Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by CS55cp (talk | contribs) at 11:53, 27 October 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Should the English Wikipedia, for its upcoming 2010 Arbitration Committee election in December, continue to utilize a secret ballot method of voting via mw:Extension:SecurePoll? 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Voting procedure for the 2010 Arbitration Committee election

The question: Should the English Wikipedia, for its upcoming 2010 Arbitration Committee election in December, continue to utilize a secret ballot method of voting via mw:Extension:SecurePoll?

The background: A 2009 request for comment on the voting procedure resulted in a consensus to utilize secret ballot voting via SecurePoll. A subsequent 2009 request for comment found 57% of 124 editors in support of secret polling with the remainder supporting public polling; the 57% was deemed to be the consensus. As it stands currently, there is no MediaWiki extension nor anything in the software that would allow us to implement the Schulze method for this upcoming election.

Purpose of this request for comment: To determine is there is a rough consensus to continue using secret ballot voting for the 2010 Arbitration Committee election in December via SecurePoll. This is RFC is scheduled to last for 10 days; after that time, it will be closed with an uninvolved editor to determine the result of the RFC. The reason behind the short time window for this RFC is so that the MediaWiki developers have enough time to set up and implement the SecurePoll extension for this election.

REMINDER TO USE THE TALK PAGE FOR DISCUSSION: All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

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

Statements for SecurePoll

Statement by Will Beback

The secret ballot SecurePoll election worked well last year. We should use it again.

Users who endorse this summary
  1.   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. DC T•C 00:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Mr.Z-man 03:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  Sandstein  06:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. -- Cirt (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 07:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Courcelles 09:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Collect (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. — Coren (talk) 10:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 12:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Second choice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. With the caveat that it took too long for the results to be posted. However, the voting was fair, and transparent enough. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Tony (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Antandrus (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Neutron (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. With the caveat that I (voluntarily) published my intended votes in advance as I have for several years, and intend to do so again this year. Those who want to publicise their votes can (and we AGF that they tell us the truth). ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. --Hut 8.5 15:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. — Carrite (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Davewild (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23.  Roger talk 17:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  24. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  25. Ludwigs2 19:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  26. Per Sjakkale. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  27. Keep the balloting secret. We do not need to know who voted for whom, except for the reasons Lar mentions above. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a social media forum. Cla68 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  28. Jayjg (talk) 23:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  29. Well said. Sven Manguard Talk 23:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  30. Agree. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  31. Agree, with the alternative being a terribly drawn out RFA/RFC/Straw poll style discussion this seems the best option The Resident Anthropologist (talk)
  32. It is good to know who voted, though, and it wouldn't hurt to have statistics such as whether someone did much better or worse with relatively low-edit-count editors. Mackan79 (talk) 06:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  33. It's the most practical and sensible way forward, particularly considering the timescales involved. GedUK  07:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  34. Per everything Lar said above. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  35. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  36. As explained in CBM's more comprehensive statement. Ucucha 11:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  37. yes it seemed to work fine. If it didn't the flaws certainly haven't become apparent to me, one who is not prepared to wade through the usual 800kb of argument and counter argument. --Joopercoopers (talk) 11:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  38. Lightmouse (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  39. Simply, yes. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  40. Weakly support this. I strenuously argued for open voting last year, and still feel transparency is getting short shrift in these discussions. However it appears that most support is coalescing around a secret ballot and last year's secret ballot was not the end of the world. I will echo the comments above that processing of votes last year took way too long for the number of voters and the mechanism used (no one had to score paper ballots and we had fewer than two thousand editors voting). Also, we may have to consider that secret ballots result in fewer "yes" votes for candidates (see the checkuser election business), so a 70% threshold may be unsustainable for a secret ballot system. Protonk (talk) 17:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  41. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  42. Keep balloting secret. I do share concerns about accountability since everything has to be by computer (no paper trail). Diderot's dreams (talk) 19:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  43. Last year did go well, and I see no compelling reason to regress back to the earlier methods. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  44. Robofish (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  45. --Scott Mac 21:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  46. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  47. I'm not so sure I'd go so far as to say the election last years went well, but I do think the SecurePoll extension is the least objectionable option for this election. Last year I expressed the desire for open voting, and I still have concerns about accountability. -Atmoz (talk) 23:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  48. --Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  49. Feinoha Talk, My master 03:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  50. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  51. Modernist (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  52. User:Lambiam 06:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  53. It does suck out a lot of teh dramaz.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  54. It was a resounding success for it's first year. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  55. Bejinhan talks 10:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CBM

No modern democracy that I know of uses an open voting system or releases votes after the election, and even large meetings of private societies use secret voting. The benefits of secret ballots are so widely known and acknowledged that nobody usually even bothers to explain them. Elections are not meant to be transparent in the sense of publishing all the votes, and the selection of arbitrators is indeed an election, not a consensus gathering process.

The fundamental problem with releasing voter information, even after the election, is that it allows arbitrators to see who voted for them and against them. This, in turn, impacts both the ability of the arbitrators to be impartial and the appearance of this ability. That is, if an arbitration case comes out against someone who voted against the arbitrators, the arbitrators are in the poor position of having to show that they are not biased. On the other hand, if they simply cannot know the voting information, the appearance of bias is eliminated.

Therefore, we should use some kind of secret ballot for elections, with the promise that the voting information should never be released, although it may be used to check for fraud by the election monitors. 12:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification: I agree with Hipocrite that the mere list of who voted is indeed public information (in every setting that I know of). Only the contents of each person's ballot are kept secrect. 13:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary
  1. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Hipocrite (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC) With the caveat that "voting information" does not include if an individual voted - just how the voted - voting rolls are public information. Hipocrite (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Davewild (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I am too unfamiliar with the details of what was used in the past and of the potential virtues of the Schulze preferential voting system. Regardless, it is exceedingly important to ensure we end up with some form of secret voting in order to promote orderly operations on the project. As a wikipedian since 2006, I still continue to be ever-flabbergasted over the extent to which behind-the-scenes social cliches influence how Wikipedia works. Having ArbCom members harboring resentments for being voted again is bad cess. Greg L (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. --Hut 8.5 19:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Don't want the arbitrators to be, potentially, biased in Arbitration for or against individuals based on their having voted for or against those arbitrators as candidates. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Mr.Z-man 21:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. In Judaism, I believe one of the Talmudic scholars once said that creating the illusion of impropriety is just as bad as committing an impropriety itself. The example used was that the day that the tax collector goes door to door collecting taxes from the town, you should not repay a longstanding loan to the tax collector, because even though it is completely legitimate, it looks like a bribe to a passer by. Allowing Arbcom members to see who did and did not vote for them creates the illusion of impropriety, even if everything is ultimately on the level. Sven Manguard Talk 00:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. As we are only responsible for ourselves, and represent no-one else, secret ballot is definitely the way to go. --Ohconfucius ¡digame! 02:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. I feel that some of the records should be released such as how many supports, opposes a candidate got. I agree that the names of the people who voted and who they voted for shouldn't e released if we decide to go though this method. Secret account 02:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. 3rd choice. 1st was open vote, where I can read others's vote, and rationales, and even change my vote subsequently. 2nd, where I can read how others voted afterward. 3rd, knowing who voted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Exactly. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. That describes the current implementation; even the scrutineers are unable to see what the votes are, but the list of who voted is public and always accessible. — Coren (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I haven't seen a convincing argument as to why anyone would need to be able to put together the name of the voter with how they voted, other than the voter themselves to ensure correctness. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 20:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Robofish (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Situation I want to avoid: "Well, of course Arb X voted against me: He knows I voted against him in the election, and that my co-disputant voted for him." If the Arbs don't know who voted, then we won't have this problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Feinoha Talk, My master 03:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. User:Lambiam 06:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. -- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statements against SecurePoll

Statement by Angus McLellan

Let's return to open voting. Every argument that can be advanced for a secret ballot appears to have a plausible counter-argument: improved security > reduced transparency and no record, freedom from groupthink > freedom from responsibility, slightly less chance of ballot stuffing > greatly increased chance of block voting, and so on. The traditional system of casting votes wasn't broken. It didn't need fixing. So let's have it back please.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Secret account 23:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Aroni125 (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Cube lurker (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I actually feel the big problem with the secret voting was a lack of discussion. Open voting seems to create the needed discussion. Hobit (talk) 04:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Agree. Also if we need to go secret again, we certainly should use an single transferable vote system. I don't think this will work well with the usual open discussion, which seems bound to be approval voting. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Tex (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Last year's elections were nowhere near as effective in choosing the right arbs as it was in previous years where we had open voting. The secret ballot should not be used. Vodello (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. The old system is better suited to Wikipedia. Everyking (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Fosters discussion, allows everyone to express their opinions instead of just tossing a name into a hat. SecurePoll just isn't very "Wikipedia". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:36, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I could not let this misapprehension go without pointing out that discussion is already encouraged, as it was last year; a dedicated page is provided here. Tony (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but just because a few users "encourage" it, most people do not feel more comfortable discussing their votes under secret polling. People tend to say something about their votes when everyone can see where they voted at the time of voting. I think that much is obvious by looking at what was said in the 2008 (as opposed to what was not said in 2009) elections (eg; 2008 v 2009, 2008 v 2009, etc.) Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Really?? Do you have evidence for this assumption? Tony (talk) 08:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I suggest you familiarise yourself with the facts before commenting or responding Tony, because others can't be expected to repeatedly spoonfeed you when you don't make the effort. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Per Starblind. un☯mi 04:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. On the otherhand secure polls also suck out a lot of the fun and life out of elections! Democracy is an inherently messy, dramatic, contentious process. I miss teh dramaz!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 07:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by RegentsPark

One of the strengths of the wikipedia model is transparency and we should strive to be as open as possible in every decision making process. Off-wiki collaboration, secret ballots are all detrimental to the long term health of this project. As far as possible, we should know who has voted, how they have voted, and why they have voted for every decision, big or small on the encyclopedia and should certainly be able to see this for a powerful committee like arbcom.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Vodello (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Secret account 21:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Smallman12q (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Everyking (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by SmokeyJoe

I don't trust securepoll secret balloting. The security is provides is only partial and is therefore illusory. Checkuser is only effective against careless sockpuppeteers. Methods for avoiding detection are limited only by imagination. 150 mainspace edits are a trivial hurdle for a proficient wikipedian. Effective secret polling requires voter validation. It would be hopeless to try to validate identities of voters with most wikipedians valuing their anonymity. The most effective deterrent against sockpuppet vote-stacking to to require open votes with attached reasons. With the entire community able to peruse voters and reasons, detection of sockpuppetry through recognition of a common style and goal is much more realistic. This trend towards secret (read corruptible) methods for selecting a ruling class that deliberates secretly is an invitation for disaster down the track.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is almost identical to "Statement by Angus McLellan."
SmokeyJoe: please consider merging your vote into "Statement by Angus McLellan."

No, not the same. Angus does not make the point that securepoll creates a vulnerability to carefully sockpuppetry. Only the checkusers can know, and if unconvinced their privacy policy prevents them from letting the community know about their suspicions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suit yourself. I added the tag not because I disagree, but because it makes determining consensus later easier. For the record, there were only just over 900 voters in the 2009 ArbCom election, so a good sock could have an impact, if they managed to qualify their socks, which might be a bit difficult, and they knew to vote. In other words, I doubt the casual vandal would find this and I doubt the hardcore sockmaster could string an account along long enough to qualify. Sven Manguard Talk 03:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secret voting is so commonplace that nobody usually even bothers to question it. They forget that secret voting requires positive identification guaranteeing one vote per eligible person. A number of further comments are precluded by WP:BEANS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Smallman12q

Children love secret club houses. They love secrecy even when there's no need for secrecy.

— -Donna Tartt

Is there really a need for secret ballots when transparent voting is just as efficient and fair...

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Smallman12q (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. --RegentsPark (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statements on hybrid solutions

Statement by roux

Obviously keeping the vote closed has its advantages; people may vote during the election without worry about being hounded. This is a good thing. That being said, transparency is a key Wikipedia principle. Why can't we have the best of both worlds? Closed voting, then publish who voted where afterwards. This allows for both transparency and freedom to vote.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. As proposer. → ROUX ₪ 12:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. 2nd choice after an open vote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. With the caveat that records should be published at least several years after the vote; or only when no arbitrators who participated in those elections are participating in the current ones. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This is good. Lots of people just pile on, and stopping the me too thing is important. I can think of one case where someone was about 50-0 then one guy disagreed and the rest piled on and the guy went down a lot. It's also obvious when one guy with no policies starts off with 30-0 while others have a lot more votes, but as the others accrue to odd oppose, later voters just pile on support for those with no opposes and then don't participate on some other guys with a handful of opposes. More generally, it's pretty easy for an extremist to just make random accusations and convince a dozen to just arbitrarily oppose, which is enough to sway things given that ArbCom is the triumph of small target (no policy) politics YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:04, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Users who oppose this summary
  1. Although Piotrus's idea I could live with, an immediate release of the information defeats half the purpose of the secret ballot. Sven Manguard Talk 01:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Od Mishehu

I think that a secret ballot is good, provided that a user can change his/her mind on a single candidate without needing to remember all his/her votes about the others. Users should be able to vote one at a time, changing their minds and having the system remember their votes and keep them unless the user explicitly changes them. And while I have no opposition to "vote monitors" who keep track of every vote, and I have no opposition to the public knowing which users voted, I think that secret ballot is better.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Technical improvement that would be useful and would not change anything in the process itself. I see no reason not to endorse this (people like me tend to be forgetful ;-)) Regards SoWhy 09:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Useful technical improvement. Ucucha 11:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't think it's possible to have this ready in time for the election, but that would be a highly desirable usability improvement. — Coren (talk) 19:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Desirable if possible. Robofish (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. per Coren. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statements on voting method

Statement 1 by A Horse called Man

Secret ballot SecurePoll with a Schulze/Condorcet preferential voting system extension should be used. The voters rank the candidates in order of preference. When M seats are vacant, then the top-M candidates of the Schulze/Condorcet ranking should be elected. This system was already used for the 2008 and the 2009 Wikimedia Board of Trustees elections.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. A Horse called Man 21:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. It would be nice if we could. I don't think we can, but if this could be raised well before our next major election, that would be nice. NW (Talk) 13:54, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I understand why this would be difficult/impossible for this year but I would support this for future elections. Davewild (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support for future elections even if not possible for this election.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. We may as well have open factionalism, eg, political parties to support certain racial/religious POV pushing groups, mates' parties, social clubs, parties for writers, deletionists, hat-collectors etc.... The arbcases that get attention are the ones that involve the famous warlords and factional chiefs of wikipedia, and in those cases the side with more political power wins, or more likely, it is a draw as both sides have some power and would punish any arb that votes against them if they want re-election. When the dispute involves two nobodies, it proceeds quickly without anyone getting too fussed. Let's face it, people only get interested in cases, from both sides of the fence, if they have a horse in the race, except for the usual chunk of admins who just like joining in any drama. So we may as well have interest-group style representation openly, with no hypocrisy, fake "outsider" interest, recusals etc... people are only interested if they are stakeholders. The current system favours people who pretend to be independent when they are not and don't recuse and only leads to situations like UN Security Council vetoes from involved warlords/parties' main ally....otherwise they are perpetually snoring YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea what the heck you just said. None. I am not really knowledgeable about ArbCom but from a pure following the words standpoint, I'm still confused. Can you clarify this? Sven Manguard Talk 04:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Alternative methods have been discussed in two RFCs (1 and 2), indicating that different voting systems are desirable. Again, I support, but it ain't going to happen unless someone writes the code. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

I have placed a comment on the talk page with respect to this statement. Risker (talk) 22:13, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement 2 by A Horse called Man

Secret ballot SecurePoll with proportional representation by the single transferable vote should be used. The voters rank the candidates in order of preference. This system guarantees that also minority groups are represented in the ArbCom.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. A Horse called Man 21:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. No strong feelings either way on the secret ballot as there are advantages and disadvantages either way. But strongly support STV to achieve a diverse Arbcom. ϢereSpielChequers 22:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I'm not sure there are really any identifiable minority groups on Wikipedia we need to protect, but I prefer STV (which allows users to express preferences) to approval voting (limited to support/neutral/oppose) in any case. Robofish (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. We may as well have open factionalism, eg, political parties to support certain racial/religious POV pushing groups, mates' parties, social clubs, parties for writers, deletionists, hat-collectors etc.... The arbcases that get attention are the ones that involve the famous warlords and factional chiefs of wikipedia, and in those cases the side with more political power wins, or more likely, it is a draw as both sides have some power and would punish any arb that votes against them if they want re-election. When the dispute involves two nobodies, it proceeds quickly without anyone getting too fussed. Let's face it, people only get interested in cases, from both sides of the fence, if they have a horse in the race, except for the usual chunk of admins who just like joining in any drama. So we may as well have interest-group style representation openly, with no hypocrisy, fake "outsider" interest, recusals etc... people are only interested if they are stakeholders. The current system favours people who pretend to be independent when they are not and don't recuse and only leads to situations like UN Security Council vetoes from involved warlords/parties' main ally....otherwise they are perpetually snoring YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 04:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by CS55cp

Support/Neutral/Oppose voting worked well last year. We should use it again.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. CS55cp (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by DC

We should use a system currently used by actual democracies. Instead of S/N/O let's use Plurality-at-large voting.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. DC T•C 05:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC) 15:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Fetchcomms

We have SecurePoll. We have open voting. We have non-WMF-hosted voting methods. We're not here to request a new extension, and we're not here to waste time on some external site.

I would like a sort of open SecurePoll based on the Schulze method, but I know I can't have it, so I'm not going to ask for it. SecurePoll is less of a hassle and better prevents against vote stacking, but it's not open. I don't care either way (though I have a feeling SecurePoll is just going to be easier), but if there's any way the devs can tweak SecurePoll so it shows who voted for who but keeps everything else the same, I think that's more organized. But that's probably not feasible, and we're not here to propose an extension change, so my view is just stick with SecurePoll because neither it nor open voting has a significant advantage over the other (both have shortfalls), but SecurePoll is better organized and easier to manage.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Nifboy (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Seraphimblade

While I support the secret ballot initiative (whether for the actual bias or the appearance thereof, Arbs should not have a way to know who voted for or against them), I think one should be able to check how one's own vote was recorded. This being a strictly electronic election, I should be able to go in and ensure that the system recorded my vote as I intended to make it, and have it voided and recast if there's a discrepancy. Alternatively, the system could email, to an address of the voter's specification, a summary of the votes recorded. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary
  1. As proposer. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Likely too late to do for 2010, but a good idea for future elections. Sven Manguard Talk 01:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Sure. If we have a bit of support for this, someone should file an enhancement request in bugzilla. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Cybercobra

Secret ballot SecurePoll with a range voting extension should be used. Range voting's method of operation is easy to understand and implement compared to Condorcet/Schulze. It has significant advantages/merits compared to other voting systems (see article), and at worst it essentially falls back to approval voting, which is from my understanding what SecurePoll currently implements (thus, it would also be a smoother/easier transition). Obviously, as with the Schulze proposal, this would probably only be feasible for future elections rather than this upcoming one, but still..

Users who endorse this summary
  1. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statements not related to the voting medium

Statement by Hipocrite

Whatever voting method is used, please add None of the above as a voting option.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Hipocrite (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Quite. And can we also adopt the Libertarian platform plank that if NOTA wins a plurality, the office goes unstaffed? :) ++Lar: t/c 15:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Rregarding Lar's comment, that might not be a bad idea. If NOTA were to win a plurality, or finishes with enough votes to qualify for one of the positions, it might work to not fill that position, perhaps because of the lackluster support of some of the candidates, and we might leave that position open until the next election, when we might fill that then-vacant position. John Carter (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4.  – iridescent 22:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Add "none of the above" or "abstain" option. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  6. It would be interesting to see how many people would do this. We've previously had no way for people to express it. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 20:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I strongly support this. Everyking (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Per Slimvirgin (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Good option...Modernist (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. MZMcBride (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. If someone wants to do the coding, I support it being implemented. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Sure, I can dig this.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Sven Manguard

TLDR: Whether or not we add None of the Above as an option, leaving spaces empty deliberately is not a good idea.

EXTENDED: If we look at Arbcom, at any given time several members are inactive, and combined with the occasional resignation, Arbcom is rarely at full strength. Since almost everyone can agree that Arbcom's function is important, and that their decisions can often have a large impact on the project, we should do our best to ensure that there are enough active members that decisions can always be made. Most decisions I see are voted on by 10 or 11 members. If we have 18 slots and only 15 or 16 filled, then by the end of the year, we might have as few as 12 active Arbcom members. With a big enough issue, the possibility of members having to recuse themselves comes up, and then we could dip under 10, which would be bad. I say if we have 18 slots, 18 should be filled.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. As poster Sven Manguard Talk 00:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Our priority in this election is filling the empty seats on ArbCom. Robofish (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Really it's nothing more than a silly stunt. DC T•C 04:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. While allowing people to register that they don't have an opinion is a good idea, I don't think it would be worthwhile using that data in the first year. Let's understand it first. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Neutron

In order to prevent disruption of the balloting, no candidate should be permitted to withdraw from the ballot once voting has begun. After that point, a candidate may indicate in their statement or elsewhere that they no longer wish to be considered by voters, but their name will remain on the ballot and their results reported along with all other candidates.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Intended to address a situation that came up last year. Neutron (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Don't foresee any major downsides to this. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I was the situation (mainly because my health was failing me) I got desysopped soon after, I agree Secret account 23:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Seems reasonable. John Carter (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I suppose this makes sense for technical reasons, although I would like it if something like this message appeared at the voting screen: Sven Manguard Talk 01:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please Note: UserName has withdrawn from consideration. For technical reasons, voting for UserName is still possible, however UserName will not assume a position at ArbCom, and votes for UserName will be discounted when the votes are tallied.
  6. Deciding this now, in advance, is likely to reduce issues later. Good point! ++Lar: t/c 02:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I am upset to see that this didn't make it onto the page when it was constructed. I thought it was there. It is a very good (dare I say it, obvious) proposal. Tony (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Seems sensible. GedUK  07:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Reasonable proposal. No election system anywhere (that I know of) allows candidates to withdraw after the voting began and I see no reason to handle it differently here. Candidates can still decline to take up the position if their bid is successful, so there is simply no need for withdrawing during the election. Regards SoWhy 09:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Per SoWhy. Ucucha 11:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Correct, per talk discussion. Hipocrite (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Agree. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 14:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Vodello (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  14. OhanaUnitedTalk page 19:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  15. I see no problem with this; having had enough votes to be elected in no way obligates the editor to takes a seat, and there is no shame in not having been elected. — Coren (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Obviously. -Atmoz (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  17. If you're gonna run, see it through. Everyking (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Sound and logical proposal. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Don't see any issue here. Not like we can force someone to serve even if they win. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Avoids logistical headaches. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  22. Agree with the above. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  23. Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement 2 by Sven Manguard

Because there are 18 spots total, and 10 spots up for election, the 2011 election will, barring any resignations, only have 8 slots. For that reason I propose that the top ten people all get positions, but the person ranked tenth in support only be given a one year term, making the number of seats up for grabs in 2011 9 instead of 8. The tenth ranked person will be entitled to the full two years if any other ArbCom member resigns or is deposed of, as this is a measure to ensure 9 seats up for grabs each election.

Users who endorse this summary
  1. Sven Manguard Talk 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC) as poster.[reply]
  2. Tony (talk) 10:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (That is almost certainly what Jimmy will do, to follow his previous practice of shifting oscillations between elections from the number of candidates to the boundary between one- and two-year terms. The community may wish to explicitly endorse this practice, though.) Tony (talk) 10:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by John Vandenberg

My crystal ball tells that there will be at least one resignation in 2011, and it's leaning towards more than one resignation, so it is not worth planning next years election parameters now.

Users who endorse this summary

Statement by $USER

Add your statement, leave one copy of the section at the bottom.

Users who endorse this summary

Reminder to use the talk page for discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/2010_ArbCom_election_voting_procedure&oldid=393189296"