Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Straw poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have removed the poll which was previously here in order to start a new poll, this one based a bit more on reality. (Of course you can see it all in the history and here.)

The previous poll claimed, for example, that "This year, Jimbo has announced that he will appoint candidates directly." This is either false or misleading. I have always appointed people to the ArbCom directly, for one thing. And this formulation suggests (particularly as it was misleadingly contrasted with "a public election") that I intend to do so without any community approval or vote, which is simply false.

So we had a straw poll here with zero relevance to the actual question at hand. For the record, the final votes in the flawed poll were 51-17 and then a host of other sorts of votes for things like "prefer something else", "unsure", "polls are evil" and so on.

Most of the voters seemed to have been misled into thinking that the choice was between direct appointment by me without any community input versus democratic elections. That's really misleading. I apologize if I had anything to do with the misunderstanding.

I would like to emphasize very strongly that none of these deliberations has anything to do with me trusting or not trusting the community. I trust the community with my life. The issue is that voting mechanisms are inherently flawed in some ways. A lot of people are fond, as I am, of quoting Winston Churchill's famous line about democracy being the worst form of government except for all the others. He said this, of course, in defense of Great Britain -- a democracy, but also a monarchy and aristocracy. Like the British system, the Wikipedia system is a mixed system and should remain so for at least the present time.

I have tried, below, to outline the most prominent options, and to write as fair as I can about the strengths and weaknesses as I see them. I encourage those who are filling out this poll to also add their own brief views on the strengths and weaknesses, so that in another round of polling a week or so from now we can try to work on the details of whatever emerges.

• Note: for the ease of Wikipedians, the prior poll has been moved and archived here.

Contents 1 Straw poll 1.1 Last year's procedure 1.2 Jimbo's first proposal 1.3 Jimbo's second proposal 1.4 Talrias' proposal 1.4.1 Supporters: 1.4.2 Comments: 1.5 Unsure/abstain 1.6 Don't care 1.7 Problem with Jimbo's proposals

[edit] Straw poll

[edit] Last year's procedure

Community vote followed by appointments of the highest vote-getters. Essential strengths:

• somewhat democratic, open to all
• candidates with the most community support get elected

Essential weaknesses:

• good candidates who happen to not be famous enough may not be elected
• lots of ill-will in the community due to campaigning
• possible encouragement of formation of wikipedia political parties
• only 1 candidate received more than 50% vote, limiting sense of community mandate
• dangerous to our community values, which reject voting except as a last resort

1. This is the way to go. We shouldn't be stepping backwards from this. The community can and should determine these issues without having to coordinate (to put it mildly) with a powerful individual at the top. Nobody has been able to put forward an argument against a plain vote except that they are wary of democracy, wary of letting the people who've written and maintained this thing control it. You let the people who write the encyclopedia decide, and you will get arbitrators who are better for the encyclopedia. Everyking 07:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Do we really reject voting except as a last resort? RfA, *fD, ArbCom... Voting is the most effective way to make the right decision and there is no need to tamper with it. It just works.  Grue  08:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
3. To gain respect for its decisions, ArbCom needs to be answerable to, and be seen to be answerable to, the community. Voting on a policy or on which version of the facts should go in an article is not always the best way to go. Electing the ArbCom is an entirely different matter. Filiocht | The kettle's on 08:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
4. My sentiments exactly. HK 21:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
5. I find the statement "our community values reject voting except as a last resort" troubling, especially when it's being evinced as support for what are, after all, only a debate about how this particular vote will be conducted. We're voting; we're only haggling about how. And it's a good thing we're voting, too. The alternative to voting is rule by fiat. - Nunh-huh 03:53, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Looking over the history, the elections produced good candidates like Raul654, whereas Jimbo appoints god-awful arbitrators like Fred Bauder and more recently JayJG. I will support whichever proposal that has the most consensus that removes power from Jimbo's hands. Ruy Lopez 20:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

   Seeing as that's an impossible outcome, since he runs the site, I think your supported solution is "make a fork" Phil Sandifer 01:18, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

   Did he say that? My interpretation of the comment is that Jimbo should not exercise direct power over the non-technical operation of the site. I agree with that. I really question the logic behind the idea that the decision will be better made by one person whose involvement has little to do with issues of day to day editing than by the collective wisdom of hundreds of people. Everyking 06:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

7. Democracy is always the best option. Systems that give particular people undue influence are not democratic. Cedars 09:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Arbitration is a serious issue, and having something a bit formal is then the best. The ArbCom represents the community, and if the community wants to put someone on the ArbCom, there should be nobody with the ability to "veto" it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:34, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
9. I don't think that having Jimbo appoint candidates will significantly cut down on acrimony in the community, especially because each appointment will be open to inevitable accusations of cronyism. Exposure to negative information is an important part of the democratic decision-making process, though I also hope that unnecessary mud-slinging can be avoided. If campaign spamming (people leaving unsolicited messages on user or article talk pages) has been or becomes a problem, I would support restricting campaign activities to certain pages.

   The community (especially administrators) are also charged with enforcing ArbCom decisions. It's better if the community feels that the arbiters are their representatives. I think being a top vote-getter does this; in an approval system, I don't think it's so important to get a 50% majority.

   A major problem with ArbCom has been inability to decide cases due to vacancies. Community approval is going to be necessary whether or not Jimbo makes appointments. I favor skipping the additional step and speeding up the process. As for voting being "against our community values", it might be true that discussion and consensus is more productive for individual articles, where a few dozen people can have a conversation about a complex issue. This is simply not possible when hundreds or thousands of people are expected to participate. In this case, voting is the next logical alternative, especially since the decision is relatively simple - pick N of M. Unilateralism is certainly not higher up on the list of community values.

   On this subject, it is important for our selection process to deal with chronic case overload, underattention, understaffing, and premature burnout. I think the thing the next election could do to best improve community relations would be to enlarge ArbCom. A significant number of reserve arbitrators would help prevent vacancies from causing delays, but this is only part of the problem. These are volunteer positions; and the workload needs to reflect that, in order to keep cases moving, and to prevent premature burnout. Eliminating the requirement that every arbitrator review every case would help a lot. I'm comfortable with allowing the arbiters to come up with a system on their own, with community input. It would be nice if the entire committee could hear appeals (subject to some high bar, to prevent them from being overused), but if not, I think that would be OK. (You could think of them not as judges, but as a jury pool.) It's more important to deal with abusive editors quickly than it is to worry about ensuring absolute consistency. (And giving the same group of people final authority won't guarantee that, anyway.) -- Beland 00:53, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

10. This is the most open option and as such is my preference. Leithp (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
11. If, somehow, Jimbo's hypothetical worst enemy, or a known vandal, managed to obtain sufficient support, the community could confront that problem post-election (and that result would give us lots of valuable information, too, unsettling as it would be.) That is very unlikely to happen, however, and is the only real weakness of the democratic option. Campaigning and acrimony can be reduced by keeping the election season short -- hard to do this year, with all the uncertainty, but easy in the future if the community firmly adopts this method now. The community shouldn't let vague fears about what might happen prevent us from pursuing the most open option. Any choice which relies on Jimbo's appointment power as an initial part of the process (rather than as a failsafe in the event of resignation or calamity) is likely to create its own forms of acrimony, worries of favoritism, and (gulp!) even some hostility toward Jimbo. Keep things as open as possible for as long as possible, unless and until that becomes wholly untenable. Xoloz 03:20, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
12. This is my preference. The "essential weaknesses" either aren't essential weaknesses or can easily be dealt with. I don't see "good candidates who happen to not be famous enough may not be elected" as a weakness as I don't mind who doesn't get elected, just that those who are elected are good. Campaigning and political parties on WP can just be banned. If no candidate enjoys more than 50% support, that will be true whatever the method (although the confusing voting system employed no doubt lowered the %ages). As far as, do we need a vote? - well I don't know, but how else do we decide? jguk 11:34, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
13. Voting is not the last resort; it's the stage that the community happily relies on before giving in and defering to the policy judgement of the Editor-in-Chief. User:Noisy | Talk 13:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
14. Jimbo's proposals below are reasonable but if only 50% support is going to be required anyhow then I think we might as well do this the old way. - Haukur Þorgeirsson 15:08, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
15. By no means perfect, but best option currently on the table. The list of "weaknesses" seems to me, too, to be highly skewed. JW's comments seem to foresee using his selections or nominations in essentially a veto role, whereas the actual mechanisms are at least compatible with effective "hand-picking" (though with the community having a veto). That being the case, surely better to make that more transparent, and for him to explicitly "line item" leading vote-getters that he has (hopefully specific) concerns over. Not a fan of last year's actual voting system, due to its strong tactical voting considerations -- which is also very possibly the cause of the low approval numbers of the winning candidates (unless that's simply inherent to split opinion in the community). Would personally prefer some sort of preference voting (which aren't entirely free from tactical voting, but at least make it possible to express one's sincere preferences). Alai 04:57, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
16. With some hesitation I vote for this option as beeing the most representative. Actually, I could probably live reasonably well with Jimbo's second proposal, or Talrias' proposal. The important thing is that one person, however great, should not appoint any ArbCom member without the community having a chance to say what it thinks about the candidate. When some candidates have tens of thousands of edits then Jimbo (or any other single person) cannot possibly check all edits. Huldra 08:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
17. support. I think I have made it clear why.Geni 14:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Wikipedia is not a dictatorship. Well, at least I think it shouldn't be. Varizer 20:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
19. while not ideal, this is better than the otehr propasls currently listed. it is IMNO imnportant that the community select and not merely approve arbcvom candidates. A proposal in which a vote such as this was held, and the top N were selcted, excluding candidates vetoed by Jimbo might be acceptable, but not oen that simply askes the community to approvve a pool selected by Jimbo, ad far less one that simply has Jimbo appointing candidates without significant community input. DES ^(talk) 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support, best of available options. Sam Spade 02:26, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's first proposal

Jimbo selects in consultation with the community a list of candidates, and the community votes yes or no on the candidates. Essential strengths:

• since Jimbo will attempt to appoint the least controversial candidates, possibly reduced ill-will and campaigning
• all successful candidates will emerge with a 50% vote by definition, increasing the sense of community mandate

Essential weaknesses:

• scalability issues -- can Jimbo effectively appoint outside people he knows personally?
• trust issue -- can Jimbo be trusted to balance community wishes against the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia (to create an encyclopedia, not to have an experiment in democracy)
• not as open, especially to the sorts of people generally regarded as trolls

1. Phil Sandifer 06:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC). Simply put, I am unconvinced that our community scaled with the project, and that we remain capable of big community decisions. Articles remain good because they are the province of smaller teams of editors, but at this point policy decisions are a grotesque mess of too many cooks, and this seems indicative of a much larger problem to me.
2. Three reasons: it maintains judicial independence, avoids popularity contests, and better encourages the selection of people with the appropriate qualities. Wikipedia is not a democracy (thankfully!) and what I want is a system that best promotes making an effective encyclopedia. I think this does that. (I support the second option too, but I think this is better) --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 18:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   Judicial independence? These arbcom members would be beholden to Jimbo. The arbcom as a whole is weak enough as it is, there doesn't need to be another reason to raise doubt to their opinions when many users who have rfars put on them just ignore whatever the arbcom says since their decisions are not actively enforced. karmafist 18:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

3. The essential weakness here is that it's quite possible no candidates get a 50% vote. Then what? jguk 11:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's second proposal

Hybrid approach: Jimbo can put forward candidates for community approval, 50% majority is enough. And also the community can put forward candidates for Jimbo's approval, with the same 50% majority being enough. Any dually approved candidates above the number of seats on the ArbCom go into a pool of reserves. Jimbo states a general intention to always appoint candidates approved by the community as a matter of convention, while reserving the right to refuse to seat any particularly problematic candidates.

Essential strengths:

• democratic, open to all

Essential weaknesses:

• elements of the weaknesses of the previous methods, but the whole point of this suggestion is to try to find a middle path that does everything we want it to do
• good candidates can't get the chair if they're not liked by Jimbo
• what if there are more approved candidates than free seats?

1. I like this idea, although the first proposal is ok with me too. Ideally I would prefer a system with only "yes" votes, not "no" votes, but that would probably result in anti-candidate campaigning. Guettarda 06:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
2. I prefer this proposal ... though I'm open to supporting alternate proposals (if made) too! E Pluribus Anthony 06:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   Of the three, this seems best. Paul August ☎ 06:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC) I'm withdrawing my vote for now. While I would support this in principle, I would like the mechanics of this proposal clarified first. I would also be comfortable with last years procedure. Paul August ☎ 18:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

3. I prefer this in terms of scaling, because Jimbo cannot be expected to know every good candidate well enough to approve them as arbitrators in advance. However, I think it might also be useful to allow Jimbo to reject community candidates he knows are unsuitable prior to the election, so that we're just helping him with the ones he doesn't already know. Also, developing a reserve pool is an important step toward the reforms that are necessary to make arbitration work better. --Michael Snow 07:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
4. A good compromise.--Sean|Black 08:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
5. This gets my vote. Thryduulf 09:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   Comment Doesn't help much on the fame side. There are what 200-300 highly active admins. I don't know them all so I doubt Jimbo does. All this does is marginaly increase the number of way to be famous.Geni 09:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

6. Aye, this is a good compromise. But please, if you (Jimbo) ever reject a candidate put forward by the community, I strongly urge a detailed explanation of why they were rejected. Locke Cole 09:29, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
7. This looks good. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 10:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
8. Compromise, but workable, and, imho, the most fair of the three --Lectonar 10:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   How it is fairer than the first option?  Grue  11:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   As far as I see it, there should be less impact of campaigning here (if it works as proposed), which would amount to more fairness (assuming that Jimbo Wales, why not free of likes and dislikes, is the stabilising factor) Lectonar 12:40, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

   I actually consider this proposal to be bordering on the incoherent. See my remarks on the talk page. Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

9. fair compromise. there is probably no perfect solution to this, and we'll need to think again, next time around, but at present this is certainly good enough. dab (ᛏ) 15:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
10. Jimbo has veto power over the community. The community has veto power over Jimbo. This isn't an appointment nor mob rule, so I think this is the best compromise. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 21:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
11. From a cursory glance, this proposal probably promotes the most mutually reciprocative behaviour out of all the proposals, and I think it is a positive thing. --HappyCamper 03:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
12. A semi-presidential system - I like it. The only way this can fail is if there were to be a war between Jimbo and the community, resulting in effective vetoing of all candidates. Since I can't see this happening, we are likely to get 'the best of both worlds' instead. Let's see how it works this year.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
13. This seems the most sensible approach. Last year's election seemed a rather acrimonious affair that we'd do well not to repeat. older≠wiser 00:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
14. I like this proposal. I trust Jimbo; he should have a special say, because it's his project and he has consistently upheld its ideals. ArbCom members should also have a community mandate, and I think it's a good thing for either the community or Jimbo to be able to put candidates forward. -- SCZenz 20:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
15. Foregoing the 'polls are evil option', and supporting this excellent hybrid solution. It allows the community to support candidates that Jimbo may have glossed over. Ingoolemo ^talk 04:21, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
16. Truth be told, I don't really care. If I had to pick, this would be it, though. Jimbo has limited input, while the community still gets to choose who it wants and isn't restricted to simply approving or disapproving of Jimbo's choices. Johnleemk | Talk 12:16, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
17. While it might not be the ideal solution, it is likely the best one avaliable at the moment, and as such, I support it. --Sn0wflake 15:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
18. Seems like a resquest for arbitrator system th allow Jimbo to still appoint people, unless their is something that kills their nomination, which probably would lead Jimbo in pulling it anyways.--Rayc 22:27, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
19. Support --- Charles Stewart 15:37, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
20. Support --Merovingian 17:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
21. Again, what if no, or very few candidates, get 50%? Also, what's wrong with having an "over-staffed" ArbCom? jguk 11:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
22. Support, it's a brilliant idea, checks and balances... Jimbo appoints with the advice and consent of the community. No popular hothead dispensing the mob's justice, no syncophantic viceroy taking revenge on petty rivals... I would say this should sunset and come up for review in a year, however.Thesocialistesq 06:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
23. Support as it is inherently democratic; effects of campaigning, herd mentality or group-think can be checked by a vetoing authority (in this case, Jimbo Wales). --Gurubrahma 12:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

    Comment Doubleplusgood! :) E Pluribus Anthony 14:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

24. Support Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
25. Support I think this is the right balance of Jimbo's and the community's participation. Jimbo has been more consistent, I think, than many people realize--editing is solely the community's concern and Jimbo does not interfere except in very extreme cases, but managing the community, which pragmatically has little to do with editing, is fundamentally Jimbo's concern (for better or for worse, from his point of view). Chick Bowen 04:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
26. Bit late, but I support. Broken S 23:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talrias' proposal

A Wikipedian wishing to become an arbitrator must first find 10 other Wikipedians who would support having him/her as an arbitrator. After the person has 10 supporters, a public page is created where discussion between the potential arbitrator and his supporters would be added, so people can see the positions of the potential arbitrator. The community has one week to ask the potential arbitrator, done by asking questions on the page. After one week, they are put forwards for "ratification" by the community, requiring a 50% approval vote.

I would suggest having a quorum on the 50% approval vote (e.g. a minimum of X votes); all voting Wikipedians must have a certain amount of edits/time here by the date the vote started. I also suggest the voting is done anonymously.

Advantages:

1. Democratic
2. Obviously inappropriate candidacies will not find enough supporters.
3. There is a week for discussion.
4. Diverse
5. Community mandate.
6. No campaigning, as the discussion would be held in a announced place.

Advantage or disadvantage depending on your opinion ;)

1. Jimbo has no special say.

Disadvantages:

1. Seat limit.
2. Democratic.

[edit] Supporters:

1. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
2. This should be sufficient as a means for the community to identify and approve candidates, which Jimbo's second proposal needs. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 16:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
3. Although the "consensus" standard (60ish to 80%) would be better. Let Jimbo have the traditional powers of a modern monarch (advice, warning and consent, but not control) karmafist 18:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
4. I support anything that removes Jimbo's arbitrary appointment powers. This proposal sounds reasonable enough. Ruy Lopez 22:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
5. crazyeddie Basic idea is good, could use some tweaking. See comments below. crazyeddie 16:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
6. Wikipedia is baced on the premise that a community can construct inteligent articles, to not trust it to make inteligent choices and insteed push for authority rule is to reject the spirt on which wikipedia has been built.--JK the unwise 10:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments:

You missed people offer favors for others supporting them and giveing ann unfair advantage to wikipedians who have friends.Geni 12:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

What kind of favours would you offer to someone who supported you? I won't penalise you if you ever come up in an request for arbitration? The exact number is open for discussion, of course, this is just a straw poll after all. You shouldn't read any of this as immutable. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

That's one option there are others (I promise to accept the case of person X for example).Geni 07:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps we could go offer favors to Jimbo instead. karmafist 23:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Could make some rule that Arbitrators have to recuse themselves in any case involving their nominators. Or could make nomination anonymous. If nomination is made anonymous, might be a good idea to limit everybody to one nomination each. That would prevent some kindhearted person nominating everybody, defeating the filtering function. crazyeddie 16:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

You say no campaigning, but the first step is that you have to go around finding 10 other editors to support you. Isn't that a campaign? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

It at least isn't a large campaign or a high barrier. Presumably we would have a dedicated page for this similar to Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 16:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

When I was writing this out, I was thinking of emailing them through their talk page, leaving them a message asking for support, or asking them on IRC. Any large-scale campaigning (to get just 10 supporters!) is going to be very obvious and I would imagine that these people would fail on 'ratification'. As I said to geni above, the numbers aren't fixed either. You make a good argument for lowering it. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think some small-scale campaigning might be a good way to let people know who the candidates are. But campaigning could get out of hand. Exact number of nominations could use some tweaking, but 10 sounds like a good place to start. crazyeddie 16:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Good idea! I would support it but I've already supported the first option and I am not sure whether supporting two proposals is acceptable. Cedars 09:26, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

This is just a straw poll, it's not binding in any way. I don't see why people can't support anything (or everything) they agree with. Talrias (t | e | c) 14:43, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Might want to give Jimbo a chance to veto any candidate that makes it through the nomination process. Hopefully it wouldn't be used much, but I feel uncomfortable removing him completely from the process. Might also allow the existing ArbCom the same privilege at some suitably high super-majority. That last is just a suggestion - I don't support it myself. Is there currently an established number of seats on the ArbCom? We might want to investigate alternatives to simple approval voting in the last phase, such as instant runoff voting. crazyeddie 16:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

The "ten users" requirement could encourage sockpuppetry, but overall the idea seems workable. Isomorphic 05:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsure/abstain

1. I would support any method which ensured that grandstanding, bullying admins do not get elected. There are several who like power for powers sake. Sensible admins like User:SimonP (who currently ranks number 1 in the amount of edits) get overlooked. The attitude of certain other admins has led someone to describe Wikipedia as the "Khmer Rouge in diapers". Intelligent contributors are turned off by these types, which leads poor quality, adolescent-level articles. We need more studious, sensible people and less armchair dictators [1] - Xed 10:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
   • Ha ha! Point well taken. E Pluribus Anthony 10:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
   • Absolutely. For a long time I argued that controversial admin actions should be discussed on WP:AN/I prior to being done to get the general approval or disapproval of other admins. Do you know what happened because of that? I got banned from editing the AN/I page. What we need, basically, is people who'll take that entirely sensible and probably necessary proposal into consideration, and not people who'll ban the one who proposes it. That sounds simple, huh? Well, you mention diapers... Everyking 06:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
2. Abstain. Conflict of interest. I'm likely to be in arbitration to get back my right to create new articles, at some time in the future. --216.237.179.238 01:37, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

   Comment As this is an unequivocal abstention, I have moved this opinion from "Jimbo's second proposal" section. E Pluribus Anthony 11:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

3. I'm going to wait until next year before deciding my views on ArbCom election methods - so I can see the way this one works. The Land 19:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
4. I'm just another editor and contributor; I've never seen the ArbCom in action and I don't know enough about it to have an informed opionion. I do appreciate that the issue of selection process is important. Process and governance shape organisations in ways that aren't always visible but are crucial. --Jdlh | Talk 19:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't care

1. The importance of the arbcom is overrated, and who sits in it even more so. I don't think the overall article content of wikipedia would have been notably different if last year's elections had given us a different arbcom. And I don't see this year's election (or whatever) as very crucial for how the wikipedia articles will look in a year from now either. We do need an arbcom, or at least something to make final decisions in the (relatively) few cases of trouble-users and heavy disputes. But compared to all the other users and edits who never make an arbcom-case, the edits influenced by arbcom rulings are so minute that I don't see it worthy of this much fuss. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to build a court house. Whoever gets appointed/elected I'm sure will do a decent enough job. Though I am voried about good users being distracted, upset and even scared away because of arbcom cases, even those are really just a few drops in the edit and user ocean. As ignorant and anti-social that may sound. So, I don't much care. Let's spend more time in article space, and less time on this. Shanes 01:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

   A refreshing viewpoint, even if I don't entirely share it. Thank you, I don't think that sounds ignorant. - Haukur Þorgeirsson

   As per Haukurth. :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

   Very well said. Dan100 (Talk) 15:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

   Give this man a medal or at least a barnstar, which I will now do. Bloody well said! Rob Church ^Talk 04:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problem with Jimbo's proposals

The system used last year was approval voting. Since most people select and vote for the candidates they consider the best, and given a large pool of candidates, it becomes increasingly unlikely that any candidate will reach 50% support.

However, Jimbo's two proposals use a different way of voting: voting for a candidate's suitability, rather than picking the best candidates out of a group. In such a system, it would be rather easier to get to 50% support, just like it's rather easy to get to 50% on a Request for Adminship.

This leads to two possible problems. The first is that it doesn't specify a tiebreaker. Looking at the candidates for this year it is plausible that more than twelve of them will be supported by at least half the community. Since there seems to be reluctance to increase the size of the committee, a selection will have to be made, either by taking the candidates with most support, or by taking the candidates picked by Jimbo.

The second potential problem is that a controversial candidate could easily have 50% support (by definition, any controversial candidate would have around 50% support; if it was substantially less, they wouldn't be controversial, but plainly unacceptable). Such candidates could be instated by Jimbo fiat. Arguably Jimbo knows better than that, but it goes to show that someone trusted by half the community may not actually be the most desirable choice as an arbiter.

So my point is this. There are 31 candidates. Jimbo's proposal filters out those that are clearly distrusted or unsuitable (and so would any other decent proposal). But it should be apparent that most of the 31 candidates are clearly trusted and suitable. Jimbo's proposals do not specify a way of making a selection. Radiant_>|< 22:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

One can devise many possible ways of ranking candidates, based on the for/against votes (eg. 3*for - 2*against). Then the highest rated 12 qualify. --- Charles Stewart 22:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)