Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Simultaneous vote

What is the best procedure to deal with a simultaneous vote? If someone votes or comments in the support section for a candidate and simultaneously votes or comments in the oppose section this would cancel out any tally counting implications. I can't see any direct ruling on this situation, though the process indicates "You may only vote once per candidate, and you may not vote for yourself. Votes from ineligible voters may be indented by anyone, but please don't bite, and do explain why their vote has been indented." An understanding of the wording could be that one vote for and one vote against would be more than one vote per candidate, and this would make the votes ineligible so the votes should be indented. If this is a reasonable reading should the process be re-written to read: "Ineligible votes may be indented...". SilkTork *SilkyTalk 09:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Please don't do that. If you want to make a neutral comment, you can make it on the talk page. This election runs on percentages, not on total supports and voting support and oppose affects the result. Sarah 10:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, as I explained on my talk page, you may only vote once. Voting a second time has the net effect of hurting a candidate (i.e. if you have 2 supports and 1 oppose you stand at 66%. If you vote twice to make it 3 support and 2 oppose, now you are at 60%., which is a net loss, even though you voted a support). ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 10:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
But indents are NOT counted? Is that correct? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 11:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Indented votes are not counted toward the total for each candidate, nor to they impact the count of support or oppose votes. Inadvertant duplicate votes are indented, though the voter could remove the dupe if they so wish. I've also seen some voters place good faith votes to oppose, and then indent the oppose vote and add a support vote (or vice versa), all while indicating that this is what they are doing with a comment. Votes are indented for lack of suffrage, but bad faith votes (such as one where other votes were removed) are reverted.

I am unclear as to what the purpose for double-voting would be, other than to serve as a defacto Neutral vote. In that case, I'd strongly urge the voter to consider a comment on the vote page's talk page. They are read, and some have seen lively discussion from voter and candidate alike. I'd add that, unless the voter indicates which is the correct or intended vote, both duplicate votes would be indented or removed. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I just have a question about this discussion. If someone's vote(s) is/are indented, the indenting party is required to notify the voter on their talk page, right? (Actually, I am not so sure that I am right, but I hope I am.) They need to be notified so that if the problem is double-voting (either on the same side or different side), they can fix the problem and avoid all of their votes being stricken. I think they also should be notified if they are deemed ineligible because of a lack of sufficient edits, even if there is nothing they can do about it. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of the reasons for the duplicate/simultaneous vote, I feel there should be an appropriate procedure for dealing with the situation. There is an unopposed view that a simultaneous vote should not be left on the tally. The three methods that can be employed to remove the vote(s) from the tally are: a) simple deletion/revert of the votes, b) indenting, c) moving the votes to the talk page. And, following up 6SJ7's question, should a user whose vote has been removed from the tally, by whichever method, be notified on their user page? SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
The procedures I am aware of, based on discussion elsewhere on this page, is to indent votes if A) The user has no suffrage, B) The user has already voted, or C) The user is banned as a sockpuppet, and to remove the vote entirely if A) The voter removed or overwrote other vote in posting their vote. Extended votes are kept, but any comment beyond the identifying word (support, etc) is replaced with a link to the talk page, where the vote and comment is moved in its entirety. Second votes are indented unless the voter indicates that the new vote overrules the old vote ("changed to support"), in which case the original vote is indented (usually by the voter); the voter can switch the indent if they did intend to change their original vote. Simultaneous votes are indented because there is no way to judge which of two votes - support or oppose - the voter intends to keep, unless that is made explicit. By rule, only one vote per candidate may be counted. In all cases, when a voter's vote is adjusted or moved in any way, the voter should be notified. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
That's very clear, and the process should be worded to reflect that clarity. Thank you. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 19:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Solutions for next year

Ok, it's obvious there are some inadequacies with the way voting was handled this year. At least one site has organized an "opposition" bloc to oppose en masse all candidates except the ones they support, in order to give him a higher chance of getting in. There are people upset about false or incorrect statements placed in the oppose section, People are simply voting by name recognition or piling on to whatever others say, there are retaliation votes, etc.

So some solutions that I believe absolutely should be imposed next year.

1: Switch to simple approval voting. In this system, similar to what was done for the WMF elections, you vote to approve the candidates of your choice, and you do not vote at all on the ones you oppose. This has the benefit of completely countering organized opposition, pile on opposes, retaliation etc, because it is impossible to know whether someone is being actively opposed or just getting low turnout. It also has the benefit of eliminating misleading percentages, and showing only the raw support for the candidate. You'll note that say, Newyorkbrad has significantly more raw support than FayssalIF. That is an indication that the a larger portion of the community supports him than does FayssalIF, which we can tell even without % to compare to.

2:Confidential voting. Basically, make the vote private. Use a system similar to what was done for the WMF board election to automate the vote, and do not publish the results while the vote is ongoing. Or, use some other sort of automatic but confidential voting system. Several candidates I've noted have become upset by negative comments that were claimed to be "misleading" or blatantly false, which then received pile-on oppose votes. Pile-on supports and opposes help NOBODY. They only serve to artificially inflate a candidate without addressing his merits, or to artificially bury a candidate without addressing his merits. Candidates should be elected ON the merits.

3: Shorter overall question period. Come on, 30 full days? It does nothing but to swamp a candidate with largely identical questions, some of which are thinly veiled troll attacks. All the important Q+A about a candidate can be answered in about 2 weeks, probably less.

4: Longer period between nomination and voting. A bunch of candidates "snuck in the back door" on the last hours of the nomination period. I'll not speculate on their reasons, they simply could have been making up their minds (but is that something we really want in ArbCom?), but what the result of that was is those candidates were opposed for not having answered the questions. Those candidates also were not subjected to some of the stupid trolling questions that candidates who nominated themselves earlier were.

5: Bigger, more active, election committee. Not that it's a dig against the current volunteers, who are doing a great job, but in order to handle #2 they will need more help.

6: More announced suffrage requirements. Make it clear who can vote and who cannot.

7:??? Offer your own suggestions as well. Thanks. ⇒SWATJester Son of the Defender 11:04, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that confidential voting is NOT used; the current open voting does lack gravitas - I would support such a proposal. I wouldn't support a move to shorten the time the community has to research and question candidates - especially with the amount of candidates that present themselves. And I wouldn't pass comment on the people who do ask questions or the quality of the questions - candidates are free to respond to questions in the way they best see fit. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 14:51, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
a tiny change that many people could agree to: NAME First, THEN comments, if any comments are needed. Any comments longer than X go to the talk page, where X is about a single line length. This would make it easier to count the names, to check the names for appropriate main-space edit counts, it mean that people could leave useful feedback "NAME - didn't like answer to questions", "NAME - Next year maybe" etc, and it'd move contentious feedback into a place where it could be discussed / 'debunked'. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • My thoughts on this:
    1. Approval voting would be a bad idea, because historically there have been a number of candidates with many supports and many approvals.
    2. Reasonable, but would probably lead to accusations of secretiveness. As I said a year ago, the problem isn't really the open voting, but the comments. I remain of the opinion that forbidding comments is the best way to go, because many such comments are half-truths, exaggerations or simple falsehood, and the candidate is not in a position to feasibly respond to them.
    3. Agreed. I haven't had the time to read most of those question pages because they're way too long. Plus they focus more on personal pet peeves, than on essential issues. I'd suggest the Signpost does a thorough one-page interview of each candidate, instead.
  • >Radiant< 22:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not see an advantage to confidential voting. This community has indicated discomfort with secret processes. I think that outweighs the otherwise legitimate points that have been raised. I agree that approval voting leaves out a very important factor. Between approval voting, percentage voting, and net-voting, perhaps net would be the middle ground. Swatjester's 3 and 4 (shorter nominations period, gap between nominations and voting) both make sense. I do find some of the questions valuable - and signpost would not replace that, could not replace that. At the end of the day, this voting system has seemed to have produced reasonable results for at least the two elections I have followed. If the results are ok, perhaps there is not a problem to be solved? I would be hesitant to overhaul it in any major way. Jd2718 (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


My views on SWATJeste's suggestions:

  1. Oppose. Users must be given the chance to oppose a candidate. Some good faith oppose comments have revealed serious issues with candidates that other users might not be aware, and would not have opposed without them.
  2. Oppose. It's best to leave the election process as transparent as possible to the community.
  3. Support. I agree the question period is best for after the nominations but before the election starts, so every candidate has an equal amount of time to be asked and to answer. Subsequent questions during the vote can be made at the vote talk page. I suggest about a week in between.
  4. Support. See above suggestion.
  5. Support, if you could get others to sign up.
  6. Support. Sockpuppets have become more sophisticated, with users producing many edits using relatively easy and quick methods. There's a serious possibility that there are sockpuppets currently voting, but it's hard to prove and identify. I'd suggest increasing the edit threshold, but I fear we'd deny suffrage to innocent editors. Clearly more discussion is needed on this.

My suggestions:

  1. More discussion on the organization of the election, before it starts! We're getting many questions and criticisms for a process that was discussed and organized weeks before it began. But users didn't opine on it until after the voting got underway. Clearly the elections could be improved (like every other page on Wikimedia), but arguing with other editors and questioning prior consensus at this late stage is moot.

I for one welcome SWAT's suggestions, and thank him for opening this discussion so early. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 02:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I've got some suggestions I'll be putting together, but I know I agree in one particular - we need more pre-planning for next year's election. I don't want there to be a formal election committee, but maybe having an election team of some sort wouldn't hurt. I almost started a discussion on the December 2008 election page for this very topic - and, if you look at the top of this page, the first discussions were in January of 2007. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 02:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree about the pre-planning as well.
I'm not thrilled with the fact that the "rules" are that you get better benefit from voting against those who you're not actively supporting (essentially voting oppose on what would normally be a neutral vote). If that's the case, then everyone should do it (and consider what the length of the "discussions" would be then...)
I don't like the idea of approval voting, since this is actually by appointment, and Wikipedians should be able to indicate their distrust.
Time periods: I think it should go something like this:
  • (90 days before the election) notice that the elections are coming up (and solicit help with the elections etc.)
  • (60 days before the election) notice that all those running need to submit their names (and indicate being of age) - Most "rules" for the election should be finalised by the time of this notice.
  • (4 weeks before the election) - Q/A period starts, to last for 3 weeks. - cantidate "blank template" pages would need to be done by this time.
  • (1 week before the election) Q/A is closed, giving time for implementation of the election.
  • The election.
The times are obviously negotiable. I'm also wondering if we should consider the duration of the "voting" as well. - jc37 06:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest a time period between The election notice and the invitation to candidates (90 to 60 days before the election) for users to submit questions for all candidates, in order to prepare a templated question page for all candidates. This reduces redundant questions. Of course, users may submit their own personal questions to an individual candidate during the questions period or during the election process. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 12:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
We can solicit questions during the Notice period. I'd say we open a question page, ask for questions to be submitted, and then users could comment in support of each question or suggest wording adjustments. Any question with X comments in support would be included into a template (Template:ACE08Q, maybe?) or some such, which would be subst'd onto each candidate's questions page. Other questions could then be added by individuals for each candidate, and the Q/A period would be ideal for this purpose, and the additional notice period gives voters ample time to generate a question for any individual candidate. I agree, too, that we should have a hard timeline - maybe I'll put one together based on the above. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


On secret ballots. This was utilised in 2004 as I remember, via something like Special:Boardvote. The outcome was the creation of 'discussion' pages on the candidates. These became, let us say, lively. And deleted. Thence the open ballot in succeeding years, which certainly has its own problems (not least the disenfranchisement of most of the candidates who, as experienced Wikipedians, we would want to have in on the action). Splash - tk 16:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Approval voting is not so hot, imo. This is the kind of position for which some people are emphatically not suited, and it is reasonably important for people to be able to register their view of that. Splash - tk 16:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Questions

I think it might be a good idea to try and create some generic questions that are agreed upon before hand that all candidates should answer (say 10-15?). All other questions after that should be personal. This year, there were a lot of people asking extremely similar questions, and answers often completely overlapped others. Of course, we need to get a full picture of each candidate, but this can be done with far fewer questions than candidates have been asked this year. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I hate to add another ACE-RfA comparison, but there are 3 stock questions that every candidate for admin is asked as part of their nom - this could be similar. Good thing we have a year before the next election, so that we can actually pick the questions. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 23:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion for next year's elections

Do real elections merely entail candidates (or parties) giving statements and members of the public voting during the election? No. In real elections, there are heated debates regarding various issues that the elected candidates are expected to deal with. People also declare their views and try to persuade others to vote for candidates they support.

Perhaps we should simulate this by having a page where the community gets to air their views. Wikipedians could post threads such as:

  • You should/should not vote for Candidate X because...
  • A good arbitrator should be...
  • How will future arbitrators handle Issue Y?

Currently, voters are not allowed to attach lengthy comments to their votes. This proposed page would let candidates, current arbitrators and others know what the community expects of ArbCom. Candidates who are elected will (hopefully) carry out the community's wishes and thus do a better job, while those who are not will gain some useful feedback that will make them better Wikipedians.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh yes, let's please have even more drama, argument, and personal attacks. Nothing makes an election run smoother than vigorous application of the dictum "more heat, less light." Seriously, every vote page has a talk page, and voters are more than welcome to say, "see my comments on the talk page" or to link to a statement of their voting rationale (as I did, plus there is the interminably lengthy "Questions for candidates" and it's talk page. What more do you want. Thatcher131 22:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Interminably lengthy? Surely every single voter has read every single word on every single page? :-) Carcharoth (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
We already have the heated debates. They occur in RfC's, on AN and ANI, in arbitrations, on policy pages, etc, etc. These are real editors with real track records of contributions. Jd2718 (talk) 02:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
Thatcher131, the page you link to is an example of what I hope the proposed page will achieve, on a greater scale. Jd2718, perhaps we should have all the relevant debates on one page. May I remind everyone that Wikipedia is not a democracy and consensus (in this case, consensus on who the best candidates are) should be determined through discussion, not voting. While I hate drama, if a little drama is necessary to improve ArbCom, then I am all for it. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to use a secret ballot. In some countries, the ballot box is clear and the voter must make a big "X" so that people across the room can see how you vote. Voter intimidation and retribution happens in elections around the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrs.EasterBunny (talk • contribs) 17:54, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Voter intimidation in an ArbCom election would get noticed and publicised pretty fast. I think the current process is by far the most effective. Particularly in light of recent events, it's pretty clear that secrecy does not serve to benefit Wikipedia. Manning (talk) 01:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2008

OK, here we go...

I've took the time today to create a rough draft of what the 2008 ArbCom Elections page should look like (before looking at it, please read the rest of my post first.) I've read all the suggestions and criticisms on this and other Elections talk pages and taken them to heart, and basically incorporated and addressed most of them. I admit that not all of the suggestions are incorporated as of the first draft, but they could once discussion gets underway.

The current election process has sparked discussion on how to improve the elections based on disagreements and, in some cases, mistakes. My objective is to get all users actively discussing the future elections here to concentrate their efforts on that draft. Any and all users are welcome to edit it, modify it, discuss it, blank it, stab it, shoot it, or outright delete it, as long as they at least take a look at it.

Much of the instructions were copied from the current election, with some major exceptions:

  • Dates are all in ??, pending discussion on when the elections will actually be held, although times have remained the same.
  • The current sub-page system (one for each statement and another for each vote page) remains relatively unchanged (this may change if a secret ballot system is implemented.)
  • The current open supports and opposes system is considered, although it may change if an approval voting system is implemented.
  • There's a new Planning phase, detailing how the elections will be organized. This is based on concerns that consensus was not adequately achieved. I hope this new phase will address this.
  • There's a new Questions phase, where users will take time to submit questions and candidates will answer them. Many users here have suggested creating this to level the playing field, based on assumptions that users who nominated early got more questions and late nominations received less (I hold no opinion on this, however.)
  • There were suggestions of establishing standard questions to all candidates, similar to the RFA process, so I included it. Users should then decide what questions and how many of them.
  • The Voting phase received much more detail and clarity as to instructions and guidelines.
  • The two most hotly disputed issues of these elections are effectively up in the air: moving extended comments and the 150 mainspace edits requirements. As you can see, I highlighted them to reflect that. The rest of the voting instructions were written as such that they are relevant with or without these requirements.

As for attribution, it's right here on this talk page. The suggestions made by the users above have been incorporated, and once the 2008 Elections main page is created I'll include an attribution statement on the top of the talk page stating this.

Just one last thing, I don't think we should create the 2008 Elections page yet. We do not want to shift everybody's interest from the 2007 elections currently running to a another page. We're still receiving many votes daily and there are still active discussions. Thanks for your time. Regards, - Mtmelendez (Talk) 22:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

This looks very good. I like the idea of communal questions. I strongly oppose approval voting and secret ballots. I also think active candidates should be forbidden from voting. Grandmasterka 03:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't this all wait until the current election is over? There is nothing wrong with people making suggestions based on what they see happening in front of them, and there is nothing wrong with someone compiling them, but it seems to me that the time for discussion and comprehensive proposals is after the election. We have almost a whole year to discuss improvements. 6SJ7 (talk) 04:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The draft was made in order to coordinate such suggestions. Like I said, it's a rough draft and the 2008 Elections page should not be created, at least until January 2008. Users are welcome to read it now, and after the elections and member selection processes are over, we can start discussion again with this draft. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 22:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Voters without suffrage

--uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 19:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Bishzilla is an alternate account for a very well-established user, Bishonen (says so on Bishzilla's user page). Unless Bishonen dual voted on any page, and I highly, highly doubt it, they're legitimate votes. --InkSplotch (talk) 01:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Please also double check Fowler&Fowler, as noted.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
The ampersand in the username wasn't urlencoded. This is the proper link. --bainer (talk) 12:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note that I have only checked the two commented on above; so silence is not consent. Someone should, before these results are submitted to Jimbo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
All of the above votes have either been properly indented, explained as OK above, or were withdrawn by the voter. I've spot checked most of the election pages over this weekend, and I have found no further votes which need indenting. I think we're good. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Apankrat does not appear to have suffrage. [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28]. --JayHenry (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC) My apologies, I counted incorrectly. He has suffrage. --JayHenry (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Another withdrawn candidate?

Vanished user appears to have withdrawn. Could someone confirm this and do the work to remove him? I would but I am not certain that I could do this properly. MookieZ (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the heads up. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 19:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Gurch/Reports/ArbComElections

Hi, just to let you know I very definitely won't be doing this next year.

  • I have simultaneously recieved complaints that the table is updating too often and not often enough. I guess the only way to satisfy you is not to update it at all.
  • I have been woken up in the middle of the night and told the table was not updating when in fact it was working fine, but nobody has voted. I have better things to do.
  • I left my laptop switched on and running for two weeks straight, probably shortening its life significantly, and when I finally have to unplug it for a few hours in order to take it halfway across the country I get an email complaining it's stopped within minutes. Someone with toolserver access can do this from now on.
  • I have been told I couldn't run the bot because it was unapproved to do the task, when it operated last year without any issues.
  • Now that the voting is over someone has taken it upon themeselves to protect the page. I thought this was a wiki, but apparently administrators don't trust me to edit a page in my own userspace to add a note that voting has finished. I suppose I would only fuck things up.
  • An alternative is apparently available which I have been told is "more precise". I guess that's good enough for you.

– Gurch 11:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I used the report of your bot (I preferred it to the alternative), and I had no problems with it. I noticed it did stop a few times, but it came back up again soon. I guess a notice saying it would be offline for a few hours might have helped. From what I see, the bot operated fine - are BAG kicking up a fuss or an individual editor? I also noticed the page protection, which was strange as it is clearly a general report used each year (the previous year's results are, I believe, available in the deleted edits). Did you ask Maxim to unprotect it? I noticed Maxim also protected all the voting pages, and then unprotected them and put them on a watchlist. Clearly Maxim think these sort of pages should be protected at the end of an election, but he should have asked you first about your userspace page, and he should have realised you don't have the tools to edit it once someone has protected it. I guess what I'm saying is that I agree with most of your complaints, and I hope you reconsider and do run the bot again next year. But of course, it's entirely up to you. Carcharoth (talk) 11:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you for putting up with any opposition and sticking it out until the end of the election, your table was helpful.
  • The amount of OMG IT BROWKE's reflect upon quality, as editors began to depend on the table, too much so apparently. Occasionly we have this issue on wiki; everyone becomes so accustomed to something that is only being maintained by one person. There are only 2 ways it can go: Increase the resources maintaining it (per your toolserver suggestion) or getting everyone to lay-off. If you change your mind and decide to do this again, maybe a big "this is the unofficial tally, updated manually: if it is not up to date yet, please see the /Vote page"
  • The protection was not warranted, though I can AGF that it was part of a sweep, using a permalink or copying the final results somewhere would have been more appropriate.
  • I'm on BAG and don't see any operational issues with the bot, did you request this feature addition and were denied, or just ignored the rules and ran out of scope? As your bot is already flagged it shouldn't of really been bothering anyone. If you want to add a general bot task request (e.g. "Update statistics pages in the bot's userspace" at <=10epm) over at WP:RFBOT I'll speedily approve it so you won't have these issues in the future.
  • Again, Thank You.
— xaosflux Talk 13:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm not looking for a solution to these problems, though thanks for offering one. I'm merely explaining why I really don't have time for this, at a time when, as you'll see from my contributions, I am basically inactive, and will be until the end of January at the earliest. I'm letting people know so that anyone who wants to handle this thing next year can do so, and will have some idea of what they can expect – Gurch 13:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


(ec) The protection was preemptive, I fully protected the Election Status template for 15 minutes with cascading protection on all vote pages to make sure all pages are identified as closed. Maxim then fully protected all pages indef, he asked me and I said it wasn't that necessary, but if users object we'll unprotect it. I didn't think it applied to the user reports, however, I respect that as a property of the user. It was a mistake, and I'll be the first to apologize for it.
I agree that your report, Gurch, was incredibly useful. The elections were an important issue these past few weeks, but nothing to generate a fuss over by nagging to you. The fact is, your work was greatly appreciated, even if only a few editors acknowledged it. Many users relied on your up-to-date results as evidenced through talk page discussions and on IRC. Perhaps we can improve the situation next year by adding a disclaimer to that page to calm hyperactive editors and by using the toolserver. Although we're a year away, I hope you'll reconsider. If you need any help, any one of us will pitch in. - Mtmelendez (Talk) 13:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Hmmmm... well, I would be willing to host the script next year. I would mention that I would only turn my computer on for a couple of hours each day (at non-regular intervals) and put a message of "Fuck Off!" on the talkpage with a redirect to the official tally page. At that point (following my desysopping and ejection from the community) perhaps people will appreciate Gurch's efforts. I certainly did. (Truthfully, I hope someone would host it if Gurch would allow them to have the script - someone a little less strident than me, perhaps?) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
For what its worth I found it a most helpful and well functioning tool and used it extensively throughout the election. Sadly, there will always be those that are quick to criticise, but please be aware that there are many, many more that very much appreciate your efforts in running it. Rockpocket
I'd be happy to run either this or a similar script on the toolserver next time around. --bainer (talk) 04:23, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales

Why, exactly, does Jimbo Wales have this anachronistic and outdated power to appoint arbitrators? Why can't the five candidates receiving the greatest support in the election be elected automatically? All other Wiki communities are trusted to govern themselves, and I can't understand why he thinks we need or want his intervention here. I don't recognise his authority in the slightest - he may have founded Wikipedia, but he doesn't own it, fund it, or contribute any substantial part of its content. The only people who have any moral right to control Wikipedia are a) the donors and b) the community, being the people who actually keep the encyclopedia running. Jimbo should abandon any pretence to any sort of authority around here. WaltonOne 13:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The historical basis is that, before the creation of the ArbCom, Jimbo himself would arbitrate disputes. When there were too many disputes to handle fairly or adequately, he formed the ArbCom to take up the task. The committee - in theory - act in Jimbo's place with regard to the cases they review, and exercise his authority. He selects them himself as a result. The election is supposed to give him a view of the community's impressions of the candidates, since the project is too large for him to personally know all of them and form an opinion on that basis (as he did initially). I stand mute on the merits of the process (or any perceived lack thereof), except to note that there are other proposals brought forward annually, and each such proposal would only muddy the waters more. This works, unless consensus indicates otherwise. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Walton One, Jimbo did actually appoint the five candidates with the greatest percentage support from the community so I don't see any cause for complaint there. As to control being handed over to those who donate, well that would open wikipedia to all sorts of abuse if you could simply buy control the way politicians in less advanced democratic countries are bought by their donors.... - Galloglass 14:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
By "less advanced democratic countries" I assume you'd include the United States (et al) where private electoral funding is directly proportionate to electoral success (with subsequent policy decisions overwhelmingly benefitting those donors). Pinkville (talk) 15:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for the ambiguity in my earlier statement - I wasn't suggesting that the donors should have more control than they presently have. Rather, I have consistently argued that Wikipedia should be 100% controlled, democratically, by the community. We're the people who write it and who do all the work, so we have a moral right to govern it. As to the other point, it is immaterial that he appointed the five candidates with the greatest percentage support; the fact is that he could choose not to do so (and indeed, I remember someone discussing that possibility with regard to Giano's candidacy, if Giano had received substantial support in the election). I completely understand the historical background, but I think we should establish as a formal principle that the Arbitrators are elected, not appointed. WaltonOne 18:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the key point. And, in fact, Giano did receive substantial support (behind only Newyorkbrad and Raul654), but (unfortunately) by this electoral system such support counts for little when cancelled out by votes opposing. Pinkville (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Arbcom seats are ultimately seats of trusts to Jimbo and the community. One user could potentially receive 500 supports, but would he/she have the community's trust if 400 people opposed? Would a simple support only system reflect this reality? - Mtmelendez (Talk) 00:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I can't say what system would be better, though current voting systems in the context of Wikipedia seem to me to be hopelessly flawed. In theory, I'd rather some meaningful form of consensus, but it wouldn't be up to me alone to say how it might be implemented or what form it might take. Further discussion required... Pinkville (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy, nor is Wikimedia. It is a privately owned non-profit corporation, which has in its bylaws established various processes and levels of authority that are not subject to democratic change. Like any corporation, there are paid employees and volunteers. Editing Wikipedia is not a right, it is a privilege extended to us by the Foundation and it is revocable. We may do much of the work in creating the content, but that does not transfer ownership of the corporation (like it would not with any other duly constituted corporation). Folks constantly conflate Wikimedia projects with a self-governed community, where styles of governance can be debated and changed. That is not what we've got here, period. Avruchtalk 00:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but much of Wikipedia's self-proclaimed philosophy extolls its supposed democratic nature - the claim could be mistaken, misleading, hopeful, or deceptive. Regardless of the non-democratic/corporate structure you describe, this doesn't mean that efforts to make it (more) democratic are a waste. Pinkville (talk) 01:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for that Avruch, the first really intelligent comment in the thread. Its also clear from the SignPost article that Jimbo has very much takenm on the community viewpoint, and especially re Giano, so his behaviour has actually, IMHO, been worthy of respect and showing of leadership, in contrast to Walton's "I don't recognise his authority in the slightest" approach to Jimbo. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
And thank you for calling my comments non-intelligent SqueakBox, I really appreciate your remarks..... - Galloglass 09:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Let's not get in a huff. SqueakBox referred to "the first really intelligent comment". While we'd all like to think our comments are intelligent, I'd hope that none of us expect our comments to be described as "really intelligent". (Using "really" in the sense of "very", not "actually"). I'm sure it wasn't meant as a dig at anyone, just an appreciation of a good comment. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
I deliberately didn't call anyone's comments non-intelligent, I was merely trying to praise the sensible comment from Avruch. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well no you didn't state it in black and white SqueakBox but the obverse implication was very very clear. - Galloglass 16:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Well if that was how it was perceived I expressed myself badly. Apologies to anyone offended. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:10, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2007/Archive_3&oldid=1140391974"