Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Straw poll

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

message: (first line copied, other lines moved from main page) Radiant_>|< 11:41, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evilness

message: 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)
replies: text: Personally I try not to take credit for compelling Jimbo to act. Phil Sandifer 06:06, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: I agree; it would have been better to move the previous poll to a subpage.  ‣ᓛᖁ[ ᑐ] 10:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done!  The prior poll has been archived here.  Enjoy! E Pluribus Anthony 11:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New poll!? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: The only risk with this is finishing up with too few Arbitrators to fill the vacant seats. -Splashtalk 21:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Jimbo's second proposal

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Hold On A Second

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  50% of what? 

message: 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)
replies: text: So what exactly do you propose? Talrias (t | e | c) 19:27, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text:  And you think Jimbo or wikidemocracy knows better than those measures of merit? Sam Spade 22:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Only if the process for selecting admins were overhauled (as it should be). Sam Spade 16:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

text: 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)
replies: text: )) 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)
thread_title:  No more appointees 

message: 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)
thread_title: Timeing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Assumptions