2014 Arbitration Committee Elections

WP:ACE2014

Status

The December 2014 Arbitration Committee Election results have been posted.
Please offer your feedback on the election process.

This is a request for comment about the upcoming December 2014 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election.

Purpose of this request for comment: To provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the December 2014 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Background: In last year’s election feedback, one of the concerns raised was that election preparation needed to occur earlier to properly consider changes and implement those supported by consensus. Thus, I’ve started the RfC a month earlier to commence the planning stages.

In the case of proposals that change existing rules, or that seek to establish new ones, lack of consensus for a change will result in the rules from the 2013 RFC remaining in force. Some issues are not covered by the existing rules but will need to be decided one way or another for the operation of the election, in those cases it will be up to the closer to figure out a result, even if there is no clear consensus, as they have had to in the past.

Structure: This RfC is divided into portions, each of which contains a question for the community to discuss. The standard RfC structure will be used, in which any user may make a general statement that other users may endorse if they so agree. An exception is made for the polling methodology, where users are encouraged to voice their support or opposition for the possible methods. The questions will be listed in the table of contents below, along with the users who have made statements.

Per the consensus developed on last year's request for comment, the arbitration committee election timetable is as follows:

Nominations: Sunday 00:01, 9 November - Tuesday 23:59, 18 November (10 days)
Fallow period: Wednesday 00:01, 19 November to 23:59, 23 November (5 days)
Voting period: Monday 00:01, 24 November to Sunday 23:59, 7 December (14 days)
Scrutineering: Begins Monday 00:01, 8 December

The questions have been chosen in part from the comments from Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Feedback. More questions may be added if other concerns arise.

Duration: This RfC is scheduled to last for about 30 days; on or after September 25, it will be closed, and an uninvolved editor(s) will determine the results of the RfC. The results will determine the structure, rules, and procedures for the election.

12:00, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Date stamp necessary for the RFC bot, or the next several sections get transcluded into announcements

Use the following format below; post a new statement at the BOTTOM of the section in which you want to make a statement. Endorse by adding a hash symbol (#) and your signature.

===Statement by [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]]===
Comment ~~~~

;Users who endorse this statement:

#~~~~

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

Proposals to Amend

Should there be a change in the voting methodology used for the elections?

Statement by Mike V

Over the past few elections, there have been some comments raised about the voting methodology used for the Arbitration Committee election (2010, 2012, 2013). The voting system currently used has not been formally reconsidered since it was set up in 2009. I would like to open it up to the community to see if there is still support to continue using the current system or if an alternative system should be used. Currently SecurePoll supports Support/Neutral/Oppose and Schulze method I (which is designed to produce only one winner), but with enough support it may be possible to coordinate with the Wikimedia Foundation and develop a new method for SecurePoll in time for the election. Listed below are some common methods of voting to discuss. Should anyone want to discuss an alternative, feel free to add it and elaborate on your support.

Support/Oppose

The voter has the option of expressing support or opposition for each candidate, but may choose to abstain from making a decision on one or more candidates. The candidates are rated on the ratio of supports to supports and opposes.

*I oppose the continued use of "oppose" votes, and the concomitant "ratio" mode of determining winning candidates. "First past the post" for a minor election in the grand scheme of things seems quite adequate. Collect (talk) 07:20, 26 August 2014 (UTC) noting the problems with "oppose" votes are endemic with people opposing any candidate whom they do not explicitly vote for - or against every proposal which is not precisely the one they vote for, thus giving such people twice or more the effective voting weight of those who only use positive voting) Collect (talk) 12:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support either this or preferential voting or range voting per my reasons for opposing any system where we cannot oppose candidates. Davewild (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support this system. We need to be able to oppose candidates about whom we have concerns, and supporting/opposing each candidate separately is important to determine the community's trust in each of them. BethNaught (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plurality at large voting

In an election with n number of available seats, the voter may vote for up to n candidates, with a limit of one vote per candidate. The candidates with the highest number of votes will be elected.

Support: With the current Support/Abstain/Oppose system, game theory would advocate running members to vote support for themselves and oppose for all other candidates. With 20+ candidates every year and assuming each candidate votes "optimally", this leads to a "built-in" level of disapproval for all of the candidates. This problem extends even further for editors who have one or two favorite candidates that they wish to be elected at the cost of the other candidates. While all polling systems have their pros and cons, I think the elections may improved with a plurality-at large system. This voting system would reduce the ability of voters to vote strategically and allow the community to elect the candidates that have the most support. Some of the drawbacks of plurality-at-large voting (e.g. bullet voting) are mitigated due to the lack of political parties and the number of available seats. Mike V • Talk 06:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - In previous elections I limited my support votes to the number of available seats because it made sense to me.—John Cline (talk) 07:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support as above. Collect (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose any system where we cannot oppose candidates (either by support/oppose votes or by ranking candidates). Every member of arbcom must be trusted by the community in view of the role they are being trusted with (such as private information). Unless we can oppose candidates, then candidates who have the support of say 30-40% of people, but who the majority oppose can and will be elected, which will mean that people will be unwilling to trust arbcom as a body with private information. Davewild (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose since we need a system for expressing opposition. BethNaught (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Preferential Voting

The voter will have the ability to rank candidates in the order of preference. (first, second, third, etc.) The candidates are awarded points proportional to their ranking on each ballot. The candidates receiving the strongest level of support are elected.

Place your comments here.
Support either this or support/oppose or range voting per my reasons for opposing any system where we cannot oppose candidates. Davewild (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I would prefer a system which allows for explicit opposition. BethNaught (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Range voting

The voter gives a score to the candidates on a scale (e.g. 1-10). The scores are added and averaged. The candidates with the highest average are elected.

If used, ranges should start at 0. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support either this or preferential voting or support/oppose per my reasons for opposing any system where we cannot oppose candidates. Davewild (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This system could be self-defeating: if certain voters express an honest rating of each candidate, their top choices may have, say, 7–9 points. Other voters, however, might give all their top choices 10. Therefore everyone would inflate their scores for their preferred candidates, defeating the point of the system and making it too complicated. BethNaught (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cumulative Voting

The voter is given a vote for each available seat on the committee. The voter may spread these votes across as many or few candidates as they wish. There is no obligation to use all your votes. The candidates with the highest number of votes are elected.

Place your comments here.
I oppose any system where we cannot oppose candidates (either by support/oppose votes or by ranking candidates). Every member of arbcom must be trusted by the community in view of the role they are being trusted with (such as private information). Unless we can oppose candidates, then candidates who have the support of say 30-40% of people, but who the majority oppose can and will be elected, which will mean that people will be unwilling to trust arbcom as a body with private information. Davewild (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as I think we should have a system allowing explicit opposition. BethNaught (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approval voting

Each voter may 'approve' of (i.e. select) as many or as few candidates as he or she wishes by treating each candidate as a separate question ("Do you approve of this person for the job?"). There is no ranking or complex tabulation, and the system avoids problems such as inadvertant vote-splitting ("spoiler effect") between similar candidates. For n open seats, the winners are the n candidates with the most total approval votes. (Video explanation of this system)

Support -- Netoholic @ 06:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose any system where we cannot oppose candidates (either by support/oppose votes or by ranking candidates). Every member of arbcom must be trusted by the community in view of the role they are being trusted with (such as private information). Unless we can oppose candidates, then candidates who have the support of say 30-40% of people, but who the majority oppose can and will be elected, which will mean that people will be unwilling to trust arbcom as a body with private information. Davewild (talk) 12:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose explicit opposition required. BethNaught (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How should the selection of the election commission be conducted?

Statement by Mike V

As seen from last year's request for comment, there was a consensus to remove Jimbo from the election commission selection process but it was not implemented because consensus was not determined on how it should be done. I'll get the ball rolling with this proposal. As the election commissioners will have access to IP and user agent data, viable candidates will be limited to administrators who are over 18 and are willing to identify to the Foundation. Successful commission candidates will be ineligible for this year's arbitration election. I would suggest that we have candidates nominate themselves during a seven day period. They will post a nomination statement (250 words or less) with answers to standard questions (about 3-5 questions, which will need to be determined). The community will have a week to ask questions, evaluate, and place comments for the commission candidates. The top three candidates that receive the most support, as determined by a closing 'crat (or more if the close is not clear), will serve as this year's election commissioners. The proposed timetable will be:

Nominations: Friday 00:00, 10 October - Friday 23:59 October 17
Evaluation period: Friday 00:00, 17 October - Friday 23:59 October 24
Commission selection: completed by Friday 00:00 October 31

While I don't anticipate the commission selection period to take more than a couple of days, the allotted week will allow some buffer time just in case. The duration between the conclusion of the election commission selection and the start of the arbcom election will hopefully allow enough time for the commissioners to get aquatinted with position and set up the SecurePoll system.

Suggestions to this proposed process and/or timeline are highly encouraged.

Users who endorse this statement

Mike V • Talk 06:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should there be a limit to the number of questions posed to candidates?

Statement by Mike V

In the 2013 feedback section, a handful of users raised concerns that the amount of questions posed to the candidates was excessive. This was time consuming for candidates to craft meaningful responses to the questions. Some questions were also regarded as formulaic and/or unable to elicit insightful information about the candidates. Others raised the issue that the large number of questions made it difficult for users to evaluate all the candidates and might have encouraged some users to depend on candidate guides for advice. Thus, I would like to consider a limit of two questions per candidate per user.

Users who endorse this statement

Mike V • Talk 06:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

I oppose a "two question limit" quite strongly. Candidates are free to answer such questions as they wish to answer, and that has, as far as I know, been the case for some time. Personally, of a candidate does not have three hours to answer questions, I am unsure they will have the hundreds of hours reasonably needed to be a member of the committee, but your mileage may vary.

All that is needed is a comment before any list of questions stating that candidates are under no affirmative obligation to answer all questions.

Users who endorse this statement

Collect (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
—John Cline (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Davewild (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BethNaught (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should voter guides be included in the official template?

Statement by Mike V

There were a number of concerns raised regarding the candidate guides created during the election. While users are welcome to continue creating guides and posting them on their userspace, I feel that we should not include them on the official election template.

Users who endorse this statement

Mike V • Talk 06:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

Election guides and commentary are intended to assist the voters in any election, not just on this minor election on Wikipedia. In order for them to be of use to the voters, they must be allowed reasonable visibility. Wikipedia would thus ill-serve any electoral process by denying reasonable visibility to such guides. Readers of such guides should be presumed to be interested in their content and commentary, and hiding them in any manner would be akin to saying newspapers should not allow the LWV and other guides for elections to be mentioned in articles.

Users who endorse this statement

Collect (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Chris Troutman (talk) 07:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
—John Cline (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the voter eligibility requirements be changed?

Statement by Mike V

An issue raised in the 2013 feedback is that the current requirements of 150 mainspace edits does not function well with the way SecurePoll generates the eligible voter list. It's suggested that the criteria be changed to 200 total edits. In addition, to ensure that voters are active within the community it was proposed that a voter's 200 most recent edits must have occurred within the last 2 years prior to November 1.

Users who endorse this statement

Mike V • Talk 06:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Statement by Collect

Solutions of problems not shown to be of significance are always doubted by me. Unless a problem has been shown to exist with voters, the change from 150 mainspace edits to 200 total edits is not needed. If someone has shown that editors with 150 mainspace edits are a problem, or that any significant number of editors who had 150 mainspace edits were deterred from voting, please tell me. If anyone can show that significant numbers of editors voted (enough to affect any winners of seats) with fewer than 150 mainspace edits due to deficiencies in the SecurePoll mechanism, kindly tell me. I did not find such in my reading of results, thus I oppose any change here.

Users who support this statement

Collect (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
—John Cline (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Davewild (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BethNaught (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should the site notice be changed when voting begins

Statement by John Cline

Last year when voting began, the site notice said: "Voting is now open to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee." I believe this notice has the unintentional subliminal message that the election's purpose is to replace the current members with new members, and it disadvantages candidates who are sitting members – seeking another term. I propose we redact "new" from the message, making it say "Voting is now open to elect members of the Arbitration Committee."

Users who endorse this statement

—John Cline (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BethNaught (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Users who know what's going on

187.28.94.2 (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC) Striking out the word "new" would not remove the subliminal message; rather, it would replace it with another one - shamelessly favoring the current power-hungry Establishment.[reply]