Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014

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)
 * Setup 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)
 * Results Preparation period: Begins Monday 00:01, 8 December

The questions have been chosen in part from the comments from 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 USERNAME
Comment ~


 * Users who endorse this statement:



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

=Proposals to Amend=

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 (Current system)
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Support. This is the system we have used previously, and it has worked pretty well. While there surely may be raised objections to it, its simple enough to be intuitive to voters, produces results that are easy to understand. All while giving room to express a clear opinion on each candidate. Sjakkalle (Check!)  20:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. The current system has worked reasonably well.  At some point I did an analysis of past elections (which I cannot find right now) and concluded that for the large majority of candidates, "plurality voting" (that is, the person with the most votes wins) would have the same result as "Support/Oppose/Abstain."  My recollection is that in any given election there were, at most, two candidates who won who would have lost under plurality voting.  In some elections there were no differences at all.  In some elections, a candidate won a two-year seat who would have otherwise won a one-year seat, or the reverse.  The differences between the two systems were not really all that significant.  A related reason for my support of the current system is that I have never seen any convincing evidence that any other specific system would be better. Neutron (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - By allowing an "oppose" vote, you encourage dishonest tactical voting (for example, blanket Opposing all candidates except your prefered one). Compared to an honest voter who is neutral, and accurately fills their ballot by abstaining, a dishonest ballot has twice the voting weight, and that is highly undesirable. -- Netoholic @  02:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, generally. Do we have the data available to make a determination on the actual incidence of tactical voting following the switch to securepoll? Protonk (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. While I don't necessarily like the idea of oppose votes, I find this system preferable to other alternatives proposed below.  Calidum Talk To Me 03:48, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support It seems to work. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Since all voting systems are flawed (Arrow's impossibility theorem), might as well stick with the one we've got. NE Ent 20:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. I've looked over each of the alternative systems being discussed in this RfC, and all the alternatives seem to me to present bigger problems than does the current system. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Best to have both parties opinions noticed. Secondly its the best option listed here. --Acetotyce (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose: I don't think my opinion is going to make a difference, but I very much oppose this system remaining in use. People are saying it works. It doesn't. It encourages tactical voting at every corner. I remember one year when there was a strong backlash against a candidate, people were avoiding opposing almost every other candidate to strengthen their opposes against this one. People shouldn't have to do that. This three-option system is too inflexible for people to vote what they really want. I also find it odd the same people supporting this one are so opposed to preferential systems. This is a preferential system. It's a very bad preferential system in which you get exactly three ranks to give all the candidates. That's all our support, neutral and oppose categories are. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong support - all possible voting systems are open to tactical voting (voting differently from your true opinion, with a hope of improving the results). In the case mentioned by, if enough users oppose the "bad" user, that would put the "bad" user below 50%, making his/her ranking irrelevant. The question is: Do we prefer a simle system, where you are free to decide what you think only about some of the candidates, or a complicated system where you need to decide about all of them before you can start voting? A true preferential system means that you can't possibly decide that A, B and C are good, D and E are bad, but you habven't decided on F, G or H; and that if B and C are too simiular to decide between, you stuill have to choose who is better. And by the way, Heimstern, under a preferential system, all these voters may give high rankings to other low-quality candidates, thereby having the same effect you're trying to avoid. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support to moderate the candidates. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 02:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * Support as above. Collect (talk) 07:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Oppose since we need a system for expressing opposition. BethNaught (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comment above on the current system. Neutron (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support per Mike V.- MrX 18:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I may discover that there are n+3 users who should be accepted. The last one may end up running neck-to-neck with a user I think should absolutely not get in. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Commonly used in real world elections. Also per several of the aboves.  Calidum Talk To Me 03:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Since all voting systems are flawed (Arrow's impossibility theorem), might as well stick with the one we've got. NE Ent 20:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We need to be able to oppose candidates. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'd rather an uncontroversial candidate be elected than a polarizing one. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A candidate with 200 supports and 150 opposes ends up getting elected. Doesn't sound like that candidate will be the best candidate. Oppose votes must count. --Acetotyce (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

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)
 * Oppose: I would prefer a system which allows for explicit opposition. BethNaught (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: It isn't very clear what the actual system would be here. There are different kinds of preference voting.  Some of them result in "proportional representation," which I have always thought we should try for at least one election - as long as people understand that "pr" would result in some candidates being elected who did not have majority support (which is probably why it has never received anything close to a consensus.)  The method described above, however, seems (if I understand it correctly) to be "majoritarian" rather than proportional.  I believe that if we are going to stay with a majoritarian system, we might as well stick with the one we already have. Neutron (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Overly complicated. Making the voters do too much "homework" and forcing them to rank candidates could keep some from participating.  Calidum Talk To Me 03:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose It indirectly brings support to candidates the voter doesn't favor. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Since all voting systems are flawed (Arrow's impossibility theorem), might as well stick with the one we've got. NE Ent 20:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too complex, and lacks the simple ability to disapprove. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Better than current system. I don't really think it's ideal for an election intended to yield multiple winners, but this system is far preferable to the current mess of tactical voting. And yes, you can oppose people in ranked systems. Ranking last is opposing. In fact, that's what we've already been doing for years: When you oppose in our current mash-a-button system, you're just tieing them all for your lowest rank. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Oppose per my comment above on the current system. I see nothing here to suggest that this would be better than what we already have.  Neutron (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose without some further articulation on why this is better than the current system. Also, If I express no opinion on candidate A, marking them as 0 (or whatever the middle of the scale is) and another voter expresses a strong preference do I expect that my lack of a preference lowers their average or leaves it unchanged? Obviously this is a subset of the larger problem of counting "neutral" votes, but it's a practical problem when an "average" is used. Protonk (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This seems unnecessarily complex.- MrX 17:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reason I oppose preferential voting Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 04:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Since all voting systems are flawed (Arrow's impossibility theorem), might as well stick with the one we've got. NE Ent 20:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, particularly per BethNaught. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose, penalizes honest voters by giving less weight to their opinions. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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)
 * Oppose as I think we should have a system allowing explicit opposition. BethNaught (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is a "proportional representation" system that would allow candidates to be elected without the support of a majority of voters. In fact, that is one of the purposes of the system.  The community has consistently opposed that idea in the past.  I would support a "pr" system at least as a one-year experiment, but I think there would need to be a wider discussion of the non-majoritarian aspect of the system, beyond the relatively few editors who participate in these RfC's.  Neutron (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This system would seem to have the potential for abuse by a minority.- MrX 18:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Since all voting systems are flawed (Arrow's impossibility theorem), might as well stick with the one we've got. NE Ent 20:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Too complicated, too difficult to assess whether candidates actually lack community trust. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

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)
 * 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)
 * I think you're misunderstanding both how typical voting works and the approval voting system. You would denote your neutral or opposition to a candidate by not giving them your support. What you're asking for in wanting "oppose" votes is the ability to counteract the approval vote of someone else, which leads to strategic voting (for example, opposing all candidates to give your most prefered candidate a better chance).  This in effect gives your vote twice the weight of someone that is (accurately) neutral on most candidates. Approval voting as a system has been studied in depth, and shown to be highly resistant to tactical voting. -- Netoholic @  02:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose explicit opposition required. BethNaught (talk) 12:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per my comment above on the current system. I see nothing here to suggest that this would be better than what we already have. Neutron (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Davewild. - MrX 18:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Since all voting systems are flawed (Arrow's impossibility theorem), might as well stick with the one we've got. NE Ent 20:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. We need to be able to oppose candidates. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose: A two-rank system is even worse than a three-rank system. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 12:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

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 users 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 acquainted with the position and set up the SecurePoll system. Suggestions to this proposed process and/or timeline are highly encouraged.
 * Note: I've replaced administrators with users per Philippe's comments below. Mike V  •  Talk  22:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1)  Mike V  •  Talk  06:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) - MrX 17:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by John Cline
Although a non-admin is practically guaranteed not to be elected, the wrong precedent is being set by disallowing their candidacy. "Adminship is no big deal" and we shouldn't lose sight of that fact, let alone attribute more to them, as Wikipedians, than what the t-shirt allows. Only if tools were required would such a requirement have merit. First of all, admins do not have access to IPs and user agent data as part of their admin function so there is no valid correlation. On the other hand, non-admins who are account creators do have such access, and have had it for quite some time. I believe Otrs also has non-admins who perform faithfully exposed to this information as well. So again, there is no requirement to be an admin to be trusted with this information. I propose the rules should allow anyone who is over 18, willing to identify, and otherwise eligible to vote, to nominate themselves – keeping the above stipulated timeline intact.


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1) —John Cline (talk) 17:15, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  Collect (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Protonk (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) NE Ent 20:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:38, 1 September 2014 (UTC).


 * 1) --Acetotyce (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Newyorkbrad
The Arbitration Committee election itself, while obviously necessary given that we have an elected ArbCom, takes up a significant amount of the community's time. If we're going to have a formally selected election commission, which I believe we managed fine without for the first several years of elections, let's be sure that setting up and implementing a process for selecting that body doesn't itself become a time-sink. Cf. infinite regress.

The reason I specified it as an admin only is that I don’t believe it would be allowed under the Foundation policy. It’s my understanding that access to oversight/checkuser information requires a user to undergo an RfA or RfA-like process with similar rigor. This policy was what prohibited non-admins from serving on the audit subcommittee in the 2013 appointment. I’m not certain that the election commission process would match the level of scrutiny of an RfA; however the final call will have to come from Philippe on behalf of the legal team.
 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1) Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  Calidum  Talk To Me 04:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:

Unfortunately the comparison to account creation and OTRS is apples to oranges. When an individual submits a request through the account creation process, they explicitly consent to having their IP shared with our volunteers. OTRS users only have access to the information supplied within the email: email address, header information, and whatever information is volunteered by the sender. There is also a disclaimer on the Foundation website stating there is no guarantee that the information shared through OTRS will remain confidential. (Though almost every agent I know does their best to uphold this principle.) The information that is acquired through the election process is subject to the Foundation’s privacy policy which has a more conservative approach to accessing sensitive data. Mike V •  Talk  23:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Common sense by NE Ent
Guessing what WMF will and will not allow is silly. We should jusk ask [//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Philippe_(WMF)#arbcom_election_commission_question]. NE Ent 20:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, reading my mind presumes that I have one. :-) Thanks for the pointer to this discussion, NE Ent.   Mike V, you're mostly correct, in that access to deleted revisions (which is one of the tools that comes with the admin set) requires an RFA or RFA-identical process of similar vigor.  However, the check user tool is governed by a different policy, the Checkuser Policy, which says:

"On wikis with an Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) whose members have been elected with the support of at least 25-30 members of the local community, CheckUsers can be appointed by the Arbitrators only."
 * Now, we're not strictly speaking of the checkuser tool here, we're speaking of the SecurePoll tool, which returns information that is not strictly Checkuser, but is checkuser-like. I've spoken with legal counsel, and our feeling is that because the data contained in the SecurePoll tool is Checkuser-like, the Checkuser Policy applies.  Therefore, administrator status is irrelevant.  Provided that the Arbitration Committee appoints (or even confirms) election administrators, we will not object to anyone receiving access (provided they otherwise comply with the requirements of the Checkuser Policy).  Clear as mud?  Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification! :) Mike V  •  Talk  22:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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:
 * 1)  Mike V  •  Talk  06:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Doomed to fail, but I prefer it, perhaps with a limit higher than two. Limiting questions has its own problems. The first two questions asked may be trivial or stupid (sorry) triggering a limit before reaching valuable questions which may be asked of the candidate. But allowing an unspecified number of questions sucks as well. Even though they're less well attended year over year, arbcom elections generate lots of questions. Kww saw 23 questions (after the slate of 15 general questions). That's maybe to be expected as their candidacy was not successful, but GorillaWarfare saw 18 as did Beeblebrox. 28Bytes, elected in a relative landslide, saw 15 questions. And I'm sorry but a lot of these questions are asinine. Many are repeated across candidates and used for "voter guides", making for 15 required general questions and 5-10 pseudo-required questions. Of these questions, many are multipart questions, sometimes with mundane questions mixed in with the actual concern. It's perhaps good training for candidates to waste time on asinine things, but I'm not sure it rises to the level of being a guiding star for us. In my opinion  had the right answer to many multipart questions; refuse to answer them either implicitly or explicitly. I'm afraid that doing so forced a candidate to stick their neck out to preserve a principle we all agree on, which is that editors shouldn't be asked to waste their time on pointless or non-germane activities. Protonk (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) I also doubt this will be approved, but let's look at the numbers from the last election.
 * There were 22 candidates
 * Each them was asked about 60 questions
 * That's 1,320 questions
 * there were 923 valid ballots
 * this means there were 397 more questions than there were people particpating in the election
 * This is a ridiculous way to run a selection process. If I run again this year I will be severely curtailing my answers, and I believe we should get rid of the boilerplate questions as nobody reads the replies anyway. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Support limit. The questions are for potential voters. Asking them to wade through more than 1,000 questions and answers is utterly ridiculous. This isn't an issue about candidates not having enough time to answer; it's about voters being able to make informed choices.  Calidum Talk To Me 03:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) The community should not lose of the sight that this is a volunteer project, and scale its requirements accordingly.  Sandstein   07:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Per Beeblebrox. That there were more questions than votes last year shows that this has got out of hand. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:36, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) As someone who asked a question the last time around, I'm quite comfortable with setting a limit of two questions per editor. (I'd even accept a limit of one.) Just so long as the limit is not zero. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Support. The actual number might not necessarily need to be two per person, but having some sort of threshold makes sense. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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, if 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:
 * 1) Collect (talk) 07:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) —John Cline (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Davewild (talk) 12:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) BethNaught (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) - MrX 17:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) It is a good indicator of how dedicated the candidate is, in my opinion. Rschen7754 16:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC).


 * 1) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 13:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Beeblebrox
I have run in this election twice, and both times it has been clear to me that pretty much nobody reads the candidate replies to the standard/boilerplate/canned/whatever you want to call them questions. There is never any follow up, and indeed many of the questions submitted by users ask almost the same things, as if they are not only not reading the reply but are unaware of the previous questions. Since these questions are seemingly not helpful to the voting public they should simply be eliminated and all questions should come from interested members of the community.


 * Users who endorse this statement
 * 1) Beeblebrox (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Protonk (talk) 18:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Unless a sensible reduced set of questions can put together, I'd agree that the standard questions should be removed. Worm TT( talk ) 06:58, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it would be fine to eliminate the standard questions, so long as we continue to allow one or two individual questions per editor, from the community. Perhaps, however, it would be useful to retain the list of the most recent standard questions on a dedicated page, and suggest that candidates refer to it when drafting candidate statements. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) I think this is probably right. Of the 15 "regular" questions, only a handful were actually useful. Some things that need to be asked probably can't be phrased as aggressively as they need to be phrased in a general question (Wikipediocracy, alternate accounts, etc.). Just let people ask what interests them. This will also reduce the problem of question bloat. Carrite (talk) 20:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Agree with this, if someone particularly wants an answer to one of the canned questions, I am sure they will ask.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 22:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC).
 * 3) the boilerplate questions are pointless -- Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  03:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad
A rigid two-question limit may not be desirable, partly because the answer to one question may suggest a follow-up or two. On the other hand, we don't want a situation where one individual could monopolize the floor on everyone's question page by asking a half-dozen or a dozen idiosyncratic questions, either. Is there an intermediate solution here?

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:
 * 1)  Mike V  •  Talk  06:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) No. Voter guides exist in the real world, but they're overwhelmingly used (in the US at least) for questions on a specific measure or topic. For instance, shareholder voting guides may contain a statement from the company as well as a statement from the person or organization proposing the resolution. Voter guides in state elections are often limited to statements about ballot initiatives--usually just a pro/con or a statement from a non-partisan organization on the subject. The practice of voter guides developed by random people on individual candidates is peculiar to Wikipedia and hard to justify. Excluding them in the official template is not "akin to saying newspapers should not allow the LWV and other guides for elections to be mentioned in articles" because we don't put the NYT's editorial recommendation on the ballot handed out to voters. People pay attention (or not) because they read the Times. If few people read the times, that sucks for them but it isn't up to the election system to send readers where they wouldn't've gone in the first place. Protonk (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) This would give inappropriate "official" weight to random people's individual opinions.  Sandstein   07:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

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:
 * 1) Collect (talk) 07:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2)  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 07:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) —John Cline (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) - MrX 17:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) - A neutrally list of guides is appropriate. I can choose which to read, which to skim, which to ignore. NE Ent 20:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Strong support. I agree with everything in the statement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) Support. Since anyone can make a voter guide, this process gives equal weight to everyone who bothers to make one. Most voters are smart enough to take all of them with a grain of salt. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) Rich Farmbrough, 16:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC).


 * 1) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Some of the guides are stupid, some are enormously useful, but having easy access to them is important for having an informed pool of voters. Carrite (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3)  Calidum  Talk To Me 20:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) The guides are also exit polls -- Guerillero  &#124;  My Talk  16:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of voter guides
I don't have a specific proposal, but if I had it my way we would not acknowledge voter guides that are clearly based solely on the candidate's responses to the guide writer's questions and nothing else. I find that practice short sighted and irresponsible behavior from users who present themselves as well-informed providers of guidance. I realize there is no way to stop this practice and that picking and choosing voter guides will lead us down a slippery slope with much drama, but I feel it at least deserves some discussion with the hope that maybe some of the guide writers who do things this way will rethink their process. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I second this thought.  Calidum Talk To Me 03:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You should have more trust in the voters to recognize nonsense and pet peeves when we see it. NE Ent 20:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Roger Davies
It has always seemed to me as deeply unWiki that the subject(s) of voter guides cannot easily rebut what is written about them and thus have no effective right of reply. They can comment on the voter guide's talk page, of course, but that does not have the same prominence as the original statement about them. The solution is simple; have an additional column in each individual guide reserved specifically for the candidate's response. Making this work would be easy: the official template would include only guides with a candidate response column; and omit those that don't.


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1)   Roger Davies  talk 00:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) —John Cline (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3)  Mike V  •  Talk  20:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Seems reasonable.  Calidum Talk To Me 20:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on statement by Roger Davies
This comment really made me think, and I'm inclined to be sympathetic to it. But, purely as a formatting matter, I can envision this becoming messy, by turning some guides into walls-of-text when the candidate replies to the guide writer, and the guide writer in turn replies to the candidate. We cannot (should not) forbid the latter, and that can make it metasticize, especially if third parties decide to join in. (Keep in mind that many years there are one or two trollish candidates.) Unless the consensus here mandates otherwise, I think that I'm going to start a variation on this idea in my own guide this year – but a variation in which there is a prominent space for each candidate on the guide page where it will be indicated that there is a response on the guide talk page (with a blue link), prominent enough that readers will see it right away even if they were not otherwise going to look at the guide talk page. That way, anyone foolish enough to read my guide will see right away that there are candidate responses, but the actual response and any ensuing discussion will be in the form of traditional Wikipedia talk. After all, the League of Women Voters does not include candidate rebuttals in their guides, and most newspaper and other news source editorial endorsements allow rebuttals in letters to the editors, or the equivalent, but not in the editorial itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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:
 * 1)  Mike V  •  Talk  06:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Partially. I support the condition that most recent edits must have occurred within the last 2 years prior to November 1. The difference between 150 and 200 votes seems fairly arbitrary and unimportant.- MrX 17:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

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:
 * 1) Collect (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) —John Cline (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Davewild (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) BethNaught (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Protonk (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Partially (see above). The additional 50 edits seems less important than the recency of the edits, in my opinion.- MrX 17:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) NE Ent 20:15, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) With the additional caveat of supporting the statement that immediately follows this one, because of the sock issue. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Od Mishehu
One of the purposes of the 150 edit requirement to vote is to prevent sockpuppet votes. Of course, one simple work-around is for a user to abandon their accoutn shortly after the election, create a new one 3 months later, keep a low enough profile, and he has 2 voting accounts. I think we need a required minimum activity in the last 6 months before the election.


 * Users who support this statement:
 * 1) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Rschen7754 16:49, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) - MrX 18:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) I agree, but how many edits do there need to be within those last 6 months? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Question by Newyorkbrad
The names of the voters in all prior elections were published at the time of the elections (under both the open-voting system and under Securepoll). Have there been any significant number of votes cast in any election by users whose voting qualifications are borderline? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Probably. In the 2012 election there were over 20 editors who didn't have 150 mainspace edits but managed to vote anyway. Altamel (talk) 02:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

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:
 * 1) —John Cline (talk) 08:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) BethNaught (talk) 12:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Collect (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) But I agree w/ NYB's statement below that this probable isn't a real problem. Protonk (talk) 14:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) - MrX 17:21, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) A reasonable and harmless copyedit. I disagree with 187, below, about the supposed subliminal message, because I do not really see such a message in the proposed wording. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Comments:
 * 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.
 * I understand the point that John Cline is making, but I don't perceive it as a real issue. I think most editors who vote in the election have well-formed opinions, pro or con, of the incumbents seeking reelection long before the sitenotice reminds them to vote. (As a veteran of three of these elections, I can't be sure why anyone selected me, but I do believe, or at least hope, that it was a conscious choice.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I added this statement not because I felt it was problematic, but because I thought it was something we could improve – without expending much effort either. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Site notice? or watchlist notice? --Rschen7754 16:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It very well may have been a watchlist notice. In any regard, I would hope all forms of notice would strive to only use neutral prose. With that in mind, I think Calidum's statement achieves that better than mine.—John Cline (talk) 17:56, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Calidum
While I think John Cline has a good idea, I agree with the IP above that the new wording could that striking the word "new" could be seen as favoring incumbents. Therefore, I propose the following wording: "Voting in the Arbitration Committee election is now underway."
 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1)  Calidum  Talk To Me 04:05, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Support. This is the most neutral terminology. -- King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Rich Farmbrough
While I think John Cline has a good idea, I propose the following wording: "Voting for 7 seats on the Arbitration Committee is now underway." (Where the appropriate number is used of course.)

It is important to understand that only one tranche (plus or minus) is in contention.


 * 1) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC).


 * 1) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Pharaoh of the Wizards
All previous or alternate accounts of the candidates should be compulsory publicly disclosed to the Community in the interest of transparency and for full scrutiny by the community .(Note the option  legitimate accounts which have been declared to the Arbitration Committee before the close of nominations do not need to be publicly disclosed is removed here).


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1)  Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:08, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) I assume you mean previous accounts of the candidates, and not the voters.- MrX 18:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I am opposed to this proposition. Though not common, users have abandoned previous accounts for serious privacy concerns. I feel that this would be a compulsory form of outing, linking users to potentially personally-identifying information. Mike V •  Talk  18:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments:
 * They are running for the Arbitration Committee which is the highest body in English Wikipedia of there own accord or voluntary.An Arb candidate is putting himself or herself to full community scrutiny and see no outing here ,he/she can be asked anything regarding there editing here.Voters can go through the full editing history of the candidates.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing it out MrX ,it was implied but anyway added Candidates there.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm also opposed to this. There's no real benefit to declaring previous accounts like this publicly, especially if those accounts would reveal information that would out the user in question. Further, while election to the committee is voluntary, that's not even remotely a reason to allow everyone to rifle through old accounts like a sock drawer (no pun intended). The ability to edit under a pseudonym is pretty fundamental to the wikipedia community and such a fundamental affordance shouldn't be denied to editors who want to run for arbcom. Also, it's a dispute resolution body for an online encylopedia. Arbcom members are not (as is my understanding) given keys to nuclear weapons. Protonk (talk) 18:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd note that I say this as user who has always edited under the same identity and has nothing whatsoever to hide. In all cases the committee should privately be made aware of any previous or alternate accounts. In almost all cases the broader community should also be informed, but there are exceptions. If we absolutely require this it could discourage otherwise qualified candidates from running. That's a bad thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course I don't advocate anyone being outed, intentionally or otherwise, but I have concerns about the risk of candidates with questionable pasts hiding them from the community. I would imagine that the number of interested and qualified candidates who might be turned away for not wanting to disclose a previous account for privacy reasons would be miniscule in comparison to the potential damage that might be caused if an unsavory person were to gain a seat on the committee. I recently became aware of an influential editor who was previously banned, and then let back into the community. The user, who has a history that would make the devil blush, has apparently not changed their spots. In fact, the user has publicly declared their desire to see this project fail. As disturbing as I find this, the possibility of such a person having the power of arbcom sends shivers up and down my spine. No thanks.- MrX 22:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In what scenario would the sitting arbs (who have to be informed of prior accounts) not catch this while community members would? Protonk (talk) 22:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A scenario in which arbs might lack either the skill or the will, or both, to filter out such candidates. I have no idea what happens in the star chamber, which is reason enough to raise this concern. I'm not sure why we would allow arbcom to vet potential candidates for arbcom, for the same reason that we wouldn't want them in role of counting votes. - MrX 22:41, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It's certainly possible that the arbs could fail to figure out which editors might be hiding a prior account that could/should disqualify them. I hope you'll admit it is also possible for the community to do so. Further, if an editor had a previous account they knew would impeach their qualifications, what stops them from hiding it from both the community and the committee? Should we really be worried about editors who would be willing to disclose such an account to their future peers? An editor who wanted to hide such an association could just as easily refuse to reveal it to voters as they could the committee. So we're looking at the case where a prior account would disqualify a contributor but that contributor is willing to volunteer the account name vs. the possibility of exposing editors who don't wish to have their real identities revealed through a previous account. How can you weigh the former more heavily than the latter? Protonk (talk) 18:42, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's possible for the community not to be able to figure out if a user has a previous account, but I'll wager that it's less likely. "Should we really be worried about editors who would be willing to disclose such an account to their future peers?" I think so. What would happen if someone had a previous account with a history of POV pushing Holocaust denial. Perhaps they spent a lot of time at ANI, but were only blocked a couple of times for edit warring, and then abandoned their account when they realized that it was not such a good idea to link their user page to their Facebook page. What would arbcom do in that scenario? I'm pretty sure I know how the community would react. Also, this is not about whether a user would be disqualified or not; it's about full disclosure.- MrX 20:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a good idea, for the reasons given by Mike V.  Sandstein   08:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC) Oppose per Mike V. NE Ent 20:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Per many others, I oppose requiring disclosure of all past accounts, but I think it may be reasonable to ask that, at least, the existence of past accounts be disclosed. In other words, some candidates may choose to say "I previously edited under (blank) account." whereas others might say "I previously edited under another account, which I've disclosed to the committee, but I will not disclose it publicly due to privacy concerns." --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only the existance of previous accounts, but also if they had any blocks (and if so, then how many, for what, and for how long) or bans (if so, what type and for how long). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment by Newyorkbrad
Sometimes a candidate is unwilling to disclose a prior account for a valid reason. The situation arose last year, and the election commission decided that the candidate should disclose the identity of the prior account to a sitting arbitrator (one not involved in the election, obviously) for verification that there were no problems with the prior account. This was done, the arbitrator (in this instance it was myself) gave the required assurance, and this apparently satisfied the community (the candidate was elected). I don't know how often this situation will arise but I think this solution can serve as a precedent. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree. I think that we need a good definition of "problem" for this to work, and the best one I can come up with is: any blocks (and if so, then how many, for what, and for how long); bans (if so, what type and for how long); and failed requests for permissions (including MEDCOM) or losing of permissions involintarily (other than due to inactivity), unless the same permission was gained later. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The standard questions
The standard question set for candidates had, by last year, become a bit of a hodgepodge. In last year's election RfC, I put forth a streamlined set of questions that I thought could become the basis of a revised, more focused question set. To my surprise, at the last minute someone substituted my draft for the existing list and it wound up being used verbatim for the election. We need to decide whether last year's questions or something else should become the foundation for this year's draft, and then what changes, if any, should be made to the draft. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that an organized list seeking to comprehensively cover the major topics covered in the additional questions would be a good start. And I agree that ten-part questions should be avoided.  Might you examine the universe of questions asked of all (or substantially all, allowing for a possible candidate not receiving every question asked of the others)   candidates last year, and try to generate a list covering the apparent areas of concern  implicit in those questions?  I suspect that the list might be up to the proverbial twenty questions, but they would then be in a uniform format, and no one could accuse an additional questioner of having an explicit or implicit bias therein.  Collect (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI: Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Questions/General See its Talk page for drafting history, and we need such a page for this year. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I've set up Arbitration Committee Elections December 2014/Questions/General and would encourage everyone to post and discuss potential questions on the talk page. Mike V  •  Talk  18:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * See my statement above on the section on the questions. I don't believe we should do this at all as I don't believe it actually gets read by the vast majority of participants I the election. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It may not get read by a majority of voters, but it probably does get read by the authors of voter guides - and between the users who read the guides, an the voters who look at some of the questions directly, I think that they do mean a lot. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I mentioned this on the page set up, but I'd really prefer to see the slate of general questions knocked down to 2-3 and at a maximum 5. There's no need for such questions to be comprehensive (however that would be measured) nor is there any good reason to prefer a large number of canned questions to longer candidate statements at their discretion. This is especially true given the number of editor submitted questions which were extended to all candidates. Protonk (talk) 18:03, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Calidum
Considering we've gotten the ball rolling on this RFC nearly a full month sooner than last year's, it may be wise to consider tweaking the schedule. I propose the following: This extends the nomination and voting periods from the previous 10 days to a full two weeks. It also ends voting sooner, allowing more time for a transition period after the results are announced. The week-long "fallow period" between the end of nominations and the start of voting is maintained. In the future, this could be adopted so the nomination period begins the first Sunday of November, etc.
 * Nomination period from 00:01 Sunday, November 2 until 23:59 Saturday, November 15.
 * Voting period from 00:01 Sunday, November 22 until 23:59 Saturday, December 6.
 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1)  Calidum Talk To Me 04:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) I am all for moving things earlier. Having nominations during the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday (late November) has frequently caused scheduling problems for me, especially in terms of creating a guide, since I am usually traveling during that time. In 2013, nominations were November 10-19, and voting 11/25 - 12/8, with results posted on December 16th. I'd like to see results posted even earlier though, such as the first week of December. This would mean starting nominations in October. It might be too much to ask for that this year, I think, but I like the idea of moving things at least a week earlier for this year, to get that trend started. --Elonka 17:09, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Perfectly fine with this. --Acetotyce (talk) 17:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments
 * Could you redraft this so that it doesn't create an ambiguous schedule for future years? Other wise there is an ambiguity for future years, such as in 2015, will the nominations start on Sunday November 1 2015, (First Sunday in November rule) or Monday, November 2 2015 (Date rule). Monty  845  14:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * . I added a line to clarify this. Thanks.  Calidum Talk To Me 00:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As this would have the side effect of extending the sitting committee's "lame duck" period by a couple of weeks, I don't think it's a very good idea. As it is, the transition takes a good couple of months and this already results in a horrendously busy January/February. This is, I think, a major factor in the arbitrator burn outs that start about March/April. What we should probably be exploring is ways to phase out the old committee and phase in the new one.  Roger Davies  talk 00:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * While I understand your broader point, my proposal would only end voting one day earlier than the current schedule would indicate and three days earlier than last year's voting ended.  Calidum Talk To Me 00:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * In past years, the committee has entered the "lame duck" period once the election process starts, not when it ends. This is partially self-imposed with the committee not wishing to be seen pushing things through when there's another committee with a fresh mandate on the slipway. But it nevertheless exists and is not in the best interests of the project as it inhibits a smooth transition and continuity.   Roger Davies  talk 06:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying.  Calidum Talk To Me 20:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Statement by User:Od Mishehu
About half-way through the voting period, the scrutineers should get a tally of the mid-vote results; they should release this tally after the end of the voting period.

This means that on one hand, the community knows, immediately afte the election is over, which way things seem to be headed; on the other hand, it maintains the anonymity of the votes, since plenty of users will havbe voted before this time and plenty will vote only after; and it prevents the early results from causing tactical voting, since te results will only be released after the vote is cloosed.


 * Users who endorse this statement:
 * 1) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment - That would be a waste of time, since voters are allowed to change their vote until the end of the voting period, and many voters apparently did last year. Besides, I've never heard of anywhere on Earth in History that ballot boxes were opened half through the voting period to scrutinize their contents. Kraxler (talk) 13:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have, however, heard of exit polls which close early in order to give results immediately after the elections close. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * En exit poll does not scrutinize the actual ballots. Besides, for example people can vote Republican and declare at the exit that they voted Democratic, for well known reasons. Anyway, there's no rush to get the final result, there's ample time to get the result before the elected arbs are due to take office. Patience is one of those disappearing virtues, it sseems... Kraxler (talk) 12:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * An exit poll is an attempt to get an estimate on what the results will be, while being available at the official closing time of the vote. While the details on how it's done are different than what I'm suggesting (and in the real world there's also time), I tried to come up with a method that on one hand will give us n estimate, and on the oter hand can be publicized minutes after the end of the vote without compromizing the anonymnity of it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia is neither social media nor newsmedia, there is absolutely no need to rush estimates or discuss the outcome. Kraxler (talk) 13:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd prefer not to do this. I don't know how to push election volunteers to scrutinize what will be fewer ballots than your average city council race faster than a period of two weeks, but that's preferable to releasing some mid-way tally which will only cause drama if and when the results don't "match". There's also no real upside. Protonk (talk) 13:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)