lost the election to elected to the post anyway. --] (]) 20:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :*The ] can be used, in a straight-forward manner, to calculate a ''ranking'' of the candidates. And then the top five candidates of this ranking are deemed elected. ] 08:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Its too complicated. Keep things as they have always been. ] <sup>'']''</sup> 21:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::We get this every year; people will say someone with 200 supports '''HAS''' to get in, or someone with 100 opposes '''CANNOT''' get in, and other worthless metrics. ]]] 21:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I see more and more alliances at Misplaced Pages of the form "I will vote for your RfA, when you vote for my RfA" or "I will support your AfDs, when you support my AfDs" or "I support your request to be unblocked, when you help me getting some other users blocked". All these alliances have the tendency to change Misplaced Pages into ] or into ]. I am strongly in favour of secret ballots, because open ballots advance the formation of such alliances whereas secret ballots work against them. ] 14:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I note, still with some interest, that those who are blithely defending the "we must decide this by %support" position are still ignoring the hypothetical situation where editor A receives 9 supports and 1 oppose (90%, +8 net support) and editor B recieves 255 supports and 45 opposes (85%, 210 net support). Who should be appointed? Vass isn't even CLOSE to the top 7 in net support OR raw support. He is in 7th in %support by 0.9%. This is a classic example of my extreme hypothetical, and one should not so dogmatically cling to the %support metric as to ignore common sense. '''SD'''] 23:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::] is a very, very well-studied topic, and there are a million methods to use to take a group of individuals and collapse their individual preferences down into a single decision. It's not that using net-support as a metric is a crazy idea-- it's a fine idea. It might even be a better idea than percent support. BUT, it wasn't the idea that got picked to run the 2008 Arbcom election. | |||
| ::::Making the argument about the 2009 elections is entirely above board. Making it in retrospect about elections that have already concluded, though, sucks all the force out of your argument, because in any election, there are always going to be people who are unhappy with the outcome who will try to argue their side should win based on x, y, and z. | |||
| ::::I'm not saying you're actually doing that-- I'm just saying, it's not going to be very effective to make that argument in that manner at this time. --] (]) 00:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Until we get a voting cohort that is above 1% of the active editing population (or even close to the 30%+ one sees in regular elections) I tend to think endorsing this as the will of the people instead of self selected elites is kind of wrong. That being said, we have some kind of non-secret ballot system where it's generally understood by most who vote that the top X will get in. I would argue that the electoral system needs work and we should look at it for future elections, but turning the thing on its head in a way which can be easily gamed by said self-selected elites (and I do not exclude myself from this definition) is not particularly democratic or fair to either the voters or the candidates. ] 02:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Election committee == | |||
| ===Reply to reply=== | |||
| I'd strongly suggest appointing an election committee to oversee procedures. Last year it was quite disorganised if I'm being honest - We didn't really know what was going on. Also, just about any user could strike another users vote out for not having suffrage - I think it would work better (and be more respected) if only members of an election committee could do this. It would also help organise procedures regarding sock voting - more responsibility will mean greater checks are made. ''']<sup>See ] or ]</sup>''' 01:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ''No, this is not the argument that Carcharoth won the election.'' Please realize, I do not support anyone personally here. What I said was an ''obvious'' thing for someone who used to interpret data. My message was intended to Jimbo if he wants to select the seven people who have the highest community support (the highest ''number'' of net votes). I do not seen any changes of rules because the candidates are selected by Jimbo if I understand this correctly.] (]) 23:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :heh... (after ec) - strongly agree.. we can take some time to discuss roles and responsibilities (and allow a good, solid field of folk to put their hands up for such a task...) - it'd be good to get consensus here for such a committee, and maybe we can aim for October to 'swear them in' - I'll add it to the 'to do' for now... cheers, ] (]) 01:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::geez I'm a bird brain... it's there already... :-) ] (]) 01:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::The only reason the Board Election Committee was able to be effective is because it had direct authority (]; ''"The qualifications of voters, the deadline for nominations, and all other matters related to the conduct of this election are to be determined by the commission, subject to review by the Board"'') from the Foundation to make decisions without the community being able to overrule it. Given that this isn't possible with this election, a committee is slightly pointless - every detail requires a consensus of the community, rather than a committee, so I cannot say that I see the point of a committee for these elections. In effect, the committee would just be doing what the community agrees on, so therefore it seems a redundant layer of bureaucracy. | |||
| :::Of course, if the community is willing to delegate decision-making power to a committee, then it will obviously be of some use. However, until that happens, I can't see what benefits having a committee would bring. | |||
| :::Cheers, ] (]) 04:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Last time it ended up being Mtmelendez and a few others who put together the voting pages, question pages, and so forth, and who monitored the election during voting. It was quite impromptu, using the same rules for franchise and such as with the previous election. We still had several complaints of "Who came up with these rules? Why was there no community input?" So, so long as the community has a crack at whatever proposals we come up with, I think we'll be fine, committee or no. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Unless a committee's authority comes from an indisputable source, there will always be disruptive bitching, ignoring, and general insolence. That is why I don't think a committee as such is the way to go for these elections. ] (]) 04:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| <- "''if the community is willing to delegate decision-making power to a committee''" - I'd certainly support this - it's exactly what I'm suggesting. I would like the committee folks to have a similar mandate to the arbcom clerks in some ways (as an example)- after a few days discussion here, I'll try and write up a proposal on a sub-page, which could go ahead if it gets broad community consensus... ] (]) 04:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :But then I'm sure the community will want to hold an election to appoint people to this decision-making committee, which will be simply lame in my opinion. ] (]) 04:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::no elections! no voting! - hows about a good 'ol consensus based discussion?! That way, I can force you on to it without you even consenting to 'stand' :-) cheers, ] (]) 04:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I'll probably not be getting involved with this election at all except for supporting a handful of candidates :) ] (]) 04:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Ditto. I tried to bring some organization into the process and almost got crucified for it. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">] <sup><small>(])</small></sup></span> 19:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| We've always found it best to spread the work amoung well whoever felt like doing it. It is unlikely to be worth the hastle it would take to set up an election committe.] 04:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There's always complaints about the process, whether it's too disorganized or whether it's too bureaucratic (i.e. too "unwiki"). I think that establishing a committee or "spreading the work among whoever felt like doing it" will probably bring the same amount of opposition, just from different sides of the community. - <span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size:11pt">] <sup><small>(])</small></sup></span> 19:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Fair enough-- there's two different ways to view it: carcharoth won the election under a certain metric that wasn't the previously-agreed-upon metric, so he should be appointed as the true winner. OR carcharoth lost the election, but in general he should appointed anyway. | |||
| ==Some Thoughts on Procedure and Policy== | |||
| When the whole Arbcom RFC shenanigans began, I put together a page of proposals and ideas for the next election. The full page is at ]. The Highlights: | |||
| :The truth is, honestly, nobody really knows whether Jimbo can select candidates at will or not. My suspicion is that he can no longer appoint anyone too far from the top 7. In some year past, he automatically re-appointed the sitting arbs even though they lost the election-- but I don't think he could do that this year. I suspect he could still veto a candidate in order to appoint the next in line of percent order and it would fly-- but this may be the last year that's the case. --] (]) 23:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| #We need to determine who votes. Some have said that 150 Mainspace edits are too many - others, that that's too few. We also need to set the cutoff date for those edits - last year it was 1 November. | |||
| ::Jimmy can reappoint Forrester and Matthews if he so chooses. He has final say. I think there would be a ] if he did, but that is still within his power to do. '''SD'''] 15:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| #Questions - Some candidates were opposed for not answering questions, despite the fact that they became candidates at the last minute (2 or 3 days before voting began). Others were concerned about questions for "All the candidates" that bypassed the long-shots. I'd propose a 2-week declare-your-candidacy phase, during which questions would be submitted. Then, a 2 week period of Candidate Statements, Discussion, and a page with all submitted questions in one spot, available to all candidates for 14 days, to answer as they wish. | |||
| :::He definitely has say, but I doubt seriously he has final say. We just don't work that way anymore. There's some act, how far out it is who can say, but there is some act that would result in jimbo being drummed out. We'll probably never know where that line is, because he IS a sane and good and wise leader. But, the line exists, and I suspect doing something crazy like, appointed two people with 20% support, would be on the other side of that line. --] (]) 12:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| #Discussion - How much is too much on the voting page? We had half a dozen rules-of-thumb last time, and there was some heartburn over it. We should set a standard - maybe 2 sentences, 100 words, or an unlimited vote, one reply, and then a reply to that; anything else is moved to the talk page with a link. | |||
| #Poll Workers - I'd propose a set of templates/rules for election helpers, so that everyone who is helping is responding to similar votes in the same way, and - most importantly - so that voters who have their votes indented are told why. | |||
| == FYI: The "fight" for #7 is actually between Jayvdb & Coren == | |||
| Count me in on whatever committee is forming around this process - and I'd add that ] was heavily involved last time around, and should probably be pinged now as well - which I will do if I remember. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 04:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I'm sure someone could easily and trivially take the basic four metrics on ]: | |||
| :Some comments in the same order: | |||
| :#I think raising this is mainly people trying to set a 'distrust threshold'. People try to do that all the time on Misplaced Pages, and are repeatedly stopped. In this particular case, there is no basis for thinking that e.g. 300 edits would have made more than a marginal difference to the support/oppose ratios, and even less basis for expecting it to have changed the result (particularly given the divine prerogative of appointment that completes the process). In short, changes to the edit franchise are a solution looking for a problem that has never occurred. A cut-off date, however, is sensible. It should be before the opening of nominations, ideally, to squelch any off-site co-ordination. (Which is also a never-yet problem, but increasingly possible). | |||
| :#Yes, nominations should close in advance. Doesn't stop people not answering questions, but that's their problem. All q's to all candidates is sub-optimal though, as people might quite legitimately have a question about a specific aspect of a certain candidate. Encouraging people to ask ''both'' centralised and specialised questions will lead to much more performance art ("look Mum, how fancy a question I can ask") than is necessary. There should be a numeric limit of e.g. 3 centralised questions per editor plus e.g. 2 to a specific candidate. Some finessing of this will be required to prevent abuse. ] - ] 09:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :#People should not be fiddling with others' votes, as mangling their comments destroys the context in which a vote is made. If rather overly-manufactured concerns of page-length really do distress people, then simply ban on-page responses; people have to give a link beneath their vote to their reply on the talk page. ] - ] 09:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :#Some standardisation of operational issues is probably a good idea. | |||
| :] - ] 09:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| # Suppose | |||
| ::#I'm less concerned about what the standard is (I think 150 works well, personally) than the fact that we nail down a standard as early as possible. I have no objections to the current 150 mainspace edits 30 days before voting standard. | |||
| # Oppose | |||
| ::#For Questions, I'm thinking of a master list of questions for everyone that would be transcluded/templated/copied over to each candidate's Question page. Additional questions could be added by individuals - we can't limit that much - but these could very easily be submitted in the same way. Adding some focus on the discussion pages would help, as well - that way, something that comes up during voting could be addressed without giving the appearance that the candidate had a question go unanswered (when it was posted during voting). | |||
| # Net | |||
| ::#The only way would be an all-or-nothing approach. What was done several times last go-around was to move the entire comment to the talk page, preserving the voting term ("'''Support'''", or whatever), and crosslinking the two. An example is Support number 126 for Giano, last time around, which was crosslinked to the talk page, . Most voting page talk pages had a section for this sort of thing. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 14:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| # Percentage | |||
| :::1)no we throw the exact requirements in at the last minute to make gameing harder | |||
| :::2)ceneralised global questions are a really bad idea. If you think a question is really important enough to ask all candidates you can go to the effort of adding it to all their question pages.] 20:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| And then math up each person's standings in each, from 1-28th. Just inverse the value of the Opposes (so Casliber is 1st, rather than 28th, here--low scores are preferred). I would imagine whomever has the highest overall average would be the correct top 10, mathematically. I began with the top 10 by percentage: | |||
| (undent) Keep (150 undeleted mainspace edits + 30 days before) as is. Anyone I don't want to vote I'll just expunge all their edits, Geni.) Questions are already out of hand, I'd oppose centralising. - <font color="black">]</font> | |||
| :No problem with questions posted the same way we've done them in the past; I still think we should have a longer timeline that includes a question/discussion period, though. Let me see if I can work something of a proposal up. 150 Mainspace+30 days works for me, as well; it was on my list of discussion items from 2007, so I mentioned it here - no worries. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 12:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::The problem with a question discussion period is that you risk streching the election out even further.] 08:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think the idea was actually to split the nomination period (which ran from 1 November to 30 November last year) into two phases; the nomination period (14 days), where qualified candidates throw their hat into the ring, and the question/discussion phase (14 days), where the candidates answer questions and discussion can take place with the full field. We then take a couple days to finalize the voting pages and whatnot (though we have the 14 day question period to do this as well), and voting begins, Per below. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 18:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| # Casliber | |||
| ===Possible Timeline?=== | |||
| # Risker | |||
| # Roger Davies | |||
| # Cool Hand Luke | |||
| # Rlevse | |||
| # Jayvdb | |||
| # Vassyana | |||
| # Carcharoth | |||
| # Wizardman | |||
| # Coren | |||
| And ended up with this (correct?) top 10 based on the averages: | |||
| Per above, we might run something like this: | |||
| # '''Casliber''' | |||
| ::Saturday 1 November 2008 - T-30 days - Editors must be registered and have 150 mainspace edits by 23:59 UTC on this date to vote. | |||
| #: Support 377/1st; Oppose 33/1st; Net 344/1st; Percentage 92.0%/1st | |||
| ::Monday 3 November 2008 - T-28 days - Nominations open (14 days) | |||
| #: Average: 1.0 | |||
| ::Monday 3 November 2008 - T-28 days - Invitation for questions ("Think about what you'd ask/add it to this list if you want to ask everyone") | |||
| # '''Risker''' | |||
| ::Monday 17 November 2008 - T-14 days - Nominations close | |||
| #: Support 302/3rd; Oppose 45/2nd; Net 257/2nd; Percentage 87.0%/2nd | |||
| ::Monday 17 November 2008 - T-14 days - Question pages opened/Questions transcluded/etc. - Question Phase Begins | |||
| #: Average: 2.25 | |||
| ::Monday 24 November 2008 - T-07 days - Voting pages created/Discussion pages created/Quickvote Created | |||
| # '''Roger Davies''' | |||
| ::'''Monday 1 December 2008''' - '''T-00 days''' - '''Voting Begins''' | |||
| #: Support 218/8th; Oppose 54/3rd; Net 164/5th; Percentage 80.1%/3rd | |||
| ::Monday 15 December 2008 - T+14 days - Voting Closes, Vote Pages protected for 3 weeks, Votes Reviewed for socks | |||
| #: Average: 4.75 | |||
| ::Friday 19 December 2008 - T+18 days - Final Vote totals/percentages/statistics confirmed | |||
| # '''Cool Hand Luke''' | |||
| ::Monday 29 December 2008 - T+28 days - ] Certifies Election/Announces Winners/Declares Consensus/Comes down from on high/etc. | |||
| #: Support 294/5th; Oppose 106/11th; Net 188/4th; Percentage 73.5%/4th | |||
| ::Thursday 1 January 2009 - T+31 days - New Arbitrators take office | |||
| #: Average: 6.0 | |||
| # '''Rlevse''' | |||
| #: Support 306/2nd; Oppose 111/14th; Net 195/3rd; Percentage 73.4%/5th | |||
| #: Average: 6.0 | |||
| # '''Vassyana ''' | |||
| #: Support 197/9th; Oppose 95/9th; Net 344/9th; Percentage 67.5%/7th | |||
| #: Average: 8.5 | |||
| # '''Jayvdb''' | |||
| #: Support 299/4th; Oppose 138/22nd; Net 161/6th; Percentage 68.4%/6th | |||
| #: Average: 9.5 | |||
| # '''Coren''' | |||
| #: Support 154/10th; Oppose 87/8th; Net 67/10th; Percentage 63.9%/10th | |||
| #: Average: 9.5 | |||
| # '''Carcharoth''' | |||
| #: Support 237/6th; Oppose 119/18th; Net 188/7th; Percentage 66.6%/8th | |||
| #: Average: 9.75 | |||
| # '''Wizardman''' | |||
| #: Support 226/7th; Oppose 117/17th; Net 109/8th; Percentage 65.9%/9th | |||
| #: Average: 10.25 | |||
| Digest as you will. ] (])(]) 22:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::It ends up being 2 days shorter, mainly because I based it on a 1 December voting date, and started noms on the 3rd of November instead of the 1st. The ending steps, checking for socks and whatnot, are speculative, obviously. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 18:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :This is tongue-in-cheek, right? ] (]) 22:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::It's what you get when you have an election without clear rules. ] (]) 22:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::6SJ7, yeah on the title, but the math is as basic as you can get for the curious--based on the averages, I mean. And Duncan, yes. In the absence of rules or until the editors just take over the election wholly, this is the literal baseline result of the averages. ] (])(]) 22:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::An alternate metric occurs to me. Obviously, admins are more experienced members of the community, so their votes should count more. But that doesn't mean we should disregard the votes of non-admins either. So let's tally up the votes, where an admin vote counts as "one vote" and a non-admin vote counts as "three-fifths" of a vote. | |||
| ::I think the period leading up to it should be shortened a bit. I like slitting the noms/questions to an extent, since this way users can't sneak past the questions, but a month just feels long to me. ] 23:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Or, we could have switch from having the founder abstain to having the founder vote, where a founder vote counts as "six thousand eight hundred and two" votes. :) --] (]) 23:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I think we could easily knock a week off. We'd then have 21 days; 10 days for nominations, 10 days for questions, and an extra day to add in somewhere. We're more flexible if people don't mind off-setting the days; I had everything hitting on mondays to avoid having anything important required over Thanksgiving (November 28 in the US) or Christmas Eve/Christmas Day/Boxing Day (December 24-26, though much less important - Jimbo can step away from the turkey and presents if he so wishes). ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 03:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::No, no, no! Arbitrators obviously have the biggest weight, since they are the best and most important Wikipedians (and of course the most trustworthy). Following that are bureaucrats who were elected in 2004 with seven votes, then administrators with at least five block log entries. Only then do the least important votes get looked at, the community's. C'mon, it's not difficult to work it out {{mono|1=;)}} ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 23:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Essjay seat? == | |||
| ::::::You're all delusional. Top Seven Userpages By Design. ] (])(]) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::In that case, Jimbo should appoint me. ''']''' <sup>'']''</sup> 23:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::I invoke Thunderdome. Twenty-seven candidates enter, seven candidates leave. --] (]) 23:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::No-one opposed me, not a soul. I claim victory! ] (]) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::Which makes my point, and that's why one should look at net notes, which gives fair measure to both supports AND opposes. '''SD'''] 23:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::::And we were having so much fun, why d'ya have to go make it all serious again... {{mono|1=:D}} ]‑] 23:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Actually, Alec made an interesting point about the "scoring" mixed in with the jokes. Assuming that Jimbo does give more weight to supports/opposes from Admins and Arbs--and to be frank, even my own voting was affecting by that--then a scoring system combined with the average method above would probably be the simplest possible way to figure this out "accurately". Yes, this concedes that admin/arb supports/opposes count more, but who ever pretended they didn't, here or in RFA, or RFBot, or RFWhatever? | |||
| Would it be worthwhile contacting Jimbo to suggest the Tranche Alpha seat that was held for a very short while by ] (and never filled again after his departure) also be put up for election this year? That's another option open to us, and would allow two extra arb's to come in this year (Essjay's seat, + Newyorkbrad's). ]<sup>(<span style="font-size: 95%;">] ◊ ]</span>)</sub> 21:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :If so, the new arb should be placed in Tranche Beta for the sake of easyness-to-understand. Because, face it, replacing Essjay's seat would put six arbs in one tranche. As Beta is up for election, we'd put the new arb in here. NYB's replacement would make up the five in Alpha. -- <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 22:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Oh please. There is no "Essjay seat". Essjay was appointed to replace DMcdevit, served for approximately 10 days, and was then replaced by Mackensen. There were never six people in Tranche Alpha. This election is for Tranche Beta (five seats), and any seats that remain unfilled in other tranches at the time of the election. ] (]) 22:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Okay, Risker... My mistake. There's no need for the snap, yeah? | |||
| * Non-admin: 1 to 1. | |||
| :::I guess I misread ]. I think you're incorrect in your statement there, though: Essjay and Mackensen were ] at the same time, the latter to fill the seat vacated by the retiring Dmcdevit, and the former, to a new "expansion" seat. | |||
| * Current Admin: 1.5 weight. | |||
| * All seated/non-expiring Arbs are Admins, so they count as 1.5. | |||
| * Just do a simple multiplication on each support/oppose based on that formula. | |||
| A tiny nudge up and down in the numbers, which I don't have the time to hash out, but if a math nerd wants to run down my average system above with that modifier and re-post the weighted Top 10 by average, it would be damned curious, especially as the only strength and authority the AC enjoys is from the Admins carrying out it's decisions. ] (])(]) 23:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::]<sup>(<span style="font-size: 95%;">] ◊ ]</span>)</sub> 22:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Actually I'd say that ArbCom's greatest authority comes from its power to command the stewards. Even if every admin on the site rebelled, ArbCom would still 'win'. Whether there'd be anything left to have authority over is another question entirely, of course. ]‑] 23:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Woah! My bad. Don't bite. From AGK's statement, I genuinely thought that for a short while, there was a sixth seat in Tranche Alpha. -- <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Well sure, they can desysop, but they can't force people to use tools is my point, and they certainly don't have the time to carry out the executions of their various decisions, up to and including paroles/probations etc. If every admin just stopped working AE or carrying out their decisions, they can't desysop everyone just not taking action, and they'd be swamped immediately. That's what I meant by them needing the support and patronage of the admins. ] (])(]) 23:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::As did I, Escape Artist... And apparently there was, although I've now found out it was only in existence from Essjay's appointment until the end of 2007 (although obviously he retired long before the end of 2007, and it has never been filled since). There is, of course, always an option of re-creating the seat, as per Jimbo's rationale in originally creating it. ]<sup>(<span style="font-size: 95%;">] ◊ ]</span>)</sub> 23:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Certainly they badly need the support of the admin community; as you say they couldn't enact the kind of sanctions they do now without a large body of sysops prepared to do AE. With steward support but no admins, they would be hard-pressed to keep up with the amount of work they generate, but it could in principle be done given that the entire ArbCom are administrators. On the other hand, if any individual admin defies ArbCom (wheel warring over its actions, etc) then they are desysopped, there's no competition. It's all very academic since neither is really plausible, and it's irrelevant to this discussion anyway as AFAIK no stewards voted in this election, so we don't need to weight their vote. ]‑] 23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I've left a message on Jimbo's talk page so he'll turn up here to clarify the situation re:which-seats-are-up-for-grabs? soon enough. -- <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 23:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Surely no one ''seriously'' believes that admin votes should count more than non-admin. If you ''are'' serious, that brings up some '''''very''''' ] here in the States. '''SD'''] 23:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well, reviewing talk pages of both Essjay and Mackensen indicates that Anthony was correct, and they were both appointed to Arbcom on February 24, 2007. So there was an approximately 8-day period where there were indeed six seats on Tranche Alpha. Given how that worked out, I am very hesitant to suggest this as a precedent that should be repeated. Now, if you'll excuse me, I think I need to go find a trout... ] (]) 23:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yay!! someone got the three-fifths reference! :) good work. And I know _I_ sure don't believe that admin votes count more, but ya never know, Misplaced Pages is a diverse group. If the discussion goes long enough, someone will probably mention that we also could use edit-counts to weight the votes, if we wanted to. <grin> --] (]) 23:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * A royal waste of time. The decision now is in the hands of Jimbo, so what is the use of this? ] <small>]</small> 23:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:True enough, but the discussion has some intellectual value, and who knows? Perhaps Jimbo may find our views useful as well. '''SD'''] 23:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:What Dean said. And statistics is never a waste of time. Sports statistics and politics are the Great American Pasttimes. Put them together, and you get insights into things. Just look at the wild success of what happens when you put a sports statistical genius and authority like ] on the case: . Unless Jimmy has no interest in what we have to say, which would be short sighted and a recipe for his ouster as head of the AC eventually, I'd hope this stuff is useful. That's why I posted that modified Top 10 based on the averages, when I noticed that Coren had done better in some areas--so that people didn't just go Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage.] (])(]) 00:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *::It is great to see that no matter which way the numbers are sliced and diced, the top 10 remain static. | |||
| *::The challenge is to come up with a reasonable and mathematical method which places ] in the top 10. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 00:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:::Well, Elonka managed to deduce that , with a straight face, no less. Anything's possible with the right fuzzy logic. ] (]) 14:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| **:::Oh, now ] is , as well. Elonka I can chalk up to ignorance, but Tony is just flat out lying. ] (]) 16:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Obviously any speculation which pushes me down the ranking is way out of line and ] is in order! Regarding giving more wieght to admin votes, rootology suggests many of us were affected by admin and arb votes more than other votes, so their votes are already having an effect greater than the single vote that they cast. This is one of the benefits of an open voting system. I don't see any benefit in giving admin votes a different weighting, except as a backdoor approach to encourage more non-admins to vote and vote well, and that it might ignite a revolution - I wonder when we will see a non-admin as an arb. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 00:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *Well, ''I'' certainly hope it will rather than later. '''SD'''] 00:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:I probably wouldnt have bothered being a candidate this year if it . <span style="font-variant:small-caps">] <sup>'''(])'''</sup></span> 00:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| *:''I have traditionally looked at %support, and looked at the others carefully to see if they indicate anything particularly interesting or alarming. Another thing I have always looked at is %support by admins because if there is a major deviation between admin support and more general support, this could indicate a number of different kinds of problems. (For example: an external campaign by an activist group attempting to influence the election. For example: a rift between admins and some significant constituency of non-admin users.) As people often say "voting is evil" so what I am looking for is a consensus. And I'm most interested in a consensus of the thoughtful.'' | |||
| <nowiki>*Drops in.*</nowiki> Essjay and I were appointed simultaneously; I was appointed to fill Dmcdevit's seat, while Essjay's was an entirely new seat. For those keeping score, I believe Deskana took my seat, while Essjay's was not filled. Whether it "exists" or not is somewhat irrelevant; Jimbo is free to appoint additional arbitrators as the need arises. ] ] 03:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Truly the voice of experienced editors need to be given more weight than ordinary voters as they know Misplaced Pages and its process.But From what is written above it is clear a Candidate also needed to get balanced support both from the admins and non admins a candidate with 95% admin only support may not go through but also a candidate whom 95% admins oppose will also not go through .I do believe Jimbo will see which candidates faced negative external campaigns.Anyway the elections are over and fully trust Jimbo Wales will have a satisfactory solution on Saturday.] (]) 04:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I read into Jimbo's words a tacit recognition that in general, admins tend to be among the more experienced users and represent a useful proxy for the experienced-user community, rather than a strict reliance on the "status" of being an admin. Jimbo is probably more interested in the views of the grizzled veterans than the voters with 151 mainspace edits. I could think of one or two very experienced non-admins whose views have carried significant weight in this election, and that is as it should be. I trust Jimbo to be looking for balance and consensus, since I'm not able to observe where he hasn't done that in the past. ] (]) 05:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| You guys will probably go insane trying to fill all the time until Saturday with speculation, so I'm sorry if this contributes to anyone's insanity, but it's worth noting that the different metrics rootology discusses above have indeed been looked at by Jimbo in the previous elections. As he said, he's taking the time to study the voting carefully. The opinions of all who voted are important. --] (]) 05:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Ballot question == | |||
| This year there have been several initiatives concerning arbcomm. | |||
| :To quote Star Wars-- about this statement above from Bainer. --] (]) 05:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| I'm curious if it would be "allowable" to suggest allowing one or more of those initiatives to be added to the ballot for everyone to vote upon? | |||
| === "Simple" solution === | |||
| Though, I'll admit that while suggesting it, I'm on the fence about it myself, since these "elections" are only guides for Mr. Wales to decide who the members are. | |||
| I ''suppose'' that he could simply increase the number of seats in tranche beta by one (which seats Vassyana), and let the other four all have one year terms in tranche gamma. : ) - ] 11:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :More likely would be to expand every tranche by one seat each, seating Vassyana in the two year seat and the last three for one; moving all tranches to an even six seats. — ] <sup>]</sup> 16:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::That's what I was essentially suggesting. Note that prior to deskana's resignation, there was to be only 1 occupied seat in tranche gamma (not counting the two who were moved there: FloNight and Thebainer). 1+4 =5. And one of those in tranche gamma would likely be moved to tranche alpha. That makes 6 seats in each tranche. | |||
| ::Of course Deskana's resignation modifies this somewhat. (Commenting on that below.) - ] 10:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :With the recent spate of resignations, I would '''support''' the idea of a bigger committee so these open seats caused less of a deficit in the committee (as a percentage of the total committee). -- <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 00:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| But perhaps the results of such initiatives might also be "guides" to help him determine if a change to arbcomm has support of the community. | |||
| == Expected results == | |||
| But then again, are we opening a floodgate that may not be closable? | |||
| Here are what I think the results look like, in light of Desk's resignation. (obviously, this is doesn't factor in any Jimbo-magic.) As always, please double-check my math. --] (]) 22:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| For transparency, the initiative I'm suggesting concerns reducing the lengths of the arbitrators terms (2 years, 4 tranches of 4 members, elections every 6 months) - Something which Mr. Wales said he would take under consideration when I asked him about it on his talk page - which is ''another'' hesitation on my part. Would suggesting this here, indicate an attempt to bypass his opinion? The answer is (I hope) an obvious: No. Especially since he makes the final determination in either case. | |||
| <nowiki>{{User:Alecmconroy/ACE2008 anticipated results}}</nowiki> | |||
| Further thoughts welcome. - ] 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think Stephen Bain would actually be moved into Deskana's spot, while the spot of whoever Stephen Bain was supposed to replace (Paul August?) would be allocated to Jayvdb. This follows precedent of extending terms of current members who have terms of less than three years. Of course, this whole thing is merely speculation. —'''<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]]</span>''' 02:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :There seem to be a variety of proposals from the ] about how many Tranches we should have and how many Arbs we should have in each Tranche. Maybe a strawpoll should be conducted to see if there is any consensus on the issue. I've left a message on Jimbo's talk page so he'll turn up eventually. -- <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 23:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::All this juggling of people from slot to slot is very confusing - why not just have people serve the terms they were appointed to? ] (]) 03:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is a useful summary of the proposals that have gained traction at ], and I note that several deal with Eligibility to run and terms. For example, there's a proposal to set a 1-consecutive-term limit, in order to limit burnout and inactivity. Other proposals would shorten terms from the current 3 years to 12, 18, or 24 months. As noted, above, a Tranche Delta is proposed to go with 2 year terms and elections every six months. It'd be interesting to have a ballot determine the terms of arbitrators also being elected by that ballot, and we'd already have an election format running. This might be worth considering. ] <sup> ] </sup>~<small> ] </small> 03:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Ask Jimbo about that. I'm just predicting using precedent. —'''<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">]]</span>''' 03:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I doubt he'd answer me. ] (]) 03:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I think the point of the seat moving is to try to give the "alternates" (who came close percentage-wise) at least a total of three years. | |||
| == Too many questions == | |||
| :If that's the case, then FloNight's third year ends in 2009, and thebainer's ends in 2010. | |||
| :So thebainer is likely moved to Deskana's seat in tranche alpha (which expires in 2010). | |||
| :And the top eight (or so) fill tranche beta and gamma. | |||
| : If both tranches are increased to 6 seats, then all ten could be seated. | |||
| :He could even make it clear that the expansion is temporary only until the (likely) resignations lower the seat numbers again. - ] 10:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::If all tranches are expanded to six seats each, the top eleven would be seated, not ten. That's the eight open seats plus three new ones. -- <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 19:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::I didn't say ''all'' tranches to 6 : ) | |||
| :::I wasn't suggesting that tranche alpha be increased in my comments above. | |||
| ::: Since the discussion seems to be concerning the fact that 7,8,9,10 all were rather close in percentage of each other, and as such, looking for ways to seat them all, rather than it come down to such a slim variance; there would be no "need" to increase the seats of tranche alpha. Merely move thebainer there to Deskana's seat as noted. | |||
| :::To list: | |||
| I think the process of users asking short open questions of every candidate which require the candidates to invest a disproportionate amount of time answering them is suboptimal. People asking questions should at least realise that spamming the same question to everyone is a serious draw on the candidates' time. ] (]) 10:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::*'''Tranche Alpha:''' NYB, FT2, FassalF, Sam Blacketer, Thebainer | |||
| *How about there be no questions for all candidates, but users may ask up to three candidates specific questions. General questions are gathered by Signpost over November and each candidate fills out the general questionnaire between declaring and voting. Or something along those sorts of lines. I don't know. Candidates need to be open to the community, but the community can't abuse that openness. And a lot of the questions for all candidates could be fairly well predicted and gathered through the signpost. Just tossing thoughts out. ] <small>] </small> 16:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::*'''Tranche Beta:''' Calisber, Risker, Roger Davies, CHL, Rlevse | |||
| ::I agree that there is an excessively large volume of questions being asked. I see a number of possibilities for countering this, if it is agreed that the volume of questions is greater than desired: | |||
| :::*'''Tranche Gamma:''' Kirill Likshin, FloNight | |||
| ::*Set an maximum number of questions permitted to be put to each candidate, essentially having the candidate's question page "locked down" once this limit has been reached. (I don't think this is the best option, as the 'slots' available may be taken up by a small number of editors (who each ask a wide variety of questions, for example), or by questions of "low quality".) | |||
| ::*Compile a "central bank" of questions, having possibilities submitted in good time; the highest quality questions may then be selected, and put to each candidate. If voters wished to ask individual candidates specific questions (perhaps explaining a past action; requesting elaboration on a point of his or her statement; and so on), this may be done outwith the formal question process, or on a separate (sub?)page of the candidate's nomination space. (Downside: this may simply result in questions being forked between two pages–it all depends on the individuals asking the questions.) | |||
| ::*Directly use, or develop a model based heavily on, ]. | |||
| ::Then again, we may instead decide that our current system is fine. If anything, they do act as something of an "indicator" of a potential arbitrator's anticipated activity rate. If he or she cannot keep up with at least the majority of the responding-to-question flow, it raises worries that the candidate will be able to meet the time demands of holding a seat on the Committee. | |||
| ::: With Carcharoth, Coren, Jyvdb, Vassyana, and Wizardman being possibly added, depending on how one evaluates the numbers. | |||
| ::] 19:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Incidentally, I don't believe that there is anything saying that Jimbo Wales ''must'' seat arbs in the empty seats. He could leave Thebainer in Tranche Gamma (leaving it with only 3 occupied seats, and leaving Alpha with 4 occupied seats), and only select the top 5 for Beta. - ] 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Terms and seats == | |||
| == Vacant seats == | |||
| Given there is a proposal which appears to have good support that the community would like to see arb-com be expanded in numbers and terms reduced, are we looking to start that process here, with the community electing seven arbitrators serving two year terms? This would call for a June election for the next tranche, whether we elect an additional two at that point? Or should we elect this tranche to an 18 month term? Or elect two tranches of seven arbs now: | |||
| With Deskana's , I take it there are now a total of eight open seats instead of seven? I don't know all the details about the Tranches, but will there now be 5 three-year terms, 1 two-year term (to fill Deskana's), and 2 one-year terms? If so, the '''Vacant seats''' section needs to be updated. --] (]) 20:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Tranche Beta on 18 month term expires June 2010 | |||
| :I updated the section yesterday. I also added the new terms to the history charts; probably the most intuitive way to see what's going on is to look at the recent chart: | |||
| * Tranche Delta on 6 month term expires June 2009 | |||
| {{tlx|ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent}} | |||
| :]‑] 23:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Deskana reverted, not sure why. My version is . ]‑] 23:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I did notice your change, but I see that Matt Yeagar has the section some more. --] (]) 04:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| == Committee named == | |||
| http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales | |||
| We could either have the top seven in tranche Beta and the next seven in tranche Delta, allow Jimbo to sort or allow electors to choose. The latter would create possibly a mess of the election, so perhaps the first is the better option, as the second may prove contentious. This would give us four tranches: | |||
| 3 year terms: | |||
| * Tranche Delta expiring in Jun 2009 - at this point elect seven in tranche for two years | |||
| :* | |||
| * Tranche Gamma expiring in Dec 2009 - at this point elect seven in tranche rather than five for two years, barring anyone who has served two consecutive terms | |||
| ::*Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke, Rlevse | |||
| * Tranche Beta expiring in Jun 2010 - at this point elect seven in tranche for two years, barring anyone who has served two consecutive terms | |||
| :*(expansion seat) | |||
| * Tranche Alpha expiring in Dec 2010 - at this point elect seven in tranche rather than five for two years, barring anyone who has served two consecutive terms | |||
| ::*Jayvdb | |||
| ;and then | |||
| * Tranche Delta expiring in Jun 2011 - at this point elect seven in tranche for two years, barring anyone who has served two consecutive terms | |||
| 2 year terms: | |||
| So by 2011 we have 28 serving arbs, in four tranches serving two year terms, and by June 2011 arbs can only serve two consecutive terms. I think that gets across what Neil is suggesting and appears to have been endorsed by the community ]. Thoughts? ] <small>] </small> 11:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :* | |||
| ::*Vassyana, Carcharoth | |||
| :(expansion seat) | |||
| ::*Wizardman | |||
| 1 year term: | |||
| :I don't think anyone will like the idea of a tranche being elected for six months, considering the fuss an election entails. Perhaps phasing things in more gradually (the group to be elected this December sits for 2 1/2 years)? ] ] 13:04, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :(expansion seat) | |||
| ::The idea for a six month tranche is that they would be the tranche with the lowest support in the coming election, so they would have a short term to establish themselves, possibly learn the ropes and for the community to judge them. But yes, electing this group for 2 1/2 years is another way forwards. That still leaves the question of how many seats are up? Seven, six or five? ] <small>] </small> 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::*Coren | |||
| :Why exactly is it thought necessary to nearly double the size of the Arbitration Committee? Without other substantive changes to the way the committee works, it simply means twice as many people reading the the cases and then going off-wiki to argue amongst themselves about what to do. I suggest that, rather than make changes in numbers ''as part of this process'', the discussion continue at the RfC and perhaps on the Arbitration Committee policy page, until there is a community consensus about what Arbcom processes need to be changed (e.g., assigning tranches to cases) and how big it ought to be. ] (]) 14:49, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::If we have 28 arbs, we just split the committee in half and alternate cases. So first case up gets assigned to Alpha and Gamma, then next case up is assigned Beta and Delta. The many reasons for expanding the committee are outlined in the link provided. ] <small>] </small> 15:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::But wouldn't that be a pretty major change in how the Arbitration Committee works? I thought this page was for organizing the next election, not to change the fundamentals of Arbcom. Personally, I'm all for shorter terms, but doubling the size of Arbcom doesn't sound like a good idea to me (as I already said in the RfC). And if we split the committe in half.. what then? Two separate Arbcom mailing lists? A case not being accepted even though there ''are'' active arbitrators.. who happen to be in the wrong tranche? --]|] 15:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Okay. There's a consensus to expand the arb-com. That means there needs to be more members elected. Hence discussion at this page regarding next election. Does that make it clearer? Whatever is decided will impact on the coming election, whether it is the length of term or the number of seats elected. I'm not sure how you organise an election without determining what is being elected. ] <small>] </small> 15:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Another way forwards is to then change how arb-com works. Perhaps have cases accepted once seven arbs have indicated acceptance, regardless of those arbs refusing to accept. Therefore on a committee of 28 it would take 22 refusals for a case not to be accepted, since there are only 6 remaining arbs to comment. This would mean arbs having to be a lot more active. Perhaps if after seven days seven arbs have not accepted a case is rejected. Anyone else fot anything? Or are we going to ignore the consensus to expand arb-com? ] <small>] </small> 15:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, I don't really see the consensus for this change in the first place, since I wouldn't interpret 26 people endorsing and 8 people opposing that part of the RfC as a consensus. This needs wider input, especially from current and former arbitrators, IMHO. --]|] 16:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Concur with Conti. That is hardly consensus, and certainly not the kind of consensus one would expect to make a major change in our Dispute Resolution process. ] (]) 16:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I don;t really see the value in disputing whether a consensus exists or not, that's an effort in futility. We obviously disagree on that fact and there's no way forwards from that. Since Conti is open to the idea of shorter terms, there's obviously room for us to move discussion to that area. ] <small>] </small> 16:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :You think making the committee bigger is going to make it quicker?! That's about the most ridiculous idea I've heard. Bigger committees are ''slower''. The answer might well include shorter terms (I'd suggest two years, with annual elections), but I'd suggest that the committee is too big, rather than too small. ] <sup>]</sup> 16:00, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am quietly confident you have heard many ideas, and that a fair proportion of them will have been more ridiculous than the one you dismiss here. Either that or you have led a very sheltered life. ;) It seems reasonable to assert the mood is for a term of two years, even if there is some vocal opposition to expanding the committee at this particular instance, which I would hope can be weighed against the previous support for it and also when more voices are heard. ] <small>] </small> 16:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| It's probably far too late to start discussing this for action this year. Especially considering the RfC produced multiple contradictory suggestions on it. | |||
| ===Transition?=== | |||
| I also share Sam's concerns over if enlargement of the Arbitration Committee would actually be helpful or not, and oppose it myself. --] (]) 17:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| A few technical questions, out of curiosity. Are these new appointments effective immediately? And how exactly is the transition process handled regarding the cases where departing ArbCom members have voted already? E.g. there are several currently accepted ArbCom cases at different stages of arbitration process (three in the evidence phase and one in the "Motion to close or dismiss" phase). What exactly happens with these cases during the transition? Similarly, there are a few outstanding ArbCom requests where decisions to accept or reject them have not yet been made. How are they supposed to be handled? ] (]) 03:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I share similar thoughts to Sam. Furthermore, there's no community consensus for increasing the number of seats on the committee -- and, even if there was, per Risker: there's not much time to implement at this late stage (for this year, at least)… ] 18:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| : |
:We are participants now, but can't vote til 1 Jan. Arbs who are leaving are "active" on cases they voted on. Come 1 jan, new arbs can go active on any cases already in the pipeline. Does this help?<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 04:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | ||
| :(e/c)By tradition, the new members will become officially active on Jan 1, and may move themselves as "active" on any open case or RFAr. The current arbitrators may (but are not obligated to) remain active on the cases that are open at the transition. — ] <sup>]</sup> 04:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's not how I read the foundation's role and statements, you have an interesting take on it there. ] <small>] </small> 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::OK, interesting, thanks. I am wondering about the Piotrus case where the proposed decision is a very long and complicated one and where there is a good possibility that the case will not have been closed by Jan 1. Do I understand you correctly that, should that happen, both the departing arbs and the newly appointed arbs (if they decide to move themselved to "active" status on that case), may vote after Jan 1 on the proposed decision and the motion to close there? ] (]) 04:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| Introducing 14 arbs in the December elections would create a majorly complex election. I would suggest electing 7 arbs in Beta now, 7 into Gamma next June and then create Delta next December. This would shorten the terms to two years and the expansion would be gradual. If a bigger arbcom proves to be too big, we can always start to vote in 5 again. <sub>]</sub> <sup>]</sup> <sub>]</sub> 12:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Yes, that is correct, but as you say it's so long, I doubt many of the new arbs will take up the case.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 04:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::OK, thanks. ] (]) 04:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| === The beginning of the end for tranches === | |||
| ===Term=== | |||
| Through the combination of Jimbo being confused about which tranches had which open seats, and the clarification of Jimbo's announcement that's currently on ], the results are that we now have 7 arbs in Tranche Alpha, 6 in Tranche Beta, and 4 in Tranche Gamma. | |||
| So it looks like the expansion idea is stone dead, but there still seems to be support for a two year term this time. That would mean we would have two tranche's expiring in 2010 though. SO how are we to go forwards in shrinking the terms? ] <small>] </small> 21:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :I'd suggest composing a note to Jimmy and arbcom-l, explaining ''why'' you think the change is a good one (e.g. accountability, burnout, the relative lengths of an arbitrator's appointment and Misplaced Pages's history &c.). You would also mention that there is significant support for this among the community (I haven't seen many people who think that three years isn't too long). ] <sup>]</sup> 21:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I'm losing track of how consensus works on Misplaced Pages. And the will. ] <small>] </small> 23:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::This is different to most things, of course, because arbitrators are appointed by Jimmy under advice from the electoral process. ] <sup>]</sup> 23:36, 14 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Maybe we should do it the other way around and first get a consensus among the community, and then tell Jimmy that we'd like to shorten the terms of the Arbitrators. ] is a good start, but I'm not sure if it's enough for this kind of change. Once again, I'd be curious what the current and former arbs think of this. --]|] 01:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::*shrug* As you like. I was only giving my advice! You have one former arbitrator's opinion -- I rather think if you want some more you might have to ask. ] <sup>]</sup> 14:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| But ] says that this could set up a transition to two-year terms next year. I would certainly approve of that. | |||
| ==Illustrations?== | |||
| Individual candidate statement pages, or candidate discussion pages, contain illustrations? ] already create highly persuasive ]. All right put Bishzilla election pages? Or make pages too slow? ] '']'' 10:38, 15 August 2008 (UTC). | |||
| The "tranche" system was created under some assumptions that didn't turn out to be realistic: | |||
| *Drawings fine if colored in and you've not gone over the edges. If it was up to me, I'd say make the pages they can get moved if needed, but you might have to write a letter to Jimmy, the committee and the foundation just to check. ] <small>] </small> 13:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * 3 years is a reasonable term for an arbitrator | |||
| **Bishzilla, I'm afraid I can't understand what you're saying. Is it, you'd like to create graphics for each candidate? ] 14:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * Most arbitrators will serve out their full term | |||
| ***What the mighty 'Zilla is asking, in her most eloquent manner, is would it be fine with the powers that be if the most magnificent 'Zilla could place her ] on the Candidate Statements page. For example, see last year's ] If that's not possible, how about on her "Questions for the Candidate page? For example, see friend Giano's ]. She would just like to show off the beautiful and persuasive poster. ] (]) 15:57, 15 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
| * The size of ArbCom will stay relatively constant | |||
| **** Eloquent. In nutshell, that be it. 'Zilla most eloquent manner. ] '']'' 16:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC). | |||
| * Elections will generally fill the seats of people whose term is up | |||
| If in the future we thought only of open seats and expiration dates, not tranches, I think the elections would be greatly simplified. No more of this stuff with "well, arbitrator X was in Tranche Omicron but retired early, so new arb Y will fill the remainder of X's term instead of getting their own term in Tranche Pi". There are just a particular number of seats on ArbCom, and we hold elections for 2-year terms to fill the ones that are unoccupied (through a term naturally expiring, an arb resigning, or Jimbo creating a new seat) at the start of the new year. ] (]) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :Agreed, especially regarding the first point. On Misplaced Pages even one year is a rather long time, and three years is already at the order of the age of the universe. Two years is probably a much more realistic term of service for an abitrator. ] (]) 23:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::I don't think it's necessarily correct to conclude either from the current position or Jimbo's statement that we're looking at "the end for tranches". If we do transition to a two-year-term system we'd abandon the old tranches, yes, but naturally find ourselves with two new ones, call them delta and epsilon or perhaps delta and zeta. There is as you note no way to construct three properly balanced tranches out of the current set of sitting arbs, but the previous version is just as close as the curent one. I think it ''is'' fair to say that Jimbo has set us a rather interesting tetris challenge here, but I don't think we need throw our hands up in dispair. We can arrange the arbs so that one tranche is entirely correct and the two others are slightly off, in at least two different ways. We'll just have to wait and see what the future holds to see which way the system is going to swing. ]‑] 23:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::Why is it "despair" to get rid of the tranches? What purpose do they serve, and why should we turn future elections into "Tetris problems" to satisfy some constraints that don't make sense? ] (]) 00:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Concur with Rspeer. Tranche was just a book-keeping word-- it never had to be part of the system. When will the next pope be elected or the next US supreme court justice be confirmed? Well.... when a new one is needed! | |||
| ::::The only danger that I would foresee with the demise of the tranches is going too long without getting a substantive election. Reducing terms to two years has been suggested, and that would solve things. --] (]) 01:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Well, a key difference between what I suggested and the Supreme Court or the Pope is that we'd still only have elections at the scheduled times. I don't think you were proposing we have an election every time an arb resigns, but that's what you get if you take the analogy too far. And I think there's no need to worry about going too long without a substantive election: the turnover rate is so high that there will always be seats to fill. But I still support 2-year terms. ] (]) 04:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::I think Alecmconroy sums it up best: the tranches are book-keeping aides, we should keep them if they continue to be relevant, and discard them if not. I merely think it's too early to say at this stage which way it's going to develop. ]‑] 11:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 10:10, 21 March 2023
| Shortcuts
2008 Arbitration Committee Election status
|
|
|
Done
 Archives | ||||||
|
||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 8 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
The argument that Carcharoth won the election
The following was discussion occurred on User talk:Jimbo Wales:
As could be expected, one of the candidates (Vassyana) has a higher percentage of supporters, but another candidate (Carcharoth) has a higher net number of supporters:
- Carcharoth 237 119 118 66.6%
- Vassyana 197 95 102 67.5%
This is happening because candidate C. has 45,000 edits, whereas candidate V. has only 11,000 edits. Fewer people know anything about candidate V., and therefore they do not to vote for him, one way or another. Obviously, net number of supporters is the more appropriate metrics. The percentage works against candidates that are more dedicated to the project. In a more extreme case, candidate A might receive 100 net votes (150 support and 50 oppose), but candidate B might receive only 10 net votes (10 support and zero oppose; nobody cares about candidate B). Why should candidate B be elected?! (a support of100%). Obviously, candidate A has a 10 times higher number of votes.Biophys (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Could be counter-argued that the first one was opposed by more people, and therefore a greater percentage of the active Misplaced Pages community. Orderinchaos 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- That counter-argument is already dealt with by Biophys. Basically, the reason A has more opposes is because they have put themselves out there. The significant amount of supports counterbalances and outweighs the number of opposes, as indicated by the "net support" number, which is the only TRULY fair way to judge a candidate, in my view. SDJ 15:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
My reply:
- Biophys and SDJ, you tread on dangerous ground-- the road you speak of, though good intentioned, is a road to hell.
- BEFORE the election, a good argument could certainly have been made that the next election should use "net support" rather than "percentage support". But making that argument after the results are in doesn't work very well, because there's no way to distinguish whether you're arguing about electoral theory or whether you're arguing candidate merits. Indeed, it's easily possible you could be arguing that one electoral system is better than another simply because, in your experience, it gave the "correct" results in this election.
- Imagining other elections that could have occurred in alternate universes in which Carcharoth would have won isn't helpful-- if we lived in a universe where net support mattered, people would have changed their behavior accordingly, making sure that they took the time to "pile on" support even if a clear percentage difference occurred. There's no way we can determine who would have won that kind of an election.
- It's a little like looking at the stats from a basketball game and then trying to deduce which team would have won if they had been playing a game where only three-point-er counted. There's just no way to tell. If the game HAD been scored that way, all the players would have forgotten about fouling, dunking, free-throw shots, etc, and instead they would have just tried to make three pointers-- it would have been an entirely different game. You can't just look at the results from an NORMAL game, see who made the most three-pointers, and then jump to the conclusion that you now know which team would have won if they were playing 3-pointer-only basketball.
- For better or for worse, the election was held with the understanding that the votes were tallied according to percentage votes. The results are in, Carcharoth didn't win, and nothing can be said to change that, I'm afraid. The only question now is whether it would be good for the project to appoint someone who lost the election to elected to the post anyway. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- We get this every year; people will say someone with 200 supports HAS to get in, or someone with 100 opposes CANNOT get in, and other worthless metrics. Grandmasterka 21:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I note, still with some interest, that those who are blithely defending the "we must decide this by %support" position are still ignoring the hypothetical situation where editor A receives 9 supports and 1 oppose (90%, +8 net support) and editor B recieves 255 supports and 45 opposes (85%, 210 net support). Who should be appointed? Vass isn't even CLOSE to the top 7 in net support OR raw support. He is in 7th in %support by 0.9%. This is a classic example of my extreme hypothetical, and one should not so dogmatically cling to the %support metric as to ignore common sense. SDJ 23:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Voting theory is a very, very well-studied topic, and there are a million methods to use to take a group of individuals and collapse their individual preferences down into a single decision. It's not that using net-support as a metric is a crazy idea-- it's a fine idea. It might even be a better idea than percent support. BUT, it wasn't the idea that got picked to run the 2008 Arbcom election.
- Making the argument about the 2009 elections is entirely above board. Making it in retrospect about elections that have already concluded, though, sucks all the force out of your argument, because in any election, there are always going to be people who are unhappy with the outcome who will try to argue their side should win based on x, y, and z.
- I'm not saying you're actually doing that-- I'm just saying, it's not going to be very effective to make that argument in that manner at this time. --Alecmconroy (talk) 00:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I note, still with some interest, that those who are blithely defending the "we must decide this by %support" position are still ignoring the hypothetical situation where editor A receives 9 supports and 1 oppose (90%, +8 net support) and editor B recieves 255 supports and 45 opposes (85%, 210 net support). Who should be appointed? Vass isn't even CLOSE to the top 7 in net support OR raw support. He is in 7th in %support by 0.9%. This is a classic example of my extreme hypothetical, and one should not so dogmatically cling to the %support metric as to ignore common sense. SDJ 23:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- We get this every year; people will say someone with 200 supports HAS to get in, or someone with 100 opposes CANNOT get in, and other worthless metrics. Grandmasterka 21:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Until we get a voting cohort that is above 1% of the active editing population (or even close to the 30%+ one sees in regular elections) I tend to think endorsing this as the will of the people instead of self selected elites is kind of wrong. That being said, we have some kind of non-secret ballot system where it's generally understood by most who vote that the top X will get in. I would argue that the electoral system needs work and we should look at it for future elections, but turning the thing on its head in a way which can be easily gamed by said self-selected elites (and I do not exclude myself from this definition) is not particularly democratic or fair to either the voters or the candidates. Orderinchaos 02:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Reply to reply
No, this is not the argument that Carcharoth won the election. Please realize, I do not support anyone personally here. What I said was an obvious thing for someone who used to interpret data. My message was intended to Jimbo if he wants to select the seven people who have the highest community support (the highest number of net votes). I do not seen any changes of rules because the candidates are selected by Jimbo if I understand this correctly.Biophys (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough-- there's two different ways to view it: carcharoth won the election under a certain metric that wasn't the previously-agreed-upon metric, so he should be appointed as the true winner. OR carcharoth lost the election, but in general he should appointed anyway.
- The truth is, honestly, nobody really knows whether Jimbo can select candidates at will or not. My suspicion is that he can no longer appoint anyone too far from the top 7. In some year past, he automatically re-appointed the sitting arbs even though they lost the election-- but I don't think he could do that this year. I suspect he could still veto a candidate in order to appoint the next in line of percent order and it would fly-- but this may be the last year that's the case. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:52, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Jimmy can reappoint Forrester and Matthews if he so chooses. He has final say. I think there would be a civil war if he did, but that is still within his power to do. SDJ 15:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- He definitely has say, but I doubt seriously he has final say. We just don't work that way anymore. There's some act, how far out it is who can say, but there is some act that would result in jimbo being drummed out. We'll probably never know where that line is, because he IS a sane and good and wise leader. But, the line exists, and I suspect doing something crazy like, appointed two people with 20% support, would be on the other side of that line. --Alecmconroy (talk) 12:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Jimmy can reappoint Forrester and Matthews if he so chooses. He has final say. I think there would be a civil war if he did, but that is still within his power to do. SDJ 15:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
FYI: The "fight" for #7 is actually between Jayvdb & Coren
I'm sure someone could easily and trivially take the basic four metrics on User:ST47/ACE 2008:
- Suppose
- Oppose
- Net
- Percentage
And then math up each person's standings in each, from 1-28th. Just inverse the value of the Opposes (so Casliber is 1st, rather than 28th, here--low scores are preferred). I would imagine whomever has the highest overall average would be the correct top 10, mathematically. I began with the top 10 by percentage:
- Casliber
- Risker
- Roger Davies
- Cool Hand Luke
- Rlevse
- Jayvdb
- Vassyana
- Carcharoth
- Wizardman
- Coren
And ended up with this (correct?) top 10 based on the averages:
- Casliber
- Support 377/1st; Oppose 33/1st; Net 344/1st; Percentage 92.0%/1st
- Average: 1.0
- Risker
- Support 302/3rd; Oppose 45/2nd; Net 257/2nd; Percentage 87.0%/2nd
- Average: 2.25
- Roger Davies
- Support 218/8th; Oppose 54/3rd; Net 164/5th; Percentage 80.1%/3rd
- Average: 4.75
- Cool Hand Luke
- Support 294/5th; Oppose 106/11th; Net 188/4th; Percentage 73.5%/4th
- Average: 6.0
- Rlevse
- Support 306/2nd; Oppose 111/14th; Net 195/3rd; Percentage 73.4%/5th
- Average: 6.0
- Vassyana
- Support 197/9th; Oppose 95/9th; Net 344/9th; Percentage 67.5%/7th
- Average: 8.5
- Jayvdb
- Support 299/4th; Oppose 138/22nd; Net 161/6th; Percentage 68.4%/6th
- Average: 9.5
- Coren
- Support 154/10th; Oppose 87/8th; Net 67/10th; Percentage 63.9%/10th
- Average: 9.5
- Carcharoth
- Support 237/6th; Oppose 119/18th; Net 188/7th; Percentage 66.6%/8th
- Average: 9.75
- Wizardman
- Support 226/7th; Oppose 117/17th; Net 109/8th; Percentage 65.9%/9th
- Average: 10.25
Digest as you will. rootology (C)(T) 22:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is tongue-in-cheek, right? 6SJ7 (talk) 22:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's what you get when you have an election without clear rules. DuncanHill (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- 6SJ7, yeah on the title, but the math is as basic as you can get for the curious--based on the averages, I mean. And Duncan, yes. In the absence of rules or until the editors just take over the election wholly, this is the literal baseline result of the averages. rootology (C)(T) 22:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's what you get when you have an election without clear rules. DuncanHill (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- An alternate metric occurs to me. Obviously, admins are more experienced members of the community, so their votes should count more. But that doesn't mean we should disregard the votes of non-admins either. So let's tally up the votes, where an admin vote counts as "one vote" and a non-admin vote counts as "three-fifths" of a vote.
- Or, we could have switch from having the founder abstain to having the founder vote, where a founder vote counts as "six thousand eight hundred and two" votes. :) --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, no, no! Arbitrators obviously have the biggest weight, since they are the best and most important Wikipedians (and of course the most trustworthy). Following that are bureaucrats who were elected in 2004 with seven votes, then administrators with at least five block log entries. Only then do the least important votes get looked at, the community's. C'mon, it's not difficult to work it out ;) Majorly 23:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're all delusional. Top Seven Userpages By Design. rootology (C)(T) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, Jimbo should appoint me. Majorly 23:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I invoke Thunderdome. Twenty-seven candidates enter, seven candidates leave. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- No-one opposed me, not a soul. I claim victory! DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Which makes my point, and that's why one should look at net notes, which gives fair measure to both supports AND opposes. SDJ 23:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- And we were having so much fun, why d'ya have to go make it all serious again... :D Happy‑melon 23:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Which makes my point, and that's why one should look at net notes, which gives fair measure to both supports AND opposes. SDJ 23:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- No-one opposed me, not a soul. I claim victory! DuncanHill (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- I invoke Thunderdome. Twenty-seven candidates enter, seven candidates leave. --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, Jimbo should appoint me. Majorly 23:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're all delusional. Top Seven Userpages By Design. rootology (C)(T) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, no, no! Arbitrators obviously have the biggest weight, since they are the best and most important Wikipedians (and of course the most trustworthy). Following that are bureaucrats who were elected in 2004 with seven votes, then administrators with at least five block log entries. Only then do the least important votes get looked at, the community's. C'mon, it's not difficult to work it out ;) Majorly 23:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Alec made an interesting point about the "scoring" mixed in with the jokes. Assuming that Jimbo does give more weight to supports/opposes from Admins and Arbs--and to be frank, even my own voting was affecting by that--then a scoring system combined with the average method above would probably be the simplest possible way to figure this out "accurately". Yes, this concedes that admin/arb supports/opposes count more, but who ever pretended they didn't, here or in RFA, or RFBot, or RFWhatever?
- Non-admin: 1 to 1.
- Current Admin: 1.5 weight.
- All seated/non-expiring Arbs are Admins, so they count as 1.5.
- Just do a simple multiplication on each support/oppose based on that formula.
A tiny nudge up and down in the numbers, which I don't have the time to hash out, but if a math nerd wants to run down my average system above with that modifier and re-post the weighted Top 10 by average, it would be damned curious, especially as the only strength and authority the AC enjoys is from the Admins carrying out it's decisions. rootology (C)(T) 23:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Actually I'd say that ArbCom's greatest authority comes from its power to command the stewards. Even if every admin on the site rebelled, ArbCom would still 'win'. Whether there'd be anything left to have authority over is another question entirely, of course. Happy‑melon 23:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well sure, they can desysop, but they can't force people to use tools is my point, and they certainly don't have the time to carry out the executions of their various decisions, up to and including paroles/probations etc. If every admin just stopped working AE or carrying out their decisions, they can't desysop everyone just not taking action, and they'd be swamped immediately. That's what I meant by them needing the support and patronage of the admins. rootology (C)(T) 23:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Certainly they badly need the support of the admin community; as you say they couldn't enact the kind of sanctions they do now without a large body of sysops prepared to do AE. With steward support but no admins, they would be hard-pressed to keep up with the amount of work they generate, but it could in principle be done given that the entire ArbCom are administrators. On the other hand, if any individual admin defies ArbCom (wheel warring over its actions, etc) then they are desysopped, there's no competition. It's all very academic since neither is really plausible, and it's irrelevant to this discussion anyway as AFAIK no stewards voted in this election, so we don't need to weight their vote. Happy‑melon 23:41, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well sure, they can desysop, but they can't force people to use tools is my point, and they certainly don't have the time to carry out the executions of their various decisions, up to and including paroles/probations etc. If every admin just stopped working AE or carrying out their decisions, they can't desysop everyone just not taking action, and they'd be swamped immediately. That's what I meant by them needing the support and patronage of the admins. rootology (C)(T) 23:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Surely no one seriously believes that admin votes should count more than non-admin. If you are serious, that brings up some very bad memories here in the States. SDJ 23:45, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yay!! someone got the three-fifths reference! :) good work. And I know _I_ sure don't believe that admin votes count more, but ya never know, Misplaced Pages is a diverse group. If the discussion goes long enough, someone will probably mention that we also could use edit-counts to weight the votes, if we wanted to. <grin> --Alecmconroy (talk) 23:54, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- A royal waste of time. The decision now is in the hands of Jimbo, so what is the use of this? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- True enough, but the discussion has some intellectual value, and who knows? Perhaps Jimbo may find our views useful as well. SDJ 23:50, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
- What Dean said. And statistics is never a waste of time. Sports statistics and politics are the Great American Pasttimes. Put them together, and you get insights into things. Just look at the wild success of what happens when you put a sports statistical genius and authority like Nate Silver on the case: Five Thirty Eight. Unless Jimmy has no interest in what we have to say, which would be short sighted and a recipe for his ouster as head of the AC eventually, I'd hope this stuff is useful. That's why I posted that modified Top 10 based on the averages, when I noticed that Coren had done better in some areas--so that people didn't just go Percentage Percentage Percentage Percentage.rootology (C)(T) 00:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- It is great to see that no matter which way the numbers are sliced and diced, the top 10 remain static.
- The challenge is to come up with a reasonable and mathematical method which places user:Kmweber in the top 10. John Vandenberg 00:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Elonka managed to deduce that a vote against Kurt Weber was a vote FOR confidence in arbcom, with a straight face, no less. Anything's possible with the right fuzzy logic. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, now User:Tony Sidaway is promoting this falsehood, as well. Elonka I can chalk up to ignorance, but Tony is just flat out lying. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Obviously any speculation which pushes me down the ranking is way out of line and reeducation is in order! Regarding giving more wieght to admin votes, rootology suggests many of us were affected by admin and arb votes more than other votes, so their votes are already having an effect greater than the single vote that they cast. This is one of the benefits of an open voting system. I don't see any benefit in giving admin votes a different weighting, except as a backdoor approach to encourage more non-admins to vote and vote well, and that it might ignite a revolution - I wonder when we will see a non-admin as an arb. John Vandenberg 00:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I certainly hope it will happen sooner rather than later. SDJ 00:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I probably wouldnt have bothered being a candidate this year if it had already happened. John Vandenberg 00:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have traditionally looked at %support, and looked at the others carefully to see if they indicate anything particularly interesting or alarming. Another thing I have always looked at is %support by admins because if there is a major deviation between admin support and more general support, this could indicate a number of different kinds of problems. (For example: an external campaign by an activist group attempting to influence the election. For example: a rift between admins and some significant constituency of non-admin users.) As people often say "voting is evil" so what I am looking for is a consensus. And I'm most interested in a consensus of the thoughtful.
Jimbo Wales said hereTruly the voice of experienced editors need to be given more weight than ordinary voters as they know Misplaced Pages and its process.But From what is written above it is clear a Candidate also needed to get balanced support both from the admins and non admins a candidate with 95% admin only support may not go through but also a candidate whom 95% admins oppose will also not go through .I do believe Jimbo will see which candidates faced negative external campaigns.Anyway the elections are over and fully trust Jimbo Wales will have a satisfactory solution on Saturday.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- I read into Jimbo's words a tacit recognition that in general, admins tend to be among the more experienced users and represent a useful proxy for the experienced-user community, rather than a strict reliance on the "status" of being an admin. Jimbo is probably more interested in the views of the grizzled veterans than the voters with 151 mainspace edits. I could think of one or two very experienced non-admins whose views have carried significant weight in this election, and that is as it should be. I trust Jimbo to be looking for balance and consensus, since I'm not able to observe where he hasn't done that in the past. Franamax (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
You guys will probably go insane trying to fill all the time until Saturday with speculation, so I'm sorry if this contributes to anyone's insanity, but it's worth noting that the different metrics rootology discusses above have indeed been looked at by Jimbo in the previous elections. As he said, he's taking the time to study the voting carefully. The opinions of all who voted are important. --bainer (talk) 05:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
- To quote Star Wars-- I've got a bad feeling about this statement above from Bainer. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
"Simple" solution
I suppose that he could simply increase the number of seats in tranche beta by one (which seats Vassyana), and let the other four all have one year terms in tranche gamma. : ) - jc37 11:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- More likely would be to expand every tranche by one seat each, seating Vassyana in the two year seat and the last three for one; moving all tranches to an even six seats. — Coren 16:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's what I was essentially suggesting. Note that prior to deskana's resignation, there was to be only 1 occupied seat in tranche gamma (not counting the two who were moved there: FloNight and Thebainer). 1+4 =5. And one of those in tranche gamma would likely be moved to tranche alpha. That makes 6 seats in each tranche.
- Of course Deskana's resignation modifies this somewhat. (Commenting on that below.) - jc37 10:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- With the recent spate of resignations, I would support the idea of a bigger committee so these open seats caused less of a deficit in the committee (as a percentage of the total committee). -- Escape Artist Swyer Contributions 00:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Expected results
Here are what I think the results look like, in light of Desk's resignation. (obviously, this is doesn't factor in any Jimbo-magic.) As always, please double-check my math. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
{{User:Alecmconroy/ACE2008 anticipated results}}
- I think Stephen Bain would actually be moved into Deskana's spot, while the spot of whoever Stephen Bain was supposed to replace (Paul August?) would be allocated to Jayvdb. This follows precedent of extending terms of current members who have terms of less than three years. Of course, this whole thing is merely speculation. —kurykh 02:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- All this juggling of people from slot to slot is very confusing - why not just have people serve the terms they were appointed to? DuncanHill (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ask Jimbo about that. I'm just predicting using precedent. —kurykh 03:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I doubt he'd answer me. DuncanHill (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ask Jimbo about that. I'm just predicting using precedent. —kurykh 03:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- All this juggling of people from slot to slot is very confusing - why not just have people serve the terms they were appointed to? DuncanHill (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think the point of the seat moving is to try to give the "alternates" (who came close percentage-wise) at least a total of three years.
- If that's the case, then FloNight's third year ends in 2009, and thebainer's ends in 2010.
- So thebainer is likely moved to Deskana's seat in tranche alpha (which expires in 2010).
- And the top eight (or so) fill tranche beta and gamma.
- If both tranches are increased to 6 seats, then all ten could be seated.
- He could even make it clear that the expansion is temporary only until the (likely) resignations lower the seat numbers again. - jc37 10:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- If all tranches are expanded to six seats each, the top eleven would be seated, not ten. That's the eight open seats plus three new ones. -- Escape Artist Swyer Contributions 19:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I didn't say all tranches to 6 : )
- I wasn't suggesting that tranche alpha be increased in my comments above.
- Since the discussion seems to be concerning the fact that 7,8,9,10 all were rather close in percentage of each other, and as such, looking for ways to seat them all, rather than it come down to such a slim variance; there would be no "need" to increase the seats of tranche alpha. Merely move thebainer there to Deskana's seat as noted.
- If all tranches are expanded to six seats each, the top eleven would be seated, not ten. That's the eight open seats plus three new ones. -- Escape Artist Swyer Contributions 19:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- To list:
- Tranche Alpha: NYB, FT2, FassalF, Sam Blacketer, Thebainer
- Tranche Beta: Calisber, Risker, Roger Davies, CHL, Rlevse
- Tranche Gamma: Kirill Likshin, FloNight
- To list:
- With Carcharoth, Coren, Jyvdb, Vassyana, and Wizardman being possibly added, depending on how one evaluates the numbers.
- Incidentally, I don't believe that there is anything saying that Jimbo Wales must seat arbs in the empty seats. He could leave Thebainer in Tranche Gamma (leaving it with only 3 occupied seats, and leaving Alpha with 4 occupied seats), and only select the top 5 for Beta. - jc37 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Vacant seats
With Deskana's resignation, I take it there are now a total of eight open seats instead of seven? I don't know all the details about the Tranches, but will there now be 5 three-year terms, 1 two-year term (to fill Deskana's), and 2 one-year terms? If so, the Vacant seats section needs to be updated. --Pixelface (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I updated the section yesterday. I also added the new terms to the history charts; probably the most intuitive way to see what's going on is to look at the recent chart:
{{ArbitrationCommitteeChartRecent}}
- Happy‑melon 23:47, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Deskana reverted, not sure why. My version is here. Happy‑melon 23:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I did notice your change, but I see that Matt Yeagar has updated the section some more. --Pixelface (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Committee named
http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales
3 year terms:
- Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke, Rlevse
- (expansion seat)
- Jayvdb
2 year terms:
- Vassyana, Carcharoth
- (expansion seat)
- Wizardman
1 year term:
- (expansion seat)
- Coren
Transition?
A few technical questions, out of curiosity. Are these new appointments effective immediately? And how exactly is the transition process handled regarding the cases where departing ArbCom members have voted already? E.g. there are several currently accepted ArbCom cases at different stages of arbitration process (three in the evidence phase and one in the "Motion to close or dismiss" phase). What exactly happens with these cases during the transition? Similarly, there are a few outstanding ArbCom requests where decisions to accept or reject them have not yet been made. How are they supposed to be handled? Nsk92 (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- We are participants now, but can't vote til 1 Jan. Arbs who are leaving are "active" on cases they voted on. Come 1 jan, new arbs can go active on any cases already in the pipeline. Does this help? — Rlevse • Talk • 04:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- (e/c)By tradition, the new members will become officially active on Jan 1, and may move themselves as "active" on any open case or RFAr. The current arbitrators may (but are not obligated to) remain active on the cases that are open at the transition. — Coren 04:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, interesting, thanks. I am wondering about the Piotrus case where the proposed decision is a very long and complicated one and where there is a good possibility that the case will not have been closed by Jan 1. Do I understand you correctly that, should that happen, both the departing arbs and the newly appointed arbs (if they decide to move themselved to "active" status on that case), may vote after Jan 1 on the proposed decision and the motion to close there? Nsk92 (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that is correct, but as you say it's so long, I doubt many of the new arbs will take up the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, that is correct, but as you say it's so long, I doubt many of the new arbs will take up the case. — Rlevse • Talk • 04:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, interesting, thanks. I am wondering about the Piotrus case where the proposed decision is a very long and complicated one and where there is a good possibility that the case will not have been closed by Jan 1. Do I understand you correctly that, should that happen, both the departing arbs and the newly appointed arbs (if they decide to move themselved to "active" status on that case), may vote after Jan 1 on the proposed decision and the motion to close there? Nsk92 (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The beginning of the end for tranches
Through the combination of Jimbo being confused about which tranches had which open seats, and the clarification of Jimbo's announcement that's currently on WP:ACE2008, the results are that we now have 7 arbs in Tranche Alpha, 6 in Tranche Beta, and 4 in Tranche Gamma.
But Jimbo in particular says that this could set up a transition to two-year terms next year. I would certainly approve of that.
The "tranche" system was created under some assumptions that didn't turn out to be realistic:
- 3 years is a reasonable term for an arbitrator
- Most arbitrators will serve out their full term
- The size of ArbCom will stay relatively constant
- Elections will generally fill the seats of people whose term is up
If in the future we thought only of open seats and expiration dates, not tranches, I think the elections would be greatly simplified. No more of this stuff with "well, arbitrator X was in Tranche Omicron but retired early, so new arb Y will fill the remainder of X's term instead of getting their own term in Tranche Pi". There are just a particular number of seats on ArbCom, and we hold elections for 2-year terms to fill the ones that are unoccupied (through a term naturally expiring, an arb resigning, or Jimbo creating a new seat) at the start of the new year. rspεεr (talk) 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed, especially regarding the first point. On Misplaced Pages even one year is a rather long time, and three years is already at the order of the age of the universe. Two years is probably a much more realistic term of service for an abitrator. Nsk92 (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessarily correct to conclude either from the current position or Jimbo's statement that we're looking at "the end for tranches". If we do transition to a two-year-term system we'd abandon the old tranches, yes, but naturally find ourselves with two new ones, call them delta and epsilon or perhaps delta and zeta. There is as you note no way to construct three properly balanced tranches out of the current set of sitting arbs, but the previous version is just as close as the curent one. I think it is fair to say that Jimbo has set us a rather interesting tetris challenge here, but I don't think we need throw our hands up in dispair. We can arrange the arbs so that one tranche is entirely correct and the two others are slightly off, in at least two different ways. We'll just have to wait and see what the future holds to see which way the system is going to swing. Happy‑melon 23:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why is it "despair" to get rid of the tranches? What purpose do they serve, and why should we turn future elections into "Tetris problems" to satisfy some constraints that don't make sense? rspεεr (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Concur with Rspeer. Tranche was just a book-keeping word-- it never had to be part of the system. When will the next pope be elected or the next US supreme court justice be confirmed? Well.... when a new one is needed!
- The only danger that I would foresee with the demise of the tranches is going too long without getting a substantive election. Reducing terms to two years has been suggested, and that would solve things. --Alecmconroy (talk) 01:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, a key difference between what I suggested and the Supreme Court or the Pope is that we'd still only have elections at the scheduled times. I don't think you were proposing we have an election every time an arb resigns, but that's what you get if you take the analogy too far. And I think there's no need to worry about going too long without a substantive election: the turnover rate is so high that there will always be seats to fill. But I still support 2-year terms. rspεεr (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think Alecmconroy sums it up best: the tranches are book-keeping aides, we should keep them if they continue to be relevant, and discard them if not. I merely think it's too early to say at this stage which way it's going to develop. Happy‑melon 11:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, a key difference between what I suggested and the Supreme Court or the Pope is that we'd still only have elections at the scheduled times. I don't think you were proposing we have an election every time an arb resigns, but that's what you get if you take the analogy too far. And I think there's no need to worry about going too long without a substantive election: the turnover rate is so high that there will always be seats to fill. But I still support 2-year terms. rspεεr (talk) 04:17, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why is it "despair" to get rid of the tranches? What purpose do they serve, and why should we turn future elections into "Tetris problems" to satisfy some constraints that don't make sense? rspεεr (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't think it's necessarily correct to conclude either from the current position or Jimbo's statement that we're looking at "the end for tranches". If we do transition to a two-year-term system we'd abandon the old tranches, yes, but naturally find ourselves with two new ones, call them delta and epsilon or perhaps delta and zeta. There is as you note no way to construct three properly balanced tranches out of the current set of sitting arbs, but the previous version is just as close as the curent one. I think it is fair to say that Jimbo has set us a rather interesting tetris challenge here, but I don't think we need throw our hands up in dispair. We can arrange the arbs so that one tranche is entirely correct and the two others are slightly off, in at least two different ways. We'll just have to wait and see what the future holds to see which way the system is going to swing. Happy‑melon 23:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)