Executive summary: Proposal to return to secret ballots for ArbCom elections has been resoundingly endorsed, with opinions on the specific voting system fairly split. In addition, having human oversight of the election is seen as a necessary component.

Should Wikipedia move to a secret ballot system for electing members of the Arbitration Committee starting at the 2009 elections?

At this time, there exists a number of usable technical means by which the electoral process can be implemented with a reasonably secure secret ballot system. In particular, mw:Extension:SecurePoll, mw:Extension:BoardVote and mw:Extension:Vote are all available for use in this manner should we so chose, and the developers have already stated their willingness to help adapt them as needed for our purposes.

This RFC is to see if there is consensus for the principle of moving to a secret ballot only; implementation details would be hashed out later if consensus is reached.

Jimbo Wales (talk · contribs) has already expressed support for such a transition.

REMINDER TO USE THE TALK PAGE FOR DISCUSSION: All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

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

It is no coincidence that every major democratic system of the world has been using secret ballots and has placed great emphasis on the protection and integrity of that ballot.

When votes are made in public, there is vast opportunity for intimidation, retribution, vote buying, and tactical voting; all of which are seriously detrimental to the objective of evaluating community will fairly and neutrally. Those phenomena have already been observed during the past elections, and have had a serious impact on the results (so this is not an hypothetical fear). Indeed, even the perception that any or all of those corruptions of a democratic system are taking place have a negative impact on the result: voters feel disenfranchised, or hesitate to vote according to their true wishes fearing they may be the target of retribution (by candidates, or other voters).

Whether we use the opportunity to move to a preferential voting system as the extensions are currently configured to do (specifically the Schulze method), or whether we should continue with a first-past-the-post vote isn't at issue at this time. I would support the former for its desirable properties in selecting arbitrators that have the widest support as opposed to those who have the strongest support — this is arguably exactly optimal for a committee meant to represent the community as a whole — but I would agree with any sane voting system that proceeds with a secret ballot.

The technical means at our disposal mean that we don't have to continue with raised hand voting; we can move to a proper ballot starting at the next election, and I suggest and support that we do.

Edit: As a note, I do not expect that the opportunity to discuss with or about the candidates would be affected. There would be no reason why a question page, and a discussion page, could not be continued as in past elections. I am only offering to move the actual voting to a secret ballot.

Users who endorse this summary

1. — Coren ^(talk) 00:30, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. NW (Talk) 00:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. FloNight♥♥♥ 00:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Antandrus (talk) 00:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. hmwithτ 01:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Nathan ^T 01:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. EdJohnston (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 02:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Secret ballots are often a more useful tool.--Tznkai (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 03:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Tony (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. I would prefer the Schulze method. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Demos kratos Greg L (talk) 05:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
18. Kusma (talk) 08:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. Hut 8.5 12:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Very well reasoned. It will be easier to be an arbitrator to make unbiased decisions if you simply have no knowledge of what the "litigants" think about you. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:31, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. The Schulze method would be suitable here too. -- Luk ^talk 12:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Yes, it was secret in 2004, I do not know why it was abandoned in later elections. MBisanz ^talk 12:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
23. Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC), and support the use of the Schulze method as well. Ironholds (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
24. Yes as long as there is a clear on-wiki public page for discussing each candidate to help ensure voters can be as informed as possible. Secrecy for voters (and for candidates who want to vote) is good. Also strongly support changing the voting system, Schulze method would be fine. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support, and OK for Schulze. Plus, the Audit Committee to oversight the electronic voting. Cenarium (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
26. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
27. iMatthew ^talk at 22:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
28. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
30. the wub "?!" 15:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
31. Mr.Z-man 17:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support secret balloting, but do not support the use of the Schulze system. If there is someone a voter feels would be a really poor addition to the Arbitration Committee, they should be able to oppose that person directly. Risker (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
33. Burningview (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
34. RP459 (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
35. Icewedge (talk) 06:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
36. –Turian^talk 11:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
37. Tiptoety ^talk 19:11, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
38. Per Risker, support secret voting, strongly oppose the Schulze system. – iridescent 09:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
39. I support a secret ballot and also a preferential/Schulze system. The downside of not being able to directly oppose a candidate in the Schulze system is overweighted by the benefit of being able to elected candidates with, as Coren said, the "widest" not the "strongest" support which is useful in this type of comittee and in elections with multitudes of potential candidates. Fleerz (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support secret voting. Priyanath ^talk 06:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Secret ballot seems such an obvious idea as to almost be noncontroversal. However, I am sure that many would feel much more comfortable if the Schulze method mentioned by User:Coren were to be decided upon simultaniously. A secret ballot can be quite manipulable if the methodology isn't clearly defined from the get-go. If the secret ballot is manipulated or corrupted in some way, then nothing is gained. Therefore, the Schulze method (specifically Schulze STV) should be form of voting, conducted in secret.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. — Coren ^(talk) 01:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. -- Luk ^talk 12:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Davewild (talk) 18:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. RP459 (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. EdJohnston (talk) 00:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While a secret ballot has genuine arguments in its favour (though the idea that ArbCom elections are likely to be influenced by bribery or intimidation is somewhat farfetched) the usefulness of a non-secret vote tally should not be discounted.

The 'winners' of the ArbCom election don't control my taxes. They can't declare wars on my behalf. They won't even be able to send someone to fix the pothole in front of my house. Let's have some perspective. They deal with a vanishingly small percentage of Wikipedia editors who can't be dealt with by other means (though I suspect that, in their absence, we'd probably develop an admin corps with a bit more fortitude about handling our problem children). The upshot? While every Wikipedia editor has a nominal interest in assembling a fairly-competent ArbCom, in practice we're all volunteers who (ought to) have better things to do with our time than deal with political processes.

Regularly-updated vote tallies offer a number of benefits. By my count, there were thirty-four candidates at the start of voting in the last election. Without a running tally that's more than thirty sets of statements, questions, and discussions to slog through. Besides being a waste of time when dealing with 'joke' or 'protest' candidates, it probably means any candidate whose name falls more than half-way through the alphabet is going to get ignored.

Let's be honest — after a few days, any candidate running above 90% approval (or falling below 50%) is probably a foregone conclusion, one way or the other. Why waste our precious volunteers' time reviewing candidates upon whom a decision has already been effectively reached?

Finally, let's not kick our candidates more than necessary. I know that here were a lot of candidates in the last election who were obviously (to me) unsuitable for the job, and yet who I feared might garner significant support from their followers in the community. By the time I got around to voting, I could see that their candidacies were doomed; it wasn't necessary for me to cast a 'nay' vote. If I hadn't had the running tally to refer to, I'd have felt compelled to register my opposition out of sense of self-preservation. These candidates would have ended up with extraordinarily poor showings. While they arguably might deserve such low final tallies, there's no need to rub it in; these are often senior, heavily-involved members of the community who simply aren't ArbCom material.

If there are concerns about prematurely biasing the outcome against (or in favour of) early recipients of votes, then delay the initial display of the tally for a day or two, or put a 12-hour delay on the running totals. A running tally is too useful to give up. At best, working without one invites the wastage of far too much of our volunteers' time. At worst, it discourages the participation of our editors altogether.

Users who endorse this summary

1. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Rami R 09:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. NVO (talk) 18:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. -- EA Swyer ^Talk _{Contributions} 01:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Protonk (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

As currently implemented, SecurePoll is actually designed against giving running tallies for security reasons. The current workflow model expects that the vote reviewers (tasked with eliminating sockpuppetry, etc.) will completely finish striking any inappropriate voters before any ballot is open and tallied, which helps mitigates against the risk of the reviewers trying to shift the direction of the ballot. Withholding the tally key also limits the ability of individuals with database access from manipulating the vote (i.e. its one of a couple features such that not even Brion, etc. could manipulate the WMF Trustees vote).

Personally, I like the idea of a running tally. As TOAT says, it saves time for the individual voter by allowing him to focus on the borderline cases and not worry about the hopeless ones. However, providing such a tally would require software modifications and a general acceptance of a slightly less secure system. Dragons flight (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As election to the Arbitration Committee is explicitly a democratic vote and not a consensus building exercise, secret ballots are the logical next step. Hopefully, vigorous discussion will still take place. I however, would feel much more comfortable if there were human beings involved in some oversight capacity in the actual vote counts, who would have to be selected somehow - Functionaries, a subcommittee, the Arbitration clerks, perhaps even a group selected by Jimbo, just someone looking over the software's shoulder.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Agree. FloNight♥♥♥ 01:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. — Coren ^(talk) 01:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. hmwithτ 01:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Electronic_voting#Documented_problems - Humans must watch any voting system. Irbisgreif (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. I suppose I should endorse my own statement.--Tznkai (talk) 02:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Hut 8.5 12:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. There obviously is a need of proper oversight (I guess that's one of the reasons the vote is not secret at the moment) -- Luk ^talk 12:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
10. Yes, an external monitoring agent is a good idea, I have suggested the de.wiki arbs or the meta crats in the past. MBisanz ^talk 12:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
11. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
12. Bsimmons666 (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
13. Davewild (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
14. Endorse, and I would strongly suggest the Audit Committee for that. First, because the committee exists (no need to create one), and they already have a role of oversight. (This choice will also be consistent with some policy changes I'll propose.) Cenarium (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
15. Gosox5555 (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
16. ... and I do like Cenarium's suggestion that the Audit subcommittee takes on this role. I will be rotated off this subcommittee by then. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
17. Endorse, and I would strongly oppose the involvement of Audit Committee. An elected committee supervising its own elections? It might work, actually; but an outside observer is still a better choice. NVO (talk) 07:04, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I was under the impression that the Audit Committee would ultimately become independent of ArbCom (which I would support). Cenarium (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

18. Mr.Z-man 17:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
19. RP459 (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
20. Tiptoety ^talk 19:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
21. --KrebMarkt 21:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
22. Priyanath ^talk 06:47, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections have worked fine in the past; while I don't see any particular problems with moving to a secret ballot, I also don't see it as particularly necessary. Powers ^T 01:53, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Users who endorse this summary

1. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Stifle (talk) 22:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think, this question primarily resolves about how we see ArbCom elections on Wikipedia: Is ArbCom are a sort of high court that is democratically elected by the community as a whole? If so, then a secret ballot are the next logical step. As Coren has elaborated already, secrecy of the act of voting is part of every democracy in existence for various good reasons. But this only applies if we assume that majority of votes transfers 1:1 into election as arbitrators.

On the other hand, the selection process detailed on Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/History explicitly highlights that the members of ArbCom are appointed by Jimbo Wales who does not consider himself bound by the results of the elections. If this is the predominant view of ArbCom elections within the community (I don't say it is), then the election is not an election in the name only. The results merely serve as a recommendation to Jimbo (acting as a benevolent dictator in such cases) who can choose freely who he wants to appoint regardless of the results of the election. If this is in fact the case (no matter whether he ever did not follow the majority recommendation), then the whole process is not an election and more so, there is no need to apply the democratic rules of elections to it.

Before we can decide whether we want users to be able to cast their votes in secret, we should first clarify what they are really doing. Because only a real election, where the majority of votes is transferred into election to the ArbCom seats, needs a secret ballot. An RFC on community recommendations to Jimbo Wales imho does not.

Users who endorse this summary

1. SoWhy 11:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Smallman12q (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. I thought Wikipedia was not a democracy. All actions are supposed to be done by consensus. How can we gain consensus unless we're shown the opinions of other participants? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. I agree here. ArbCom elections serve two purposes: to select members of ArbCom, and to let the portion of the community that doesn't regularly frequent Arbitration cases, RFCs, ANI, etc. clear the air about what ArbCom is about. I think the second function, for a consensus-based community, is actually more important than the former. Ray^Talk 00:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Gentleman has point here. Rami R 08:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree. I'd prefer open voting to preserve transparancy and facilitate discussion. ThemFromSpace 10:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. --Cube lurker (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. I fully agree. We'd also add more bureaucracy as they would need auditing.Smallman12q (talk) 19:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. BrianY (talk) 02:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. vvv^t 19:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbcom is not a government. Election campaigns in a democratic system are covered in all the major medias, there are political campaigns and parties will clearly define policies with their ideologies. This simply is not the case here.

Votes and rationales of the voting require a minimum level of publicity, as certainly many users will only know about the appropriateness of a choice during the voting process when reading others votes as well as the rationale behind their decision. This does not apply in the real world because people debate for months, follow the news and its coverage, watch the parties' leaders debating and then come to a decision. Non-secret ballot in such cases will only be intimidating.

Put a secret ballot and you run at risk of having a bunch of users making ignorant choices and having no idea on why the users who oppose are opposing. Those rerunning and who took very questionable decisions will only be opposed by their victims and those who witnessed the improper handling of a case. The rest of the Wiki-population will have little clue of the problems and probably won't read the discussions in the talkpages or elsewhere (this is even more true when the victims of mishandling are not admins or popular editors). In a real government, a grave mishandling will make the headlines in the entire media and be covered appropriately. This could cost one many seats and entire governments are put at risk of not being reelected. This is all because the required coverage is not lacking. Not to forget that government decisions can directly affect a very significant part of the population, and this significant part will make sure that the government is not reelected. The Arbcom decisions only affect a limited scope of people (those under arbitration mainly).

I am not totally rejecting secret ballots, I'm just saying that it's not as easy as it seems. The current way has its advantages and disadvantages. At least we know that many make their choice with a minimum amount of knowledge.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Badger Drink (talk) 23:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The secret ballot developed in real-world elections for a good reason: to prevent voter intimidation. Is there any suggestion of voter intimidation on Wikipedia elections? Secret ballots work in real-world elections for a good reason reason too: counting can be supervised by outside parties. Who would supervise the counting of Wikipedia elections if they were conducted by secret ballot?

Without supervision by outside parties, secret ballots are open to electoral fraud by those doing the counting. If no-one knows how you voted, and no-one can supervise the counting, then no-one knows that the result was made up. Unless there is a serious suggestion of voter intimation - and unless to workable measures to prevent electoral fraud by vote counters is put forward - moving to a secret ballot would be a very bad idea.

Openness is far more of a central tenet of running a good election. Better to keep it open than to make it secret.

Users who endorse this summary

1. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 12:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. . NVO (talk) 22:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Badger Drink (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Stifle (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell: Dissent and opposition are an important part of developing a fair/balanced/equal consensus. Secrecy inhibits discussion where as open votes help foster discussion. WP:AINT.

There is no doubt that a secret ballot (with high-level security could be easily implemented with EAL6 standards can be achieved. But is it needed? In general, secret ballots are either used to avoid intimidation, or to fudge results.

The secret ballot is a voting method in which a voter's choices are confidential. The key aim is to ensure the voter records a sincere choice by forestalling attempts to influence the voter by intimidation or bribery. The system is one means of achieving the goal of political privacy.

— secret ballot

I cannot see how anyone is getting bribed or intimidated here (there is a bit of stalling in the form of laziness=P).

Have the values of the wikimedia foundation been misplaced? It clearly states We must communicate Wikimedia Foundation information in a transparent, thorough and timely manner, to our communities and more generally, to the public.

Secret ballots will not foster collaboration, but inhibit it(federal reserve anyone)? This is wikipedia, a free, open encyclopedia, built by a general community through consensus. And here you are proposing that there be secret ArbCom ballots. And then these ballots will somehow be audited? Whatever happened to WP:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy?

Use some common sense and If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Users who endorse this summary

1. I endorse myself. Always.Smallman12q (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2. Endorse. Same rationale as above. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 18:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
3. Fedayee (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
4. Endorse, per WP:AINT.--Aervanath (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
5. Yes. NVO (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
6. Yep. Badger Drink (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
7. ThemFromSpace 15:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
8. Stifle (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
9. Inconsistently endorse. ·Carn !? 21:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coren states, above, "When votes are made in public, there is vast opportunity for intimidation, retribution, vote buying, and tactical voting; all of which are seriously detrimental to the objective of evaluating community will fairly and neutrally. Those phenomena have already been observed during the past elections, and have had a serious impact on the results (so this is not an hypothetical fear)". These are rather extraordinary claims, and while I am not yet utterly dismissing them, I find it surprising that not a single example of this has been provided.

As such, it is rather hard to make a case for the current system being broken in any significant way. If you think ArbCom votes are currently just a bunch of people voting for names they recognize, wait until you remove the incidental vetting that public voting allows. Do we really think any substantial amount of Wikipedians are going to individually vet twenty different ArbCom candidates?

While keeping the voting process under the veil of secrecy is certainly easier on the hearts of those who nervously clench their buttocks at the mere thought of dreaded "drama", it also opens the gates to the next Essjay, Nichalp, Archtransit, or Sam Blacketer situation through the informational fog it creates. It creates yet another dividing line, between the "haves" who can personally verify election results, and the "have-nots", who cannot. And it encourages buddy-voting even more than the current system, since people cannot be held accountable for clearly irresponsible voting patterns.

And what does it offer in return? Nothing, except for perhaps thwarting the ability of a troll to vote against every candidate, then insist that every candidate recuse from a case involving him - and at that point, if the ArbCom can't call a spade a spade and ban a tendentious Wikilawyer, then we're truly fucked.

Should there be cited instances in the future of ArbCom candidates imprisoning or executing dissenters, or any ethinic slayings, mass rapes, or general xenocide between groups of supporters and opposers, I may revisit my opinion. Until that time, Wikipedia remains an encyclopedia, not a country, and I believe that there are reasons why Representatives and Senators do not use secret votes in Congress.

Users who endorse this summary

1. As author Badger Drink (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of sounding like a crotchety old-timer who pines for the good old days, it should be pointed out that the first ArbCom election (and as I recall, at least the next one following, if not more beyond that) was a secret ballot vote. Full disclosure: I was a candidate in that election (in the summer of 2004--a special election to replace two resigning ArbCom members) and one of the two users (along with User:Raul654) who was elected. There were certainly problems for the ArbCom then, and disputes. But as I recall, the secret ballot neither undermined democracy nor caused a great cataclysm. A full discussion was had prior to the election--questions were directed at candidates, etc. But in the end, we had the right to vote in secret, and whatever complaints anyone had to make of my performance (or Raul's, for that matter), I don't recall our having been elected in secret being remotely a concern.

If I had had to vote publically, it would have been a difficult election--many good users were running, and the choice would have been difficult. Furthermore, there were always users standing for ArbCom who were productive editors and good people, but not well suited to the position (for many reasons). I think it was better for me, at least, to know that I wouldn't have to get into a discussion with them regarding why my name did not appear in their vote tally. I'll freely admit, I'm not well up on the current disputes, and there may well be some benefits that have derived from a public vote. But I thought it ought to be mentioned that we've done this before, and it worked well, and I for one am more comfortable with such a voting system. If my take on this ought to matter (which I'm not sure it ought, to be honest), that's what it is. :-)

Users who endorse this summary

1. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 09:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meh.

Users who endorse this summary

1. Stifle (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to remove the influence of already given vote on how a particular person voting (if you want to reduce the influence of conformity), it should be hidden vote.

But if you don't want to implement the maxim "It does not matter who votes, it is important who counts" - after voting all votes should be opened to give any user ability to correct errors.

Users who endorse this summary

1. ·Carn !? 21:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All signed comments and talk not related to an endorsement should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.