Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Archive 2

< Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006
Latest comment: 19 years ago by Wally in topic FUCK NO
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Candidates commenting on the procedure

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

I appreciate and respect that candidates are reluctant to comment on the election procedure since they have an obvious stake in it but I don't think it's right to exclude so many of our most experienced and most articulate contributors from the discussion :)

So please feel free to comment on this, I doubt anyone will hold it against you. Not that I have any authority here, I'm just describing my personal opinion. - Haukur 16:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

IMHO: I disagree – potential conflict of interest ... and this is not rooted in wikilawyering, WP:IAR, or meta:instruction creep. I or other Wikipedians who may be contentious can withdraw from the discussion too. If anyone, Wp administrators, Board members, or other Wikipedians who are not running candidates should be actively interested in or discussing/resolving these issues. But when does idealism agree with pragmatism? :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Well technicaly I'm an admin who is not running but I think everyone knows my position by now.Geni 16:47, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 :) E Pluribus Anthony 16:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Well, obviously I haven't been reluctant to comment, but I'll also add to what I've already said that I think having comments on the vote pages is a perfectly good thing. We need to be able to manage an atmosphere of intelligent discussion about individual candidates that falls in between tip-toeing around or saying nothing, and thus doing nothing to advance the general understanding (or the candidate's understanding of him/herself), and being uncivil. That means being positive or negative as it is deserved, but without ever going into insults or anything rude. There's this fear of disendorsements, which I think is silly; I would be fine with having that back again. And I'm sure there are people who'd use such a page to flay me alive, but that's fine. When I put myself out there as a candidate, I deliberately expose myself to the flaying. I'm not perfect and I like to hear criticism; moreover I think it's necessary for interested individuals to be able to read the comments and get a better understanding of me and my candidacy. I think that gets you a better outcome, more reflective of the reality. Everyking 05:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
A commendable position but very few people have skin as thick as yours, James. Not everyone could take three arbcom injunctions without missing a beat. Like Sæhrímnir you're flayed today and you're back tomorrow for another flaying :) - Haukur 21:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree: as long as the vote is administered properly and Wikipedians behave, constructive – yet succinct – feedback/commentary should really not be problematic and benefit everyone involved. E Pluribus Anthony 09:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I may be in the minority (and a newbie to boot) but I think there is merit in allowing a vehicle for commentary. Off to the side of the vote page perhaps, and subject to the usual standards of propriety, yes.... but allowed. ++Lar 20:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I still don't like the idea of comments, but if we're going to have them, it may alleviate the problem if a neutral 'crat or board member would invoke WP:RPA on the comments as necessary. Radiant_>|< 21:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree with Radiant but would go one step (or perhaps one and one-half steps) further. I think the instructions should gently nudge the potential commentators by suggesting that voters not feel compelled to explain their votes and asking that they refrain from simply echoing comments that have previously been made by others. Piling on repetitive negative comments seems to me to be destructive, not constructive. -- DS1953 talk 21:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion

Latest comment: 19 years ago23 comments8 people in discussion

How about this: An RFA style election page is created with links to each candidates vote page. These vote pages have spaces for support, oppose and neutral votes. No comments will be added along with the votes but if voters wish they can link the vote to a comment on the candidates statement talk page/candidate vote page or the voters own talk page. Normal WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF apply. Uninvolved Bureaucrats and other admins will administer the process and uninvolved Bureaucrats will validate voters. The process starts Jan 6th and runs for 2 weeks. Candidates with a simple majority are presented to Jimbo for his approval. It seems streamlined enough, allows for comments but won't let them get in the way of the voting space. Maybe it's a little for everyone? Rx StrangeLove 23:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Reasonable, except that (as explained above) there is no such thing as a "neutral" vote (there is such a thing as an "abstention", of course). And I really don't think people should be "linking" their votes anywhere, considering a vote should simply be a signature. I haven't seen anyone here yet who wants comments, people have just pointed out that some people will comment. Comments should be moved out of the voting section, at the least, and personally I'd prefer them removed entirely. And what do you mean by "validating voters"? If you meant sockchecking, let me point out that 'crats can't sockcheck. Radiant_>|< 01:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
By validating voters, I meant making sure they meet the sufferage requirements.
If people will make comments I meant to get them off the voting page, hoping that if there are long threads as a result of comments they won't interfere with the actual voting page, it's not uncommon in RFAs for comments to spawn long threads. I know that support or oppose votes are normally not linked anywhere but it might be better than having comments in-line. There have been several editors who have expressed interest in allowing comments, at least here, but don't get me wrong, I've stated that I think comments would be a bad idea. I just included that part to satisfy those who would like to see them. I'd have no problem not allowing comments. I added the neutral mostly because of the RFA model, again they can go as well.
So, how about ammending this to not allow comments if others agree and no neutral votes? In the interest of settling on a process. Rx StrangeLove 02:34, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo said like RFA. That means comments.Geni 01:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Jimbo said "as much like RFA as reasonable" IIRC. He's also clearly indicated that he is strongly opposed to anything that resembles the disendorsements of last year. I think that means that comments are plain out. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I think if I wanted to spend my time dealing with all this interpritation stuff I would have studied theology. Someone go and anoy Jimbo until we get a more detailed answer.Geni 02:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
As comments are a reasonable facet of the RfA process, and part-and-parcel, Rx's proposal seems a reasonable compromise: Wikipedians can choose or not to make comments in wikispace without things degenerating into a morass for candidates. E Pluribus Anthony 02:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
They had the choice last year, and they failed to make the right one. I see no reason to believe that civility has improved over the past twelve months. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Uninvolved bureaucrats/admins can monitor the election, just as they monitor and (should) enforce the usual norms of behaviour and process in Wp. I'm not as pessimistic: all comments needn't necessarily be negative, and I agree with R. et al. that this shouldn't be much of an issue if administered effectively. E Pluribus Anthony 02:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Admins are not exactly short of things to do (see WP:CP). Past experence suggests it will be an issue. Of course it will be fun to watch from a safe disstance. Say mars orbit.Geni 02:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I hear you; just as well for editors. :) Besides: because this vote is such an important issue, IMO it requires dedicated neutral oversight (e.g., clutch of uninvolved admins, or similar) to ensure propriety.
As for distance: I don't mind being immersed in the mantle – never crusty! – but geosynchronous orbit will allow for pleasant viewing too. :) E Pluribus Anthony 02:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • If people want to chat among themselves regarding various candidates in the ArbCom election, that's great. But there's no reason that the official aspect of the ArbCom election needs to concern itself with the chattering. That's why "neutral" as a vote has to go; that's why disendorsements need to go; that's why the RfA style election page is a bad idea (at least, as an official part of the election process). Keep it as simple as possible. If you support someone vote yes. If you oppose someone vote no. If you're not sure, don't vote. Or flip a coin, or whatever your conscience dictates. If people want to discuss the candidacies, as of course they will, fine, but such discussion should be seen as just that -- discussion, not in any way a formal part of the election process. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 03:14, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't disagree per se, but (given your comments, jpg) how precisely should the ArbCom election/voting pages be "patterned as closely as is reasonable after the RfA process" if not based on the form and function of an RfA vote page, which users can optionally comment on? E Pluribus Anthony 03:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Beats the hell out of me. RfA is a cesspool. This whole idea of challenging people about their votes is ugly (and one of the reasons I don't participate much in RfA). --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Understood. I also agree about nixing the 'neutral' option: this is no time to advertise fence-sitting or imply anything else by voting as such. E Pluribus Anthony 09:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

So, is it fair to say (for now at least) that there's general agreement: An election page with links to each candidates vote page, supports/opposes only. The vote starts on Jan 6th and runs for 2 weeks. Uninvolved bureaucrats enforce suffrage though all the usual behavior rules apply. Candidates with a simple majority are passed over to Jimbo.

It doesn't seem like there's much support for in-line comments, but maybe comments on the statement talk pages would satisfy those who do want them part of the process? Editors can comment on their selections without interfering with the actual vote page. Or maybe someone has another compromise? As people come in and out of the discussion over the holidays we'll get more input, but we should get the general framework nailed down if it's going to start on the 6th. Rx StrangeLove 07:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. If there are no objections (or even little!), IMO you might want to head on over and incorporate whatever's agreeable here into the rules that some of us earlier worked on (and then perhaps copy them to a 'public' wikispace or what-have-you). Arguments notwithstanding, at least such a document could possibly serve as a concise frame of reference (given all the chat above!) for admins and voters alike without being ... excessive. (Oh: a start date of 9 Jan./06 is indicated, but nothing's set in stone.) Do what you will.
And I'm really neither here nor there regarding comments, whether succinctly on the vote page (as with RfA) or alternatively (through wikilink to a voter's page) etc., but little thus far has convinced me that they are unreasonable nor inconsistent with the spirit of Jimbo's fiat. Thanks! E Pluribus Anthony 09:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I may be naive but if we have an open vote I don´t see any half-reasonable candidate getting less than 50% support. If we simply confirm everyone the election is meaningless. - Haukur 16:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Why? If that many people really want to participate in the hard work of arbitration, great! It will decrease the sense that some people have that Wikipedia is run by a cabal; it will spread out the nasty task of working through some of the more contentious RfArs; it will decrease arbitrator burnout. All that's needed is a some sort of tweak to the quorum requirements. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:43, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with H that public discourse during the election will aid in affirming or rejecting candidates who are of varying 'reason' (according to voters, as Wikipedia is noone's mother), but... E Pluribus Anthony 17:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Haukurth is correct. Jimbo has reserved the right to appoint the candidates he prefers (as long as they're not entirely distrusted by the community), instead of the candidates the community prefers. Radiant_>|< 18:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I put together a alternative simplified rule set here along the lines of the suggestions I made above. There's no allowance for commenting in it (on the vote pages themselves), but I know there's some people that would like to see them included. If people feel strongly about it maybe a middle ground would be to allow linking from a vote to a comment on the statement talk pages or elsewhere. This is a result of my reading of comments above and some of the rules E Pluribus Anthony had put in place last week. Please add/change as you see fit and as you see consensus here (or if I missed something) Rx StrangeLove 05:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitrator Numbers

Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

jpgordon∇∆∇∆ wrote:

If that many people really want to participate in the hard work of arbitration, great! It will decrease the sense that some people have that Wikipedia is run by a cabal; it will spread out the nasty task of working through some of the more contentious RfArs; it will decrease arbitrator burnout. All that's needed is a some sort of tweak to the quorum requirements.

I totally agree with this - we should have more arbitrators to spread out the work the current group is doing. We could use a random number generator to assign arbitrators to each request and a majority of those randomly assigned must accept to have a case. In addition to the advantages jpgordon points out, we the current arbitrators would have more time to write article. Does anyone see disadvangates to expanding the number of arbitrators? Trödel•talk 16:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with H that public discourse during the election will aid in affirming or rejecting candidates who are of varying 'reason' (according to voters, as Wikipedia is noone's mother), but I agree with jpg here regarding Arb numbers.
However, I think we are getting off topic – let's first resolve the electoral process and get the election underway! After that, we can get a lay of the land. Besides: Jimbo has indicated he will pick Arbitrators (either his candidate nominations or self-nominations/community approvals) from the pool of those who've garnered majority support in the election (methinks). Perhaps the quorum requirement can be revisited after the election? My two cents. E Pluribus Anthony 17:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I, too, would be very happy with having lots and lots of arbitrators. What I am not excited about is the hypothetical case where lots and lots of candidates pass the 50% bar and Jimbo only picks a handful of those to serve.

As for interpreting Jimbo's words here is my go: The closest reasonable thing to an RFA-style vote is last-year's procedure. - Haukur 21:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Understood. As the hybrid voting approach selected by Jimbo, we have no choice but to run that potential gamut. As well, I think R and DS have arrived at a solution above (at least to me) that sufficiently and reasonably harks of the RfA process and Jimbo's fiat herein while maintaining openness, but addresses the potential "ugliness" – or 'beauty', depending on who beholds it – of commentary. All that this now requires, methinks, is effective administration by a dedicated neutral body/bodies/'crat ... E Pluribus Anthony 21:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
You're clearly doing your best and trying to move forward, I appreciate that. I've basically said my piece and I hope this turns out for the best. - Haukur 21:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, and likewise! I think I've said enough too. (ha!) I think to really move forward: we need to incorporate consensus notions into the (succinct) rules (for everyone's reference/sanity ... or devise a new bunch, or whatever), and have one or few neutral bodies lead this venture, organise it, and act impartially. These are beyond my purview. Merci!  :) E Pluribus Anthony 22:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
We the idea of increaseing arbcom size has been disscussed. It failed to gain consensus.Geni 21:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
Interesting; perhaps for another time, then ... after all: this year's process is unique, will have unique results, and Wp is dynamic. E Pluribus Anthony 22:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ability to discuss the candidates

Latest comment: 19 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Where are we supposed to comment on the candidates? The current candidate pages are for questions, and I see that in some cases people have phrased their comments as leading questions to put them there. But where are actual comments (as in, "here's why I think you should/shouldn't vote for candidate X") supposed to go? Also on that page? Some other page? The Village Pump? (that last one hopefully isn't the answer)

Also, if we're modeling this process on RfA (despite all common sense that votes should be anonymous), why shouldn't we be allowed to give comments in the votes, like RfA? Non-anonymous votes that are a bare "yes" or "no" are the worst of both worlds. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 20:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh Good grief, this isn't going to be open voting is it? If so I'll probably have to withdraw... Sam Spade 20:51, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm kinda vacillating on the same point. But I realized a moment ago that, given the abuse arbitrators (not to mention admins) already take, if a candidate can't handle open voting, then they won't be able to handle the treatment they'll receive as an arbitrator. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Skrew the candidates, its my voters I'm worried about! At least one wikipedian was driven off for having endorsed me last year. Sam Spade 23:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
That sort of thing was one of the primary problems last year. Hopefully everyone has enough good sense as to prevent the production of a disendorsements (or endorsements) page. Outside of that, you can discuss what you want, where you want, within reason (being sure not to violate WP:POLICY and so forth). Sam Spade 20:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • A disendorsements page was created and speedily deleted. I will personally delete any such page on grounds of the CSD for attack pages. That said, if you must comment on a candidate, I suppose you can use the talk page of the relevant candicacy. But please keep it civil. Maybe we should have a neutral party strictly enforce WP:RPA on those pages. Radiant_>|< 21:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Is it an attack to give an opinion that someone shouldn't be an arbitrator? Being an arbitrator seems to me to be a bigger deal than being an admin, and admin candidates have to grin and bear it when their every move is being scrutinized on RfA. People shouldn't be expected to vote just based on the candidate's own statement - they should be able to see others' objections as well. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 22:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
If you can make a personal-attack-free comment on the talk page of the candidate statement, I'd imagine that would be acceptable. [[Sam Korn]] 22:03, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Maybe. But there's a huge slippery slope there. As a pure hypothetical, with no basis in reality: Sam Spade and I might think the other is a blatant "POV-pushers", and we also might think that being a "POV-pusher" is a disqualifying condition for abitrator candidates. Me, I think being called a "POV-pusher" is a personal attack. Sam, on the other hand, might think calling someone a "POV-pusher" is a simple statement of facts. Who is right? Further, I see very little in contemporary political discourse -- of which Wikipedia, for better or worse, is a microcosm -- that indicates that people are capable of distinguishing between political rhetoric and personal attacks. Just watching RfA on even slightly controversial candidates shows how nasty it can get. Still, I guess Sam Korn's solution -- using the talk page of the candidate statement -- would be the right place for such things, since they are going to happen. But the likelihood of any agreement regarding what constitutes a personal attack in this context is exceedingly low. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 22:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to weigh in, but consistent with Jimbo's prior fiat and RfAdmin, the rule on the project page that was edited by Jimbo reads as follows (emphasis added ):
To prevent "disendorsements", voters are requested to not add extensive comments to their votes; such comments may be moved to the talk page by an uninvolved party. They are, of course, free to ask questions of the candidates.
Remember: questions have already been posed to candidates and I don't foresee anything else that can't possibly be addressed in that venue, if not already. If voter or candidate comments are neither brief nor consistent with Wp norms of behaviour (see above for prior instances of someone being called to account), non-involved admins et al. would be obligated to displace them; if things run further amok, admins need to step in. E Pluribus Anthony 23:32, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
People are rarely capable of determining if statements critical of them are attacks, I assure you. That said, I have had some very stern dialogue on Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Candidate_statements/Sam_Spade, at least one example of which lead to an endorsement. I say we do the obvious: allow people to ask questions on the candidates discussion pages, and delete personal attacks if such is needed. IMO candidates should prob. not delete the personal attacks themselves. Sam Spade 23:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Open vote, RFA style

Latest comment: 19 years ago26 comments6 people in discussion

This is an insanely bad idea, and needs to be changed promptly. Open voting is already a problem on RFA's, causing alot of bad blood. Can you imagine how much worse last years vote would have been had it been open? As it was one of the candidates stepped down based on the flak he got. Lets not open up the pandora's box of cliquism and personal attacks. Force people to research the candate, rather than simply vote for the same people their friends do! I oppose an open vote in the strongest possible terms. Sam Spade 00:41, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Au contraire. I reiterate that everyone should already be conducting themselves properly: to do otherwise obviates any assumption of good faith. Given the openness and five pillars of Wikipedia, arguably Pandora's box has already been opened: if the RfAdmin process needs to be changed (and I don't see a groundswell for that), fine; until then, the ArbComm process shall be modelled on it and as per Jimbo's fiat (and in rather short order).
Mind you, I don't totally disagree with you: questions should continue to be asked (as before), but comments that are not extensive (e.g., brief one-sentence expansion) can accompany votes. Anything else can and should be moved to the talk page by involved persons/admins, or deleted (NPA), ... and definitely not by any candidates. E Pluribus Anthony 00:50, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

What I see happening is what happened last year, when one of our best candidates was chased off for having endorsed me. Thats the sort of thing we can expect from open voting. Sam Spade 01:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

C'est la vie; as I've said, any improprieties this year should be acted on or punishable through the usual mechansims in Wp. And if I were to interpret your statement and cited situation objectively, SS: best is rather subjective (and arguable, since SK's withdrawal belies endurance or fortitude (which I would expect an Arbitrator to be capable of, in the least)), other factors apparently figured into SK's withdrawal, and all of this is part-and-parcel of the politics (yes, grudgingly) inherent in any election or selection process. E Pluribus Anthony 01:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Then you had better contact Jimbo Wales directly because I can't see any other way of getting things changed.Geni 01:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
And let's remember: Jimbo has already edited the rules posted on the project page, so – effectively – he's assented them. E Pluribus Anthony 01:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Sam Spade 01:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Great! If and until he weighs in again ... E Pluribus Anthony 01:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Another problem

Another problem with having a vote without a secret ballot is that people will largely fail to vote on many of the 44 candidates voting pages. That means that a complete unknown might recieve 100% approval... from only 2 or 3 votes! Its clearly unfair to vote against people we know nothing about, and yet who will go thru and research all 44 of these people? All of this can be solved by a secret ballot (similar to last years voting method). Sam Spade 02:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

This might be a problem to some, but not necessarily to others. A secret ballot doesn't necessarily guarantee fairness or completeness nor is it a panacea. Voters should do what they need to to make an informed decision, but they don't have to: any Wikipedian (as per suffrage) who registered in September or before can vote, and who's to say for example that a vote of omission is nothing but a conscious choice to not vote for a candidate (e.g., abstention), or that a vote either way is not a reasoned one? Irrelevant, I think. Further to that, we should refrain from making unnecessary assumptions: Jimbo has indicated he will be selecting candidates based on overall support and (with that) an expectation to not advance a candidate with (say) just 1 positive vote. Lastly, I think we're treading over old ground. E Pluribus Anthony 02:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with EPA. It is highly unlikely that any candidate would pass with three votes, and exceedingly unlikely that Jimbo would actually instate such. Also note that a closed ballot would not actually fix this perceived problem. Radiant_>|< 18:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

A closed ballot would make it easier for voters to focus on the positive, not feeling obligated to find reasons to vote against the lesser known candidates. Sam Spade 03:28, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

And who's to say that voters shouldn't focus on anything else or to vote based on any criteria, including experience or even popularity? Chacun a son goût. Furthermore as Jimbo indicated to you, SS, RfAdmin votes aren't 'animous' overall and that any such behaviours will be self-evident herein. So, until he states otherwise ... E Pluribus Anthony 04:52, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is that an open vote is inherently unfit for selection of individuals to a prominent, influential post in any system. Which is why there is no reputable election system in the world that uses it. -Splashtalk 01:29, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. There are reasons for real-world political votes being secret that do not (or hsould not) apply here. Friday (talk) 01:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't care about should not. I know they do. The slight uncertianty about exactly where people stand is a useful way of allowing people to work together. It also reduces the number of people takeing rash action.Geni 01:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Checks and balances: everyone participates openly, everyone monitors, neutral parties administrate. If any Wikipedian – John Q. Wiki, Arbitrator, or Administrator – is unwilling or unable to act within the usual norms of Wikiquette, they should refrain from doing so or be held accountable by the community. E Pluribus Anthony 02:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You have completely failed to address my point.Geni 09:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, F; this is getting rather circuitous. As Jimbo has sanctioned an open process modelled closely on RfAdmin, fit or unfit (which is subjective), our course of action is clear. E Pluribus Anthony 01:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
No really. It would hardly be the first time jimbo has been overuled by the community.Geni 01:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Conversely, there's no reason to forego Jimbo's fiat and supplant it with something that's arguably more subjective or problematic. Again, we're treading old ground unnecessarily: dissent was expressed in the lead up to Jimbo's selection and he, nevertheless, has promulgated a conciliatory approach. So until he states otherwise, frankly, Wikipedians should respect his decision, set their differences aside, and do what's necessary to make it work. E Pluribus Anthony 02:01, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
What is necessary to make it work is to change it. I might even be bold and write the correct proposal up. All the praying language used above about hearts of gold and how everyone is absolutely angelic is, frankly, naive. People remember, people forecast. People will reach different judgements about their personal votes if it is open process than if it is a secret one, and they will fail to oppose people they would otherwise oppose on those grounds. Thus, each candidates vote is not truly representative and has little validity. Another edit summary or message contain "au contraire" doens't change that. -Splashtalk 02:38, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
IMO, nor does circuitous and subjective argumentation. I'll reiterate it because it's apt — au contraire. Based on Jimbo's fiat, we've already discussed and drafted rules that Jimbo has edited and effectively sanctioned. Others should implement and administrate, not succumb to paralysis. Go ahead and do what you must, but unless there's support for it, I'll support what Jimbo has indicated and will hereafter withdraw from this discussion thread. E Pluribus Anthony 02:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

If I'm to be told that I'm best ignored, then let me absolutely clear: the idea of an open-vote came about by magic, no alternative has been admitted any quarter-way decent discussion, and we have finished up with the most collosally wrong way to do it. -Splashtalk 03:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

definitely, and snappy combacks and forced usage of french is not helping us solve the problem. Whats the point of a talk page if all it is used for is to discourage communication? Sam Spade 09:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Solve the problem in 2/3 days? Not posible any more. Just sit back watch. It may be ammuseing from a completely disspashinate POV.Geni 09:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, please recall that extensive discussions concerning these 'problems' (arguably) has already occurred. As for forced usage of French et al.: Jimbo has already indicated a course of action, based on input to date, so arguably the reiteration of notions counter to his fiat – and in English – have been the true hindrance here. We need to move forward, and IMO this discussion thread is getting circuitous and counter-productive. Others can feel free to continue it, but unless there's something anew, I'm simply indicating that I've nothing more to say regarding this.

Administrating the elections

Latest comment: 19 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

Furthermore, some Wikipedians (e.g., uninvolved admins or similar) really need to take charge of this and get things going. E Pluribus Anthony 09:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I can throw the voteing page together inside half an hour. I'll try and get it done by the end of today.Geni 12:26, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Great! Recall that a provisional template has already been created, and it probably just needs to be refined. The only noticeable change from RfAdmin (other than the obvious) is the use of a table to log votes alongside one another Y next to N, instead of Y/N down. Once this is finalised, we merely need to copy and configure the pages for each candidate.
Moreover, I've solicited new admin Nightstallion and bureaucrat Cecropia, both previously uninvolved (I think) in these discussions, to assist and/or administrate. (I am neither in a position nor have more time to lead this venture, but will assist, if necessary.) Ns has agreed to assist, still awaiting feedback from C. Unfortunately, board member Anthere hasn't provided any input yet. Ah well. :( Any ideas? E Pluribus Anthony 12:40, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
For technical reasons that provisional template is not really practical. I also do no want to use sub pages of sub pages. Still here goes.Geni 12:50, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I think the initial intent was to transclude the relevant pages/sections and to give form to it: it's at least a place to start. But whatever works. E Pluribus Anthony 12:53, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You can't transclude. I'd like to make it posible for people on dialup to vote.Geni 13:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, OK; whatever works ... E Pluribus Anthony 13:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
fisrt page complete Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 Vote/Vote Ajwebb. I'll sort out the rest when wikipedia stops falling over.

Hi! I'm here. What can I help with? —Nightstallion (?) 14:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Preventing any of the candidates killing each other. Keep an eye on what I'm doing with the organisation and make sure I don't do anything terminaly stupid.Geni 20:07, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll try. If you need help with something in specific, drop me a line. —Nightstallion (?) 19:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo should administer this himself, the whole thing was his (rather half-baked, imo) idea, and deal with all the <expletive> it's going to generate. I can't imagine why any right-minded editor would volunteer to referee the <expletive>storm that's about to break. -Splashtalk 14:25, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Pardon your French, pardon my French! :) If this is a solution, I choose half-baked door #2 or even WTF door #3 to SNAFU door #1. Ns has offered to assist (TY!); others admins should too. I'd deal with it but have neither the authority (mere plebe) nor the time to do it, etc., but I'll gladly assist if needed. E Pluribus Anthony 14:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Are there things that are needful that non admin editors could help with? And would it be a conflict of interest to help and also to express an opinion about candidates (I've already expressed such opinions, at least in notes to myself which are not publicly linked but which could be found by assidious seekers) ++Lar: t/c 19:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see the only intervention that might occur during the election is removing extensive comments or comments that violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA and that can be done by any uninvolved party. I think we've been using the term uninvolved party as anyone not running in the election so that leaves it pretty wide open. Votes that don't meet the sufferage requirement won't be counted but there's no provision for removing them. I'd like to see a last minute change in the rules to disallow comments, but I wouldn't get very far with that I'm afraid. Rx StrangeLove 19:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Remember, L: given all the above, I'm not an admin either. I'm sure you can help somehow, but can't articulate precisely how just yet. As well, I'm not leading this charge: Geni is in the process of configuring candidate pages, I've suggested some tweaks for, methinks, everyone's ease. To anyone interested, I'd imagine that this requires completion first; once that's all in place, I agree with DrS think all that is needed is to monitor the 44? candidate pages for propriety for two weeks ... and that is likely best accomplished through/by non-involved admins who can and should enforce Wp norms of behaviour. My two cents.
And yes, DrS: Jimbo specifically edited the rules to prohibit only extensive comments being added to votes, not all comments, etc. Thus, perhaps such a provision should be something like: an uninvolved admin/party may move or remove a comment if they deem it to reasonably contravene Wikipedia's five pillars. If not, it will merely be up to noninvolved parties to do so at their utter discretion.
Or perhaps I really need a firm hand? :) E Pluribus Anthony 20:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
You can't contravene 5P, it's not policy. Neither is RPA. Tread carefully. -Splashtalk 20:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I cited 5P merely as an example and starting point – uptop of the 5P project page is the catch-all: "all of Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines are based on five unchangeable pillars that define Wikipedia's character..." Hell: replace 5P with Policies and guidelines (list) or similar. Whatever works. Suggestions? E Pluribus Anthony 20:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Disadvantages of open elections

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

An open election here is not appropriate for all the usual reasons that open elections are not appropriate. They force voters to ask themselves questions like these:

  • Should I dare to vote against this influential member of the community? Will she hold a vendetta against me?
  • I want to run for admin in a couple of months. Which will better help my chances there - voting according to my conscience and opposing a lot of people who I don't think will do a good job or just supporting most everyone with some nice comments?
  • This influential member of the community sure would be a useful ally to have. I'm not sure how good he'll be for the ArbCom but shouldn't I just vote for him anyway?
  • This good friend of mine is running for the ArbCom. I really like her but I don't think she has the diplomatic skills for the job. Do I vote against her and risk our friendship?
  • etc. etc. etc.

In a closed vote people simply ask themselves the question: "Which people would I most like to see in office?" That's not a perfect question but it is generally considered superior to the ones above.

"But Haukur", you may say, "we routinely hold votes for admin candidates like this and it seems to work fine". Okay, maybe it works well enough there. But that's a completely different kind of election. People running for admin are not competing against each other as the number of admins isn't fixed. Voting against one admin candidate doesn't help another admin candidate one whit. This is very different from the ArbCom election.

But if there is absolutely no way we can avoid using this system by now I will still participate in the elections. I will do so politely, in good faith and with the goal of electing the best ArbCom we can get. - Haukur 12:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I fully agree with the above. This is a very poor idea. DES (talk) 19:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I also agree, but based on Jimbo's statement, we'll have to wait for next time. Its even more important that we reform RfA, btw. Sam Spade 06:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Latest comment: 19 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

Are we going to be voting by editing the text and typing in something like "I vote for Chewbaca DyslexicEditor 19:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)" like votes for deletion. Will voters be able to do this and then make comments on who they voted for or didn't like "I vote against this person, they are a creep and look at this terrible edit they made, sure they regret it now but the shame will haunt them forever". Or "I think half these people running are the same person using multiple accounts. Let me give names and show how they all edit the same way." I imagine these kinds of things will happen. Wow, there are countless editors. I imagine this would make crazy edit conflicts. Or is there going to be some web system where we choose an option button? Second, are all the people running currently admins or higher? Or can anyone who feels like it run? This really is a needs a FAQ kind of thing? Sorry for being a newb. DyslexicEditor 19:23, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we'll be voting by editing the text and adding our signatures. There's nothing stopping us from leaving comments (obviously), but if they contain personal attacks or other generally hostile messages a neutral party will probably trim them down or remove the comment.
Anyone who wishes to become an arbitrator may stand as a candidate, there is no requirement for being an admin. Admins and arbitrators have completely different tasks, so I don't see how a requirement would make sense. Hope this helps, Talrias (t | e | c) 19:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact, someone without a userpage is now in there. Dunno what'll happen. Not sure if I agree with the system we're using ,because it looks like we'll have problems. Why not do something like last year's elections but modify it so that jimbo can see candidates with 50%+ support? —Ilyanep (Talk) 21:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
As per votes for administrators, Wikipedians can indicate their vote in one of two sections: YES / NO. As per the procedure, which Jimbo has edited, extensive comments should not accompany or be made with a vote – only brief ones, if any – and comments may be moved to the talk page. E Pluribus Anthony 22:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Because all such suggestions that have been made have been summarily dismissed since Jimbo's rather unhelpful proclamation. -Splashtalk 22:11, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
We are stuck with the jimbo system since it is a little late to change it.Geni 22:19, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, approach the 'anon'/user page in a few ways:
  • (1) determine if they've been around before 30 Sep./05; if not, a neutral admin should nix them from candidacy
  • (2) retain and trust that the community and Jimbo will ID this when voting; this is something a closed vote wouldn't at all solve.
Yes: we're stuck with it. And the suggestions haven't been dismissed: support and dissent has been thoroughly discussed already – IMO, at this juncture, needless repetition and rehashing should be. Whether Wikipedians agree or disagree: read the litany against fear and let's just get on with it. E Pluribus Anthony 22:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
You missed (3) I lose them in the paperwork.Geni 00:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Ha! E Pluribus Anthony 00:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
Where did the "stuck with it" notion arise from? We can delay the election as long as we like, the ArbCom are handling the crisis admirably. If Jimbo wants a date, he can set one. Choosing one will approximately double the time he has spent on this so far. -Splashtalk 23:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
Geni brought it up; I merely reiterated it but don't necessarily agree with the sentiment.
And why should we delay? Misgivings? When Jimbo edited the rules, he didn't touch the dates indicated, so (in effect) he's already set the timeframe. Moreover, the boiler plates (at least in my watchlist) are actively advertising the dates now. E Pluribus Anthony 23:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
We should delay because it is completely and utterly the wrong way to do it. Honestly: not saying "no" is a pretty weak form of agreement. -Splashtalk 00:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I stood against this every inch of the way. However in order to oppose an edict from Jimbo you need numbers and people with serious reputations. I had very little of either to work with. The dabate for this year is over. The election will take place as Jimbo ruled. It would have started jan 1st if it wasn't for the uni holidays. To do things at the 11th hour is one thing. To do them when the 12th has passed is another. Our energy is best spent now on damage limitation and makeing sure there is an election (remember jimbo just wanted to apoint people without an election). You think you can change the system? You know where Jimbo's talk page is.Geni 00:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
In your opinion. Honestly: repeatedly saying "no" despite everything beforehand impedes any progress. E Pluribus Anthony 00:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
We've already been delayed over a month. The time for any debate was before I went and anounced the election on every watchlist on wikipedia. The debate is over. We lost. All we can do now is try and make things go as smothly as posible and make sure that any damage it does is kept to a mininum.Geni 00:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I do wholeheartedly agree with this sentiment. E Pluribus Anthony 00:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you understand it.Geni 00:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I believe I do, but please elaborate or clarify if necessary. E Pluribus Anthony 00:58, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Voting against candidates; retaliation?

Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

If I vote against a candidate who later wins, is there some kind of procedure where if I'm involved in an ArbCom that person can not participate? Not that I expect to be involved in an ArbCom -- I'm just wondering how a non-secret vote can protect against this? Sdedeo (tips) 02:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think it would reflect poorly on an arbitrator if they picked on you purely because you voted oppose to them in the elections. I don't think this should be grounds for recusal (otherwise, troublemakers could simply vote oppose to everyone), and if an arbitrator's only contact with you is this election, I don't think there's anything to worry about. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It certaintly would reflect poorly! But presumably the person voting against a candidate believes s/he is likely to behave poorly? I'm not sure if it is something to worry about, but it seems to me a deep flaw in the system. Surely someone can hack together a way to make votes secret and open only to registered users with a pre-election edit history and so forth. Sdedeo (tips) 02:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
In fact a system you mention does exist, it was used for the Wikimedia Foundation board elections a few months ago. Jimbo Wales decided to run this election by a similar process to WP:RFA - see the rest of this talk page for more discussion on this. Well, voting against a candidate because they would behave poorly is certainly one reason to vote in opposition, I am optimistic that any candidate who would have a vendetta against anyone who voted against them would not be elected to become an arbitrator, but of course there are other reasons to oppose also, for example, a percieved lack of experience. Talrias (t | e | c) 02:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Interesting! Thanks. Haven't read this gigantic talk page! Sdedeo (tips) 02:39, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

slight alteration to the rules needed

Latest comment: 19 years ago22 comments7 people in discussion

Any Wikipedian can vote providing they registered for a user account on English Wikipedia on or before 30 September 2005 and X edits. Anonymous votes shall be summarily removed, and sock puppetry will be investigated and punishable through administrative sanctions.

X being between 100 and 500 If we don't do this we have the issue of people complaining that other people are not part of the community. I suggest x=150 since that means 50 edits a months for someone registered on the 30th which seems reasonable.Geni 21:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't think that that's needed. The previous standard was used in the past elections, and there wasn't a problem with it. If there's a problem this time, we can change it for next time. Also, it's kind of late to be modifying rules after we've announced them. We shouldn't do that unless absolutely necessary. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
The board vote required you to have 500 edits.Geni 22:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
If we're changing the rules now, then I've got a couple to ad... -Splashtalk 22:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we'd be better off not changing the rules at this point, once we start where do we stop? Rx StrangeLove 22:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

the point is that this one can be changed with very little effort. It would really just be clearing up an anomily.Geni 23:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a relatively trivial issue either way, sure let's say 150 edits are required - that sounds like common sense. It's not like those rules came about through some massive bureaucratic procedure anyhow :) - Haukur 23:12, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, though I'm not allowing myself to say this. [[Sam Korn]] 23:16, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the change, but not necessarily with the notion. At this juncture, it's not needed. This rule hasn't garnered a modicum of support nor has it been derived through massive 'bureaucracy'. As well, Jimbo didn't edit this in and, thus, it's as arbitrary as any other proposed change. The 30 Sep./05 should suffice. E Pluribus Anthony 00:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

yep it is arbitrary. So what? The question is is it right or wrong. I know there are a lot of trolls who will have accounts that old but will be nixed by the the 150 edit requirement. We exclude praticicaly no one but we do gain a degree of safety.Geni 01:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
As I said, it worked last time; why shouldn't it work this time? If it doesn't, I'm sure Jimbo will realize that some votes shouldn't be counted as heavily as others, and then we can fix it for next time. We've already announced the rules; it's kind of late to modify them. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 01:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Last time was boardvote and we had a 500 edit minium.Geni 01:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree, F.: admins can deal with the trolls in the usual way, regardless of edit count. This isn't a facet of RfAdmin, is it? And right or wrong are subjective: without any diligence, this limit won't prevent trolls who have made far more edits but have yet gone unnoticed and it may penalise newbies who haven't made a substantial number of edits yet but regd before Oct. E Pluribus Anthony 01:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
the usual way? plug any cracks we can find then wack those that manage to sneak through? I think you will find that is what I'm doing. Frankly when it comes to electing arbcom I don't care that much what "newbies who haven't made a substantial number of edits" think. The odds are they haven't spent enough time here to know what to look for in an arbcom member.Geni 01:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
For every argument, there's a counter-argument. And, as I said, I don't disagree with the notion ... but now isn't the time: during this rockslide, it's too late for the pebbles to vote. E Pluribus Anthony 02:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
No isn't the time is not a vaild argument in this case. I am quite caperble of changeing the rules by myself. Now do you have any valid arguments against the change?Geni 02:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Valid counter-arguments have already been posed and I'm not alone in doing so. We've already been over this. Importantly: you will also note that the passage/alteration above (though rooted in discussions) isn't actually cited in Jimbo's summary of and edit to the rules, so this is rather willful.
Of course you're capable, but is it justified? Arguably not. E Pluribus Anthony 02:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry which counter arguments have I not shown to be flawed?Geni 02:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
And yours are not? They're rooted in a faulty premise and are arbitrary. Others can address this hereafter; I won't. E Pluribus Anthony 02:33, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Argument by assertion logical fallacy.Geni 02:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
As the proposed alteration is rooted in a faulty assertion – that it's based on a non-existent rule, which is arguably ignored – who's being fallacious here? The proposal should be dismissed as such. E Pluribus Anthony 02:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It is not based on a rule. It is based on doing the right thing. Standard cost beinifit analysis. What do we lose by puting in a 150 minium edit requirment? What do we gain?. We lose maybe a couple on votes from people with 149 edits but who have for some reason have a magical flash of insite that allows them to understand the ideal reqirements for arbcom membership. We gain a reduced number of sleeping trolles and a garentee that people have at least some stake in wikipedia.Geni 03:18, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

FUCK NO

Latest comment: 19 years ago16 comments9 people in discussion

I feel that there are times to be polite, and times when it is wiser to just say FUCK NO, with no apologies, and no holding back.

It seems that the people working to design this year's arbcom election procedure have gone and explicitly included every possible method they could think of to make the arbitration committee elections utterly and completly fail, and cause a year of painful precedents for the rest of the wiki.

Is this some secret plan to cut off our nose to spite our face, and I haven't read the memo?

I suggest we re-write these plans damn fast. Especially if this election is to be held on january 9.

Kim Bruning 03:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You have the mistaken assumption that anyone actually designed this procedure! My sense of AGF tells me that no one could have possibly come up with such a terrible method. ;) Talrias (t | e | c) 03:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
You have 20.5 hours to find a steward or developer who is prepared to give jimbo the middle finger.Geni 03:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I would say having a closed election and just handing over the candidates with 50% support to Jimbo would be better, but apparantly we're very suicidal. I don't know if I want to be voting in such a system, nor do many other people. —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Kim Bruning, that deserves a barnstar. How many sensibly minded people does it take for people reading this talk page, which damn well ought to include Jimbo, to realise the catastrophe they are advocating? Delay the elections two weeks. Do this properly. Tell Jimbo he's wrong when he's wrong, and have the devs switch on a secret vote. -Splashtalk 03:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Why now? Where were you when I tried to stop this the first time around? Ok forget that. Just answer this question honestly. Do you really think you can get jimbo to change his mind? Do you really think you can do it in a reasonable timeframe.Geni 03:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
ɸ ʃ ɐ ɶ ɑ ɒ I give up —Ilyanep (Talk) 03:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Jimbo wants an open vote. I think I understand why. Let us proceed. Kelly Martin (talk) 03:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, let's proceed since that's what we appear to have gotten ourselves into, but I'm sure that the 2004 election will [pail/pale/pael/paeeeeeel] pale I think (english sucks) in comparison to what this will be. I'll continue to be open-minded anyways, I suppose. —Ilyanep (Talk) 04:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I was, I presume, far away from all Arbitration issues as I generally try to be. That was clearly a mistake on some counts and an excellent decision on others. I can edit the project page right now, if you like, but I don't suppose Jimbo is likely to respond on a Sunday to a last minute plea for a stay of execution. That doesn't mean that I can't carry on being pretty open about how wrong it is. -Splashtalk 03:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Kim. By having an open vote we're backsliding over a century. It's one of the few features of the nineteenth century electoral system that I won't even try to defend (and that's saying a lot). I think we've got to ban commenting on the voting pages. You sign and that's it. Mackensen (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I like that idea. --King of All the Franks 05:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't really think that that's a good idea. Kim Bruning 05:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


I just think that it would save us a lot of drama and ill will. --King of All the Franks 05:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


I'm dropping my opposition for now. I was among several people standing by last autumn-ish, but we were not to interfere, or something. I'm confused. Apparently there's something I don't know. <retreats in disarray> Kim Bruning 05:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, at the risk of reopening a wound. Not only was this voting process grueling (ballot fatigue, anyone?) but it completely backs off of the progress made in political science in the past, oh, century or so.
By the way, one must love ex-Arbitrator Martin's: "Jimbo wants an open vote. I think I understand why. Let us proceed." As Kim said I guess there's some X factor here. I would assume that it's Jimbo trying to exhaust us so he doesn't need to have an election to anything ever again. Wally 07:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006 Vote

Latest comment: 19 years ago57 comments14 people in discussion

Needs proof reading and doesn't have a vote here button on the support or oppose pages. I'll get to that when I've had some sleep.Geni 04:13, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

You absolutely must use transcluded subpages for each candidate; otherwise, the page will get so incredibly long (remember, 100+ votes for each of 60+ candidates) that it will be uneditable. Kelly Martin (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
transcluding will produce a page in the megabites very fast. The voteing pages are linked to but I'm not going to risk transcluding them. Or in other words read instruction number 3.Geni 04:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I misread the formatting of the page. Ignore my comments. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 04:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Why not make a table/list at the beginning for those of us who've read the statements? Have the table have 3 comments: username, Support link, oppose link. —Ilyanep (Talk) 04:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

And yes it is possible to have a Support and Oppose link seperately (although the above two links don't point to real subpages). —Ilyanep (Talk) 04:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This makes sense: I tried as much over here. E Pluribus Anthony 04:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW, someone has to explain to me how tables work in wikimarkup. —Ilyanep (Talk) 04:48, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I'll try to code a table to do that right now. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 05:17, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
It took about 2 hours to do (mostly figuring out how to exactly do it) but I got a table done, I placed it on the main vote page. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 06:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
You totally rock, man. Remind when I'm sober to give you a barnstar. Kelly Martin (talk) 07:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes; looks great. E Pluribus Anthony 13:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what I was thinking! Awesome! :) —Ilyanep (Talk) 15:55, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Could someone remind me where the main vote page is, I want to see what Jtkiefer's changes look like, thanks! (ya I guess I could look at his recent changes to find it too, but probably more people want to know too?). ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about the link at the top of this section? That's the main page where you'll go to vote for each candidate, or is that not what you meant? Rx StrangeLove 18:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Ya... er... um... DUH! I blame cosmic rays. Seriously, thanks for the reminder, and that table and linkset really rocks. Nice work, all. ++Lar: t/c 19:37, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are there oppose links on the voting page? I thought we were going to avoid the "disendorsement" silliness this year. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, well, it turns out that Wikipedia is a suicide pact after all :) - Haukur 09:39, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I sent a note to Jimbo. Hopefully he'll show up here and, if nothing else, try to reassure us that he really has thought this through and thinks that it will work out for the best. - Haukur 10:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems odd that no positive comments were included in this note et al., which demonstrates that each Wikipedian (present company included) has a coloured point-of-view. I'm sure that Jimbo sees the many shades of grey, yet the forest from the trees, and do not share the skepticism: we should all respect the wisdom and choices made throughout, moving forward (pardon the cliché) as best as possible and with the communitarianism and positivism upon which Wikipedia is based. E Pluribus Anthony 13:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, it was never my intention to compile a balanced summary of everyone's opinion, I was just trying to get the idea across that a lot of us are concerned. The truth is, though, that I haven't seen much talk in favor of open RFA-style voting here. Even you — who are doing the best you can to be positive and optimistic about this and I applaud you — haven't really materially defended the idea. - Haukur 15:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I understand; thanks. Despite grumblings and concern (which I do share), I've set my differences aside and others should too. I would be just as zealous no matter what process was selected (and appreciate that others have been too for varying reasons) ... it just so happens that this is the one that Jimbo, with extensive community input before and since, has selected. Let's just get on with it, administrate the election effectively, and evaluate it during and afterwards. I don't know if I can or should say anything else to that effect without sounding like a broken record. :) E Pluribus Anthony 15:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, you're clearly doing your best and trying to get things done. As for the community input part the problem, as I see it, is that the poll Jimbo set up did not mention open RFA-style elections as an option. Most everyone who has commented on that idea has been very skeptical of it. - Haukur 15:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks again; likewise. That is true, but he later added that "The community can and should begin a community approval process immediately, patterned as closely as is reasonable after the RfA process" and his subsequent edits didn't change that. As I see it, that's leadership and isn't a problem – both poll and related input should be (and has been) considered. And just as well for the RfA process, which Jimbo doesn't seem to think is all that problematic and should be dealt with separately. IMO ... E Pluribus Anthony 16:19, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006. Alot more people have expressed horror regarding the open voting since then, so maybe he'll change his mind... Sam Spade 12:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I had a conversation with Jimbo last night on this topic. He's not going to change his mind on this point, and I understand his logic, I think. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:24, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Could you summarize what Jimbo's logic is for having open elections? I'm not sure I've seen it presented, although it's quite possible I missed it. Carbonite | Talk 17:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I think that if Jimbo wanted to tell us his logic he'd reply here and tell us, you can always ask him yourself though. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 18:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
You may be correct, but I think a lot of the opposition is because JImbo's logic isn't really known to more than a few people. If Jimbo came out and said "We're having open voting because of X, Y, and Z" that would probably be good enough for me. It's possible I wouldn't agree that X, Y, or Z were great reasons, but it would be better than having the appearance of an arbitrary decision. I trust that Jimbo has put considerable thought into the election, but it would still be nice for him to share his reasoning with the rest of the community. Carbonite | Talk 20:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the page to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Vote so that it's a subpage of the elections (I moved the previous page there to somewhere else). Also, I removed the 150 vote requirement - there doesn't appear to be consensus on this. Also, I removed the "If you vote with multiple accounts, all of your votes will be void" and changed it to void only extra votes. This was discussed previously in the proposed changes, I beleive, and rejected. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

(Fixing all the broken links created by the move now...)

I have changed the instructions to instruct people to vote on the voting subpages instead of the candidate statements subpages since the pages have been set up specifically to make it easier. My changes probably need copyediting to make them easier to read though JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 22:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
The 150 requirment stays unless you can give a reason not rooted in burocracy why it should not be there.Geni 23:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I support this, there doesn't really need to be a consensus on this I don't think. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I disagree with that, but I won't argue it - not only is it a minor issue, but I've got some links to fix. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:09, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
They were added at the last minute with little discussion, they’ll be ineffective as it’ll be easy to rack 150 edits in a couple weeks if the first part of the rule has been met and there doesn’t really seem to be a real consensus for that sort of limit this year. Probably doesn't matter though. Rx StrangeLove 23:20, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I thought the 150 rule meant that a voter needed 150 edits at September 30; otherwise, I could easily rackup 150 edits modifying the sandbox or something like that. :-) Thoughts? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:23, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I read it as having an account on Sept 30 and the account has 150 edits. If it had said had I'd agree. Rx StrangeLove 23:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
150 edits as of September 30 is the logical route; otherwise we'll be overrun with socks. (I've got, hm, three other accounts with less than ten edits each, from when I was looking for a user name; I'll never forgive the guy who grabbed Tyrant first....) In any case, the script I used to confirm suffrage for the CSD expansion poll back in July is still around, and makes checking pretty painless. Alternately, I could incorporate it into my bot, making it completely painless. —Cryptic (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Great! Any objections if I modify the wording to make clear 150 edits is as of September 30? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, we have been told it is too late to change anything now and that considerable thought has been given to this by Jimbo. Jimbo no doubt having carefully considered the ramifications of his decree before jotting it down in 5 minutes, is fully aware of all of this and, if he had wanted it, he would have already said so. -Splashtalk 23:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
10 minutes left in that case. —Ilyanep (Talk) 23:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
By the way, Geni, why did you change the page so that it says "150 edits at the start of this vote (January 9)"? I thought we agreed that if that rule is placed in there, it's 150 edits as of September 30. Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:53, 8 January 2006 (UTC) (and for the record I agree with Splash here that there was no consensus to add this rule in after the other rules had been announced)
Agreed, this was added...and adjusted.... sort of unilaterally...Rx StrangeLove 23:59, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I wrote the rule I know what I meant. As of the start of this vote means a person who registered on the last posible day made 10 edits a week. (and they have 4 mins left to rig the system).Geni 23:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
No because they're already ineligible due to their account age, I have reverted back to just saying 150 edits. JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 23:58, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
(ec) Geni, I hate to be blunt, but this isn't your rule - it's what the community thinks is right. Jimbo asked the community to run this process, and that's what we're doing. Most of us seem to think that 150 edits at September 30 is better than at the start of the vote, if we even have a consensus to add the rule in. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
(unindenting) It doesn't matter very much whether it's 150 as of September 30 or 150 as of January 9, so long as it's as of some specific date (preferably preceding the start). Just "and 150 edits" is unacceptably ambiguous. —Cryptic (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Concur with that. We need to chose one of those two dates or remove it completely. Thoughts on which date? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
killing indentation The idea was to kill sleeper accounts or other accounts that had only registed as meatpupets. Either date will do that but the jan 9th date is a lot less harsh.Geni 00:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
OK, adding in January 9. Hope this is the end of the controversy and we'll have a nice, quiet election... Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:12, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
That makes the most sense, thanks for doing that, maybe we sidestepped some issues with the clarification. So much for calm and reasoned discussion ;) Rx StrangeLove 00:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, the clock has struck and there was no last-minute intervention from above. Nothing to do now but to participate in good faith and hope this turns out for the best. It was nice chatting with you all. - Haukur 00:01, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

This 150 criterion et al. is precisely why such a rule shouldn't have been arbitrarily added in the first place and at the last minute: I've said equally as much to Geni, with suggested copyedits unaddressed. It's not a matter of right or wrong, which some people have agreed is the latter. Really, whatever works ... but it should be nixed. E Pluribus Anthony 02:53, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

On the basis we managed to move the entire page an change every link in the last hour it would appear that doing things at the last minute is not as difficult as commonly thought.the message at the top of your watchlist was put together in 12 mins.Geni 02:59, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
That's not the point: it's instruction creep, without agreement. E Pluribus Anthony 03:07, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
forceing me to go through some long process to get "agreement" would be instruction creep.Geni 03:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Actually, that's part-and-parcel why it should be nixed – as stated, it's willful instruction creep.
Anyhow, at first blush the election seems to be proceeding without incident, so I commend everyone for their hard work and input. E Pluribus Anthony 03:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_January_2006/Archive_2&oldid=1136425279"