Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Straw poll

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well, there you go. I'm curious what the public thinks of this matter. Radiant_>|< 19:32, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Accountability

(first line copied, other two moved from main page) Radiant_>|< 23:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

  • 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.
    In theory it is accountable to the community. This is rather critical at present because at present arbcom is the only method the community has of holding admins to account.Geni 21:35, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
    I don't see how being accountable to the community helps the ArbCom hold admins properly to account -- indeed, I would prefer an ArbCom that focuses more on policy and less on the wishes of the community in dealing with administrator actions. ArbCom shouldn't just be an arm of the community acting at the community's whim, otherwise we'd get rid of it entirely and just have community votes. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
We tried pure community votes it didn't work. There are significant differences between representertive democracy and atheian style democracy. Representertive democracy in theory at least provides a useful balance between giving the comunity with control while preventing mob rule. Being accountable to the community gives arbcom legitimacty. Giving the community an arbcom that is accountable to them means that they can see that ultimately they have the power to deal with cliques that form. An elected arbcom is the spanner in the works for those who wish to become wikipedia's aristocrats. You take that away and what do you have? A situation akin to a medeval court with courters sceaming to gain the kings favor.Geni 01:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
(In reference to Geni's comments): See mobocracy. Flcelloguy ( A note? ) 01:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
however we don't use direct democracy.Geni 02:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
As I see it, we shouldn't rely on a group of people to be the "spanner in the works for those who wish to become wikipedia's aristocrats." What serves that role should be our policies and our fundamental norms -- in this case, the policy of NPOV, and our norms surrounding consensus, the freedom of anyone to edit, and the general equality of individuals. Unlike the "will of the community," which as we've seen can turn rather wild and angry in the short term, those policies and norms have been formulated in the long run and serve us well -- they are a more measured and carefully thought out reflection of the long-term desires of our community.
More generally, the main pitfall I see for the ArbCom is that it will become too exclusionary, too quick to reject views that don't fall into the Wikipedia mainstream -- and having them accountable to that mainstream wouldn't solve this problem. The problem you see, the creation of some cliquely aristocracy, seems virtually impossible to me on a project as diverse and distributed as Wikipedia. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:39, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
A difficulty is that the appointments would be made by Jimbo, who is not really accountable to anyone. I don't think there's any reason we should automatically trust him to not establish an aristocratic clique, especially when he's known to make dictatorial announcements. If the community elects its arbitrators, we have a stronger guarantee that the diversity of Wikipedia will be reflected in the outcome. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 06:55, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't really see why we would have that guarantee at all, in fact I'd say it's just the opposite. The community is going to elect the same people it elects at RFA, RFB, etc., which is frankly a pretty UN-diverse group. I expect an elected ArbCom to reflect our diversity in the same way the elected U.S. Senate (100 members, 86 men, 97 whites) reflects America's diversity.
Also, as I said at the top, I think that appointments and elections are both likely to result in a perfectly good panel, and the main reason then to choose appointment is efficiencty. My main concern, actually, would be some greater consideration in whatever method is chosen for selecting people who are likely to serve out their term and devote substantial time to the committee; it would be nice to get it functioning a little more smoothly. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
both me and Tony Sideway are admins. I'm not sure tyyou could get more diverse.Geni 12:31, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
Concur with Geni on this one. Please provide some evidence of the claim that admins are not a diverse group. Radiant_>|< 16:38, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • With that discussion, this quote came to mind... "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time" - Winston Churchill. Radiant_>|< 10:07, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
Radiant, remember WP:NOT? We have a sociocracy, and I think it's only a matter of time that this, the last vestige of Democracy here, will be a thing of the past. karmafist 01:25, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Which is fine with me, because, as WP:NOT clearly says, Wikipedia is not, in fact, a democracy. Phil Sandifer 01:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Nor should it be a hegemony. Sam Spade 01:40, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evilness

(first line copied, other lines moved from main page) Radiant_>|< 11:41, 18 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)

[edit] New poll!?

Jimbo: Hello! I applaud you for making efforts to clarify this ArbComm issue and process and look forward to working with you.

However, is it at all prudent to delete the prior poll instead of placing/forking it on another page: i.e., creating another page for this purpose and archiving it? It is, after all, a straw poll, that – regardless of perceptions of relevance or perfection – garnered much input and compelled you to act. Perception is reality. As well, many users may not know how or where to accesss it from the history and may find the discussions therein helpful in participating here.

If you won't do this, perhaps I should? Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 06:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Personally I try not to take credit for compelling Jimbo to act. Phil Sandifer 06:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
If you read, I'm not stating this at all. The act of creating a new poll in place of a prior one (whether solicited by anyone or not) is apparent enough. Actions speak louder than words. E Pluribus Anthony 06:11, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree; it would have been better to move the previous poll to a subpage. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 10:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Done! The prior poll has been archived here. Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 11:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo's second proposal

Quote: "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." What on earth does this mean? If half of Jimbo approves, then that's enough? Or that half the community supports a candidate? So there will be an election? For half the places? What if there is a 50/50 split vote for a candidate (i.e., half the community supports, half opposes)? Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I think this means candidates must receive over 50% approving votes to be accepted by the community, and both the approval of the community and Jimbo are required to appoint a candidate. My first reaction to this was the same as yours, though, but hopefully Jimbo isn't making decisions he has only 50% confidence in. ‣ᓛᖁ♀ᑐ 11:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
But how would this work, exactly? I mean, how will the community propose these candidates in the first place? And will there be a single poll, where we vote on both sets of candidates? Filiocht | The kettle's on 11:43, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The community would propose candidates by electing them, I believe. If I understand the proposal correctly, Jimbo would nominate a slate for us to vote on, and these people would all be given, in the current rhetoric of US judicial nominations, "an up-or-down vote". Meanwhile, there would also be a vote on any other candidates who choose to run from the community at large, but these candidates would require Jimbo's approval after the election. As far as the mechanics, I'm guessing that we would vote on all of the candidates in a single poll, although the details of that can be worked out later. --Michael Snow 17:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes this is my guess as to what Jimbo's second proposal means. but it should be made more clear. What this essentially does is let Jimbo appoint/elect candidates, subject to a veto by the community, and the community appoint/elect candidates, subject to a veto by Jimbo (one he has stated he will use only rarely). This seems fairly reasonable to me. But I will now make my vote contingent on this interpretation. Paul August ☎ 17:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Reason demands your interpretation. In order for candidates that the community proposes to proceed to Jimbo's consideration, these candidates must be approved by the "the same 50% majority" of the community that approved Jimbo's personal candidates. That being said, Splash's statement below does describe a real danger. Does anyone have any ideas for quantifying this risk? NatusRoma 23:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The only risk with this is finishing up with too few Arbitrators to fill the vacant seats. -Splashtalk 21:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps an expansion of the pool by selecting candidates who garnered near-parity in a vote (e.g., a vote of 49% yes) – which may be statistically insignificant – for subsequent runoff elections; however, this may be untenable to some (as it defies a majority, et al.). E Pluribus Anthony 00:42, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "All arbcom members appointed by Jimbo"

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.

I find this comment misleading as while it's true, it's also true that all legislation in the UK becomes legislation only after it's signed by the Queen. Theoretically, the Queen could refuse, but it would be a constitutional crisis. I could imagine a (much lesser) crisis arising if one of the top candidates voted in by the community if we go by the same process as last year, and Jimbo vetoed the appointment. Talrias (t | e | c) 12:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I guess that's partially why it's important to have everything in open view and under scrutiny (hence me archiving the prior poll): allow Wikipedians to learn and decide for themselves what to believe. E Pluribus Anthony 12:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, but this is overly simplistic and, essentialy, wrong. The Arbitration Committee have the authority to judge because Jimbo has decided to delegate his powers to us, and has continuous input (albeit generally in camera) into the process. To pretend that Jimbo is merely some figurehead character as Her Majesty has effectively become is highly misleading.
James F. (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
The Queen meets weekly with the Prime Minister too. And of course the Parliament in the UK was given authority because the power was delegated by the monarch (Magna Carta). Talrias (t | e | c) 17:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
OK, if you won't take it subtly, I'll be blunt: I think such comments are foolish and mis-placed. Jimbo is not going away. He is a part of the Committee, the head of the Committee, and idle chatter of this sort here only serves to undermine people's trust in the Committee's working without any hope of achieving anything positive. It should cease.
Happy?
James F. (talk) 19:00, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Correcting of factually incorrect information, no matter how little it achieves, should never cease. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I thought that the statement at the top of the original poll was clear as day. Jimbo's announcement said that "the most likely process will be direct appointment by Jimbo...followed by confirmation votes from the community." Jimbo will, with consultation, appoint candidates for community confirmation. The first link below the TOC is to Jimbo's original announcement. That being said, the current poll is much more informative and has more appropriate choices. NatusRoma 23:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
We should commend Jimbo, then, for intervening as he did with this 'straw' poll and in enabling discourse (informed or otherwise). I only hope it reaps something positive – in process, policy, or in a salient and effective ArbComm. E Pluribus Anthony 00:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hold On A Second

Ok, let's stop commending Jimbo for a second. No doubt that Jimbo is technically the "monarch" of Wikipedia, and should be treated that way, but I think we should see him as a constitutional monarch(particular in the UK style) rather than an absolute one, because, quite frankly, Wikipedia would not have grown to the point it didn't evolve from the individual viewpoints of its users. If Jimbo disagrees with us, tough, because the only reason he has become a psuedo-celebrity is because of us, because we love this project of his and his vision has become our vision.

From the one conversation i've had him, I think he's cognisant of this and wants to work with the community in any way possible, but we should set guidelines for him and for us, because quite frankly, only having "approved" candidates is basically a message saying "I, Jimbo, don't trust the general community to make the right decision." Right now as I see it, the arbcom is in a very fragile state (see Keetoowah), and saying such a thing would only embolden the users so don't respect the legitimacy of the arbcom already.

This can be solved by viewing Jimbo with the rights given in theory to the modern British Monarchs -- the right to advise, the right to warn, and the right to be told. And in return, he's used as a human figurehead and spokesman for Wikipedia via his position in the Wikimedia Foundation. karmafist 01:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I (and others) should commend him because he didn't have to respond here at all: this is a straw poll whose validity may be questioned. And, after all, to err is human: noone (present company included) is a paragon of virtue or ideology. While Wikipedians can agree or disagree on this and that, let's accord courtesy and respect – and guidance – where it's due ... just as I would accord it to you or to any other Wikipedian. E Pluribus Anthony 01:43, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Commending him and giving him authoritarian rule are two different things, Anthony. I give Jimbo the same respect as any other Wikipedian when it comes to his opinion, and if he broke a policy that I saw that was worthy of a block, I'd block him just like any other Wikipedian because if we make it seem like some people are above the rules, then people will stop trusting in the rules and they'll collapse. As a symbol, a figurehead(what I think you and I are snagging on here), I do see him, or at least his persona, as something higher than that since it's a personification of who we are as a nation, much like the monarch in the UK or Babe Ruth to baseball in the 1920s or even Mickey Mouse when it comes to Disney. Let us laud him and stand behind him when we need a common spokesperson or a rallying cry, but don't deify him otherwise. karmafist 23:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes: I think we're snagging on what you cite. In summary: Jimbo's not merely a figurehead in Wp, and I deify no-one (Besides, I'm an agnostic. As well, I'm a Canuck, where there's significant British heritage et al. but not without some support for republicanism.) As a founder and primary focal point for Wikipedia, Jimbo commented and proposed here when he didn't need to (due to time or what have you) and has proposed hybrid approaches with a possible consensus in mind. He hasn't broken any rules, so evincing that line of reasoning is incorrect. As well, his second hybrid proposal – where Jimbo and Wikipedians have equal say – is a sensible compromise that seems to be garnering the most support (including mine). Others may cite that Wikipedia is not a democracy, et al.; I appreciate the viewpoint, but disbelieve such notions to a point (e.g., nor is Wp an autocracy). Turn it on its head: absolute power corrupts absolutely ... either way. Give credit where it's due, and that's why I commend Jimbo for doing what he did. :) E Pluribus Anthony 12:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions to Jimbo

I'd like to ask these questions to Jimbo:

  1. Why do you feel you need to be involved in the appointment of the Arbitration Committee?
  2. What do you think allows you to choose potential candidates better than the community?
  3. What do you propose we do in the event that you are not able to make a decision on Wikipedia?

Thanks! Talrias (t | e | c) 12:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

  1. I don't really feel a need to be involved, except insofar as I want to encourage us to recognize that this is not a democracy, this is not a social experiment in anarchy, this is a project to build an encyclopedia. There are pros and cons to different methods of selection/election, and these all need to be carefully considered. We should never fixate on a single way of doing things and become beholden to a particular process potentially at the expense of the encyclopedia.
  2. Nothing enables me to choose potential candidates better than the community. I see no reason to think that in general, I can. At the same time, there seems to be widespread support at least for the idea that the ArbCom should not be limited just to users who are 'famous'... this was one of the grave flaws with last year's procedure that the current voting method will overcome (to a degree at least).
  3. I propose that in the event I am unable to assist with decisions (due to ill health or death or whatever) that the Board of Directors decide how to move forward.--Jimbo Wales 17:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo:
Hi there! Thanks for taking the time to weigh in and respond with some comments; understood! So, where does that leave this discussion and the ArbComm selection process: do you support or recommend a course of action or proposal to act on? If so or not, how do we proceed (given the timing) with authority and who will help organise and lead? (I can assist, for instance.) Should we connect with the Board?
Given the nature of the selection process (still undefined) and need to determine next steps, your guidance and leadership would be appreciated. Thanks again! :) E Pluribus Anthony 17:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 50% of what?

I have only skimmed the proposals and perhaps I missed something, but I didn't see any clear indication of what 50% approval actually means.

  • Is it 50% of the total pool of individuals voting?
  • Is it 50% of votes cast for each candidate?
  • Or some other 50% I don't have the imagination to envision?

I suppose this partly depends on details of the voting mechanism, but I'd like to know how this would work before venturing an opinion on the proposals. older≠wiser 20:18, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I assumed this as being a yes/no dichotomy for each candidate (your 2nd pt.) – each candidate would get a vote and would be successful if they garnered a mere majority: a positive for of at least 50% + 1. Since you are not the first person to ask this, perhaps Jimbo should clarify? E Pluribus Anthony 21:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] No more appointees

Jimbo's first arbcom was great. Unfortunately they got burned out from applying their discerning insight on too many obvious cases. Their sense of fairplay made arbcom cases longer than they needed to be.

Today we have the opposite. Mailing list cronies and frightening partisans have become a real Cabal. Recent cases have been judged according to political positioning, nepotism, and well known bad blood. No one should be judged by someone they have had a history of conflict with, and yet that has become the norm, despite ongoing requests for recusal.

I support anything that takes Jimbo out of the loop. No offense, Jimbo is a great guy, and his 1st ArbCom was awesome. Unfortunately, he is too busy doing things other than editing (which is also great!) to be any good at appointing our judges. Jimbo doesn't scale.

If I had my way, we'd have something meritocratic, whereby old hands, featured article producers, and the top 1000 editors would be given greater say, rather than the Ochlocracy vrs. appointments systems which have been proposed. Sam Spade 19:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

So what exactly do you propose? Talrias (t | e | c) 19:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Who are you asking? I say we create a giant organic pool of trusted users, and have them decide things like who is right or wrong on a given matter. We can get plenty of names from featured article producers, the oldest of the wikipedians, and other prominent contributers. So long as we have enough reliable names, everyone should be fairly treated, and no "arbiter" would need to feel burnt out. Almost everyone would be recusing from almost every case ;) Sam Spade 19:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm assuming that's in reply to me; Ruy Lopez added his comments above mine for some reason. My follow-up question is, how do we decide who is a trusted user and who is not a trusted user? Talrias (t | e | c) 19:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
By the amount of time they've been wikipedians, by having contributed to a featured article, and by their number of edits. Meritocracy, rather than democracy or autocracy. Sam Spade 19:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't believe that amount of time, number of edits nor whether they have contributed to a featured article particularly makes someone more qualified to become an arbitrator than someone who has less edits/time/featured articles. You can't convert edits/time/featured articles into ability to arbitrate. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
And you think Jimbo or wikidemocracy knows better than those measures of merit? Sam Spade 22:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I never said that. I'm just pointing out what I see as flaws in your idea. Talrias (t | e | c) 22:23, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
My point is that these are a more meritocratic judge than any of the others. We'd have more and better arbiters, and they wouldn't get burnt out in the same way. Sam Spade 22:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, ok, hold on a second here, I think we're getting off topic. Meritocracy is a noble goal, but looking at WP:1000 doesn't help convince me into thinking that "more edits = more qualified" as a causal relationship. Theoretically, by this theory, most of our arbcom would be robots who would do nothing but correct the grammar of the parties in arbcom cases 200 times a day.

However, it may be on the right track. I'd have no problem if we replaced the "edits" factor in the theory above with "conflicts successfully solved", and by that I mean conflicts that end in a resolution that a consensus would see as constructive or at least avoiding future conflicts. No doubt that would be hard to measure, if not next to impossible, but it's the only way pure meritocracy would work in this case. The vast majority of edits have nothing to do what the arbcom is there for IMO -- interpreting and enforcing policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. karmafist 01:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

They show dedication to the project and an ability to understand the wikipedia. Also, your missing 1/2 my point. The other 1/2 of my point is that we should have thousands of arbiters. Sam Spade 01:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
It sounds like you want to replace the word "admin" with "arbitrator", Sam. I completely disagree with that, admins to me are the "beat cops" on the front lines of Wikipedia where as the arbcom is the judicial system, intrepeting policy where it can't be done on the spot by the admins. We definately need more arbitrators, but I doubt we could find thousands right now. karmafist 23:10, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Only if the process for selecting admins were overhauled (as it should be). Sam Spade 16:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
While I obviously would want an ArbCom with the likes of 172 and Secretlondon, I realize that will not happen. Nonetheless, I feel the democratic choice of Wikipedia in December 2004 was even-handed and good - while I don't always agree with someone like Raul654's decisions, I realize he does not have an agenda that he comes to the table with. On the other hand, Jimbo, whose view of Wikipedia is of a "von Mises" model, has made horrible choices such as Fred Bauder and more lately JayJG. If JayJG is so terrific, how come he had no votes when elections were held months before he was appointed? JayJG's claim to fame is maintaining an ardent Zionist stance on pertaining pages for Wikipedia. Why does Jimbo want to stack ArbCom with far right arbitrators like this? It's fairly obvious to me, and it's quite clear why Jimbo wants to dispose of the sensible democratic choices, and stick in people with a certain agenda. Ruy Lopez 19:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"Its insular and secret workings were efficient and swift--not unlike the decision-making one would associate more with a dictatorship than a democracy.... But the secret process was ultimately a failure. It produced a series of disastrous decisions and virtually ensured that the agencies charged with implementing them would not or could not execute them well.... It's a disaster. Given the choice, I'd choose a frustrating bureaucracy over an efficient cabal every time." - Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, L.A. Times op-ed, October 25

Of course, he was talking about Cheney and Rumsfeld, but somehow it seemed appropriate to this discussion. --HK 22:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

 :)) At this point, I'm sure some would undoubtedly cite to you that 'Wikipedia is not a democracy,' but this entire debate highlights what it is and can be. I agree with including such comments here for information and perspective. Besides: as I said before, such discussions can be (invoking a bipolar, demonic Rumsfeld-ism) a 'good evil' if conducted properly. E Pluribus Anthony 22:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why is English Wikipedia special?

Recently I've read in Signpost that Russian Wikipedia got it's own ArbCom elected. That came as a surprise to me because I sometimes edit here and I never saw any announcements... But that's not the point. Why is English Wikipedia is so different that Jimbo must intervene the usual ArbCom election process? Sure, English Wikipedia is larger and has better media coverage, but still, it's one of the many Wikipedias out there, and Jimbo wouldn't like to pick arbitrators for every language! He doesn't even know the users who edit these. So we need some German Jimbo, French Jimbo (Anthere?) and so on, so ArbComs "elections" would be standartised across different editions. That concludes my crazy rant for today.  Grue  18:03, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

For one thing, English is a language that Jimbo speaks fluently. As far as I know he doesn't speak or read Russian, so it would be difficult for him to get involved in how the Arbcom is appointed/elected for the Russian Wikipedia.-gadfium 21:25, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think that is Grue's point exactly. Why just this one? Shouldn't there be some standard? Or does size actaully matter? --LV (Dark Mark) 21:38, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
The point has been raised. The french wikipedia also has an arbcom.Geni 21:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
It is a very good point. Jimbo really needs to address this one. Sure, each Wikipedia is given a good amount of freedom to do things its own way, but in this case it isn't the en. version deciding to do things its own way—it's Jimbo deciding that for us. Our community has not been given the right to determine its own process, just because our founder happens to speak our language. Sigh.
Another thing: the new ArbCom is supposed to be in on Jan. 1, right? Well, aren't we kinda running out of time now? I mean, if we were going to do a standard election like last year, we'd still be OK, but with Jimbo's complex procedure, which hasn't even been fully determined yet, we haven't got a chance. Everyking 06:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Especially as experience teaches that many of us go missing over the holiday period. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I think there's time, but it grows short. If any proposal was chosen, a process pinned down, mounted soon, and advertised widely (wikispamming?), sufficient input can be garnered from Wikipedians regarding ArbComm candidates. Organisation is key, and I don't see alot of that yet. E Pluribus Anthony 10:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, I think it could still be done if there was serious movement on it like you're talking about. But even then I think it would be tough, and unfortunately the whole thing seems to have stalled to me. At this rate I don't even know if we'll have picked a process by the new year, much less actually got the process moving. Hopefully we will see something happen soon, though. Since Jimbo is the one who aborted the old process, we can't do anything without his input and agreement. Jimbo has been devoting his time to the Seigenthaler issue, apparently, so we'd need to get him to refocus on this. Everyking 10:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
We had quite a bit of organisation. We had disscused reform months ago come to conclusions had people start to prepaer their candidercies and were gently drifting towards an election in eary december. Such is life.Geni 12:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think we should try to get Jimbo to give us the green light to do something. Perhaps we could convince him to allow a free vote this year, and work out another system during 2006, with a whole year to discuss and consider it? When I try to talk to him about anything, he either ignores or criticizes me, so I wouldn't want to be the one to go to him with the issue, but if somebody who's more in favor with him brought it up we might get somewhere. Everyking 13:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

board memebers would be the logical choice.Geni 13:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
A little bit of advocacy or prodding to Jimbo, board members, or organisers of last year's process wouldn't hurt; nobody will probably act until Jimbo gives a nod. Since a 'plurality' (I think) seems to support his second proposal this time around (and I'm unsure if that constitutes a Wp 'consensus'), perhaps he should be approached about implementing that option? I wouldn't take his silence or commentary personally: even God can err. :) E Pluribus Anthony 14:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Right now, there are 4952 votes, discounting 1 anon abstain. The breakdown is
17 (35%) 19 (37%) Last year's procedure
3 (6%) 3 (6%) Jimbo 1
24 (49%) 25 (48%) Jimbo 2
4 (8%) 5 (10%) Talrias' proposal
1 (2%) Abstain
Which might be seen as a consensus for doing nothing, I suppose. Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:29, 12 December 2005 (UTC) Updated Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I took the liberty of correcting your figures, hope you don't mind. They add up to 101% because rounding errors. Leithp (talk) 14:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I get for going from calculator to keyboard without engaging my brain! Filiocht | The kettle's on 15:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the tabulation: I took a guess that Jimbo 2 was a plurality! While not a consensus, I wouldn't say though that it's a call for inaction ... we could meander for eons like that! Someone (or a few?) should drop a note to Jimbo, the board, and or to the admins to get the ball moving on something. I fear that an 11th hour decision will be made – i.e., the simplest one – and things may then go amok. E Pluribus Anthony 16:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Surely the result of a failed consensus to change the system (not that this poll has really been a judge of consensus), is to continue with the old system? Talrias (t | e | c) 17:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
If need be, I'd support that; however, was last year's selection process also the result of 'consensus'? In any event, I think it would be odd to proceed this year with any option (at this point) other than Jimbo 2. Jimbo made proposals to address deficiencies with last year's procedure, so the status quo may be untenable. And I think Jimbo would be hard pressed to proceed with an unpopular option (e.g., Jimbo 1).
So, perhaps a small campaign should be mounted to lead the charge for action (I cannot do so, but will help). In any event, the weed is good on this side of the border, so I might've had too much of it in this discussion. :)E Pluribus Anthony 17:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not exactly. The main problem with last year's election was the "endorsements and disendorsements" section, which turned out to be very poisonous. It is quite easy to address this problem and still hold an election similar to last year's (by not having such a page, and indeed one was deleted some time last month). This could well be a matter of babies and bathwater.
  • The other problem is that in an election, some candidates that were considered suitable (e.g. by Jimbo) would not be elected because they weren't liked enough by the community - but this argument is also a problem in reverse: what if Jimbo appoints somebody who is controversial in the community? There is not an easy answer to this two-edged knife, but it does seem that community faith in the ArbCom would be improved by the former, rather than the latter. Radiant_>|< 22:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why limit to twelve?

And thinking about the remark I just made on the main page (regarding how to select an arbcom if more than twelve people have support from both Jimbo and the community, as seems likely) the first answer that came to mind is to simply put them all on the ArbCom. Why must the ArbCom be restricted to twelve people? They tend to get overworked. Surely having 15 or 18 arbiters wouldn't hurt? It seems to make more sense to limit the ArbCom by the amount of suitable candidates, rather than by the arbitrary number of twelve. Radiant_>|< 22:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

But an arbitrary point must be drawn somewhere. I'm not saying that 12's the ideal number, but if the size was increased to 15 or 18, why not 20 or 23? The point is that an arbitrary cut-off point must be made somewhere, and it appears that Jimbo chose that point to be at 12. Personally, I don't think a few extra (i.e. 13 or 15) would hurt, but having too many could be a detriment to operations and inhibit some efficiency. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
One major advantage of the new procedure is that we are likely to generate a pool of community-approved arbiters which is higher than the number of seats, which will mean that if we decide that the number of arbiters is too small, it will be straightforward to increase it quickly by simply opening up new seats for the people who are approved. I am highly inclined to do this, provided of course the ArbCom procedures are suitably adjusted to make sure that more arbiters means more decisions on more cases, rather than just meaning a general slowdown as more and more people have to be involved in each case. --Jimbo Wales 17:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly. The arbitrary point should be drawn at the amount of suitable candidates we find. If we must have twelve, then it can happen that there are eleven people with 80% support, and one with 50% support (extreme example, but still). In that case we should arguably have the heavily-supported 11-people arbcom, rather than enforcing the (arbitrary) number of twelve. Radiant_>|< 22:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
we disscussed this way back over the summer. Proposals to enlarge the comitte failed to gain consensus.Geni 23:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Those were proposals to change the arbitrary limit of twelve to another arbitrary limit of, say, eighteen. Clearly that's not very useful to state in advance. My point is that we should not have an arbitrary limit at all. Just like we aren't limited to 500 admins, neither should we be limited to 12 arbiters. Radiant_>|< 23:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
We need to distinguish between what we want to happen and what will likely happen (which is still uncertain). All of this hinges on what Jimbo decides, so he should be compelled to decide, and then organisation can occur on whatever option. And whatever that is, we should support it and implement it without question (i.e., an impartial s/election body) once the details are finalised.
Since last year's option has significant support, a decision (by J. or organisers) needs to be made about whether endorsements are appropriate ... if that's the chosen method. This is currently unclear.
As for quantity, I don't see there being a reason to not have a pool of more arbitrators than currently. If a limit is necessary, I'd set a manageable number and choose individuals who garner supermajorities downward to basic majorities based on mere Y/N approval (i.e., 100% > 50% + 1). However, a small, odd (but consistent) number drawn from the pool would be conducive to deciding specific cases at random (e.g., 5, 7, 9, or 11 as per various superior courts/panels): 5 for this one, the same or another 5 for that one, etc.
The key issue is choosing an option, not necessarily ruminating about mechanics of a hypothetical situation ... just yet. Let's act! :) E Pluribus Anthony 15:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
We do not need a set limit, nor do we need a competive election. The ArbCom backlog problem seems very serious. We have about 35 people who have expressed an interest in serving as arbitrators. This number does not seem excessive at all. In fact it may not be sufficient. I am not advocating self-selection. There is a need to assure that those serving will be suited to the task. Perhaps an up or down vote requiring a modest vote of confidence (say 30%) could be used to vet each applicant. Liberal rules of recusal (the process of removing individual arbitrators from specific disputes) could be used as an additional safeguard.--Edivorce 22:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that a larger pool is a desirable outcome; I don't think it's clear that either methods "JW1" and "JW2" will necessarily achieve this: it depends entirely on how free JW himself is with his support, and what tactical or other considerations come into play when people vote under the "approval" system. "Bullet voting" will tend to push down the approval rate, and "veto voting" to increase it, independently of people's actual overall preferences/feelings of (dis)approval. (In both cases, come to that.) And if the dually-approved pool is indeed larger, the method of resolving the initial selection has been left unspecified. Does JW have a given list of acceptable and unacceptable candidates, and those on the latter are voted in in order of community popularity. Does JW "cherry pick" among those with 50%+ approval. Or some emergent compromise between the two? For both of these reasons, I'd much rather have some form of preference voting, with candidates elected in decreasing preference order (on an on-going basis in the case of expansion or replenishment of the committee). Alai 04:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Timeing

We can't hold an election before the first week of january. For that election to be posible we would pretty much have to decide on the system now.

Since that isn't going to happen and this lot will pretty much shut down of christmass the earyist we could be looking at is the second week even then we would be pushing it. If we start in the second week at best new arbcom doesn't appear untill febuary.Geni 23:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Assumptions

There seems to be an assumption that the arbcom should comprise people who have put themselves forward. Because membership of the arbcom confers power on people, those who put themselves forward are likely to be less suitable than people who don't, because the desire for power is not an admirable quality in this context and doesn't operate toward the objective of what the Arbcom is for. My proposal is that anyone who puts themself forward should by definition be disqualified from being on the Arbcom. The appointment process should involve persuading people who don't want to be on it that they should. There are plenty of people who contribute to wikipedia, who would see the resposibility of being an effective Arbcom member as something onerous that they wouldn't volunteer for, but who might nevertheless be persuaded that they would do a good job and who would therefore be prepared to take it on if invited. There are plenty more people in wikipedia who might have some idea who would make good arbitrators because of their fairness and absence of selfish ambition. The process of appointing an effective arbcom should recognise this, the more so since the existing arbcom has obtained a poor reputation. Matt Stan 13:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

You are in turn assuming that people who have put themselves forward haven't been persuaded by others to put their name forwards. For example, a number of people appointed to the ArbCom (e.g. Kelly Martin, mindspillage) were appointed by Jimbo. You of course are welcome to persuade people to stand in the upcoming elections. Talrias (t | e | c) 13:49, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Hello; thanks! FYI: discussions regarding the election process are currently occurring on the election talk page and administrator's noticeboard. E Pluribus Anthony 13:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)