User:The owner of all/ACE2017

User:

User talk:

sandbox

ACE 2015

/Guide to guides

ACE 2017

Article alerts

n – s – u

For those of y'all voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee election, here's a short guide.

Full disclosure: I myself will not be voting because I am ineligible. Having recently returned from a long period of absence from Wikipedia, I do not have the required number of edits to be able to register a vote myself.

Now for the guide.

Voting system mathematics & strategy

The main thing to remember is how the mathematical aspects of the voting process affect the result. An ideal process would be as described here. The ArbCom system is almost exactly the same, however instead of tallying the votes as SUPPORT - OPPOSE we are using the formula SUPPORT/(SUPPORT+OPPOSE). Either way, the absolute minimum to win election is >50% support. The design of the system is to minimize tactical voting and allow voters to express a true opinion on each and every candidate, however the nature of this election plus the slight variation in the calculation means that the optimal strategy is slightly different.

Therefore, for one, eight (8) seats are available to be filled, but Arbcom does not need all eight to be filled. If you do not believe a candidate is suitable, vote oppose. This is because it is better to have a vacant seat than it is to have that seat filled by an unqualified Arbitrator.

I agree with some others that for a given ArbCom election, the best strategy is to vote SUPPORT for the top n candidates, where n is the lesser of 1) the number of qualified candidates, or 2) the number of seats up for election; and vote OPPOSE on all others. The requirement to register a vote on all candidates means there is practically nothing to gain by voting ABSTAIN/NEUTRAL on any candidate. This year there are eight seats up for election so in no case would I vote to SUPPORT more than eight candidates.

Principles guiding my suggestions

• ArbCom needs to be more effective. It needs people that are willing to make the hard decisions that the community has been unable to.
• WP is not a social networking site, and in general I will support those who put their primary effort into improving the product for the reader, whether by improving articles, contributing files, improving organization of articles, etc. versus the non-article aspects of the site such as contributing to drama at WP:PITCHFORKS or elsewhere.
• WP is not an advocacy platform and I will not be supporting candidates who clearly cannot see beyond their own bias in controversial issues as ArbCom is meant to be fair for all.
• If candidates have shown that they should not be trusted with access to editors' private information then one must OPPOSE the candidate.

Suggested vote

1. RickinBaltimore. Oppose.
2. Sir Joseph. Support. This user does not use alternative accounts.
3. BU Rob13. Support.
4. The Rambling Man. Oppose.
5. Alex Shih. Support.
6. Premeditated Chaos. Support.
7. Opabinia regalis. Oppose. I supported her last time, but now she is an active arbitrator and I oppose current arbitrators serving another term if there are other candidates available to support.
8. Callanecc. Oppose. Again, I do not support consecutive terms for active arbitrators when there are other suitable candidates.
9. SMcCandlish. Support.
10. Mailer diablo. Support.
11. KrakatoaKatie. Support.
12. Worm That Turned. Support.