Wikipedia talk:Village pump/Arbitration Committee Feedback

Should have been done before

This is something that should happen every year, at election time. Community confidence check. It cannot be assumed the community is still happy with the decision made several years ago, and there needs to be a simply way of showing this. While it may not be binding, it can be useful to see what community confidence is actually like. I would hope any arbitrator mostly lacking community confidence would do the right thing and resign. Majorly ^talk 02:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Polls are evil, and other lame things

Can someone remove the joke heading please? This is a serious poll, and it's being disrupted by a stupid header that seems to magically appear and disrupt ever poll that comes. Majorly ^talk 02:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a joke. People have every right to record their opinion that your poll is invalid, badly advised and unhelpful. I know think otherwise, but we are entitled to opinion and to express it. It seems a number of people agree.--Scott Mac (Doc) 02:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, more people agree with our opinion than any of the opinions opposed to it. Majorly, if you want to start deleting unpopular poll options, start with the ones you're supporting. --Cyde Weys 04:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think I used unpopularity as criteria? Majorly ^talk 04:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, given that the raison d'etre of polls is to measure the opinion of the public by recording a tally of the popularity of each proposed measure, what alternative criterion could you possibly use? --Cyde Weys 04:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I removed it because a point of a poll is to express an opinion on something, not express an opinion on the poll. If you dislike polling, why are you polling on it? Majorly ^talk 04:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A better format

A format you occasionally see for "what can we do better" discussions is to make a "plus delta" list. The "plus" part identifies what outcomes are positive. The "delta" part identifies what outcomes should be changed. This way it's not focused on a particular person, but rather on what the process should be. I would strongly suggest something like this as opposed to votes of no confidence on everyone but Brad. --B (talk) 03:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what the RFC was? Where'd that take us?--Cube lurker (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

A comment from one of the arbitrators

I've served for a year now

On the Grand Committee

Some think my work's highbrow

Scott says that it's shitty

He wrote on Thanksgiving,

"Brad's nice and congenial

"But way too forgiving—

"His sin isn't venial!

"He writes long decisions

"Many paragraphs spanning;

"I'd trade those provisions

"For one decent banning"

Now, we'll see if the "voting"

Brings me boos or cheers

Either way, I'm devoting

Another two years