Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Proposed modifications to rules

I would favor all of these four proposals as they currently stand—a little hesitant on #1, but I guess it's fair. Everyking 08:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

anyone who wants to be on the comittee but doesn't want to be an admins is free to resighn thier adminship after the election.Geni 10:32, 14 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

Um, these proposals are utterly ridiculous. I also find it fishy that none of the actual members of the committee were notified about this page. →Raul654 22:53, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

So much for assume good faith and willing to discuss the issues rather than rejecting them out of hand. This page is widely publicised throughout WP - feel free to publicise it further, jguk 03:55, 15 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

What's there to discuss? They're all awful ideas cooked up by people who have NO IDEA how the arbcom operates. Please find me a single arbitrator or former arbitrator who things any of these are good ideas.

Proposal #1 is the only one I find even theoretically acceptable, and only because it's utterly unnecessary. Why is it unncessary? Because what are the chances that someone who is not an admin would be elected to the arbcom? 0.

As to the rest of them - Proposal 2, which claims that First Past the Post voting is less suspectible to manipulation, is a flat out lie. Sorry, it's as simple as that. To a greater extent than most other methods, first-past-the-post encourages the tactical voting technique known as "compromising" - Plurality electoral system. Furthermore, unless a developer impliments it, then it's a non-starter (good luck getting that to happen - the developer have far better things to do with their time than to impliment a worse system than what we have already).

Proposal 3 treds on Jimbo's authority, and it's just a bad idea anyway. We have too many election or votes in general (in addition to VFD and RFA, we have the annual board elections, the AMA elections, the bi-annual steward elections, and the annual arbcom election). Furthermore, the arbcom ones have historically been very bitter. So, your solution is to have even more? Oh, wonderful idea.

And, I think, by far the worst of the ideas proposed here is number 4. In one fell swoop, not only do you introduce a massive amount of bureacracy into an already bureacratic process, and of course you haven't actually specified how the 9 of 24 arbitrators are chosen, but you also seriously upset how the arbcom operates. And furthermore, since this (radically) alters how the arbcom works, it requires ammending the arbitration policy (which means that this is not the propoer forum anyhow). →Raul654 05:43, August 15, 2005 (UTC)