2009 ArbCom elections Options

[Shalom]

I was just fooling around, wondering if WP:ACE2009 is a blue link. It is, sort of.

What's more interesting is that the discussion page is a blue link. Already before the final votes are in, lessons are being learned for next year.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:ACE2009

[Lifebaka]

Seems to me the best way to solve the issues both raised simultaneously would be to use a secret ballot. Special:BoardVote could be easily brought back and modified to handle this, from what I've heard.

[Kelly Martin]

What makes you think that there will be elections in 2009?

[Shalom]

Seems to me the best way to solve the issues both raised simultaneously would be to use a secret ballot. Special:BoardVote could be easily brought back and modified to handle this, from what I've heard.

It's virtually certain that any change in voting system will change the result. I think this may be a good thing. Secret balloting, despite its various own issues, is probably the best option. Of course, this being Wikipedia, there isn't any chance of it happening unless Jimbo gives The Word.

There are good and bad aspects of people knowing the results mid-stream. It's probable that Vassyana has been hurt by people who support the candidates who were previously below him, hoping that by opposing Vassyana they can get one of their guys instead. If people voted for or against Vassyana without considering where he ranks compared to other candidates, he might do better. This is just one example of an unintended consequence of the open voting system. (Imagine what would have happened if the 2008 WMF Board Elections used open voting. Kohs would have been much happier.)

This post has been edited by Shalom:

[SirFozzie]

I don't like tactical voting. I've asked a couple people who supported me to reconsider some of their votes that they had indicated was tactical against other candidates (Not sure they were for ME mind you, just that they had voted against other candidates).

I think if that happens, mind you, we need to make sure that there's a place to discuss the candidate publicly. As much as I may have grumbled (loudly to some other people) about how certain votes seemed design to sow FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) about me, you really need to not squelch legitimate criticism and discussion of the candidate.

[Viridae]

Well no, if i I couldnt see the ranking/votes as the election progressed I would have just opposed everyone that I wasn't supporting, not just those who had a hope of beating them.

[Lifebaka]

Well no, if i I couldnt see the ranking/votes as the election progressed I would have just opposed everyone that I wasn't supporting, not just those who had a hope of beating them.

The other part of a suggestion I've seen thrown around by a few people is to eliminate oppose voting. This would remove the ability to do easy tactical voting, and would make the elections much easier to track. At the same time, it'd be difficult to tell if a candidate is controversial simply by number of supports. A candidate who is well liked by many can also be hated by many, and our current system allows oppose votes to show this (assuming they're used correctly).

A further idea I've seen tossed around is to limit the number of votes each user gets to the number of seats to be filled. Seven, in this election. Whether with or without oppose voting, it certainly be an interesting one to try.

[Viridae]

Well no, if i I couldnt see the ranking/votes as the election progressed I would have just opposed everyone that I wasn't supporting, not just those who had a hope of beating them.

The other part of a suggestion I've seen thrown around by a few people is to eliminate oppose voting. This would remove the ability to do easy tactical voting, and would make the elections much easier to track. At the same time, it'd be difficult to tell if a candidate is controversial simply by number of supports. A candidate who is well liked by many can also be hated by many, and our current system allows oppose votes to show this (assuming they're used correctly).

A further idea I've seen tossed around is to limit the number of votes each user gets to the number of seats to be filled. Seven, in this election. Whether with or without oppose voting, it certainly be an interesting one to try.

Most votes doesn't bode well for those without name recognition.

[Lifebaka]

The other part of a suggestion I've seen thrown around by a few people is to eliminate oppose voting. This would remove the ability to do easy tactical voting, and would make the elections much easier to track. At the same time, it'd be difficult to tell if a candidate is controversial simply by number of supports. A candidate who is well liked by many can also be hated by many, and our current system allows oppose votes to show this (assuming they're used correctly).

A further idea I've seen tossed around is to limit the number of votes each user gets to the number of seats to be filled. Seven, in this election. Whether with or without oppose voting, it certainly be an interesting one to try.

Most votes doesn't bode well for those without name recognition.

No system bodes well for those without name recognition, really. I do agree that a simple most votes system is probably not ideal, though.

[UserB]

Maybe if we're really lucky, by 2009 we'll figure out we should just get rid of arbcom.

A randomly selected jury would get rid of (or severely reduce) most of the problems with arbcom (burnout, bias, being aloof)

[SirFozzie]

while a good idea in theory, I see significant problems with it, in that 95% of WP's users... probably won't do jury duty.

[UserB]

while a good idea in theory, I see significant problems with it, in that 95% of WP's users... probably won't do jury duty.

Even if you only have a pool of 200, that's like 1 case/year.

[Shalom]

Well no, if i I couldnt see the ranking/votes as the election progressed I would have just opposed everyone that I wasn't supporting, not just those who had a hope of beating them.

The other part of a suggestion I've seen thrown around by a few people is to eliminate oppose voting. This would remove the ability to do easy tactical voting, and would make the elections much easier to track. At the same time, it'd be difficult to tell if a candidate is controversial simply by number of supports. A candidate who is well liked by many can also be hated by many, and our current system allows oppose votes to show this (assuming they're used correctly).

A further idea I've seen tossed around is to limit the number of votes each user gets to the number of seats to be filled. Seven, in this election. Whether with or without oppose voting, it certainly be an interesting one to try.

I observed after the last election on wiki that different methods would produce different results. A "support-only" method would have given us a second term of Raul654. I voted for him last year. That's one of many edits I'd like to have back. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) We would have also elected Giano, whom I opposed. That's another edit I'd like to have back.

Ah, the wisdom of hindsight!

[Lifebaka]

I observed after the last election on wiki that different methods would produce different results. A "support-only" method would have given us a second term of Raul654. I voted for him last year. That's one of many edits I'd like to have back. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) We would have also elected Giano, whom I opposed. That's another edit I'd like to have back.

Ah, the wisdom of hindsight!

One of the more interesting suggestions is to use a preferential voting system such as the Schulze method or single transferable vote instead of a support/oppose system. One of these systems was used in the last Board election (if I remember right) and it seemed to work there, so it should work for ArbCom elections. A preferential voting system would also help a lot to get candidates without as much name recognition to be able to "win".

Only downsides (which I have thought of) to these systems is that it's difficult without some sort of special page to do it on (or an outside website doing it) and it's difficult to do live tracking of the election due to the complexity of calculating the top picks.

[One]

I need to think about preferential voting, but I think support-only would be a very bad thing. That system gives name recognizably too much weight. "Oppose" votes are a necessary check on name recognition--they allow voters to say "I do recognize this candidate, but I also recognize that I don't want them on ArbCom.

[Steve Crossin]

I need to think about preferential voting, but I think support-only would be a very bad thing. That system gives name recognizably too much weight. "Oppose" votes are a necessary check on name recognition--they allow voters to say "I do recognize this candidate, but I also recognize that I don't want them on ArbCom.

I think the idea of a secret ballot in general might be best. It prevents pile-ons and would allow people to vote without worrying if their vote will influence others (serving arbs, for example). As for preferential voting, I'm not so sure if its a great idea. I don't think many could support Kmweber, even in a preferential system. But then again....we had to in Board Elections...

[Kurt M. Weber]

Should I run?

[CharlotteWebb]

Should I run?

Definitely.

[everyking]

I suppose this is a good place to point out the recently started RfC on the ArbCom, dealing with term lengths, the size of the committee, and the way the forthcoming election should be conducted.

I'm in favor of one year terms, in line with my proposal from last year, in which I called for all the arbitrator seats to go up for election each year. However, two year terms appear to have broad majority support--apparently people think the arbitrators get better with experience, although I would suggest that they are about equally bad throughout their tenure, and the only difference is in their level of activity (longer terms producing greater lethargy). The big split is on the question of public vs. secret voting: currently there's 20 in favor of each. Personally, I think wiki-related matters should be conducted transparently in almost all cases, so I'm in favor of continuing with public voting.

[Kurt M. Weber]

It still needs to go.

Not by means of formal abolition, because that would imply that the process that brought into existence was legitimate in the first place, but by the community simply ignoring it.