Revision as of 09:46, 1 October 2012

• WP:ACERFC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This is a request for comment about the upcoming December 2012 English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee election.

Purpose of this request for comment: To try and gain at least a rough community consensus on structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2012 English Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee election.

Structure: This RfC is divided into portions, each of which contains a question for the community to discuss. The standard RfC structure will be used, in which any user may make a general statement that other users may endorse if they so agree. The questions will be listed in the table of contents below, along with the users who have made statements.

The questions have been chosen from the comments from Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011/Feedback. More questions may be added if other concerns arise.

Duration: This RfC is scheduled to last for about 30 days; on or after 1 November 2012, it will be closed, and an uninvolved editor(s) will determine the result of the RfC. The results will determine the structure, rules, and procedures for the election.

REMINDER TO USE THE TALK PAGE FOR DISCUSSION: All replies to another user's statement, vote, endorsement, or evidence should be posted on the RfC's discussion page. There, threaded discussion should be used to keep discussions organized.

Use the following format below; post a new statement at the BOTTOM of the section in which you want to make a statement. Endorse by adding a hash symbol (#) and your signature.

===Statement by ]===
Comment ~~~~
;Users who endorse this statement:
#~~~~

Users should only edit one summary or view, other than to endorse.

Composition of the Committee

How many arbitrators should we have for 2012? (How many seats should we fill for next year?)

Consensus from last year's RfC: The number of arbitrators should be reduced to 15. Barring any unexpected vacancies, 8 seats should be filled for next year.

How many seats should be 2-year terms, and how many 1-year terms?

Consensus from last year's RfC: Successful candidates with the highest support receive 2-year terms, while those with lower levels of support receive 1-year terms.

What should the requirements be for candidates to run for the election?

Consensus from last year's RfC:

• Registered account with a minimum of 500 edits.
• Good standing and was not subject to active blocks or site-bans.
• Meets the Wikimedia Foundation's criteria for access to non-public data and was willing to identify with the Foundation if elected.
• Has disclosed any alternate accounts in their election statements (legitimate accounts which had been declared to the Arbitration Committee prior to the close of nominations did not need to be publicly disclosed).

How should vacancies be handled?

Statement by MuZemike

Last year's unexpected and last-minute vacancies has prompted me to pose this question about vacancies. Basically, there are three types of vacancies to be considered:

1. End-of-term vacancies: Vacancies that will result when an Arbitrator's term is expected to end.
2. Expected vacancies: Vacancies that will result when a sitting (at least one year remaining in term) Arbitrator is expected to step down from the Committee before his/her term ends.
3. Unexpected vacancies: Vacancies that will result when a sitting Arbitrator unexpectedly steps down from the Committee for one reason or another.

I'm not sure which directions the discussions will go, but it's clear that the biggest concern by far is with unexpected vacancies, as is what happened last year. I pose some questions:

• If a sitting arbitrator unexpectedly resigns, how long should that corresponding term be?
• Until what point can we adjust the number of vacant seats without jeopardizing the integrity of the election? (i.e. it would be too late during voting, as adjusting seats will very much affect how voters will vote; too early means that seats may go unnecessarily unfilled for next year)

--MuZemike 02:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by User:Monty845

In addition to seats from regular vacancies and expected vacancies, all seats resulting from unexpected vacancies that are announced up to 48 hours before the close of the voting should be filled. This will fill the maximum number of seats possible while still giving those who wish to vote strategically based on the seat count a chance to amend their votes. I doubt many voters will change votes, thus the small window wont be a problem for most voters. Monty₈₄₅ 02:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement

1. Monty₈₄₅ 02:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
2. —Cupco 03:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Cupco

If a sitting arbitrator unexpectedly resigns, the corresponding replacement term should be one year long. —Cupco 03:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement

1. —Cupco 03:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Monty₈₄₅ 03:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The election itself

How many days for voting?

Consensus from last year's RfC: At least 14 days should be allowed for voting.

What should the voting timeline be?

Consensus from last year's RfC: At least 10 days should be allowed for the nomination period, 5 days for the fallow period (the period between nominations and voting, mainly to handle any late administrative and software tasks before voting begins), 14 days for voting, and a brief but indeterminate time for scrutineering.

Statement by MuZemike

Going off last year's election, I have drafted a following timeline below for this year's election:

• Nominations: Sunday 00:01, 18 November - Tuesday 23:59, 27 November (10 days)
• Fallow period: Wednesday 00:01, 28 November - Sunday 23:59, 2 December (5 days)
• Voting period: Monday 00:01, 3 December - Sunday 23:59, 16 December (14 days)
• Scrutineering: Monday 00:01, 17 December - ??? (whenever the Stewards are finished)

--MuZemike 02:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement

1. --MuZemike 02:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
2. Rschen7754 02:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
3. —Cupco 02:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
4. I would also support a longer nominating period, but this proposal is acceptable to me. Monty₈₄₅ 02:54, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• What is the value of the 5-day fallow period? Speaking as one of last year's candidates, I didn't find it particularly helpful, and it simply added another 5 days to the "no decision yet" period. Is this something that people feel strongly should be continued? Risker (talk) 05:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Most importantly it provides time for the poll to be set up. I guess it could also be useful if there are any last minute nominations and there was some type of procedural concern that needed to be worked out. Basically a time to make sure that everything is ready to go for the start of voting. Monty₈₄₅ 05:57, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

What should the requirements be to vote in the election?

Consensus from last year's RfC: 150 mainspace edits by 1 November.

What should the method of voting be?

Consensus from last year's RfC: Support/No Vote/Oppose, with percentages calculated via Support/(Support + Oppose).

Secret balloting?

Yes

1. To avoid the formation or appearance of cliques. —Cupco 02:48, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
2. To avoid the possibility of retribution. --Rschen7754 05:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Davewild (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

No

What general questions should we ask each of the candidates?

Consensus from last year's RfC: A list of general questions will be asked of each candidate. See Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2012/Candidate questions for a draft list of general questions to be asked.

Statement by Cupco

There have recently been detailed proposals and extensive discussions pertaining to ArbCom reform. I propose asking candidates to comment on all such proposals in general, and the idea of a jury system in particular. Arbitrators suffer repeated harassment from parties to many of the cases before them. This abuse is extensive enough that reasonable people believe it can influence arbitrators' demeanor, making them more predisposed towards harsh remedies than a randomly selected jury of editors' peers would be. Worse, arbitrators through no fault of their own frequently become involved in multiple recurring disputes, which can cause the unjust effects associated with star chambers without any misconduct or unjust arbitrator behaviors at all: editors who merely suspect that one or more arbitrators are predisposed for or against them might act differently at even the beginning stages of disputes -- they might be more likely to bully other editors or succumb to bullying. If the final decision in arbitration cases concerning the findings of fact, principles of policies and guidelines, and remedies imposed were drafted by arbitrators but voted on by a randomly selected jury of editors' peers, these two issues could be substantially alleviated. So I propose asking the following additional questions:

• What are your favorite and least favorite proposals for ArbCom reform (such as those in the ArbCom Reform Party's "Bill of Rights") and why?
• What proposals for reform would you suggest? Are there any reform proposals you agree with strongly enough that you would pledge to support?
• Would it be advantageous for a randomly selected jury of editors' peers to vote on proposed findings, principles, and remedies instead of arbitrators? Why or why not?
• What are the potential downsides of relying on randomly selected jurors from a volunteer pool instead of arbitrators to cast votes on drafted cases?
• Is it technically feasible to raise sufficient volunteer jurors for a pool from which to randomly select editors' peers, to vote on cases after they have been drafted and proposed by arbitrators? How large do you think a volunteer jury pool would need to be for it to be free from problems involving self-selection by insincere jurors?
• Would you support a pilot project using volunteer randomly selected jurors for RFC/U to judge the feasibility of using juries in arbitration?

—Cupco 02:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement

1. —Cupco 02:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by Rschen7754

I do not believe that asking arbitrators to comment on jurors or the ArbCom Reform Party would be productive, because the community is not behind either of these proposals.

Users who endorse this statement

1. Rschen7754 03:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

How should voter guides be handled for the election?

Consensus from last year's RfC: Serious voter guides may be included for the election, but those that are not should be discarded. They should also be randomized so that not everybody believes the top of the voter guide list says.

Statement by Risker

Individually compiled voter guides are well–established and accepted within the community. Their core purpose is to communicate useful and detailed assessments of the candidates. Many are serious reflections by individual editors, who make their personal preferences and biases clear to the reader. There have even been some humorous ones, which lighten the mood of the election. These should continue to be permitted, and I would go so far as to say that even the humorous ones should be included in the "voter guide" template. However, a summary table of voting guides fails to provide the reader with insight into the values being emphasized by the creators of the individual guides and instead encourages the reader to weight all of the guides and their recommendations equally. It's the Misplaced Pages equivalent of that popularity contest known as pre-election polling, with its lack of meaningful information. These should be discouraged, and should not be included in the "voter guide" template. Risker (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement

1. Risker (talk) 05:06, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

How should we deal with unforeseen problems?

During last year's election, user:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry resigned from his seat, without clear direction of how that was to be handled. As a result, the three Election Administrators: User:Happy-melon; User:Tznkai; and user:Skomorokh researched precedent and decided the issue.

Statement by User:Tznkai

During last years election, Happy-melon, Skomorkh and I were in the position of having to make a decision on how many seats would be available. We had no mandate to do so, we were not elected or appointed by any authority. We were, if memory serves, just the three users identified to the Foundation who volunteered for the job. We managed to pull it off last year, but I would rather not rely on hope and prayer again.

I propose that a three member Electoral Commission be established, its members drawn from Foundation identified volunteers, who will volunteer and be commented on in a Request for Comment. This Request for Comment is not to be an election, but a way for the community to weed out bad apples by supplying comments on their judgement. Jimbo, in lieu of his traditional reserve powers, will close this Request for Comment and appoint three voting members and any qualified volunteers as reserve members. To ensure fairness and stability, all voting and reserve members of the Electoral Commission will be appointed by the second week of November, and none may run for a seat on the Arbitration Committee.

The mandate of the Electoral Commission would be to deal with unforeseen problems, adjudicate disputes, and as Jimbo continues to shift his role, to ceremonially announce the final results. Despite how impressive that sounds, it would really be grunt work. Tznkai (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement

1. As drafter Tznkai (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
2. —Cupco 03:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Partial endorsement. I do think clarifying certain ambiguities about what happens in case of unforeseen occurrences is a very good thing. But I don't intend to relinquish or step back from my role in the appointment process, particularly as it continues to transition to being ceremonial!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by User:Monty845

I would modify Tznkai above statement slightly, and emphasize that to the extent time permits, the community should be asked to deal with unforeseen problems via RFC, even if they are abbreviated due to time constraints, following the model of the Supplemental RFC on number of seats to fill: ACE2011. Monty₈₄₅ 03:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement

1. Monty₈₄₅ 03:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Post-election

What should the minimum support percentage be in order to be considered for appointment to ArbCom?

Consensus from last year's RfC: A minimum of 50% is required for consideration.

Statement by User:Müdigkeit

Change it to 75%. Reason: The meta:oversight policy states that any oversighter(and checkusers have similar restrictions) must have at least 70-80% approval, if they are not appointed by an arbitration comittee. I think the percentage should be similar here. Reasons: An arbitrator with 52% support, for example, would not be backed by consensus, usually. Arbitrators have a lot of rights and are very important(do not forget that they appoint oversighters and checkusers). Nobody has ever been made admin by our bureaucrats with 52% support. Arbitrators are in positions with high responsibility. Imagine an arbitrator abusing his admin or even checkuser/oversight rights. No, 50%+1 is too low. Müdigkeit (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement

1. Müdigkeit (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Statement by User:Rschen7754

Keep it at 50%. If we had done 75% last year, we would have elected only 2 arbitrators to fill 8 slots. (WP:ACE2011) --Rschen7754 05:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Users who endorse this statement

1. Rschen7754 05:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
2. On a secret ballot without rationales, the cutoff necessarily must be lower. Monty₈₄₅ 05:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
3. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 08:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
4. Davewild (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages requests for comment
• Misplaced Pages Arbitration Committee Elections 2012