Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Archive 1

message: Jimbo, WP would not exist without you, and anyone committed to improving the project, or who reads WP owes you a great debt. However, like any project, this one needs to grow and improve without its founder if it is to succeed in the long-term, and therefore it would be better if you stepped back as far as possible from the detail.
There was a lot of bitterness in last year's election, but that did not result in wholly outrageous appointments to ArbCom - indeed, although there were some disagreements, these were accepted. I'm not sure which particular appointments made last year that you find intolerable, personally I see none as being intolerable.
In the meantime, there has arisen some discontent about some of the members of the ArbCom standing for re-election this time (none of which were elected last year). Now, I have no idea what the community view is about those candidates, but it's perfectly reasonably to allow WPians to have their own head on this, and decide whether such discontent is so great as to render that candidate unelectable. 
In short, although last year's process was divisive - it was a growing-up, a process without its founder, which was important to the English Wikipedia. Most WPians who were around from that time wish this year's process to be less bitter, and that in itself will help. Jimbo's proposal is therefore too patrician - let the many WPians who have volunteered hours of their time to make this project a success have a true say. Yes, let's exclude immediately the hopeless candidates, but let the rest run - and I must say that of all the candidates who have nominated themselves so far, none has shown anything other than a genuine commitment to the WP project. I do think that Jimbo's decision is a mistake, and believe the community should override it and proceed as before, jguk 22:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this in response to Jimbo's temporary ArbCom appointments?  --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 09:50, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I believe it is in response to this edit. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:59, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in that case, I feel that User:Jguk is right.  I don't like this move away from election so much.  --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 02:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: On the other hand, it could be worse... much worse.  --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 06:03, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Let's be fair to the community here - it was due to a confusing press release which gave the strong impression Answers.com had paid for text placement on Wikipedia. Jimbo's comments above are similarly vague. Let's hope he clarifies them too. Talrias (t | e | c) 08:26, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Lets hope that this happens with less sophistry than the answer to the Answers.com concerns. Personally, if this is not to be a free election, I will withdraw my candidacy. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:36, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: This is a wise observation, much of which I agree with. However, there's a need to shift responsibility for selecting arbitrators from Jimbo to the community (for the sake of both, in terms of Jimbo's time constraints and the community developing the skills of self-government). The problem is how best to accomplish this. Elections are a natural method for community selection, and have worked reasonably for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees. Some degree of politicization is inevitable, but I think with an appropriate structure it can be minimized. I have some ideas on this that I will present shortly. --Michael Snow 22:51, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You are going to get burnout amoung arbcom members whatever. Jimbo's shift away from day to day running of en.wikipedia is a further reason why this is a bad idea. Recent events has shown that the board has difficulty even comunicateing with the community. How does he know who is going to be able to stand the pressure and make fair judgements?Geni 23:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I already know from one of the recent appointments that he doesn't. Sam Spade 23:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: I just wanted to express my disappointment for the proposed election procedure. Although I appreciate the contribution Jimbo made to this project, the community has also made a tremendous contribution. I sincerely believe the best way for Wikipedia to promote community spirit and ultimately succeed is through free and democratic elections of arbitrators. Make no mistake, the proposed procedure where Jimbo vets candidates is neither free nor democratic. Cedars 12:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also find this development rather disappointing, and the idea that the community be allowed only to approve pre-designated candidates gives me a sinking feeling. I strongly second, in addition, Ilyanep's second point above as well as Filiocht's remarks. The Wikipedia instructions for creating a WP in a new language remark that "the free encyclopedia" means free in the sense of freedom, not in the sense of without payment - is this sort of move really in keeping with that sentiment? All that said, I await elaboration as to what process will emerge. Palmiro | Talk 20:38, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe, unequivocally, that elections should be held by Wp members at periodic intervals to install (with set – twice/annually? – terms) and or remove ArbComm members.  With authority comes responsibility, and votes dually incite and empower Wikipedians: votes will allow for the installation of members who have perhaps demonstrated meritorious service/judgement on Wp and to ensure true accountability if things somehow go awry.  This will also free up Jimbo to participate in areas/issues that legitimately require his input (e.g., creating broad-reaching policy, advocacy, operations, etc.)  Let God worry about the big picture, not the details per se. :)  E Pluribus Anthony 06:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Election procedure

message: please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2005/Straw poll. Radiant_>|< 19:38, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, polls are evil, but, 

message: It sounds like we're lacking Consensus here.  It would seem as though there needs to be more debate on the Elections procedure before things proceed any further. Voyager640 07:44, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ArbCom elections are conducted however Jimbo Wales sees fit to conduct them.  He is not required to seek or obtain consensus for them.  If he waited for consensus to form, there would likely never be an ArbCom election.  Kelly Martin (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Close but technicaly no. It is the the wikimedia foundation who have thoeretical ultimate power here. And you know as well as I do that arcom can't operate without a reasonable level of community support.Geni 10:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I'm not talking about who has power.  I'm talking about generally accepted guidelines for operation of wikipedia.  I don't deny that Jimbo Wales *can* do this.  I just don't think it's a reasonable practice given the way things are generally run on wikipedia. Voyager640 16:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that asking for consensus is a bit too much since we'd never get consensus as Kelly said, however I do think that he went a litle too far on this and I hope that he'll at least clarify and explain why he's doing things this way. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 00:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the above, it's clear that sufficient discussion or input has not occurred, or consensus reached, on any of this.  Patience is a virtue.  Even an RfC of limited time (or similar) would have identified overarching support for elections – or other options – from the Wikipedia community: the above indicated poll has been underway for a bit more than two weeks, garnering far more user input than this discussion and a 3:1 margin throughout supporting ArbComm elections.  Also, none of this precludes Jimbo from exercising his authority and making a decision based (or not) on community input.  It may not be improper that he can do as he sees fit: it's the appearance of impropriety, particularly in light of considerable opposition, that may give Wikipedians pause.  E Pluribus Anthony 00:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In regards to the recent changes