User talk:Timotheus Canens/Sandbox

No minimal percentage: just rank the candidates

1. The percentage rating that the support divided by support + oppose formula produces might be ok as a comparison between candidates; but to suggest that it's a measure of community support is erroneous. The numbers are significantly suppressed by the oppose factor, in which many voters do the only rational thing to maximise the effect of their votes: they click to register a "tactical" oppose for every candidate they're not actively supporting (it's easy with click-buttons in the confidential/automated SecurePoll voting we now have, but is not, IMO, a reason for not using it). Many opposes are registered not because a voter actively opposes candidates for whom they might otherwise have opted out of expressing a vote. Tony (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
2. Epbr123 (talk) 12:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
3. Tony is right. Last year, I voted tactically. I specifically opposed a couple candidates that I did not feel belonged anywhere near Arbcom, and I specifically supported a couple whose works I knew well. But for the majority, I registered no vote at all. All vacancies need to be filled during these elections, or the process risks breaking down entirely. As such, I viewed my non-votes as tacit supports, i.e.: I had no reason to oppose them, but that would not appear on a percentage chart. Resolute 14:00, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
4. What Tony says makes sense. In fact, it's made me wonder whether we've got the right formula (or the right description of the options) to start with. Can't think of anything better right now, but I would draw attention to my statement somewhere up above, about making it clear to voters that if they want their vote to carry full weight, they need to tick the "oppose" boxes as well.--Kotniski (talk) 11:36, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
5. Deryck C. 18:32, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
6. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:58, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
7. The Easiest --Ald™ ¬_¬™ 01:43, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
8. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 12:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
9. Because of the way the votes are tallied, this is the only way to make the system fair for all involved. Akjar13 (talk) 14:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
10. Maybe an interesting question to survey is the proportion of people who did/did not vote tactically. I voted tactically last year, and will continue to do so as long as the rules do not prohibit it – it's impossible to prove one way or another. In such cases, an 'oppose' doesn't mean what it appears to be on the surface, and we would be condemning ourselves perpetually to arb shortages or the Royal veto. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 15:05, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
11. I'm astonished to find out that good faith voters are being disadvantaged by a system that requires a basic knowledge of the 'game'. Lightmouse (talk) 09:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
12. As has been stated its impossible to interpret the why and wherefore of the results in this current voting set up - so minimum set limits are confusing the issue even more. If you are fearful that a nominee might be elected by default, or you think you could do better than a nominee then volunteer yourself. Off2riorob (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
13. First choice. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
14. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
15. Pluralities should be fine if it is a massive slate. Carrite (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
16. Minimum percentage support thresholds are not a sensible feature in this system. If the field contains twice as many credible candidates as there are Arb seats to fill then we could easily need to elect someone with less than 50% of the vote. If the field was narrow and there was only one more credible candidate than seats then you might well have a runner up with over 80% of the vote. If we had a glut of good candidates we could find that none achieved 50% simply because of the size of the field. Minimum percentage supports simply mean the more good candidates you have the less likely you are to fill every seat.... ϢereSpielChequers 22:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

50%

1. Since this is has been in past years and seems likely to continue to be a secret ballot where editors are free to oppose any candidate without consequences, there is no badgering of opposes. Opposes are not thrown out for a lack of appropriate rationale, so a vote can be simply an "I don't like this candidate's stance on X". As such, it's a very different world than RfA; to the best of my knowledge, Arbcom election has never been billed as "not a big deal". Jclemens (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
2. I normally would prefer a higher percentage, but have to go with majority for the simple reason that there are too many "tactical oppose" votes being cast. (For those who are unaware, there are those who try to maximize the impact of their votes on getting their top candidates elected by only voting a number of supports for the number of seats open, and then voting oppose on the rest, even if they think they'd make a good arbitrator). JClemens makes a good point there too. SirFozzie (talk) 03:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
3. It's important to not raise the bar further than this: ArbCom candidates are not picked only on trust (which would mean that higher is automatically better) but also on representativeness and "philosophical" stances. It's entirely possible for a valid candidate to get low numerical support mostly by virtue of others being preferred to them without implying that they are seen as unsuitable or untrustworthy. This is why the selection is ultimately those with the highest support and not "all who past some arbitrary goalpost".

   The 50% limit is really there only as a safety net; it's arguable that someone who – even in a wide field of candidates — is opposed by a majority is too controversial to be an effective arbitrator. — Coren ^(talk) 03:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

4. An election is not a consensus, it is an election. If we use consensus criteria for ACE, we would never get qualified people in, as there is often not a relationship between competence and popularity. --Cerejota (talk) 04:31, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
5. In the past elections, we have had relatively few candidates, and I fear that setting the absolute percentage too high will mean we are short of qualified people after the elections are over. However, if more than half the community is opposed to a candidate we are probably better served with a smaller commitee than an arbitrator who is lacking community support. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:56, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
6. Realistically, high enough to prevent unqualified candidates from passing while not making 'winning' the election an impossible task Jebus989^✰ 18:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
7. Requiring more supports than opposes is sufficient and has worked reasonably well. A higher threshold allows an organized minority to veto a candidate who has majority support. (I realize this is the case for other positions on Wikipedia, but we aren't talking about those right now. I also realize that "more supports than opposes" is not exactly the same as 50%, which would include a tie, but it's close enough and I don't want to start another section over just one vote.) Neutron (talk) 23:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
8. Sole Soul (talk) 01:19, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

   Second choice. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

   Second choice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

9. T. Canens (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
10. Anything higher means we will have to deal with fewer candidates passed than seats open. But we should decide in advance whether this is 50% of {Support + Oppose}, or 50% of {Support + Oppose + Neutral} if there is a "Neutral" or similar option on the ballot. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

    Second choice, as an absolute minimum. Jafeluv (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

11. I prefer this level over the higher ones. It is possible even likely that to achieve a full committee we would need to promote candidates with 55-59% supports and I think that this is better than leaving the spots unfilled. On the other hand, when a plurality of voters clearly rejects a candidate as unsuitable they should not be seated even if an empty seat would remain. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
12. We need to fill vacancies, hopefully those actually elected will have much higher percents then 50, but as a floor I don't think anyone with more people opposed then in support should be an arb. Monty₈₄₅ 19:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

    Second choice. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:44pm • 11:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

    50% is my second choice - any higher and we'll fail to elect a decent size committee. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:00, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

13. First choice. It's clear from looking at last year's voting results that if we don't have a cutoff at 50%, we won't be able to fill all necessary seats. --Elonka 15:06, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
14. To make it more likely all places can be filled than 60%, but candidates must have majorit support. Davewild (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
15. I lean toward having no limit but think below 50% would be bad for the faith in Arbcomm. Hobit (talk) 02:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

    This must be the absolute minimum, as users with more opposes than support should not be on ArbCom. CT Cooper · talk 14:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

16. First and only choice. With a secret poll and candidates running against each other to fill the same position, 50% does the best job of filling out the seats, and giving us arbitrators who are seen as qualified by a large enough percentage of the community to have there decision making hold weight. It also prevents people who are seen as unqualified by the majority of the community from being seated. This is important because there is no pre-election run off (like a primary election), or pre-vetting for qualification by skill set or trust by a selection committee. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 14:52, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
17. Ampersandestet (talk) 09:16, 30 September 2011 (UTC) While I would support quorum of 50%+1, this seems to be a bit more appropriate.
18. Given that many opposes will unfortunately be tactical rather than personal objections to the candidate, anyone who manages to get more active support than opposition clearly should be appointed. There is no evidence to suggest that approved candidates with lower rates have been a significant problem on arbcom.--Scott Mac 23:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

    Second choice. What if we have a batch of candidates at 58-59% and not enough over that to fill seats? Would prefer 60 in principle per Ironholds. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

    Second choice. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 06:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

19. Iff it's closed voting. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:56, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
20. Only choice for me - at least HALF must be supported. 40% isn't good at all (allows users who have been opposed more than supported). As long as there's more support than opposition. HurricaneFan25 17:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
21. Since this is a highly scrutinized election, we must expect a high degree of opposition. I don't think this election should be compared with RFA, as some who support higher thresholds seem to be doing. While adminship probably is a big deal, it's not as big a deal as ArbCom membership. So it's only reasonable to think people will struggle to achieve the level of support RFA requires. I still support this cutoff because I don't think anyone with less than 50% support should sit on the committee, even if it means a smaller committee. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

60%

1. Sixty percent. I'd prefer seventy, although even that would make arbcom seemingly a less important thing than adminship. What I'd like is a committee which can be said to have the confidence of far more than a simple majority of the community - it's what we ask of RfA candidates, it's what we ask of RfB candidates, and it's simply ludicrous that we have a body tasked with granting high-flying userrights, overseeing the use of those userrights and acting as a "court of last resort" which is made up of people who, in some cases, can claim nothing more than "out of the entire community, 60 more like me than hate me". This is not designed to offend individual arbitrators - simply to point out that if we're going to have a committee with all these whizzy rights and powers the people who sit on it should probably have the community's trust, too. Ironholds (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
2. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 08:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)\
3. Pretty much per Ironholds. I'd put it higher but I don't think that it'd get enough support, so I'm hedging my bets, so to speak. Arbs are some of the most powerful users on this site, and to say that my faith in them has been shaken this term is an understatement. I'd prefer a smaller, more trusted group. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
4. at least 60 per Ironholds. Ipsign (talk) 11:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
5. I think this is the most sane level at which to set it, however, one would hope they would have significantly more than 60%. Orderinchaos 16:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
6. As per Ironholds. I want to see that more than a simple majority of people who took the time to go to the vote page support a Arbitrator. As said before, ArbCom is the "Court of (next to) last resort". The last appeal line is User:Jimbo who typically declines requests that come to him. These users have the power to levy very significant restrictions of privilages on the site, we want to be sure that a super-majority supports them in their role. Hasteur (talk) 17:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
7. AGK [•] 23:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
8. First choice. sonia♫ 02:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
9. First choice. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:36, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
10. Per Ironholds, at least 60. Swarm ^{u / t} 12:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
11. Per Ironholds. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 21:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
12. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:10, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
13. Start as you mean to go on—"half the community doesn't want me on ArbCom" is not a good place to start. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
14. 60% makes sense to me. Al Lemos (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
15. First choice. Jafeluv (talk) 11:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
16. First choice. —James ^{(Talk • Contribs)} • 9:43pm • 11:43, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
17. First Choice --Cube lurker (talk) 16:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
18. Has to be. Any lower would reduce the community's confidence in the committee too much; any higher and we might not be able to fill all the spaces. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:14, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
19. Should really be the minimum to ensure a decent level of confidence in every arbitrator. However, anything higher is not realistic with the secret ballot. A possible compromise could be users with between 50% and 60% support being limited to a one year term. CT Cooper · talk 14:08, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
20. Better err on the side of caution. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
21. --Guerillero | My Talk 01:05, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
22. --Biophys (talk) 03:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
23. Per Ironholds. If someone can't come up with at least 60% of the community support, they have no business serving in this capacity. Trusilver 19:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
24. Ironholds said it. --Dweller (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
25. First choice; any higher and we'd never have any arbs. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
26. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

    Iff vote is open. -- DQ (t) (e) 12:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

27. I'd prefer 75 or higher to be honest, but it seems we can hardly get 75 in an election anymore. Mitch32^{(Never support those who think in the box)} 04:01, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

66%

1. Per Ironholds. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

   Second Choice --Cube lurker (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

2. This is my first choice, and I regret that it looks like we're heading to 60%. Another problem is that we've been dropping below 60% lately, which is marginal IMO anyway and isn't a level that reflects the community trust we expect of arbs, considering the serious nature of personal and confidential issues they are privy to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
3. M4gnum0n (talk) 18:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

70%

1. I think that wse should make absolutly sure the user is good for ArbCom and the vast majority thinks the user is good for AC. ~~Ebe123~~ (+) ^talk
   _Contribs 19:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
2. I think 70% is needed.75% is too high while 50% is a bit low.Palaxzorodice (talk) 08:48, 22 September 2011 (UTC)