Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014

Notices

I've placed notices of the RfC at WP:CENT, WP:AN, WP:VPP, WT:ACN, and WT:AC. If anyone feels it should be raised elsewhere, please feel free to do so. Mike V • Talk 06:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using "oppose" votes - in the sections about voting systems in a manner showing why "oppose voting" has problems

I oppose using oppose votes for the basis of any election -- and I placed a single "oppose" vote for that reason. I would note that several seem to now place "oppose" votes at every suggestion which is not their single precise favoured manner of voting <g> which I suggest shows precisely why "oppose" voting in an election is a really poor idea, and has been shown to be so in the past. In fact - the exact same scenario -- voting for one or a small number of candidates and voting "oppose" for everyone else which skews the election to those whose followers are "true believers" against any other candidates. I place this section on the talk page as the main page is, IMHO, not the place for such campaigning and lengthy opinions such as (my words) "I oppose every voting system other than one which allows oppose votes for every candidate I do not directly support." Collect (talk) 12:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two possibly related questions

I am curious of your opinion Collect; and of course any others willing to comment as well. Do you think that the secret ballot makes it easier for voters to exaggerate their opposition? Do you think the secret ballot is the best way to conduct the election?—John Cline (talk) 13:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Many pieces to consider. First of all is the prospect that an "open ballot" would be used by less-than-scrupulous ArbCom winners to base their decisions upon regarding those who supported or opposed them. Granted that guide writers are already in that position, but many others might think twice before opposing a person whom they think might be disposed to hold any grudge. If I recall correctly, such has been asserted about some admins in the past towards oppose !votes at an RfA. If such is a real concern to a person, clearly a secret ballot is preferred.

Second is the issue of relative net weight of votes - each "oppose" vote negates more than one favourable vote in the current system, as a rule. A person who gives oppose votes to everyone except the limited slate he is voting for actually multiplies that factor - placing any group of (say) twenty or so editors pretty much in the catbird seat to get one or more favoured persons elected. Hypothetical example: 16 candidates, and fifteen to be elected -- and the "bloc" of twenty casts 20 votes for one person and 300 oppose votes total against the field. The "support - oppose / total" figure will be notably skewed as a result. If another hundred voters evenly split on the fifteen, and cast no oppose votes, then each of the 15 will have an absolute maximum of (100-20/120) = 67% approval, while the single candidate would have (20-0/20) ==100% approval. I trust this hypothetical example exposes the problematic nature of "oppose" voting. Note this applies to any limited slate supported by such a bloc, not just a single person slate. Collect (talk) 14:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to election organizers

This is just a friendly reminder to whoever winds up organizing the election that (assuming we continue to use SecurePoll) you need to get in touch with the WMF Office several weeks in advance of the election to provide ample time for the ballot to be set up. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quite. For the avoidance of potential issues, such notification can be made to me and to James, as notice given through bugzilla has not always proven reliable. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Newyorkbrad and Philippe (WMF): I agree, but the nominations end on 00:59 18 Nov and the voting begins 00:01 24 Nov. That leaves a window of 5 days (19, 20, 21, 22, 23). That includes developing the configuration list, creating an encryption certificate, setting up SecurePoll, loading in the candidates, and verification. Will we have enough time?--v/r - T P 20:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Number of seats to be filled

I am not sure whether this has been discussed elsewhere, so I am discussing it here. I am not proposing any change to what was decided last year, so I am not putting this on the main RfC page. I just want to confirm what I think is the case so there is no misunderstanding later.

The authorized number of arbitrators is 15. Based on the chart here, seven terms are ending at the end of this year. Six arbitrators who were elected in 2013 continue to serve, and their terms expire at the end of 2015. That leaves two vacancies (caused by the resignation of Floquenbeam and the non-taking-office of 28Bytes, though the latter is not shown on that chart.) Based on the RfC close here, one of the vacant seats will "switch groups," and eight arbitrators will be elected for two-terms. And based on that close and this one, the other vacancy will be filled for a one-year term, maintaining the 8/7 division in the groups. So there are a total of nine seats to be filled, eight for 2 years and one for 1 year. (This assumes that the decisions made last year are not altered in the current RfC, which so far nobody has proposed, and obviously any additional resignations from the group that was elected in 2013 would be filled for 1-year terms.)

Right? Neutron (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly my understanding. Worm^TT(talk) 06:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks right to me too. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]