The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:ACERFC2010

Closing Statement: As UltraExactZZ wrote on a similar RfC last year, "The election of editors to the Arbitration Committee is one of the most important meta tasks we undertake as part of this project. No single process garners more participation, more emotion, or more drama than these elections - so much so that we must relegate them to an annual event." With that, I am making the following evaluation as follows:

Secret vs. open ballots. There is a clear consensus in support of secret ballots. However, there are two qualifications here:

The present Mediawiki software apparently does not support the Schulze method. It ain't gonna happen at this time. Even if there was overwhelming support for this option. To everyone who wants it, open a ticket at bugzilla to support it, & encourage the developers to make it happen. If you're successful, maybe it will be a viable option for the next election.
The argument supporting open & transparent discussions about the different candidates are compelling, so I believe it would be in the best interest to facilitate these discussions. Further, if a formal method is not found forcing people to rely on informal fora to discuss the different candidates, then all Wikipedians must respect this process, & anyone attempting to suppress this discussion can be expected to be reported to WP:AN/I to face the appropriate sanctions.

Voting method. Consensus appears to endorse the current SecurePoll method. It's what we are using now, & no one has presented an alternative that has found stronger support.

No last-minute withdrawals. Of the additional considerations for this election, this gathered the most support. However, only slightly more than half of the number that added their support to secret ballots voted for this proposal. But honestly, who wants to elect a quitter to the ArbCom? Since it follows common sense (does anyone want someone who quit partway through the election to be a member of the Arbcom?), those monitoring the election should follow this non-binding suggestion. But this proposal & the two below that I explicitly mention should be discussed & refined further over the following months so that they can properly considered for the next ArbCom election.

Risker's requirements for appointees. This gathered almost as much support as the one about "No last-minute withdrawals", but like it failed to gather anywhere near the support that the secret ballot proposal did. But since this proposal follows common sense also, it is an attractive idea & worth considering as a non-binding suggestion. However, if less than 17 people meet this requirement, & we have 18 seats to fill, this requirement gives Jimmy Wales carte blanche to appoint anyone he wants to this empty seat. Do we want him to appoint someone people voted for, or for anyone else who has an account who strikes his fancy?

None of the above as a choice. No consensus. I'll admit that I like this idea in a general sense (in the US, yesterday was Election Day, need I say more?) but it didn't attract enough support to be adopted. Further, as Sven Manguard & Neutron point out in their opposes & in the thread on the talk page, there is no good way to implement this option: we need as many people as we can get to fill the 18 ArbCom seats, & if everyone votes "None of the Above", the ArbCom will have no members & won't function at all. If you don't like the ArbCom, there are better ways to find something to replace it than through this back door.

Other proposals. These gathered negligible support, perhaps because they were so far down the page. If their proposers seriously think they are a good idea, they need to find ways to get more people interested in considering them before the next ArbCom election.

To summarize, the consensus of this RFC is as follows:

Arbitrators will be elected by Secret Ballot using the SecurePoll extension.
The Arbitration Committee shall consist of 18 Members elected to 2 Year Terms (Status Quo)
Ballots will invite editors to Support or Oppose candidates (Status Quo)
Voters must have 150 mainspace edits before the election cycle to vote (Status Quo)

My sincere thanks to all who participated. -- llywrch (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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 RFC is scheduled to last for 10 days; after that time [22:01, 3 November 2010 (UTC)], 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 on secret ballots vs. open voting

Statements for secret ballots

Statement by Will Beback

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

Users who endorse this summary

Will Beback talk 23:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DC T•C 00:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Z-man 03:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein 06:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 06:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 07:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Courcelles 09:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Collect (talk) 10:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Coren ^(talk) 10:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 12:38, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Second choice. — Carl (CBM · talk) 12:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Tony (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Antandrus (talk) 13:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutron (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
--Hut 8.5 15:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Carrite (talk) 16:10, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Davewild (talk) 16:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
/ƒETCH COMMS / 16:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger ^talk 17:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John Carter (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ludwigs2 19:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Sjakkale. Alzarian16 (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 networking forum. Cla68 (talk) 22:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jayjg ^(talk) 23:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 02:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, with the alternative being a terribly drawn out RFA/RFC/Straw poll style discussion this seems the best option The Resident Anthropologist (talk)
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]
It's the most practical and sensible way forward, particularly considering the timescales involved. Ged UK 07:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per everything Lar said above. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As explained in CBM's more comprehensive statement. Ucucha 11:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Lightmouse (talk) 14:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simply, yes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Robofish (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Scott Mac 21:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
--Epeefleche (talk) 03:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 03:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dabomb87 (talk) 03:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modernist (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lambiam 06:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does suck out a lot of teh dramaz.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 07:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It was a resounding success for it's first year. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bejinhan talks 10:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^PRAISE _{GOOD WORKS} 12:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While agreeing with CBM/Hipocrite below. shoy (reactions) 13:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Île flottante (talk) 15:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Captain panda 15:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there needs to be more open discussion of the candidates, but that "pro" by itself doesn't outweigh all the "pros" of having a secret ballot; same as in any other electoral system.radek (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Jezebel'sPonyo ^{bons mots} 17:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ronk01 talk 19:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--M4gnum0n (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Kudpung (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus (talk) 02:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--RexxS (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CT Cooper · talk 09:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ScottyBerg (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Horse called Man 20:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
—Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:40pm • 06:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the proviso that more discussion is needed than took place last year. Secret balloting with no discussion just doesn't work. Proper discussions, followed by secret balloting does seem to work. Carcharoth (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but agree with Carcharoth, we need more discussion before voting. Cenarium (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JoshuaZ (talk) 15:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but I share concerns about the lack of discussion. Support open discussion followed by secret balloting. Naevus 00:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, open (and civil) discussion followed by secret voting seems to be the right method here.--Kotniski (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orderinchaos 13:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
œ ^™ 14:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But greatly reduced discussion is a worry. Anthony (talk) 18:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with those who say that there should be open discussion followed by secret ballot -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 10:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:07, 3 November 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

— Carl (CBM · talk) 12:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Davewild (talk) 16:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
--Hut 8.5 19:02, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
--Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 19:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Z-man 21:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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]
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]
Exactly. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Robofish (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Feinoha ^{Talk, My master} 03:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Cybercobra (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lambiam 06:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
shoy (reactions) 13:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--KrebMarkt (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cs32en Talk to me 20:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Buster7 (talk) 21:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--M4gnum0n (talk) 21:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Helpful One 00:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus (talk) 02:30, 28 October 2010 (UTC), although I don't think it likely that ArbCom members would care who litigants voted for or that anyone would think that they do, I suppose it's a good thing to not allow the point to be made.[reply]
--RexxS (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CT Cooper · talk 09:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 09:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger ^talk 14:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Horse called Man 20:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
—Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:40pm • 06:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If arbitrators are to effectively perform their functions; as well as being actually impartial then they must be seen to be impartial by all parties that come before it. Even though in my mind it is ridiculous to assume that there is any possibility that open votes would lead to bias in arbcom members in subsequent cases, it would nevertheless open up arbcom to charges that there has been an appearance of bias. (For a detailed consideration the same basic point in a much more serious situation, see the jusgement of the House of Lords in the Pinochet case)Ajbpearce (talk) 12:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 06:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Naevus 00:13, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
—Кузьма^討論 06:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Girlwithgreeneyes (talk) 10:19, 3 November 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.

Update: enhancement requested at bugzilla:bug 25755. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 19:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

As proposer. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(For clarification, by a "summary of the votes recorded", I mean a summary of the voter's own votes, not anyone else's.) Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likely too late to do for 2010, but a good idea for future elections. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Support if technically possible. This was also brought up during last year's vote. DC T•C 14:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure exactly what Seraphimblade is requesting here. but I think I support the idea of a given voter being able to receive a confirmation notice of his or her vote. I would have questions about giving any editor the option to find out in detail how everyone as an individual voted, because that would open the door to having winners and losers in the election the option to find out who specifically did and did not vote for them, which might be problematic. No objections to allowing someone to see the numerical tallies, and maybe some other data short of name-identiification, though. John Carter (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the ability to ask how one's own vote was recorded, automating this would require an update to the extension though. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is to be secret voting, the ability to check your own vote is a good security check. I would like to see how my vote was recorded. I would like to see that no vote is recorded against my name if I didn't vote. At the moment of voting, there needs to be an unforgeable record available to myself. If, two months down the track I want to raise a storm because my recorded vote is not the one I submitted, you will reasonably want proof. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unqualified support. -Atmoz (talk) 22:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a "real-world" political election this would be a terrible idea, since an important principle behind secret voting is that it should be impossible to prove what you voted (this prevents a potential vote buyer from obtaining proof of what someone voted). However, this is an internal Wikipedia election for ArbCom, and vote buying and voter intimidation is nowhere near as likely. The practical benefit of being able to keep a record of what you voted before (for example, in case you want to change your vote on just one candidate without having to remember what you voted on everyone else) outweighs the principled objection. Not a strong, ringing endorsement of this view, but an endorsement nonetheless. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 03:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sjakkalle makes a good point, but I think in any electronic election you can fake such things or do fake screenshots, so the practicality of being able to check your own vote outweighs this concern. Must obviously be secure so there is not even the remotest possibility of being able to look up other people's votes. Ultimately, though, I think the SecurePoll system is set up so that while it can adjust votes when people change them, it only outputs the final results and whatever other data the scrutineers need. I don't think it is actually possible to see who voted for whom in the current set-up (people changing their vote all takes place inside a black box), but maybe a developer can confirm this. Carcharoth (talk) 06:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statements for open voting

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

Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secret ^account 23:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aroni125 (talk) 02:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:58, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cube lurker (talk) 13:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--RegentsPark (talk) 13:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tex (talk) 13:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
The old system is better suited to Wikipedia. Everyking (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I find this comment to be inappropriate. Those who have voluntarily taken on the task of coordinating the election should not be denigrated for assuming that, absent any indication from the community of the opposite, this year's election should largely follow the pattern of last year's election. I hope you will reconsider your comment, Ncmvocalist. Risker (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At this time and age, that excuse is simply not good enough which is why there's only so many times spoonfeeding can occur. in other words The Community, which consists of volunteers, has repeatedly provided indications that assumptions should not be made about what it is that it wants or doesn't want (considered) in various contexts. These indications were not just given to AC on several occasions, but to individuals: editors, administrators, candidates + coordinators of various elections...etc. The results that would emerge from a (continued) lack of receptiveness to the message is what needs to be reconsidered by those concerned, Risker. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was indeed a comments section, but most chose not to speak out against drama monger candidates. The comments section was so barebones I wonder if most voters even knew it existed. It became a popularity contest, with many voters not knowing whether or not they were voting for a trouble user. Applying for arbitration should be as open as applying for administrator status. The previous Arb voting system was fine. Instead of just getting 2 or 3 comments, each candidate would get hundreds, educating the voter enough to make a decision to vote for or against the candidate. Now that is gone, and I feel the Arbitration Committee has been diluted in quality because of it. In the 2010 voting, you should lay all your cards down on the table, not play Texas Hold 'em. Wikipedia is not a democracy. Vodello (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Starblind. u n☯mi 04:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
The secret ballot used last year greatly suppressed discussion of the candidates (see here). While this is good for the candidates, it's bad for Wikipedia. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need far more discussions of candidates, the old system was clearly a better system. Count Iblis (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The process last year was much less effective in producing useful group deliberation on the candidates. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secret ballots are a good idea, yes, but only if it's an informed electorate. One of the problems with secret ballots on Wikipedia, is that it reduces the amount of information available to those who are voting. There were sections for comments in last year's election, but they were barely used, and I very much missed the ability to see what other voters thought about a particular candidate. I would like to see us return to open voting, rather than secret. --El on ka 04:04, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might seem contradictory to support both this and secret balloting, but I think what is needed is 'endorsement' pages, where people can show support for a candidate, but to forbid opposes on these pages (which quickly drags down the tone of debate). That way you can see at a glance who are the 'popular' candidates, and concentrate your reading on those candidates. Opposition would go on the discussion page and would have to be with a reason for opposing, and would be in the form 'reasons not to support this candidate'. However, endorsement pages were controversial in past elections (a very long time ago), so there would need to be a consensus to have them used again. A final check is to have those participating at these pages checked against the voting list. Those who had endorsed a candidate but not voted would be reminded to do so before the end of the election (and big notices at the top would tell people where to actually vote). Carcharoth (talk) 06:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per SmokeyJoe (below), a secret ballot is more comfortable for the elector but in the absence of voter identification, a secret ballot is utterly corruptible; and, per Vodello, open voting is accompanied by robust commantary, which performs the essential educative function of a campaign. Anthony (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2010 (UTC) After talk page discussion -- Anthony (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Them From Space 05:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Open voting, open discussion, no more vote mistakes, no more voter fraud. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hans Adler 00:05, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I value the reasons why someone is supporting a candidate. That's true for admin RfA elections, bureaucrat elections, and should be true for arbcom elections. --GRuban (talk) 20:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my comment under RegentsPark's statement below. Skomorokh 20:55, 3 November 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

/ƒETCH COMMS / 03:07, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nifboy (talk) 04:00, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Efficiency: get it done. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Mono 00:50, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on this proposal have been made here.

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

--RegentsPark (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vodello (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secret ^account 21:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smallman12q (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Everyking (talk) 23:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Them From Space 05:29, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very well put. The arguments in favour of secrecy on the retaliation front strike me as somewhat hysterical (who would seriously forward the same line at RFA?) and the "follow real-life elections" reasoning smacks of playing model UN. I will grant that SecurePoll makes the voting process easy and efficient, but those are lowly virtues compared with the informed discussion and decision-making transparency fosters. This is an open project which thrives when we collaborate, deliberate, and decide together on the major questions openly. Skomorokh 19:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--GRuban (talk) 20:53, 3 November 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

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--RegentsPark (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We had such an incident two years ago. We do not know whether we had such an incident last year. Hans Adler 00:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on this have been made here.

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

Smallman12q (talk) 22:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--RegentsPark (talk) 01:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secret ^account 14:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 13:19, 2 November 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

As proposer. → ROUX ₪ 12:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2nd choice after an open vote. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Second choice Secret ^account 14:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
—Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:43pm • 06:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on this have been made here.

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

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 So Why 09:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Useful technical improvement. Ucucha 11:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Desirable if possible. Robofish (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
per Coren. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--KrebMarkt (talk) 19:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This would be nice. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Treat this endorsement as a request for an interface improvement when devs can implement it. If this gains support, I wouldn't want to see us asking for the same thing again next year. --RexxS (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Someone suggested this last year, hopefully we will have it next year. Neutron (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the idea for future development for future elections. This year we will be okay without it as SecurePoll is still the best alternative available. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 09:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 15:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
—Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:43pm • 06:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to navigate this page, but so long as supporting this statement rather than one of the previous ones doesn't weaken my support for a secret ballot with the ability to see one's own vote, —— Shakescene (talk) 05:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on this proposal have been made here.

Statement by Vecrumba

The question is not whether the voting should be secret or open. The question is, what are we seeking to accomplish through the act of voting. If it is only to elect XYZ arbiters, then the vote is single-purpose, should be secret, and we are done. I stated last time that, "there is a reason that even the most innocuous of ballots are secret [, which is] to assure people can vote their conscience, not their stated public position."

My sense, however, is that there is a yearning on the part of a significant portion of the Wiki community that that voting is more than an election, it is an opportunity for and an act of community-building. The greatest truism is that "People like people like themselves." I am unlikely to vote for someone whose demeanor, editorial views, or past administrative acts I find antithetical. And so, I would be most interested in which arbiters other editors find to be "most like themselves." On the other hand, (a) I likely have a good idea already anyway and (b) enforcing my right to know how someone else voted is, in the end, an invasion of their privacy.

I propose automated, secret balloting with an additional check-box for editors to mark theirs as an open vote. Results to be published after voting is closed:

listing who voted;
for those electing open voting, listing for whom they voted

The first provides an indication of who are involved enough to vote. The second is that population that seeks deeper discourse on how and why people voted, what constitutes the qualities of a good arbiter, and so forth. "What makes a good arbiter?" is a general question with a general answer and ultimately not very informative. "Why did you vote for ABC?" after the fact is a quite pointed question with a very specific answer—and by being so specific, it goes much more to the heart of addressing what people find as important qualities to be had in an arbiter. It also make public those expectations which voters wish to share; that is invaluable feedback to the arbiter who has received those votes, to better understand what the community sees as key to their successful tenure as arbiter.

Making secret or open a matter of personal choice insures everyone's votes are treated according to their wishes. The option to mark one's vote as open restores the valuable, distinctive—and essential—community dialog which I believe has been lost with secret balloting. (Publishing after the close of voting prevents the election degenerating into a lobbying exercise.)

Users who endorse this summary

As proposer. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--M4gnum0n (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
—Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:59pm • 06:59, 29 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

A Horse called Man 21:48, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
— Carl (CBM · talk) 12:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
Support for future elections even if not possible for this election.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
ARbs should just be advocates/lobbyists instead of pretending to be judges, as they the enthusiasm/urgency to various cases is vastly different depending on the affiliation/power of the parties invovled. In some cases between two nobodies who have no power, often there is no mailing list post (except maybe a vote nag) and people just pile on. In some other cases where famous warlords were invovled, there are often 500 emails each week; obviously they have to think about what to do so that there isn't a ballot box backlash, except some who are there on AC mainly to do a UN Security Council style veto on allies. We may as well be honest and not pretend to have indept judges, when it really is more like the UNSC adding up cost benefit political analysis of their own power balance. YellowMonkey (bananabucket!) 01:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
From what I've learned, the Schulze method offers advantages over other voting systems, apart from the lack of implementation. Again I'd suggest that that endorsement for this statement should indicate a desire for development to make the facility available in future years. --RexxS (talk) 03:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support this in the longer-term. CT Cooper · talk 09:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good enough, not sure about how the devs will implement this though. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:51pm • 06:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better than our previous system for choosing several people. —Кузьма^討論 06:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Better than competing proposals, though not really an appropriate use of the method. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:30, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on this proposal have been made here.

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

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. Ϣere SpielChequers 22:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
I support any reasonable system that gives some semblance of proportional representation. Quantling (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it allows everyone to have a greater say then I'm all for it. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:53pm • 06:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The beauty of STV (also known as Preferential Proportional Representation or the Hare System) is that it should allow a fair proportional reflection of voters' preferences without requiring the formation of explicit slates, parties or factions. The clusters form themselves. I also prefer secret ballots to avoid aggravating previous conflicts or existing hard feelings with a candidate whom you don't support. —— Shakescene (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again in the longer term, STV could have a place on Wikipedia. I do believe that ArbCom should reflect the views of the community and STV could help achieve that. CT Cooper · talk 13:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on this proposal have been made here.

Statement by CS55cp

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

Users who endorse this summary

--M4gnum0n (talk) 21:57, 27 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

DC T•C 05:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC) 15:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:39, 28 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

--Cybercobra (talk) 06:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Quantling

Random ballot preferential voting should be used. (This text is substantially the same as is found here.) Each eligible voter ranks one or more candidates from highest to lowest. Once all ballots are collected, one ballot is selected at random and the candidate who is ranked highest is elected. As long as there continue to be unfilled positions, another ballot is selected at random and the not-yet-elected candidate who is ranked highest (if any) is thus elected. This approach gives much incentive to vote your true preferences rather than to game the system in some way. This approach is supportive of proportional representation in that a large voting block does not automatically completely control the entire election. For statistical ties (and actual ties), this approach in effect employs a coin flip rather than finding resolution via a statistically insignificant number of votes. This process is randomized and can occasionally permit an unlikely, but otherwise eligible candidate to win; thus infusing new perspectives into our ever evolving Wikipedia.

Users who endorse this summary

Quantling (talk) 13:34, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this summary

Categorically and strongly oppose, mainly per the statement offered last year (below.) Sven Manguard _Talk 14:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting system. However, it's highly unsuited here as Arbcom's small size and huge authority mean that just one rogue arb can break the system. Overall I'd say that could potentially work for larger committees/political bodies were rogue members are "averaged out", and that the members don't have much authority beyond being part of the committee itself. Rami R 20:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Statement by Short Brigade Harvester Boris

Propose use of multiple preferential Bergman-Secombe balloting, with Markov chain Monte Carlo resampling from the pool of ballots until a Pareto optimal set of candidates is determined, subject to empirical orthogonal function analysis to ensure that we have obtained the dominant modes of variance amongst the ordered preferences.

Seriously.

Keep it simple, folks. (Keep it simple, stupid presumably would be a personal attack.) The simpler and more straightforward the method, the more likely that people will participate. That's not to say that the absolute simplest method is best, but that complexity itself has as a price that has to be considered. A method that is "best" in a mathematical or theoretical sense isn't necessarily the best in practical terms.

Users who endorse this summary

Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The serious bit, of course. Carcharoth (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please. I never vote on any of the WMF elections because the methods are too effing confusing. Don't do it here too. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the caveat that semi-quasi-orthogonal functions might work better. Hans Adler 00:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voting should be simple for the voter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statements on opposing candidates

Statement by Hipocrite

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

Users who endorse this summary

Hipocrite (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
I do however think that there are enough potential problems with implementing this that any proposal should probably be held off until next year, to allow discussion of how to counterbalance the very possible problems which could arise. John Carter (talk) 14:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
– iridescent 22:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Add "none of the above" or "abstain" option. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
I strongly support this. Everyking (talk) 23:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per Slimvirgin (talk · contribs). Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good option...Modernist (talk) 04:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MZMcBride (talk) 05:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone wants to do the coding, I support it being implemented. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:05, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No coding is required. Merely add a "user" named "none of the above." Hipocrite (talk) 13:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Eh? That will result in useless NOTA votes. Say I select "User:Candidate A" and "User:none of the above", and oppose all the rest. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:30, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I can dig this.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 07:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Such an option is available in several major democracies and should be used here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--KrebMarkt (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--M4gnum0n (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Buster7 (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
/ƒETCH COMMS / 22:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, though it shouldn't be used (or interpreted) as an anti-ArbCom vote, but more to comment on the quality of the candidates (it would also be interesting to have approval votes for sitting arbs running alongside as well). Carcharoth (talk) 06:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on this proposal have been made here.

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

As poster Sven Manguard _Talk 00:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our priority in this election is filling the empty seats on ArbCom. Robofish (talk) 20:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really it's nothing more than a silly stunt. DC T•C 04:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
ArbCom is already very busy, and there will be particular cases in which one arbiter or another cannot participate, for various reasons. So I support making sure that the result of the next election is that ArbCom is constituted to full size. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We need a functioning Committee for the year which means starting with a close to full slate. We haven't failed to get enough appointees yet but vote count is trending downwards and there's always a first time. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--Cybercobra (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We lose too many to deliberately have vacancies Ϣere SpielChequers 19:17, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Risker

All appointees to the Arbitration Committee must:

have self-nominated as candidates in the most recent community election, and
have obtained more support votes than oppose votes in the most recent community election

This applies regardless of whether or not there are sufficient candidates meeting these criteria to fill all open seats on the Arbitration Committee. Seats will remain open if an insufficient number of candidates meet these criteria.

Users who endorse this summary

As initiator. Prevents appointments of non-candidates and ensures that only candidates who received at least majority support can be appointed to the Committee. Risker (talk) 15:52, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Also, current arbiters should not have their terms extended to fill any gaps this creates. -Atmoz (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, "has received either support or oppose from more than 33.33% of all those casting ballots." Hipocrite (talk) 16:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Risker's original proposal, less sure about the additions of endorsers. John Carter (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is important that we clarify this issue, as there is a potential conflict between the number of successful candidacies desired and the minimum threshold for success. Skomorokh 16:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely; this removes the opportunity for arbitrary decisions about which arbitrary decision makers to appoint. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a current arb who's running for re-election, let me state flat out. If I do not get 50% this go-round.. I do not have the community's support. End of story. Period. I would not accept such a nomination, and I don't know many people who would accept such a nomination. If we don't make up the full amount, the Committee could conceivably start below its full complement of 18, and we'd just have to hope we do not have a large amount of withdrawals/resignations. I think the odds on that are suitably low (that A) we do not have a full complement of arbs elected, and B)enough withdrawals/resignations to seriously impact the Committee's smooth functioning) to be low enough that such things can be discussed IF they happen. SirFozzie (talk) 21:43, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.Z-man 01:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Secret ^account 01:37, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
/ƒETCH COMMS / 02:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of surprised that this has to be made explicit. But okay. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fully support the idea that all people being selected to fill a seat must have self nominated for a seat in the election, and received more support than oppose votes. Much much better for ArbCom to have fewer people on the committee than to fill the seat with people who did not have community support. And for the record, if this idea does not get consensus, as a former arbitrator, I personally would not fill a seat for 2011 ArbCom since I'm not running. And would advise other former arbitrator to not do it. FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 10:00, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. I hoped that the last election of checkusrs and oversighters had the same percent (50%) instead of the unrealistic 70%. Sole Soul (talk) 10:12, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sanity Check to counter off Wiki Campaigns Firstly Admin votes need to given more weightage if there is a large deviation between Admin and Non Admin votes particurly as there have been campaigns for and against Candidates off Wiki .Admin Votes or veteran editors with no blocks are less likely to be swayed by campaigns.Even if 15-20 votes are swayed in favour or against a Candidate it works to double as they also are likely vote for or against his closest rivals would change the result in the elections.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the best way, this year. Tony (talk) 12:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger ^talk 14:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm amazed this isn't already the case. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is pretty much how it is, and I don't think an ArbCom member has been appointed since the community began voting on them, (so in other words, several years ago.) The most likely solution is that Jimbo Wales would ask existing members to stay on longer. Sven Manguard _Talk 16:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the event that there aren't qualified candidates who meet these criteria, the possibility of a special election to fill vacant seats would still exist in extreme situations, like large numbers of Arbs resigning or being removed at the same time, I hope. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the current system, no candidate should win election if they don't at least as many supports as opposes. I suppose a special election could be used DC T•C 16:39, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein 16:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutron (talk) 19:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 00:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Hans Adler 00:13, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious. T. Canens (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anything else is not consistent with a notion that Arbs have community support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on this proposal have been made here.

Statement by FT2

Add "no vote" for each candidate if able. There's a subtle difference between "neutral on this candidate" and "not voting on this candidate" as can be seen by use of "neutral" at RFA and in past Arbcom elections. Neutral usually means "some concerns but not enough to oppose" or "some positive views but offset by minor issues". A user who wants to support or oppose some candidates but not opine on others may not wish to say they are "neutral" on the others and shouldn't be made to do so (even though it doesn't affect percentages). Under open voting they could simply not post on the voting page, so the count of neutral views was meaningful.

Users who endorse this summary

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 17:11, 27 October 2010 (UTC) (As proposer)[reply]
Agree - a "neutral" vote should be deliberate. Orderinchaos 13:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Fainites ^barleyscribs 15:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by MuZemike

Taking some basic statistics from the winning candidates from the last two ArbCom elections:

2008

Percentages: 92.0, 87.0, 80.1, 73.5, 73.4, 68.4, 67.5, 66.6, 65.9, 63.9

Range: 28.1

Mean: 73.8

Median: 70.9

Standard deviation: 9.6

2009

Percentages: 72.9, 71.1, 70.1, 68.4, 65.6, 64.9, 64.6, 60.1, 59.9

Range: 13.0

Mean: 66.4

Median: 65.6

Standard deviation: 4.6

Historically, Jimbo has stated that he would not appoint any candidate who received at least 50% support. From the results given above, nearly all of the winning candidates had at least 60% support. It is of my opinion that, in order for the community to satisfactorily approve of the successful candidates, they need to have at least 60% support. The statistics, assuming a normal distribution, seems to lean toward about 55% support if we assumed a 95% confidence level; demanding 60% brings us to a little over one standard deviation from the mean according to the last two elections - which is 68% confidence - which I think more reflects the community's level of expectation with regards to this election.

The next issue is this: what if we do not receive enough candidates who are above 60% support to fill all 10 vacant seats? Should we go below that to fill in the remaining seats, or should we leave them vacant? That is, a point to consider is that, historically, ArbCom has (and is currently) operated at far less than full-strength; given the turnover/attrition rate of arbitrators, we may or may not be safe in allowing that to happen.

Finally, the worst-case scenario: What if only a couple (or even none) of the candidates achieve the minimal amount of support to be appointed to ArbCom, whether that be the de facto 60% or even the de jure 50%? Personally, if we reach that point (similar to with the May 2010 CUOS), I think the community as well as ArbCom will have some serious questions to address as far as the credibility of ArbCom in general is concerned.

Users who endorse this summary

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MuZemike (talk • contribs) 16:54, 28 October 2010

Comments on this have been made here.

Statement by Pharaoh of the Wizards

Elections are meant to select candidates from a pool of candidates, All We need to do is Vote for our Candidates and not vote against others.Please remove the Oppose option

Oppose vote in a RFA, RFB with differences and even a negative feedback in the Editor Review are solely meant to help the candidate improve and many candidates took this feedback positively and later became admins and crats .

In a Arbcom opposes are negative and are Tactical where voters oppose candidates for no reason except that they want there candidate to win hence vote. 1: Candidates securing more votes loses to candidates securing less votes due to tactical voting .This will removed the candidates securing the maximum votes will be elected as is the case in any election. 2: Negative campaigning against candidates off Wiki will come down as oppose votes against him are not possible

Hence Oppose Vote option should be removed .Voters should only be allowed to vote for there candidates and not oppose those they are not supporting and thus eliminate Tactical Voting. This will ensure the Candidates with maximum votes will win the election.’’’

Users who endorse this summary

Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same as mine below (though I didn't offer an explanation) time to get rid of strategic voting to boost your guy. DC T•C 17:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sluzzelin talk 05:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ϣere SpielChequers 19:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Statement 2 by Neutron

A "None of the Above" option should not be provided. It is both unnecessary and confusing, as an option to vote "oppose" for each candidate already exists, and its potential meaning could be (and is being) interpreted different ways.

Users who endorse this summary

See talk page for how the meaning of a "NOTA" vote has been interpreted in different and conflicting ways. Additionally, at this time, the supports for the "NOTA" are being interpreted as being a consensus in its favor (see here) even though there is opposition on the talk page. Neutron (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"None of the Above" tells everyone that the voter doesn't want to have anything to do with the elections at all, if that's the case they can abstain from voting as the "None of the Above" option will just make things a lot more difficult than need be. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 12:31pm • 01:31, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for posting this. Sven Manguard _Talk 04:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony (talk) 05:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Horse called Man 07:56, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Risker (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, looking at discussion I'm not seeing how a NOTA option will be workable. CT Cooper · talk 13:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
NOTA makes things too easy for certain external sites that want to make Wikipedia ungovernable. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
T. Canens (talk) 08:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my talk page comment. It's clear that even the supporters of NOTA don't agree on what its actual meaning is, except "some sort of protest vote". — Coren ^(talk) 11:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
--SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per my talk page comments. --RexxS (talk) 19:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Roger ^talk 19:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As interesting as the possibilities of this mechanism are, no coherent, fully realised proposal has been made as to its implementation this year. Skomorokh 19:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other statements

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

Intended to address a situation that came up last year. Neutron (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't foresee any major downsides to this. /ƒETCH COMMS / 23:40, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Seems reasonable. John Carter (talk) 00:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Deciding this now, in advance, is likely to reduce issues later. Good point! ++Lar: t/c 02:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Seems sensible. Ged UK 07:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 So Why 09:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per SoWhy. Ucucha 11:08, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, per talk discussion. Hipocrite (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vodello (talk) 17:41, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Obviously. -Atmoz (talk) 23:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're gonna run, see it through. Everyking (talk) 23:30, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sound and logical proposal. -- Cirt (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Avoids logistical headaches. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarifying - they can state they withdraw as a candidate but will not be removed from SecurePoll. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per FT2's clarification. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Herostratus (talk) 02:38, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MZMcBride (talk) 04:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
per FT2 --RexxS (talk) 04:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree that this issue needs to be addressed from last year, in particular making clear that even if a withdrawal occurs, the candidate's results will still be reported. CT Cooper · talk 09:41, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why bother running if you have second thoughts? —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 6:03pm • 07:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Carcharoth (talk) 06:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once the ballot sheets have been printed (i.e. SecurePoll has been set up), there should be no way to remove names from it. Candidates can still choose not to accept the position they have been elected to after voting has ended. —Кузьма^討論 06:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. T. Canens (talk) 08:54, 3 November 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

Sven Manguard _Talk 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC) as poster.[reply]
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

Yep. If we want to fiddle with numbers we could even take the top 12/15, with the last two/five as "alternates" or some such, but no need to fiddle with term lengths. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with both for the most part. I think that it does make sense to discuss a few possibilities which come to mind regarding the next election in a general way (like maybe coming up with a few ideas for NOTA votes, for instance) short of planning the specific parameters to be applied. However, I also have to agree that a lot can happen between this election and the next, and that makes planning parameters at this distance basically pointless. Regarding the NOTA votes for this election, I have to think that there are enough potential problems with it that we should wait to implement it for next year at least. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A Horse called Man 20:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If we keep closed voting, there is a guarantee there will be resignations in 2011, both from the 2010 and 2009 elections. Maybe then people will see the value that open discussion had prior to this significant change. I don't understand why taking out the 'drama' of open voting in favor of creating MONSTER DRAMA in ArbCom is a positive trade-off. Vodello (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though it is a concern if different numbers get elected each year. The chances of getting elected then depend on which year you decide to run in, which is not ideal. Better, would be to stick rigidly to the 2-year slots for each seat (once the previous 3-year arbs have all finished their terms) and to only have half the seats open for election every year. Thus an arb that resigns in the first year would not be replaced in the next election, but only in the election after that. This would mean far more fluctuation in the size of the committee (and around a smaller average), but it would ensure that the same number of seats were available each year. It is a question of whether it is more important to keep the number of seats available each year the same, or whether to keep the committee the same size by varying the number of seats available. Carcharoth (talk) 06:48, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
June or July sounds about right, and I do strongly urge the community to have a discussion about voting methods then so that if necessary the developers have time to set it up. I suggest that, given the tendency of arbitrators to resign before the end of their term, everyone be appointed to 2 year terms, and if there are sufficient candidates who meet minimum appointment criteria, that all seats be filled at each election (but only if they meet minimal criteria). For the record: in 2009, 8 arbitrators resigned and 2 reclaimed their seats; and in 2010 to date, 5 arbitrators resigned. Risker (talk) 02:54, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that if we had an unusual number of seats available a signpost article would prompt some good extra candidates to run. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
-FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:28, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably one of the best ways to maintain continuity in cases of attrition is by encouraging currently sitting arbs to run for a new term; this used to be a painful proposition (six years of servitude) but is now more manageable at four. — Coren ^(talk) 23:06, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.