Hi all,
I think it's important to get some discussion started on the way the arbitrators will be chosen at the end of this year, as Jimbo Wales has recently altered the elections page[1], saying that this year there will be a new system. As he hasn't decided, it's our responsibility as Wikipedians to help pick the best arbitrators with the best possible system.
Currently his idea is on a appointments and confirmation procedure, roughly equivalent to the process that judges become United States Supreme Court members - i.e., Jimbo Wales picks a number of Wikipedians and they go through for a confirmation vote from the community. This obviously differs greatly from the previous system, where candidates put their name forward and any candidate willing to stand was added to the 'ballot paper' (similar to an election in most democratic countries).
This idea has already come in for some criticism[2], such as Geni suggesting it would be easier to make accusations of an "old boy's club", and Michael Snow, Filiocht and jguk mentioning that they would prefer the community to be trusted to make the right decision.
Therefore I propose that we remind ourselves of the advantages and disadvantages that last year's elections showed, debate the merits of the current line of thinking of Jimbo's idea and if possible come up with a new system ensures that the English language Wikipedia is arbitrated by the best Arbitrators who were chosen by the best possible system.
Chris
While I respect Jimbo's opinion I'm not quite sure if this way is the right way to go.
The 'old boys' club' is one of my concerns. The other one (which is slightly related) is that some highly-qualified candidates which could do very well might not be on Jimbo's (and the arbCom's) radar, so how would that work?
~Ilya N.
On 10/25/05, Chris Jenkinson chris@starglade.org wrote:
Hi all,
I think it's important to get some discussion started on the way the arbitrators will be chosen at the end of this year, as Jimbo Wales has recently altered the elections page[1], saying that this year there will be a new system. As he hasn't decided, it's our responsibility as Wikipedians to help pick the best arbitrators with the best possible system.
Currently his idea is on a appointments and confirmation procedure, roughly equivalent to the process that judges become United States Supreme Court members - i.e., Jimbo Wales picks a number of Wikipedians and they go through for a confirmation vote from the community. This obviously differs greatly from the previous system, where candidates put their name forward and any candidate willing to stand was added to the 'ballot paper' (similar to an election in most democratic countries).
This idea has already come in for some criticism[2], such as Geni suggesting it would be easier to make accusations of an "old boy's club", and Michael Snow, Filiocht and jguk mentioning that they would prefer the community to be trusted to make the right decision.
Therefore I propose that we remind ourselves of the advantages and disadvantages that last year's elections showed, debate the merits of the current line of thinking of Jimbo's idea and if possible come up with a new system ensures that the English language Wikipedia is arbitrated by the best Arbitrators who were chosen by the best possible system.
Chris
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/25/05, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
While I respect Jimbo's opinion I'm not quite sure if this way is the right way to go.
The 'old boys' club' is one of my concerns. The other one (which is slightly related) is that some highly-qualified candidates which could do very well might not be on Jimbo's (and the arbCom's) radar, so how would that work?
Volunteerism.
I'm assuming that Jimbo will make time to research whatever candidates he finds worthy of further consideration, and that he will do so.
-- Michael Turley User:Unfocused
On 25/10/05, Ilya N. ilyanep@gmail.com wrote:
While I respect Jimbo's opinion I'm not quite sure if this way is the right way to go.
The 'old boys' club' is one of my concerns. The other one (which is slightly related) is that some highly-qualified candidates which could do very well might not be on Jimbo's (and the arbCom's) radar, so how would that work?
I would assume that, some time beforehand, a call for interested parties is put out - those considered for ArbCom are politely prodded to see if they're interested, and anyone else wanting to put their name forward (poss. with some supporting evidence) does so. Mull over that lot for a while, then give a list of possibles and let the community tear them apart.
-- - Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
I think its pretty obvious most people disagree w Jimbo's decision. Allowing current arbiters to be involved in selecting new arbiters strikes me as a particularly ill omen. Additionally, people like myself with almost no contact w Jimbo directly have little or no chance. How does having Jimbo know who you are make one a better arbiter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_Decem...
Jack (Sam Spade)
Those were part of my sentiments
~Ilya N. (Ilyanep)
On 10/25/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
I think its pretty obvious most people disagree w Jimbo's decision. Allowing current arbiters to be involved in selecting new arbiters strikes me as a particularly ill omen. Additionally, people like myself with almost no contact w Jimbo directly have little or no chance. How does having Jimbo know who you are make one a better arbiter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_Decem...
Jack (Sam Spade)
I suggest you submit names to Jimbo with a basis for why you think they would be a good arbitrator. That is basically all we do. If we all agree on one person (remember we often disagree) he is likely to seriously consider the person. If a person is making a lot of trouble already we are not likely to think they are good candidates, but personally I am a little concerned that what makes a good arbitrator is not all that predictable.
By the way, anyone who thinks they can contribute to arbitration is welcome to make proposal on the /Workshop page of any arbitration case. I know I'll be looking for talent there. Rumor has it that there might be a small reward for any of the Wikipedia advocates should any of their work on /Workshop be used in a decision by the Arbitration Committee.
Fred
On Oct 25, 2005, at 6:29 PM, Jack Lynch wrote:
I think its pretty obvious most people disagree w Jimbo's decision. Allowing current arbiters to be involved in selecting new arbiters strikes me as a particularly ill omen. Additionally, people like myself with almost no contact w Jimbo directly have little or no chance. How does having Jimbo know who you are make one a better arbiter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005
Jack (Sam Spade) _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fred Bauder wrote:
I suggest you submit names to Jimbo with a basis for why you think they would be a good arbitrator. That is basically all we do. If we all agree on one person (remember we often disagree) he is likely to seriously consider the person. If a person is making a lot of trouble already we are not likely to think they are good candidates, but personally I am a little concerned that what makes a good arbitrator is not all that predictable.
By the way, anyone who thinks they can contribute to arbitration is welcome to make proposal on the /Workshop page of any arbitration case. I know I'll be looking for talent there. Rumor has it that there might be a small reward for any of the Wikipedia advocates should any of their work on /Workshop be used in a decision by the Arbitration Committee.
Fred
On Oct 25, 2005, at 6:29 PM, Jack Lynch wrote:
I think its pretty obvious most people disagree w Jimbo's decision. Allowing current arbiters to be involved in selecting new arbiters strikes me as a particularly ill omen. Additionally, people like myself with almost no contact w Jimbo directly have little or no chance. How does having Jimbo know who you are make one a better arbiter?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005
Jack (Sam Spade)
I don't think people should expect a reward for helping out other than knowing that they've helped out and possibly earned the thanks of the arbcom, that being said rewards are always welcome :).
-Jtkiefer
Screw that, what kind of reward are we talking about? I'm assuming my past cases don't count?
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 10/26/05, Jtkiefer jtkiefer@wordzen.net wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
By the way, anyone who thinks they can contribute to arbitration is welcome to make proposal on the /Workshop page of any arbitration case. I know I'll be looking for talent there. Rumor has it that there might be a small reward for any of the Wikipedia advocates should any of their work on /Workshop be used in a decision by the Arbitration Committee.
Fred
I don't think people should expect a reward for helping out other than knowing that they've helped out and possibly earned the thanks of the arbcom, that being said rewards are always welcome :).
-Jtkiefer
There may be a small reward should any proposal which a members advocate makes on an arbitration /Workshop page is adopted by the arbitration committee as part of a decision. This has not happened yet.
Fred
On Oct 25, 2005, at 7:55 PM, Jack Lynch wrote:
Screw that, what kind of reward are we talking about? I'm assuming my past cases don't count?
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 10/26/05, Jtkiefer jtkiefer@wordzen.net wrote:
Fred Bauder wrote:
By the way, anyone who thinks they can contribute to arbitration is welcome to make proposal on the /Workshop page of any arbitration case. I know I'll be looking for talent there. Rumor has it that there might be a small reward for any of the Wikipedia advocates should any of their work on /Workshop be used in a decision by the Arbitration Committee.
Fred
I don't think people should expect a reward for helping out other than knowing that they've helped out and possibly earned the thanks of the arbcom, that being said rewards are always welcome :).
-Jtkiefer
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/26/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
I suggest you submit names to Jimbo with a basis for why you think they would be a good arbitrator. That is basically all we do. If we all agree on one person (remember we often disagree) he is likely to seriously consider the person. If a person is making a lot of trouble already we are not likely to think they are good candidates, but personally I am a little concerned that what makes a good arbitrator is not all that predictable.
So what is the point of involveing Jimbo? Why should he be able to make a better descission than people like me who spend far more time on en.
If you look at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2005/Proposed_modifications_to_rules#Proposal_1]] the one attempt to limit who could run was rejected
-- geni
On 10/26/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
So what is the point of involveing Jimbo? Why should he be able to make a better descission than people like me who spend far more time on en.
Actually that's a pretty good question. I suppose the answer is that we probably couldn't all agree on involving another Wikipedian, such as you, whereas quite a lot of people, if not the majority, are likely to be able to live with the idea of Jimbo's involvement. It's his toybox, he did a pretty good job of handling disputes in the early days, and he still performs some arbitration and appeal functions.
On 10/25/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
I think its pretty obvious most people disagree w Jimbo's decision. Allowing current arbiters to be involved in selecting new arbiters strikes me as a particularly ill omen. Additionally, people like myself with almost no contact w Jimbo directly have little or no chance. How does having Jimbo know who you are make one a better arbiter?
Jimbo is remarkably easy to talk to and is pretty accessible. If you want to be an Arbitrator, it really does make sense for you to make the minimal effort to make contact with Jimbo.
Anyone who doesn't realize that there are influence structures in Wikipedia isn't paying attention. If you want to move up in influence, it helps to be known, and known well, to those who already have it. This is true whether people with influence are selected by appointment or by election.
We have suggested choosing Arbitrators by loading Recent Changes at a random unannounced time and appointing the first 12 names to appear there. While I think this would be resoundingly unsatisfactory to most members of the community, it would eliminate most claims of bias. :)
Kelly
On 10/26/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/25/05, Jack Lynch jack.i.lynch@gmail.com wrote:
I think its pretty obvious most people disagree w Jimbo's decision. Allowing current arbiters to be involved in selecting new arbiters strikes me as a particularly ill omen. Additionally, people like myself with almost no contact w Jimbo directly have little or no chance. How does having Jimbo know who you are make one a better arbiter?
Jimbo is remarkably easy to talk to and is pretty accessible. If you want to be an Arbitrator, it really does make sense for you to make the minimal effort to make contact with Jimbo.
Anyone who doesn't realize that there are influence structures in Wikipedia isn't paying attention. If you want to move up in influence, it helps to be known, and known well, to those who already have it. This is true whether people with influence are selected by appointment or by election.
Not it is not. If they are selected by election it means that have influence/ the trust of the wider comuity. If they are apointed they have influence with / the trust of a much smaller group.
So much for TINC.
We have suggested choosing Arbitrators by loading Recent Changes at a random unannounced time and appointing the first 12 names to appear there. While I think this would be resoundingly unsatisfactory to most members of the community, it would eliminate most claims of bias. :)
Not true. You would get a comitte biased in favour of whatever the relivant time zone was. You would also be likely to end up with a far from ideal comitte.
Wikipedia should be run by the comunity as much as posible. We know it is posible to hold elections so there is no reason not to. -- geni
On 10/25/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
We have suggested choosing Arbitrators by loading Recent Changes at a random unannounced time and appointing the first 12 names to appear there. While I think this would be resoundingly unsatisfactory to most members of the community, it would eliminate most claims of bias. :)
Not true. You would get a comitte biased in favour of whatever the relivant time zone was. You would also be likely to end up with a far from ideal comitte.
Ok, fine, we load it once every two hours and take the first name that appears (or the second if the first name has already been chosen). That will deal with the timezone objection.
We're going to end up with a far-from-ideal committee if we have unrestricted elections, too, because the voting blocks that have already formed in Wikipedia will throw weight around to attempt to manipulate the result. Jimbo's proposal basically ensures that we're not asked to waste our time voting down clearly inappropriate candidates and avoids the risk of an inappropriate candidate with substantial influence from being elected despite our best efforts.
Kelly
On 10/26/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
We're going to end up with a far-from-ideal committee if we have unrestricted elections, too, because the voting blocks that have already formed in Wikipedia will throw weight around to attempt to manipulate the result.
Prove it. I haven't seen any of these voteing blocks. Certianly non of the candidates appear to be running on either thier deletionist or inclusionist credentials (and due to the way the voteing is done they would be stupid to do so)
Jimbo's proposal basically ensures that we're not asked to waste our time voting down clearly inappropriate candidates and avoids the risk of an inappropriate candidate with substantial influence from being elected despite our best efforts.
Kelly
You've seen the list of candidates so far. Which inappropriate ones do you think have a chance? Remeber due to the voteing system we use you can vote for every good candidate. In fact the voteing system tends towards selecting the least least popular candidates makeing unsitible candiates unlikely to win.
-- geni
On 10/25/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Prove it. I haven't seen any of these voteing blocks.
Then you're not watching. The existence of voting blocks is quite evident in RfA.
You've seen the list of candidates so far. Which inappropriate ones do you think have a chance? Remeber due to the voteing system we use you can vote for every good candidate. In fact the voteing system tends towards selecting the least least popular candidates makeing unsitible candiates unlikely to win.
I've repeatedly stated that I will not take a public stance on any candidate. I am talking privately with people who I think would be good candidates, and I will be sharing my thoughts on appropriate candidates with Jimbo at the appropriate time. Once Jimbo has announced the candidates, I may or may not endorse specific candidates, although I rather doubt it.
Kelly
On 10/26/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Then you're not watching. The existence of voting blocks is quite evident in RfA.
Which uses first past the post voteing and has a comparitivly small number of votes. Due to the voteing system trying to gain the votes of one block is likely to lose you so many votes elsewhere that it would be a terminaly poor stratergy.
I've repeatedly stated that I will not take a public stance on any candidate. I am talking privately with people who I think would be good candidates, and I will be sharing my thoughts on appropriate candidates with Jimbo at the appropriate time. Once Jimbo has announced the candidates, I may or may not endorse specific candidates, although I rather doubt it.
Kelly
We have no process for endourseing caditates this year. There are 3 who I would really be worried by if they got got elected plus another two who I'm strongly opposed to. I can't see any of the 3 getting elected.
Do you think thare are any unsituble candidates on the list who have a chance of being elected?
-- geni
On 10/25/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think thare are any unsituble candidates on the list who have a chance of being elected?
Again, I have said that I will not publicly discuss the merits of the candidates.
Kelly
On 10/26/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Again, I have said that I will not publicly discuss the merits of the candidates.
Kelly
I'm not asking you to do that. I'm just asking if you honest think there are currently people on the nominations list who could get elected but are unsutible. Yes or no. I'm not asking for statements about individual candidates.
-- geni
But that will be the next question... No thanks!
Let's just say all candidates who have announced are valued members of the community and let it go at that.
Fred
On Oct 25, 2005, at 10:36 PM, geni wrote:
On 10/26/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Again, I have said that I will not publicly discuss the merits of the candidates.
Kelly
I'm not asking you to do that. I'm just asking if you honest think there are currently people on the nominations list who could get elected but are unsutible. Yes or no. I'm not asking for statements about individual candidates.
-- geni _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/26/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
But that will be the next question... No thanks!
No becuase I know it will not be answered. I think I can show either position to be flawed but there is no point in useing the arguments against one when I dealing with an someone who holds the other position
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 10/26/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
But that will be the next question... No thanks!
No becuase I know it will not be answered. I think I can show either position to be flawed but there is no point in useing the arguments against one when I dealing with an someone who holds the other position
If you know there will be no answer what's the point of trolling for one?
Ec
On 10/29/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If you know there will be no answer what's the point of trolling for one?
Ec
I had not at the time writen off the posibility of an answer to my second question.
-- geni
geni wrote:
On 10/26/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Again, I have said that I will not publicly discuss the merits of the candidates.
Kelly
I'm not asking you to do that. I'm just asking if you honest think there are currently people on the nominations list who could get elected but are unsutible. Yes or no. I'm not asking for statements about individual candidates.
I read Kelly's refusal to be drawn in as a sign of integrity.
Ec
On 10/29/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I read Kelly's refusal to be drawn in as a sign of integrity.
Ec
Why?
-- geni
This is part of the problem. If we can't candidly discuss the candidates for arbitrator (too disruptive) how can we have much of an election?
Fred
On Oct 25, 2005, at 10:12 PM, Kelly Martin wrote:
On 10/25/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Do you think thare are any unsituble candidates on the list who have a chance of being elected?
Again, I have said that I will not publicly discuss the merits of the candidates.
Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 10/26/05, Fred Bauder fredbaud@ctelco.net wrote:
This is part of the problem. If we can't candidly discuss the candidates for arbitrator (too disruptive) how can we have much of an election?
Fred
Fairly common practice in France.
I am quite happy to disscuss any of the canditdates. If the candidates object to this they should not have run.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 10/25/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Prove it. I haven't seen any of these voteing blocks.
Then you're not watching. The existence of voting blocks is quite evident in RfA.
Not to mention AfD.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/26/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 10/25/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Prove it. I haven't seen any of these voteing blocks.
Then you're not watching. The existence of voting blocks is quite evident in RfA.
Not to mention AfD.
Process-not-content has a virtual lockdown on VFU.
On 10/26/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Not to mention AfD.
That isn't dealing with people and as I said due to the voteing system running on an inclusionist or deletionist tickit would be a terminaly stupid tactic for someone wanting to get elected.
-- geni
From: Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com
On 10/25/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Prove it. I haven't seen any of these voteing blocks.
Then you're not watching. The existence of voting blocks is quite evident in RfA.
In the past you've alleged voting blocks in RfA based on their "deletionist" tendencies, and this was discussed on this mailing list. Are you still making this claim?
Jay.
On 10/27/05, JAY JG jayjg@hotmail.com wrote:
In the past you've alleged voting blocks in RfA based on their "deletionist" tendencies, and this was discussed on this mailing list. Are you still making this claim?
I haven't seen as much of that, lately. The voting blocks I believe to exist seem more to be based on social networks rather than any particular position on Wikipedia policy. Of course, at least one of these social networks does seem to have a strong deletionist bent.
It would be interesting to do a social proximity analysis based on RFA supports (and maybe also RFC opinion supports); I suspect you'd find several well-defined cliques.
Kelly
On 10/27/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't seen as much of that, lately. The voting blocks I believe to exist seem more to be based on social networks rather than any particular position on Wikipedia policy. Of course, at least one of these social networks does seem to have a strong deletionist bent.
It would be interesting to do a social proximity analysis based on RFA supports (and maybe also RFC opinion supports); I suspect you'd find several well-defined cliques.
Kelly
I could just be that people have a tendancy to vote for people they have herd of.
-- geni
There are several paradigms thru which one can view any data, but the facts are still just as obvious. Also, there is quite alot more to it than name recognition alone.
Jack (Sam Spade)
On 10/27/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/27/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
I haven't seen as much of that, lately. The voting blocks I believe to exist seem more to be based on social networks rather than any particular position on Wikipedia policy. Of course, at least one of these social networks does seem to have a strong deletionist bent.
It would be interesting to do a social proximity analysis based on RFA supports (and maybe also RFC opinion supports); I suspect you'd find several well-defined cliques.
Kelly
I could just be that people have a tendancy to vote for people they have herd of.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
JAY JG wrote:
From: Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com
On 10/25/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Prove it. I haven't seen any of these voteing blocks.
Then you're not watching. The existence of voting blocks is quite evident in RfA.
In the past you've alleged voting blocks in RfA based on their "deletionist" tendencies, and this was discussed on this mailing list. Are you still making this claim?
I would claim that they do; put yourself forward as an inclusionist and the inclusionists will vote for you, and the deletionists will stay quiet and pretend they don't exist, and vice versa. Put yourself forward as someone who will ignore the typical "d nn" and "keep we need all articles" votes, and wow! They all get mad and shoot you down in flames.
As a member of one of these inclusionist/deletionist groups plainly stated [1]:
In general, inclusionists tend to vote "keep" on articles they think should be kept, and abstain entirely from articles they think should be deleted. Deletionists tend to vote "delete" on articles they think should be deleted, and abstain from those they think should be kept.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/28/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Put yourself forward as someone who will ignore the typical "d nn" and "keep we need all articles" votes, and wow! They all get mad and shoot you down in flames.
Sure anyone who states that they are going to go against common practice (and probably policy) to such a degree should be opposed. Adminship does not exist to further political causes.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
geni wrote:
On 10/28/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Put yourself forward as someone who will ignore the typical "d nn" and "keep we need all articles" votes, and wow! They all get mad and shoot you down in flames.
Sure anyone who states that they are going to go against common practice (and probably policy) to such a degree should be opposed. Adminship does not exist to further political causes.
But it's perfectly OK to support someone who says "I will delete any article where there is a majority of delete votes, no matter what the reasons are for the keep votes"?
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/28/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
But it's perfectly OK to support someone who says "I will delete any article where there is a majority of delete votes, no matter what the reasons are for the keep votes"?
Maybe.
-- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
geni wrote:
On 10/28/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
But it's perfectly OK to support someone who says "I will delete any article where there is a majority of delete votes, no matter what the reasons are for the keep votes"?
Maybe.
I went looking through last week's AFD pages (eg. October 17-21). I saw a few articles where the "majority" of votes were to delete, but the last few votes included statements such as "keep, I have verified and rewritten the article..." and "keep after excellent rewrite".
Are you telling me that you would have deleted such articles? Why don't we actually go back to "votes for deletion" and implement voting software for the page? If the process is so mechanical and requires no brainpower whatsoever, why not just automate it?
(Oh yes, I forget to mention: I have a fully-functional auto-voter which merely requires you to edit the AFD subpage in question. Contact me off-list for details.)
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/28/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
geni wrote:
On 10/28/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
But it's perfectly OK to support someone who says "I will delete any article where there is a majority of delete votes, no matter what the reasons are for the keep votes"?
Maybe.
I went looking through last week's AFD pages (eg. October 17-21). I saw a few articles where the "majority" of votes were to delete, but the last few votes included statements such as "keep, I have verified and rewritten the article..." and "keep after excellent rewrite".
Are you telling me that you would have deleted such articles? Why don't we actually go back to "votes for deletion" and implement voting software for the page? If the process is so mechanical and requires no brainpower whatsoever, why not just automate it?
Socks, copyvios and meatpupets call for judgements.
Lets take a real senario (for resons of avoiding percived bias I could never close and AFD on delete). The 3RR. Two people have broken the 3RR. One I know two be a POV pusher. the other just got a bit wound up. What do I do? Another case. Someone respected by the community (an arbcom memember) has broken the 3RR. What do I do. Final case once again the 3RR has been broken but thier oponenent has not broken it. However this is only because there oponent is a highly skilled edit warroir to the point where it doesn't even look like they are gameing the rule. What do I do?
In each case I block the person who has broken the rule. Why? Because if fail to follow policy for a good reason sooner or latter I will fail to do it for a bad one.
Overuleing policy to do what you belive is right is adictive. It seems to make everything so right in the short term.
(Oh yes, I forget to mention: I have a fully-functional auto-voter which merely requires you to edit the AFD subpage in question. Contact me off-list for details.)
Ctrl-v yes? -- geni
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
geni wrote:
On 10/28/05, Alphax alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
(Oh yes, I forget to mention: I have a fully-functional auto-voter which merely requires you to edit the AFD subpage in question. Contact me off-list for details.)
Ctrl-v yes?
No, all you have to do is edit the page and it automatically votes for you.
- -- Alphax | /"\ Encrypted Email Preferred | \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign OpenPGP key ID: 0xF874C613 | X Against HTML email & vCards http://tinyurl.com/cc9up | / \
On 10/25/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
We have suggested choosing Arbitrators by loading Recent Changes at a random unannounced time and appointing the first 12 names to appear there. While I think this would be resoundingly unsatisfactory to most members of the community, it would eliminate most claims of bias. :)
Kelly
Can't be much worse than the current system. I've come to find that the best way to deal with the arb com is to ignore them. I can't think of a single good thing that has come out of the arb com, save those things that only needed to be resolved because the arb com existed in the first place. I don't think it matters very much who's on the arb com. The position itself is fundamentally flawed.
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Can't be much worse than the current system. I've come to find that the best way to deal with the arb com is to ignore them. I can't think of a single good thing that has come out of the arb com, save those things that only needed to be resolved because the arb com existed in the first place. I don't think it matters very much who's on the arb com. The position itself is fundamentally flawed.
It deals with problem users who admins don't have the authority to deal with.
-- geni
On 10/25/05, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/26/05, Anthony DiPierro wikispam@inbox.org wrote:
Can't be much worse than the current system. I've come to find that the
best
way to deal with the arb com is to ignore them. I can't think of a
single
good thing that has come out of the arb com, save those things that only needed to be resolved because the arb com existed in the first place. I don't think it matters very much who's on the arb com. The position
itself
is fundamentally flawed.
It deals with problem users who admins don't have the authority to deal with.
Which is exactly what I mean by "those things that only need to be resolved because the arb com exists in the first place."
On 10/25/05, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
I would assume that, some time beforehand, a call for interested parties is put out - those considered for ArbCom are politely prodded to see if they're interested, and anyone else wanting to put their name forward (poss. with some supporting evidence) does so. Mull over that lot for a while, then give a list of possibles and let the community tear them apart.
Why bother with jimbo at all? We are quite caperble of mulling over the candidates on our own.
-- geni
Chris Jenkinson wrote:
I think it's important to get some discussion started on the way the arbitrators will be chosen at the end of this year, as Jimbo Wales has recently altered the elections page[1], saying that this year there will be a new system. As he hasn't decided, it's our responsibility as Wikipedians to help pick the best arbitrators with the best possible system.
Currently his idea is on a appointments and confirmation procedure, roughly equivalent to the process that judges become United States Supreme Court members - i.e., Jimbo Wales picks a number of Wikipedians and they go through for a confirmation vote from the community. This obviously differs greatly from the previous system, where candidates put their name forward and any candidate willing to stand was added to the 'ballot paper' (similar to an election in most democratic countries).
In principle this would be a good change. Elections do not necessarily produce the best results. Or they can bring out the people who do not have the perseverence to stick out a term of office.
Arbcom appointments don't need to be all at the same time. Whether Jimbo should be doing this alone is a dubious proposition because of the time demands that it would put on him. A nominating committee of trusted people could be a more practical idea.
Ec