Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Coordination

Self-nomination period?
According to WP:ACE2016, the "Self-nomination period" for this year's ArbCom elections was supposed to begin at 00:00, 6 November and last until 23:59, 15 November (UTC). I haven't seen anything advertised at the village pumps or WP:CENT yet. Any reason for the delay? Mz7 (talk) 23:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's less organized than that; all this stuff isn't really up to the electoral commission, it's up to volunteers. I've done some stuff this year, but don't have time tonight.  If you want to announce something, you can do it; just look at the announcements from last year and tweak.  Usually AN, ANI, CENT, and WT:AC/N, I think.  Otherwise, someone else will get to it when they get to it.  Missing a few hours of the nomination period isn't that horrible a thing.  (adding: Oh, I see, it was actually one day... that's a little less optimal...) --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Alright, I have time tonight. I'll look over it and do it now. Mz7 (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ah, looks like you beat me to all the noticeboards. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 00:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've got a few minutes, I changed my mind. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * OK, I did AN, ANI, T:CENT, WT:AC/N, VPP:Policy, and VPP:Misc. Copied Mike V's wording from last year. Also, last week I set up the candidates page based on last year too, and I'm hoping the automatically-generated candidate pages work right, but people watching this page should also watch the candidate pages and see if everything goes OK after we get one or two noms. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your help! I have also made an edit request to add this to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details too, also copying Mike V's wording from last year. Mz7 (talk) 01:07, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * excellent, I forgot that. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

[Likely resolved] Issue: randomization function seems to be messing up candidates list
Can someone who understands it look at the randomization function that scrambles the list of candidates at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates? Or, at least look at it after we get more than two candidates? I've commented the template out because it wasn't working right; it wasn't showing any of the transcluded pages. So people can add their candidate pages now, but they won't be randomized until someone smart fixes it. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * fixed by JJMC89 - hopefully, we can see if it works shortly! Mdann52 (talk) 21:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, hopefully we soon have more than one candidate. :p ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  18:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Right now you've got the "Anyone but User:Example" vote locked up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:34, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

[Resolved] Issue: the preload for the candidate subpages doesn't seem to work right
I tried to create a candidate page for myself, just to see if it worked or not, and discovered that the preloads are too complicated to figure out (really annoying that they're nested so deeply, preloads are a really annoying way to do this and we shouldn't be using them, IMHO). As a result, it adds the template from last year to the candidate's statement, question, and talk page, and so the links are wrong. As it stands right now, people cannot properly create these pages, so it needs fixing quick by someone smarter than me. I was able to fix it for the candidate statement page and the question page, but there's still some kind of weird error that adds the 2015 template to the candidate talk page. As it stands right now, people can properly create their candidate page, statement page, and question pages, but their candidate talk page needs to be manually fixed to reference the proper year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

See: All made using the preload form thing. They all have the green box from 2015. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:27, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Floquenbeam
 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Floquenbeam/Statement
 * Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Floquenbeam/Questions
 * Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/Candidates/Floquenbeam
 * Pictogram voting keep.svg Fixed Each year, the discussion page needs to be created and incremented. (See the edits I made here: 1, 2) Mike V • Talk 02:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I knew something needed to be updated every year (I found it eventually for the other preload pages), but couldn't find which page it was.  The organization of preload pages and nesting of preload pages and the fiddling that needs to be done to so many random pages leaves something to be desired.  Not sure what we'd have done if you were on vacation or something.  We probably ought to either (a) streamline this for next year, or (b) at least write down all the steps that need to be taken. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Mass message
WP:ACE2016RFC closed with a consensus to continue the practice of mass messaging eligible voters about the election, but only for voters who have made at least one edit since 6 November 2015. I drafted a message at the RFC based on the feedback there and have just made it a template at Template:2016 ArbCom election notice. Feel free to make any modifications to it as necessary. I have transcluded it below. Mz7 (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like it's already been copied to Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016/MassMessage. Mz7 (talk) 20:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As an update here, I've written a script to filter out inactive and bots from the voting list, and I plan to send a mass-message out to the remaining voters either tomorrow or Monday, time allowing. Mdann52 (talk) 00:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

SecurePoll
Is someone coordinating with the Office to set up the voting software this week? Thanks. Newyorkbrad (talk) 07:28, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks all ready to go, ready to start on time. Mdann52 (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Q re: "Support Percentage"
Procedure description says, "Seats will be filled based on support percentage, as calculated by $$\frac{\text{support}}{\text{support + oppose}}$$"

It seems to me the formula above will give candidates the same score regardless of the amount of support they receive. For example, if candidate A receives 10 votes of support, and B receives only 1 vote of support (assume there are no opposition votes), then A and B would have the same "support percentage", despite candidate A receiving ten times the support of B. Is that correct?

Thanks for any clarification. Filingpro (talk) 03:48, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct. They would both have the same support percentage. Mike V • Talk 04:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Is there a discussion of the merits of this method online I can refer to? Filingpro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:30, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * - I guess it's a form of Range voting (range being -1 to 1) which becomes a form of Approval voting but neither article reflects the exact system we use. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  14:14, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed, elections are determined neither by absolute number of supports nor by net supports (support-oppose), but by percentage of support out of total votes (neutral not being counted as a vote). ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  05:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Request + Feedback re Voting
Request to fix/remove:

I don't see that the following statement in the instructions holds true: "A “Neutral” vote does not affect the outcome in any way."

The voter has three choices for each candidate, and the neutral choice has a distinctly different impact on the candidate's support percentage compared to the other choices. I agree we can define this as a non-participating vote with respect to the specific candidate, but the election is not in fact a referendum on a particular candidate in isolation. The election outcome is determined by comparing the relative support percentages of the candidates. If a voter indicates support or opposition for any candidate while indicating neutral for another candidate, then that voter has in fact voted with respect to the neutral candidate because the voter has indicated a distinct preference.

Put another way, because voting 'neutral' has the same effect on the individual candidate's support percentage as a voter not voting, we might be tempted to define this as a non-vote. The problem, however, is then we would say for Approval voting that leaving a candidate blank has no impact on the outcome of the election, which is a false statement. Filingpro (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC).

Feedback:

For me personally, I don't relate to "oppose" and it feels bad to vote in this way, because I would not say I "oppose" any of the candidates because I don't feel I am in opposition to them. I merely prefer the other candidates, and I do have some degree of preference among them. Meanwhile, voters who strategically "oppose" other candidates will benefit.Filingpro (talk) 10:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * A neutral vote does not affect the outcome because it is not included in the formula that determines who is elected. As the system is set up, a distinction is cannot be made between a neutral vote cast under the reason of "Well, I don't support them, but I don't feel strongly enough to oppose them." and a neutral vote of "I'm not familiar enough with this candidate, so I will abstain." There have been a number of philosophies presented on how to vote, including how many candidates to support, oppose, and how may total votes to cast. Ultimately, we have to present the neutral vote in accordance with the mathematical calculation at the end of the election. Two elections ago there was a community discussion to consider a change in the voting methodology. While a variety of ways to vote were presented, no consensus was achieved to change our current format. You can find the discussion at this link, if you are interested. Mike V • Talk 16:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike, I don't have a major objection to the current system, and appreciate your informing me of the well thought-out process in its selection. The improvement I recommend is to correct the claim "a neutral vote does not affect the outcome", because a lack of opposition to a candidate can affect the outcome of the election. If a voter switches their vote from "oppose" to "neutral" they can cause a supported candidate to lose. This is due to the voting system failing the Later-no-harm criterion.
 * A vote "not included in the formula" does not imply it "does not affect the outcome." Consider voting with three ratings "good", "fair", "poor" whereby leaving a candidate blank gives them "poor". Using the formula (good - poor) as our "mathematical calculation", then "fair" votes indeed affect the outcome. The vote need only distinguish itself from the other options available to affect the outcome of the election. Whether it is explicitly included in the formula to compute the score of a particular candidate is irrelevant.
 * The mathematical calculation of each individual candidate's score is not a complete mathematical model of an election. The election is a function that receives as input a set of distinct ratings for each of the candidates by voters, either "support" "neutral" or "oppose", and outputs an ordered list of winners. Each voter can submit one of 3^n power unique ballot combinations (n = # of candidates), each of which can produce a different election outcome, and for which a 'neutral' vote affects the ballot combination and therefore the election outcome.
 * Example: Consider an election for one position with two candidates, using the current system of "support" "neutral" and "oppose". Voters who "support" a preferred candidate and choose to leave the second candidate "neutral" affect the outcome by their choice of "neutral".
 * Example: Consider a critical and close election for one position with three candidates, also using "support" "neutral" and "oppose". How can we justify the claim "a 'neutral' vote does not affect the outcome" when precisely such a vote for a second-preferred candidate can be decisive?
 * An election system, axiomatically, is a choice amongst candidates, i.e. choosing candidates at the exclusion of others, based on voter preferences (for non-dictatorial systems). The election is not an evaluation of any one candidate in isolation. A "neutral" vote for a particular candidate is part of how a voter distinguishes their preferences amongst the candidates, thereby effecting the outcome.
 * In perspective, the main goal is better Wiki articles. Still, when I read the claim (as an independent researcher in the field of voting for over a decade) it struck me as problematic, even a bit amateur. Since Wiki does ultimately rely on procedures I thought it should itself be exemplary. I am also aware the field of voting is controversial, and there are differing opinions etc., as you say competing philosophies. Nonetheless, reading the claim "a 'neutral' vote has no affect on the outcome in any way" did change the way I initially voted, and may disenfranchise others.
 * Filingpro (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with Filingpro that neutral votes do affect the results of election. In fact, that was one of the reasons we switched to Schulze method at Persian Wikipedia and the community is content with the new method: fa:ویکی‌پدیا:انتخابات هیئت نظارت/دور هفتم/نتایج.


 * We hope to switch to Meek STV for our future elections. We even made a proposal to include this method to SecurePoll extension last year (m:2015_Community_Wishlist_Survey/Miscellaneous) which unfortunately was not supported enough. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I would go farther and say that not only does a neutral vote does not affect the outcome in any way, but unless someone can show that the Wikipedia community supports another voting method, in my opinion that's the way it should be. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree we might keep the voting system, but the problem I see is we can show trivially a neutral vote for a second preferred candidate can cause a supported candidate to lose.Filingpro (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't buy it. Please go ahead and "show trivially a neutral vote for a second preferred candidate can cause a supported candidate to lose". Keep in mind how votes are counted (detailed at Arbitration Committee Elections December 2016). --Guy Macon (talk) 04:48, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A two candidate election between A and B. I support A and give B a neutral vote, and A loses to B. Filingpro (talk) 07:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the election formula S/(S+O), your example would give Candidate A 1/1 and candidate B 0/0, electing candidate A. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course but what I mean is we can easily show such a vote causes A to lose, merely by allowing for a second voter who supports B and opposes A. Filingpro (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

For Guy, Euryalus, Mike and others: Filingpro (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) SUMMARY: Because the outcome of the election is determined by the *** relative *** scores of the candidates, and because a "neutral" vote for a candidate can result in a lower or higher score than the other two mutually exclusive ratings, "support" and "oppose", respectively, it follows that a "neutral" vote can affect the outcome of the election.
 * 2) The problem with claiming "a neutral vote does not effect the outcome" based on neutral vote not being explicitly listed in “the formula”, is the following contradictions (3 and 4 below):
 * 3) Contradiction: Consider an approval voting ballot "Approve one or more options." Suppose our formula for counting ballots is to ignore approvals and count -1 for every candidate not approved, yielding the same election system. Since an approval is not "included in the formula", we could claim "approving a candidate does not affect the outcome" which is false.
 * 4) Contradiction: Consider for a 3-slot range voting ballot "2", "1", or "0" we could claim that "Giving a candidate a score '1' does not effect the outcome" based on the formula (1 x "2") - (1 x "0") - i.e. we give +1 for every "2" vote, 0 for every "1" vote, and -1 for every "0" vote, yielding the same range voting system. Consider any literal naming for the slots, e.g. "Excellent" "Good" "Reject". We can not claim a "Good" vote does not effect the outcome, merely because a "Good" vote has a 0 multiplier in the formula.
 * 5) Probably a better specific counterexample, showing a "neutral" vote affects the outcome: Candidates A and B start with equal probability of winning. Voter #1 supports both A and B (a non-decisive ballot). Voter #2 opposes both A and B (a non-decisive ballot). Voter #3 has a neutral preference for A and opposes B. A wins. DISCUSSION: We might be tempted to claim that voter #3's neutral preference for A has no effect on the outcome of the election - i.e. only their opposition to B causes A to win, but we reach the following contradiction: Note that if voter #3 also opposes A (like voter #2) then opposition to B no longer effects the outcome. Therefore, it is impossible for voter #3's opposition to B alone to affect the outcome, in our example. Their opposition to B is only relevant to electing A when voter #3 casts a decisive preference for A, but voter #3 can achieve the same outcome (electing A) by giving A a neutral vote, or supporting A.  We can not say a supporting vote can have an impact on the outcome of the election but a neutral vote cannot, when they produce the same election outcome.
 * 6) A true statement we could make for the current Wiki voting system: "Voting neutral for every candidate has the same effect on the outcome as not submitting a ballot." (Although I don't see this statement would be useful.)

Inappropriate question?
This question is a ramble about Muslims, not a question about ArbCom or the candidate. Fences &amp;  Windows  21:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * On my questions page, I did my best to answer a portion of the question that seemed relevant to Wikipedia while staying away from the rest of it, but I'm not certain whether I did the right thing by responding rather than let the question eventually be removed. I defer to the judgment of the election coordinators in this regard. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've said as much in my own answer but I'm absolutely not opposed to its removal either. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  22:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I've removed the question. It's not really related to our candidates and the arbitration committee. Mike V • Talk 22:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)