Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2015/Feedback

2015 Arbitration Committee Elections

Status

• The December 2015 Arbitration Committee Election results have been posted.
• Please offer your feedback on the election process.

Feedback by role

Voters

• Just seen the message about being eligible to vote after the election is over. Given that I don't know the history any of the candidates I wouldn't have voted. The personal statements are irrelevant afaic - it's all about their historic behaviour in conflicts on WP, which isn't listed. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 10:53, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Echoing sentiment, below, of another voter. I'm flattered that you asked me to vote, but I only just learned about this election some weeks after the election, apparently. I would have liked to participate.
• Very easy and simple voting process.
• When returning to the voting page after having voted once, something like 'You've already voted. To change your votes, please...' could be shown. Then a preselected (displaying the previous votes made by the voter) vote form must be provided.—UY Scuti ^Talk 06:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It is my understanding that it is not technically possible to show you your previous votes when you go to vote the second time, so all you would have to do is change the votes you want to change. This has been suggested many times over the years. The explanation I received is that there is no way to do that without compromising the security of your vote. I don't understand the technical issues, so I can't explain it any further than that. Neutron (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Also note, before you hit the "submit" button on your vote, you can print the voting page if you are connected to a printer. That way you do have a record of who you voted for. If you are on a tablet or something you can probably take a picture of the screen. Neutron (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
• This is the first time I have been qualified to vote. So, I went to the page which lists numerous candidates. I could not find any quick way to see a few sentences from each one as to their belief as to the role and how they have, and would, make Wikipedia better. I did go to the discussion page, but most candidates have not been discussed; perhaps I should have waited a few more days, for more discussions. Also, I had no idea after reading some of the discussions whether a candidate would be ideal or not. Yes, I found the long section that each candidate provided, but there are so many of them and so much content on those pages. I just wonder if there is a better way to educate voters about each of the candidates, such as one paragraph about each person, right under his or her name on the ballot page. Anyway, I think I will need to start the vote process again. When does the voting period end? (i.e. how much time do I have to educate myself about each candidate?) Peter K Burian 17:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

As per top box on Elections December 2015 Candidates, voting "to close Sunday 23:59, 6 December". ◃Λmniarix▹ (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

• Very difficult & complicated voting system!

* too many candidates; overwhelming amount of irrelevant information.

* I only have a limited amount of time that I'm willing to spend on this; need to have an efficient way to obtain info on these candidates.

* Their current statements are too long; I don't have time to read all of them. And the discussions are worthless; most don't have any discussion (but you can't tell that until clicking on each one and wasting time waiting for the page to load).

* Need a short (25 words or less) statement from each candidate of why they are running -- that I would have read.

As this system was, I voted on very superficial reasons, unhappily. T-bonham (talk) 20:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no doubt about it, there is an information overload for voters. I myself don't have time to read all the questions and answers. But it's probably better to have too much than too little, and each voter can decide how much to read. And I don't think the candidate statements themselves are too long, it's all the other stuff. I don't think a 25-word statement would really tell you anything useful. Neutron (talk) 01:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Initial "voter experience" impressions of a first-time voter

• Good: (1) succinct message on my talk page, with well-selected links, saying I may have won the right to vote (that part was kinda weird - I "appear to be eligible to vote"? Did my bowler hat and pince-nez give me away?); (2) clutter-free landing pages - those that were prominently linked on my talk, anyway; (3) good word-limit on the Statements, not too hard to read them all; (4) good input box for posting questions to the candidates on the main discussion page (granted that people who don't read instructions break em).
• Pretty good: It would have been nice to have explained the unusual voting procedure (Yes/Neutral/No) - I had to go back and read the long page of statements a second time because on the first pass, I thought I was just picking the "yes" candidates. But overall, a good voting experience.
• Not so good: Election day procedures were not clear to at least one candidate, who asked me why my questions were where the instructions told me to put them. Looks like there was another process going on before the general invitation to vote went out, and some candidates may not be aware that some procedures changed.
• Very, very bad: The bickering on the main discussion page. Negativity suppresses voter turnout. Does anyone question that? I almost turned away to vomit, but am determined to see what voting on Wikipedia is like as a participant-observer (inmate-visitor) for the first time. And to exercise my duty as a Wikimedian. Of course. If Wikipedia leaders - candidates, proponents, opponents - continue to contaminate Wikipedia with the political diseases and dysfunctions of our extra-wiki lives, or allow that contagion to continue to spread, that's their choice. But expect the same level of disgust that ordinary people have for politics and politicians. And how is that good for Wikipedia?

Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Another 1st time voter feedback

(My mistake - I thought the above was a section for first time voters, not LeoRomero's comments. I just added my comment to the end of the lise. Sorry about that Leo!) Anyway, here is my comment again:

• Left out and frustrated: I got an invite to participate on November 24. Around that time many candidates quit participating. They just left, as if it was all done before we got there. Look at the question pages and see how many blanks there are. (One candidate told me it was all done but the shouting.) Some candidates asked me why I waited so long (paraphrasing) to ask my questions when I asked them the day after I got my invite. I went to one candidate's User talk page to tell them we're all still here with questions. They answered my questions only. I really liked that candidate, and they got my vote, but having to chase down candidates who seem to think it's all over before we even got here really sucked. I felt like I was regarded as a tardy nuisance. One candidate told me a couple times how many votes had already been cast and questioned the importance of mine. (I would like to know how they knew how many votes had been cast.) At least they were still participating. Candidates who ignore voters should lose elections, but that's not how to select the best ArbCom. I am very grateful to have been invited, but seriously disappointed at how unimportant we voting noobs seemed to be to the candidates. That's a great recipe for building a really chaotic ArbCom if we noobs aren't addressed, and if we vote in sufficient numbers. Who knows what we might have done? Dcs002 (talk) 22:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

No worries Dcs002, and thanks for the {ping}. I feel bad that you were treated that way, esp by people who claim to represent us. Do you have diffs to those conversations? I'd like to know who those candidates are. I wouldn't want our Wikipedia in their hands, esp knowing where'd they'd been. - Thanks again; LeoRomero (talk) 23:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

LeoRomero, it would take a long time to be comprehensive, and I think the polls are closed by now. It's complicated too because some of these items were from candidates I liked and voted for, and other comments came from the few candidates who were still participating in Q & A and discussions, and I hesitate to give them even more reasons to think it's a mistake to contribute to the discussions later on with us voting noobs. I think the most telling evidence is on the questions pages, where you can literally see all the blanks after November 25. Here s a diff where the candidate corrected the number of previous votes and said it was all over bar the shouting. Look up in that discussion and you will see the first mention of votes already cast. Here is another diff from a candidate who made such a comment is a very nice and fun way that showed he didn't know we were coming in at a later time but he was very welcoming. (He's not everybody's cup of tea as a candidate, and he seems certain he has no chance of winning, but I think his candidacy was at least very engaging, and I am very grateful he also stuck around to participate.) Here is one candidate in particular whom I asked to come participate on their talk page. You see they did answer my questions, but left all the previous questions blank. I think this is an excellent candidate for ArbCom, and it would be a mistake to base my vote on this action, so I didn't, but this is where that event happened. But look at all the question pages and you'll see this candidate is one of the few who even made an attempt.

PLEASE don't take these comments as a lack of endorsement. This is clearly a systemic issue, not a matter of a few candidates acting badly. These candidates were all forthcoming - eventually. And though there were the odd complaints, they all participated and helped me make my decision. Please focus on the system, not these candidates. Thanks! Dcs002 (talk) 23:06, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again for the {p} Dcs002. It was a good reminder for me to vote, with lots of time to complete my Matrix of Pros and Cons, then exercise some Pilipino People Power, and Vote. So my kids and I have a leisurely supper (during which the topic was How to Fix Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest and Paid Editing Problems with the Least Amount of Work), I open your note, follow the link, and then I find, I lost my chance to vote. After all that reading through dozens of Election pages, I did know that I had to vote on Sunday. But I somehow missed those 3 most important letters: UTC.

So (never start a sentence with So). After hours of research, and wasting candidate time, I didn't get to give good people my vote. If any one of them loses by 1 vote, I will be at their mercy forever. And after all my pontificating ... Instant Karma. Happens every time.

I really like your approach, D. I agree, there are systemic problems. We are fortunate/blessed to have a bunch of smart and good-hearted people who are aware of the problems, and will fix them, in time for the next time.

Not even gonna look at your diffs, I trust you. But I'm sure they will be helpful to those who need to know the details. Evidence is usually helpful when telling the truth, and when solving problems. So thank you for turning them in.

Kindest; LeoRomero (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh my, LeoRomero, yeah, UTC. I'm sorry you lost your vote for such a silly reason, but in a way I am glad that you weren't able to vote against candidates based on my complaints. That was not my intention. That is why I didn't name them before now. The ones in the diffs and the quotes are the ones who were still participating, and their comments have a context. There was something wrong with the system. Apparently we voting noobs got late notice of this process, and the candidates didn't know we were coming, so of course they thought the bulk of discussion was all over, and of course that in turn meant I felt left out. IMO our votes should be about who would make ArbCom better, not who was able to figure out the consequences of this new system of notifying and inviting new voters. My thanks to all the candidates who stuck around, especially to those who were probably thinking I wasn't gonna vote for them anyway. The discussion is still important because others are reading too. And HUGE thanks to everyone who would volunteer for what is probably the crappiest job in WP. You candidates are far braver than I am. Dcs002 (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

It's encouraging that you solicited my vote

I used to be heavily involved with Wikipedia and lost interest as I felt it had become dominated by a bureaucratic class who would rather spend time policing edits than making new contributions and encouraging new users. Like any power structure those within the clique try to maintain control and protect their property from outsiders. Whenever I suggest to someone I know in the real world that they should contribute to Wikipedia they say the same thing: they've tried editing it before but their edit was immediately reverted. They had one bad experience and never came back.

Then today I was catching up on my e-mail and I saw an invitation to vote in an election I thought "gee, that's positive, Wikipedia is actively seeking involvement from a wider pool of people".

I came to the election page and unfortunately the election had closed. But I can tell you what I would have done. I would have looked at the candidates and tried to work out who was standing up for ordinary contributors who just want a chance to contribute what they know to the biggest repository of human knowledge in the world.

Maybe all the arbitration is by veteran contributors debating whether Georgia is a country or an American state (it's a country). In that case it probably doesn't matter that much who's on the committee. But it's encouraging that I got an e-mail so whoever's behind "MediaWiki message delivery" is coming from the right place.

Ben Arnold (talk) 04:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation but...

I didn't find out about it until it was all over. "Pij" (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

1st time voter feedback

• I just got the message that I was eligible to vote. I'm signed on to the Wikipedia daily and for most of the day. How come I didn't get the notice on time to vote?
• Me too. How come I didn't get notification? Or maybe I did get it and missed it? Almufasa (talk)

@Almufasa: You received your notification here, informing you that the polls were open. If you signed on daily, you should have received a talk message notification on the top of your page that day. In the future, you can adjust your notification preferences to send you an email when someone posts on your talk page. Mike V • Talk 21:08, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with what T-bonham (whose account seems to have just been deleted) about information/candidate overload, and much of the info seems irrelevant. I also agree with what Neutron said about too much is better than too little, but it would be nice if there were an efficient way of prioritizing/summarizing important information.

• Along the same lines, I don't understand why Voting must be done in a single sitting. With so much information, it would be more convenient to have more flexibility. (I could hear that by doing so, votes may be based on a voter's mood at the time he votes on a given candidate rather than how they compare relative to the other candidates.

• Along opposite lines, it might be cool if there could be some sort of candidate debate so candidates can be compared and contrasted more easily. Maybe have a (standard) list of the most commonly asked questions, to which each candidate will have a reply.

• I like the way the voting is done with being able to vote on each candidate pos., neg., neutral (as opposed to just voting for (9) candidates). (IDKY they don't make governmental elections similarly.) However, I would have prefered a bit more flexibility to be able to differentiate between a candidate who I strongly prefer and one who I prefer, but less so. Like give a 1-5/10 rating on each candidate, but I can see how that might make things too complicated.

Yaakovaryeh (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

• The issue I would really like to see discussed is apprehension of bias. A few years ago a Christian wikipedia editor tore apart the wikipedia entry for Reconstructionist Roman Polytheism (i.e., a Pagan entry). I think it is outrageous that he was allowed to do this. There should be a policy around this sort of thing. Ever since this incident I have had a greatly diminished view of wikipedia - I perceive it as having more than its fair share of self-inflated young White men from the US with an editorial power high.

Candidates

To be on the Arbitration Committee is a TERRIBLE job / task. I cannot imagine why anyone would want to be "elected" to torture. Unless, they enjoy stimulating complaints, bad language, & odd comments from some "very badly raised children." Chaos4tu (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I found it difficult to find the female candidates. I found three, but perhaps there are more than that. As an established male editor, I work on a number of women's WikiProjects and on recruiting female editors. --DThomsen8 (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there were only three, all of whom were elected. There were many more male candidates but only 6, a third of them, were elected. ϢereSpielChequers 21:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

reluctant voter

Not having had direct experience with any of the candidates, I am reluctant to vote up or down for any listed. I do appreciate the opportunity to vote because if I did have direct experience with any, it then would be meaningful for me to vote preferences. Thanks to all who choose to run, hope it is with the best intentions that they do, and may the best candidates be chosen by those familiar with their actions. _ _ _ _ 83d40m (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Another first time voter's feedback

The candidate statements and the discussion page worked for me. I can't think of a better way to do it without making it either too simple (not enough information), or too complicated (it's already a significant time commitment for editors like myself who don't have tons of editing experience, since we have to read more to understand some of the terms and issues.) Mark D Worthen PsyD 08:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Algorithm

The current algorithm for calculating results strongly rewards those with fewer "opposed" votes (but only when support minus oppose is positive) and takes no account for number of supporters. E.g., someone with only 1 supporter but 0 opposed votes will get a higher score than someone with 10,000 supporters and 1 opposed vote; someone with 30,000 supporters and 10,000 detractors will get the same score as one with 3 supporters and 1 detractor; and among those with more opposed than support votes, those with fewer opposed votes score lower (someone with 0 support votes and 1 opposed vote scores lower than someone with 1 support vote and 10,000 opposed votes).

Among those with more support than opposition, this algorithm tends to favor both lesser-known and more mediocre candidates. Among those with more opposition than support, it will favor those who are more controversial.

I suggest something like the following mod: $(({\frac {\text{support}}{\text{support + oppose}}})-0.5)\cdot {\sqrt {|{\text{support - oppose}}|}}$

where ${\sqrt {|x|}}$ yields the square root of the absolute value of x. Patrickwooldridge (talk) 20:11, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

In theory, this is a problem. In practice, every candidate gets hundreds of votes, with a variation between top and bottom candidates of no more than a factor of 3, so the problem doesn't really arise. If you really want to be mathematically correct, you should use the algorithm here, which does a statistically-correct weighting of the support votes to find a lower bound on the "true" level of support. --Carnildo (talk) 00:33, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. Please note that any change to the selection process will need to occur in a community request for comment. There's one specifically for the elections held around August/September. Best, Mike V • Talk 02:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing me to the lovely equation on Mr. Miller's website. Will take me a while to plumb its depths, but I am gratified to see my that my suggestion was apparently headed in the right direction. I did run a spreadsheet with sample values between 200-600 for each field (support, oppose) comparing Mr.Miller's algorithm against the current one and there were only a few points of discrepancy in the ordering, so the current algorithm seems to be a pretty good rule of thumb for the data range we encounter, but I do wonder: why don't we just use the full Wilson/Bernoulli equation? Thanks again Patrickwooldridge (talk) 17:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I have been wondering why any such algorithm is necessary other than support = 1, neutral = 0, and oppose = -1. If members who get a lot of votes can't get a clear majority that is larger than those with fewer votes, maybe that's our way of saying we need new blood on the Committee. The current algorithm looks like an unnecessarily complicated way of achieving the same outcome. Everyone could easily understand the simple +1, 0, -1 system. (Some people are math-phobic and cringe at equations, even the simple ones like our current algorithm - even the word algorithm.) IMO, candidates with lots of votes should not be given an advantage if half of them are negative. I'm a voting noob, and that's just my opinion. Dcs002 (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Anonymity

I looked in vain on the voting page for a declaration that voting is anonymous. Some editors may feel uncomfortable about voting if they suspect that their usernames will appear in Support/Oppose lists for each candidate. Akld guy (talk) 01:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Akld guy: The voting process is anonymous in the sense that no one will know who you voted for. The individual votes are encrypted and only decrypted in aggregate. (Not even the election commissioners and scrutineers will have knowledge of individual votes.) Please note that if you do vote, you're name will be recorded as having voted. Mike V • Talk 01:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

This is stated on the main elections page, here, third paragraph of the "For voters" section. Neutron (talk) 01:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

It might be good policy to state it categorically on the voting page itself. Akld guy (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree. I have the impression that once elected, an Arbcom member can see who voted against them. -DePiep (talk) 01:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@DePiep: That would be good for teh dramahz, but nope, the list of voters is public but the votes themselves are anonymous :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Anonymity is good, because in the RL voting is also what way. But I like to have some polls or an advise of the current arbitrators if there are some rotten apple between the candidates. Sometimes users vote only for the names they know and everybody else get a negative advise. In my view an arbitrator needs to be neutral and keep a low profile and have clean hands. So I vote for a strong arbitration committee. So a public support will help. Because some voters like to express their support. Carsrac (talk) 15:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

How many?

I'm not seeing anywhere how many people I can vote for. How many people are on the committee normally?Sgerbic (talk) 18:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

@Sgerbic: There are 9 available seats this year. The top 9 candidates with a minimum of 50% support will be elected to the committee. For each candidate you can vote either support, neutral, or oppose. The committee normally has 15 members. Mike V • Talk 19:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Sgerbic, in case that response doesn't answer your question you can support all, some or none of the candidates. You can oppose all, some or none, too. There are 9 open spaces but the only limit for how many candidates you can support is the number of candidates. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. I understand now.Sgerbic (talk) 01:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Voter log

Please consider making the voter log a sortable list - sortable alphabetically and by time. That way it'll be easier for the curious to do a rough count without including re-votes. Also, can you link each name to the user's global contributions page, so people can easily spot-check voters' backgrounds? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

The list is already sortable by time and name. Click on the header and it will sort accordingly. As for the contributions, it's very unlikely that we can incorporate that into this poll (as we don't want to risk any unexpected bugs to affect the polling) but I'll pass it on to James as a recommendation for future elections. Mike V • Talk 04:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you, Mike. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

What's the point of opposing a candidate?

Revenge, I'd guess, from those who've been bitten unfairly, in their own life experience at least, by a given candidate. But why does WP indulge on such negative feelings? Wouldn't strong support, mild support, neutral (no support) be roughly equivalent? In that case, a rationale for having those buttons default to the "mild" middle value would be derived from the assumption that users who vote, in general, support the candidates. ale (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Technical Problems

"You must be logged in to vote"

The first time I clicked the Submit button, I received the above message. I'm not positive, but it seemed as if the system wanted me to be logged in to Wikimedia Foundation. I had clicked the message I received on Wikipedia encouraging editors to vote, so I was already logged into ENWP. At any rate I 'lost' my votes and had to vote again. It was a bit frustrating because I had to read (scan) candidate statements and the discussion page again, but it was all fresh in my mind so it wasn't too bad. I made sure to take screen shots of my votes in case the glitch happened again, but when I clicked Submit the 2nd time it worked. [Windows 10 | Fast Internet - cable direct to PC | Chrome browser] Mark D Worthen PsyD 08:47, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

This happened to me numerous times too. I took a lot of time considering each candidate, and I clicked on the candidate's button before moving on to the next candidate. It seemed to happen when I took too much time, and it sometimes happened when I clicked on a question or discussion button and then clicked back. This added a couple hours to the process for me. (I really do take my one little vote very seriously.) Dcs002 (talk) 07:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)