Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Straw poll/Old poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


By the end of 2005, several seats on the Arbitration Committee will become vacant, and a number of candidates have stepped forward to fill them. Last year, a public election was held to make a selection from the candidates. This year, Jimbo has announced that he will appoint candidates directly.

There has been little community reaction to the change so far. Hence, this straw poll has been put together to gauge public opinion. Needless to say this poll is not official or binding in any way whatsoever. It is simply a measurement.

Contents

[edit] Recommended reading

[edit] Straw poll

[edit] Prefer elected ArbCom

  1. Guettarda 19:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Power to the people!  Grue  20:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Why should the community have faith in or accept the judgment of a group that does not represent them? ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 20:25, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    The Arbitration Committee are not here to represent the community. They don't answer to the community; they are accountable only to the board. Rob Church Talk 18:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. Vive la... democratic status quo! ~~ N (t/c) 21:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. Certainly. Friday (talk) 22:26, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. We have to trust the comunity sometime.Geni 22:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Yes.--Sean|Black 23:29, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. Jacqui ★ 00:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Cedars 09:48, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. Last year's election had its problems, but it produced a very good committee. - SimonP 19:25, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. I'd like to see some strong evidence that any appointment-based system is likely to either a) produce a better set of arbiters, or b) produce more community support for them. In the absence of such, I'm presumptively in favour of some elective element. Reform of the process I'm certain there's scope for. And given the current burnout rate, it's not like JW won't get to make plenty of appointments anyway. Alai 06:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. Jonathunder 16:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. I think in general an appointment system is a bad idea if only because they do not usually withstand the test of time. Minupla 03:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. I believe, unequivocally, that elections should be held at periodic intervals to install (with set – twice/annually? – terms) and or remove ArbComm members. With authority comes responsibility, and votes dually incite and empower Wikipedians: votes will allow for the installation of members who have perhaps demonstrated meritorious service/judgement on Wp and to ensure true accountability if things somehow go awry. E Pluribus Anthony 06:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Besides: Jimbo/the board merely need to certify Wp votes, thereby freeing them up to focus on matters of greater importance and not details. E Pluribus Anthony 23:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. Merovingian 06:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. IIRC the 2004 elections were "advisory" elections, so if an unacceptable candidate were elected, or if there were evidence of sockpuppet abuse or other mischief, Jimbo or the Board could simply refuse to seat the candidate. Both can also remove an arbitrator or even disband the Committee. Thus, we already have ways to protect the community from rogue arbitrators. If the purpose of an appointment-based election system is to reduce the rancor and community tensions that surrounded the 2004 elections, that won't work either. It'll just fuel accusations of cabalism. We need to make the Arbcom election process less contentious, but I don't think an appointment system is the way to go. Szyslak (Image:Szyslak sig.png [ +t, +c, +m, +e ]) 07:46, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. An appointed committee will find it extremely difficult to avoid the appearance of a cabal and to command the respect of the community. Something along the lines of "No taxation without representation springs to mind. Filiocht | [[User talk:Filiocht|The kettle's on]] 08:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  18. the wub "?!" 19:47, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  19. --Jaranda(watz sup) 22:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  20. Per Alai. Unless someone makes a compelling case for something else an election seems natural - Haukur Þorgeirsson 22:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  21. Gall. Wikipedia's power is already way too concetrated as is. Appointments from a small select group of elitists is just not the way to go. Matt Yeager 05:28, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  22. elected with a limited duration term at which point arbiters must run for reelection. FuelWagon 20:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  23. Wikipedia is a community effort. At some point, even if only for reasons of scalability, Jimbo has to let the reins go and trust the community will make it work. --Durin 17:10, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  24. Voting is evil, but meh. Alphax τεχ 17:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  25. Some semblance of democracy is good. zen master T 18:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  26. I prefer a mixture of an election combined with Jimbo weeding out anyone he considers to be unsuited for the position. I agree with others that we need to avoid the appearance of a cabal. I've had no problem with Jimbo's appointments thus far, but as we grow we need to rely less and less on the decisions of one person, however benevolent he may be. Carbonite | Talk 18:29, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  27. --Celestianpower háblame 18:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  28. Absolutely the ArbCom should be elected. We shouldn't even be having this debate! It's essential that Wikipedia be ultimately run by its editors, not by an individual or a small group. If we go backwards in terms of project governance we will end up going backwards as a whole. Everyking 06:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  29. Will we end up with better moderators if 100,000 people decide, or 5 people decide? - Kookykman|(t)e
  30. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:36, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  31. Academic Challenger 03:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  32. Sure, have another Florida Election, and then sort the wheat from the chads with a selection. There is a Cabal. — Davenbelle 07:38, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  33. The ArbCom needs the support of the community to enable it to function properly. We've already seen the problems and resentment caused by the appointment of people to the ArbCom (however necessary that may have been). Obviously, the best way that the community's support can be shown is through elections. --G Rutter 12:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  34. I don't see what could be wrong with having a democratically elected arbcom... Doesn't the Board have the power to weed out any elected arbitrator they deem unsuitable anyway? (It would probably not be a wise move, but they could do it.) -- Marcika 14:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  35. Traditionally disputes between the king and his people are resolved by the king appointing some ministers, the people electing others. Is wiki an absolute monarchy, a constitutional monachy, or a republic? There must be some sort of election so that editors can express their views. Most likely compromise would be both electors and monarch holding a veto on any appointments. Though judging from comments above, that is the case already. Jobs should not be for life, and the number plainly should depend on the amount of work to be done.Sandpiper 18:51, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  36. An elected Arbcom will have more community support. An appointed ArbCom will reinforce the perception of a cabal. Paul August ☎ 04:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  37. - Xed 13:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  38. Paolo Liberatore (Talk) 18:55, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  39. Voyager640 21:37, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  40. Leithp (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  41. Slightly prefer an elected Arbcom and only because there are two I think would do a fine job. MONGO 20:38, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  42. — Dunc|☺ 20:40, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  43. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 21:17, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  44. The ArbCom's public reputation is tending toward zero over time. Enthronement will merely accelerate that process. -Splashtalk 21:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  45. Democracy is the worst known form of goverment (except for all the others). – ClockworkSoul 00:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  46. support - arbcomm is a stressful task; if you can't cope with an election, you can't cope with the task. I would prefer continuous-election with no fixed number rather all-in-one. William M. Connolley 11:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC).
  47. As much democracy as possible. Warofdreams talk 18:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  48. Support -- like Filiocht said. HK 01:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  49. Yes. Personally I trust this community to elect good people. Ever the optimist, I also trust Jimbo to pick good people, so I think we're fine either way: but I'd prefer the democratic approach. Antandrus (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  50. Absolutely so. —Lowellian (reply) 00:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
  51. Elect from among appointed candidates (at least twice the number of places to be elected). Users can self-nominate themselves, or nominate other users to Jimbo, and let him to appoint as candidates. — Instantnood 22:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prefer appointed ArbCom

  1. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2005 (UTC) -- The ArbCom is not primarily accountable to the community, so I see no special reason for it to be elected. It seems to be a bit of a time-waster. However, I don't feel strongly about this.
  2. Samw 01:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC) -- Appointment is fine. The closest analogy is a judge in the legal system and many legal systems work fine with appointed judges. In fact it avoids it being a popularity contest. Samw 01:20, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Electing administrators has been enough of a problem. Choosing Arbitrators, especially given the extremely high commitment required of Arbitrators and the specialized skills required for the job, is not a task I think Wikipedia's election system is up for. It'll just turn into a beauty contest. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    Please explain why the community should trust you if you are appointed rather than elected. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 04:40, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    Are you afraid you won't be elected the normal way?  Grue  07:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    WP:AGF.Geni 16:11, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
    Perhaps appointed arbitrators are not up to the task, either. As a current member of the ArbComm, KM's attitude and aristocratic behaviour is demonstrative of why Wp elections are needed to install or remove ArbComm members. That's the ugly truth. E Pluribus Anthony 22:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. It's good to have a mix of elected and appointed positions. Admins and bureaucrats are elected. The Board should have some input into the system for balance to assure the focus on encyclopedia building is retained. HGB 10:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: Ultimate oversight from Jimbo/the board can still certify/approve Wp votes for ArbComm membership; they can also discount controversial candidates after the electorate has spoken, but there'd have to be clear evidence of a candidate's impropriety. E Pluribus Anthony 22:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    Except for the "clear evidence" bit, that's exactly the set-up used for the December 2004 elections went. And weren't they all sweetness and light? James F. [[User_talk:Jdforrester|(talk)]] 18:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    No reason not to move forward: the more things change, the more they may stay the same. Case in point: take a peek at the current RfArb page/talk page and you'll realise both the current ArbComm and some of its members appear to be bereft with controversy, bringing the ArbComm process and its judgements into potential disrepute. In the least, elections will help to ameliorate this. (And I like a natural – balanced – sort of sweet, neither 'hard' sugar nor saccharin. :)) E Pluribus Anthony 18:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  5. We've proved we can't handle electing officials ourselves with RFA. Jimbo knows better then we do. --Phroziac(talk) 18:17, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    Despite a number of minor flaws, I think RfA works rather well. At the very least, there's exceedingly few false positives (unsuitable candidate passing) and a low number of false negatives (suitable candidates failing). I'm assuming that you have a different opinion on the matter, but in what way has RfA "proved" that we can't handle elections? Carbonite | Talk 18:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  6. I support Jimbo on this, for a number of reasons. The last election was, IMO, a disaster, both in terms of the acrimony it provoked and in the outcome it generated. Reviewing the candidates that have put themselves forward this year, it seems to me that many of them misunderstand the role of the AC. The kneejerk "but we want to be free" response this has provoked (see the support votes above) does not recognize that Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor does it recognize that the AC is not a general means of governance. The Uninvited Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 19:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    Comment: Nor is Wikipedia a despotic regime (perhaps an enlightened one?): if the ArbComm is not a general means of governance (analogous to a jurisdiction's judicial branch) – one of last resort – then Wp users should not utilise it or respect it to arbitrate on matters of multiparty concern. Different jurisdictions dually elect and appoint judges. Mine is not a position asserting user freedom per se: an elected vote has as much to do with accountability, legitimacy, and propriety. And nothing precludes a melange of systems: a vote whose results are later approved by Jimbo or the board seems reasonable, or vice versa. To employ a Reaganism: trust, but verify. :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  7. Elections in this media are quite unreliable, it depends on who is paying attention on any given day. --Rogerd 04:29, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    I believe the election would last two weeks. Carbonite | Talk 12:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  8. It's easier to review qualifications in a predefined appointment. It should still be possible to have a highly unpopular appointment overturned. Eclecticology 22:16, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Er, how exactly do you suppose an appointment could be overturned? Radiant_>|< 22:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  9. Jimbo's proposal seems quite good. 1) based on nominations and volunteering - means its open for everyone (I'd hope that reasons for approval or rejections would be public, like RfA) 2) direct appointments by Jimbo, with the appointments made in consultation with the existing and former ArbCom members and the community at large - we all trust Jimbo, right? And experts (ArbCom members) will have a say, as will community. 3) followed by confirmation votes from the community requiring some supermajority. - so there will be a vote, allowing for a democratic way to block an appointment. Looks good to me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
    It would be just as good if it were flipped on its head. And of course the proconsul would support a top-down scheme. :) E Pluribus Anthony 13:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  10. I fully second the comments made by UninvitedCompany and Rogerd. As anyone who has played an active part in the community for any length of time can testify, our record on voting is not fantastic. I trust Jimbo, as someone who has made a huge investment in this project, to make the decisions that will best benefit Wikipedia. (For those who wish to complain about my opinion: I refer you to Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes.) Rje 14:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    No complaint; for balance, though, I suggest one refer as well to Two Treatises of Government, The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right, et al. :) E Pluribus Anthony 14:29, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    Fair point; although I think few would disagree regarding the benefits of democracy in general (just as I think few believe Leviathan could really work in the real world). But democracy has proved troublesome here, and we have a Leviathan who we can be almost certain will act in the best interests of Wikipedia. (I should point out that in real life I believe in neither democracy nor autocracy, I am here trying to be practical.) Rje 14:58, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    I, too, believe in a balance of systems and do not support full 'democracy' here or elsewhere. And I do not disagree with you about our Leviathan, but (after all) God could not exercise full control over man and allowed Eve to bite into the forbidden fruit. He had to. (I'm writing this in jest.)  :) E Pluribus Anthony 15:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  11. At the present, I have a slight preference for appointments. While most RfAs are fine, I see a significant amount of negativity directed against good editors that I feel is bad for Wikipedia. If that happens in the absence of head-to-head competition (since the number of admins is not limited), I fear that the tone would be much more negative in voting for ArbCom. -- DS1953 04:43, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    Except the voting is anonymous and you can't comment on your vote. ArbCom election has nothing common with RfA.  Grue  07:26, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    anyway I can find plently of negitivity directed against apointed arbcom members.Geni 13:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    This is what I mean, not the voting process itself. I believe there is too much negativity already and I think that battling over preferred ArbCom candidates will happen - and with less civility than before. I am not trying to convince anyone else, I'm just stating my opinion. Please! -- DS1953 19:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    we deliberately chose not to have an endorsments page for that reason. Apointement makes it worse since it means that dagger in the back wikipoliticing becomes the only effective way of removeing canditates.Geni 21:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
  12. I prefer appointments -- and a lot more of them. There should be a large pool of arbitrators, with a specific number empaneled for each case, randomly selected. Probably it should be one of the dirty jobs administrators are expected to do. But given the current structure, appointment would be expedient and sensible. A popularity contest to pick arbitrators makes little sense, but that's all these "elections" can possibly be -- well, that and smear campaigns. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 20:45, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    You think appointment will stop smear campians?Geni 23:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  13. Because if there's going to be a cabal, I might as well suck up to it, eh? —Charles P. (Mirv) 22:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  14. Ehxactly, since the fine line between pragmatism and opportunism, she is a harsh mistress, I might as well as pretend as if I supported those who hold (and of course those who will in the future hold) real power of decisionmaking anyway from the very beginning! What? El_C 11:09, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  15. This election right now would be polarizing and divisive. I see the same high profile users lined up against each other in different areas recently and I think it'd spill over here. I think the effect elections would have on good editors and the general level of debate would be negative. For myself, I'd like to avoid that for now and find out how to mend some fences first. Failing that, run the communities confirmation votes like a RFC, allowing endorsing and limiting debate to the statement talk pages or the talk page of the editor you want to direct a question/response to. Rx StrangeLove 05:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    on the basis we don't know who voted for who that strikes me as unlikely.Geni 05:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    I'm not sure what you're getting at, folks would endorse canidates on an endorsement page, or their statement page, they'd sign, people would know who voted for who... Rx StrangeLove 05:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    no we killed endorsements and the like. Voteing is done through the Boardvote function.Geni 05:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    Ok, gotcha. I'd still like to sidestep elections for now, even on this page things get a little catty here and there. I think in the long run elections are the right choice, I just think right now they would aggravate some ongoing conflicts...maybe the size Wikipedia has gotten to will guarantee that we'll always have them. Hopefully they are just growing pains. Either way will result in a good ArbCom, it's the road we take there at issue. $0.02 Rx StrangeLove 05:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    Another two cents: avoiding challenges is no way to address them. If a discussion/event is moderated properly, this shouldn't be an issue. E Pluribus Anthony 06:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  16. I think Mr. Wales is the appropriate person to choose the members of the Arbitration Committee. He brings a point of view solely in the best interests of Wikipedia and its contributors. As Chairman of the Wikimedia Foundation Inc., when the media or other institutions wish to discuss Wikipedia process, content or any other relative topic, it is Mr. Wales that they will ask to respond. In addition to such questioners, as a fellow of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at the Harvard Law School, he undoubtedly could be questioned as to the Arbitration process and how the conduct of Arbitration Committee members affects Wikipedia all-important content. Mr. Wales must not be put in the uncomfortable position of having to respond to the media etc. by saying: "The community voted for them so I can do nothing," or then being placed in the position of having to remove an "elected" member of the Committee. Because it is the editors of Wikipedia who now bear the costs for keeping the project going, then Mr. Wales suggestion of a radification vote makes sense because that then provides the community with a way to consider the fitness of any appointment they are not comfortable with. - Ted Wilkes 20:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  17. Those who are popular are not necessarily the most impartial or qualified. Jimbo is fair enough. --Jiang 16:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prefer something else (specify)

  1. Let anyone who wants to apply, vote on them, but don't have a set number of seats--Rayc 20:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'd support this as well. The current committee is apparently overwhelmed. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 20:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm fine with this proposal too. Jacqui ★ 00:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I strongly oppose unlimited membership on grounds that it would dilute the committee and make it unworkable. --Improv 21:39, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I support this proposal. Sam Spade 21:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Support. --G Rutter 12:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I oppose this at the moment, but may support it as part of a wider reorganisation of the Arbitration Committee. the wub "?!" 16:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Proposal: have elections provide a shortlist of candidates from which Jimbo takes his pick. Benefits: provides a mandate for ArbCom members, and allows Jimbo avoid dealing with people he doesn't get on with. --- Charles Stewart 19:26, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. Proposal: make me the sole Arbitrator for life and I will rule with an iron fist. Dmn 20:08, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
    I hope you're not into fisting, then. ;) E Pluribus Anthony 05:18, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  4. My own 2-cents-worth plan: A large "arbitration pool", consisting of admins who are willing to be part of the process. (The only reason I'm specifying admins is to have some minimal qualification). When a case is accepted for arbitration (and that should be a a totally separate body, perhaps voted in by the arb pool members), arbitrators are randomly picked from the pool (recusing themselves if necessary) until a minyan is achieved; we can add niceties like "all parties to an arbitration can pre-emptively challenge a set number of choices". If the pool is large enough, no single arbitrator will do more than a few cases; "arbitration" will just be something you sometimes do, as opposed to a long-term obligation; there can be no "cabal", because there's no guarantee anyone will ever get to arbitrate any particular case. In other words: it's kinda like being picked for jury duty. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:37, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
    Interesting notion ... ? E Pluribus Anthony 22:37, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Unsure

  1. I get the need to have community input, but this is not a democracy, never has been. I suppose I tend toward Jimbo's side when he says: One problem is best highlighted, in my view, by the non-election of JamesF, despite being to my knowledge universally acknowledged as an excellent arbitrator, tending to the thoughtful and helpful middle ground on matters of importance, and hard working. The reason for him not being elected was not, as far as I can see, any dissatisfaction with his work in the arbcom, but rather a lack of political fame due in part to his quiet way of getting the job done in arbcom while (mostly, and perhaps unfortunately) giving up most editing. Arbcom is a judicial position, not a popularity contest, and so elections are only a very rough stab at trying to get the right qualities and broad community support. Useful, of course, but by no means dispositive.(emphasis added) I know it's bad to make policy on one example, but the overall idea is correct. We would have the same people being Admins, BCrats, MedCom, ArbCom, etc. with a small cabal easily forming. I would like to see some community input, but overall, what would be the purpose of another popularity contest? --LV (Dark Mark) 19:36, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. It seems to me that there's a bigger issue here. There is a call for elections, in a format unknown, with no certainty that the election will actually happen, and no certainty that the results will be honored (or ignored). The ambiguity is caused by a bigger issue -- which can be summed up as who's running this? As a relative outsider looking in, this does appear to be a symptom of a meta-issue. As Jimbo Wales, and the people who helped start Wikipedia and the Foundation, are inexorably moving further away from the day-to-day operations of a rapidly-growing organization, the question of who actually should be in charge of operations grows larger. If this is Jimbo Wales' personal "turf" (for lack of a better term at the moment), then an election is spurious. If this is under the control of the Foundation, then Jimbo is out of order in dictating terms of the election (and I realize that sounds a bit shocking but that's what logic dictates). And if this is neither controlled by Jimbo nor the Foundation, then who's got the right to set the rules of this election? I would strongly recommend figuring out the bigger issue first. There may or may not be a Cabal, but someone has to decide who's running this show before you can vote (or not vote) for any level of officer. -- Robster2001 23:30, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
    In thoery the foundation is the ultimate power.Geni 00:52, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Don't care

[edit] Polls are evil

  • This poll serves no purpose that can't be served by a discussion at the election talkpage. Ingoolemo talk 02:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Generally I agee with this, but I feel so strongly on this issue that I'm willing to vote f there is any hope of stopping Jimbo's proposal. Filiocht | The kettle's on 12:42, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: I concur with your notions regarding polls, but if they can effect policy changes on Wp, polls can be a 'good evil'. :) E Pluribus Anthony 22:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    It's a tool to get an idea of what people think, I have no idea what just calling a non-formal or binding poll 'evil' is supposed to accomplish. Redwolf24 (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
    There is no point in gauging what people think if they haven't thought yet. That is why polls are evil. They stifle discussion, by encouraging us to sign our name next to a number, quarantined in its own little section with identically-minded signatures. There is no incentive to discuss, no accountability. My well reasoned argument makes the tally go up one, just like someone else's "~~~~" does, and we're even. Why should anyone challenge me? Why should I respond? What's the difference if nothing I say affects the vote tally? A poll is in every way inferior to real discussion. Dmcdevit·t 23:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    The real question, then, is what constitutes thought? This coming from someone who is intimately familiar with what a quarantine is (ask me privately). If anything positive can come out of this, either through the exchange of ideas or by potentially guiding policy, all the better. E Pluribus Anthony 07:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    The idea here is consensus. Always (by here I mean Wikipedia). So, sure, people may have thoughts, but more broadly, Wikipedia hasn't thought about it. There has been no consensus attempt, no discussion with the goal of consensus in mind at all. Polls are absolutely antithetical to consensus-gathering (and the whole idea of them is after you have a rough consensus proposal, if at all). If a poll like this did lead to guiding policy, it would be unfortunate, as anyone who thinks this is a good way to achieve discussion and consensus has serious misconceptions about what those two things are. We should not be limited to two choices, and have our discussion curtailed. Almost nothing on Wikipedia is a boolean decision. Dmcdevit·t 07:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    While I also agree in not necessarily being limited by two choices, we otherwise agree to disagree. The fact that Wp, Jimbo, the Board, etc., have had to periodically address or (propose) intervening in ArbComm member selection implies that Wikipedians (up-top and down below) need to think more about this and that before arriving at a decision or identifying a consensus. Polls, discussions, and any other forums should function as the tools they are intended to be; nothing more, but nothing less. And no stress. :) E Pluribus Anthony 07:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    Yes, precisely, we do need to think more about it. We need to discuss it. Not poll on it. Polls stifle thought. They encourage people to just choose sides, and not engage in discourse. Dmcdevit·t 07:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    Both are necessary tools: they should be utilised as intended, enabling (though not guaranteeing) intelligent discourse and an unequivocal decision. That's it for me on this! E Pluribus Anthony 07:55, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    Polls do not enable intelligent discourse. Rather they encourage dichotomy over dialectic, which is exactly the opposite of how a wiki works. There is no dichotomy here. Dmcdevit·t 16:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    We agree to disgree: if we can expand and discuss this and that in a poll (or elsewhere), this is doubleplusgood. And without arriving at a decision (in the least) by presenting a dichotomy, nothing in Wp or elsewhere would ever get achieved. Besides: I would hope that our discussions have been fruiful somehow ... in the very least to identify that we can dually differ and agree with this and that. That's it for me! :) E Pluribus Anthony 19:46, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • --Phroziac(talk) 18:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not a democracy. The Uninvited Co., [[User_talk:UninvitedCompany|Inc.]] 19:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
    Nor is Wp an autocracy. E Pluribus Anthony 07:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    Red herring. "Wikipedia is not a democracy" when opposing a vote means "why don't you try to discuss it and find consensus instead of just voting on it." No one who opposes polls is suggesting autocracy, but real consensus. (and by the way actually WP is not not an autocracy, have you checked WP:NOT?) Dmcdevit·t 07:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    Not. Regarding this proposal: I've commented, perhaps belatedly, where it counts (elsewhere). And yes: I'm familiar with what it is not, just as much as polls like this reinforce that notion. E Pluribus Anthony 07:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • As always, Wikipedia:Does Wikipedia have too many polls? poll. Dmcdevit·t 23:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • This could have been served better by a discussion. Polls discourage discussion, due to their format. I do think it is a bad idea to allow Jimbo sole authority (or anything close to it) to decide this matter. It might be better to at least let the Board decide as a committee, although I would prefer an election. The muckracking of the last election (in which I was a candidate) did disturb me, however. Johnleemk | Talk 12:19, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
    Agreed; the damage is done, but (as evidenced by this text), polls may facilitate further discussion, at least for the current issue. Perhaps, then, this page should be entitled a 'hybrid' poll/discussion page? ;) E Pluribus Anthony
  • Note that the arbcom operates using polls. Guanaco 21:25, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Polls are not evil

  • Polls are simply means to organize free discussion in a coherent structure. -St|eve 21:28, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. Steve has it right. Everyking 06:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Agreed; Dubya, however, may be evil. ;) E Pluribus Anthony 07:11, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I should point out that this poll has already gathered over twice as many useful comments as the earlier discussion on the subject. Radiant_>|< 11:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Polls are not evil. Discussion and attempts to build consensus are helpful, but having a poll is also a helpful way to get a sense of how different opinions are represented, numberwise. For example, if five vocal users support an idea, and 18 less vocal users oppose it, the fact that one side has a clear majority is more obvious with a poll than with trying to sort out lines upon lines of discussion. A poll is simply an easy way of saying "Ok, so who and how many people support this idea, and who is opposed to it?". Ideally, we can have both polls and quality discussion to go with them. Ëvilphoenix Burn! 05:44, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Polls are great, particularly on important issues such as this. Academic Challenger 03:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with polling. The process allows as a quantitative measure of the (interested) communities direction and directs us to further discussion on contentious issues. Ultimately however, in Wikipedia, I believe utimate power must rest in the hands of a (hopefully) benevolent leader, in the singular. Hamster Sandwich 03:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Three cheers for polls! --Merovingian 21:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • ... and another for poles. ;) E Pluribus Anthony 22:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Haystack discussions

[edit] Provocative ideas

[edit] If the appointments are not going to be made by the community...

...but instead will be made by the head of a commercial company, shouldn't the appointees get some financial remuneration? --- Charles Stewart 20:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

What? The Wikimedia Foundation is a non-profit organisation, with tax-exempt status in the United States. See the Foundation's website. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:57, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't see how that makes a difference. Several non-profits pay people to do things. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 21:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
The "What?" was more in reply to the "commercial company" bit. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:51, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
Ah, my bad. —Locke Cole (talk) (e-mail) 23:24, 26 November 2005 (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a poll previously conducted at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Straw poll. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the current poll/project page or its talk page. No further edits should be made to this page. E Pluribus Anthony 11:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)