Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2005-11-28/ArbCom update

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Wikipedia Signpost


Community input continues

By Flcelloguy, November 28, 2005
January 2006 ArbCom elections
A Signpost series
Sep. 19 Introduction
Sep. 26 History of ArbCom
Oct. 3 About ArbCom
Oct. 10 Criticism of ArbCom
Oct. 17 Current ArbCom members
Oct. 24 ArbCom elections, 2004
Oct. 31 ArbCom reform
Nov. 7 ArbCom duties and requirements
Nov. 14 ArbCom voting process
Nov. 28 Last chance to run
Dec. 5 Election procedure poll
Dec. 19 Straw poll closes
Jan. 2 Election candidates
Jan. 9 Election candidates, part two
Jan. 16 ArbCom elections underway
Jan. 23 Elections end; Jimbo appoints
Feb. 6 Elected Arbitrators interview

This week, Jimbo's changes to the election procedure came under more public scrutiny as news of the changes, which were first announced over a month ago, became more widespread. Ironically, the torrent of community input and opinions was first started by a post to the Administrators' Noticeboard of Incidents by an apparent sockpuppet, Simon Chartres. Chartres expressed his opinions about the decision to lower community input on the process. Radiant! concurred, saying "I... think that refusing to hold elections and not bothering to inform the community why, is a bad idea. At present, the impression is that without having the proper connections, one cannot become an [Arbitrator]." However, others disagreed, saying that the changes would be an improvement over last year's elections. "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," Rje stated. "I trust Jimbo, as someone who has made a huge investment in this project, to make the decisions that will best benefit Wikipedia."

In the discussions that followed, some limited details were provided regarding the process from Arbitrators. Raul654 said that the elections would be "a two step procedure -- Jimbo, with advice from the current Arbitration Committee, selects a set of would-be appointees. The community then has an approval vote on them. Would-be appointees receiving greater than 50% approval will be appointed." However, Raul654 later clarified his comments regarding the 50 percent approval mark, saying that the 50 percent mark was "only my best guess. Jimbo has described the process informally several times, and if memory serves, he used supermajority in one description and majority in another."

However, several Arbitrators did caution that the exact procedure has yet to be determined. Said Arbitrator Mindspillage, "The [Arbitration Committee] cannot comment on this with any authority because we don't know what the [exact] procedure will be." However, several Wikipedians called for more details to be released about the elections procedure immediately. "A little keeping-the-community-in-the-loop would be really, genuinely helpful," stated Splash.

Meanwhile, this week the straw poll regarding the elections procedure continued. As of press time, 47 had supported having an elected ArbCom, and 14 had supported having an appointed ArbCom.


Also this week: New languages — ArbCom election — ArbCom input — Board activity — News and notes — Press coverage — Features and admins — B.R.I.O.N. — T.R.O.L.L.