|
|
|
2009 ArbCom elections |
|
|
Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
I was just fooling around, wondering if WP:ACE2009 is a blue link. It is, sort of. What's more interesting is that the discussion page is a blue link. Already before the final votes are in, lessons are being learned for next year. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:ACE2009
|
|
|
|
Lifebaka |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 95
Joined:
Member No.: 9,305
|
QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 9th December 2008, 11:57pm) Well no, if i I couldnt see the ranking/votes as the election progressed I would have just opposed everyone that I wasn't supporting, not just those who had a hope of beating them.
The other part of a suggestion I've seen thrown around by a few people is to eliminate oppose voting. This would remove the ability to do easy tactical voting, and would make the elections much easier to track. At the same time, it'd be difficult to tell if a candidate is controversial simply by number of supports. A candidate who is well liked by many can also be hated by many, and our current system allows oppose votes to show this (assuming they're used correctly). A further idea I've seen tossed around is to limit the number of votes each user gets to the number of seats to be filled. Seven, in this election. Whether with or without oppose voting, it certainly be an interesting one to try.
|
|
|
|
Viridae |
|
Fat Cat
Group: Regulars
Posts: 1,319
Joined:
Member No.: 1,498
|
QUOTE(Lifebaka @ Wed 10th December 2008, 4:43pm) QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 9th December 2008, 11:57pm) Well no, if i I couldnt see the ranking/votes as the election progressed I would have just opposed everyone that I wasn't supporting, not just those who had a hope of beating them.
The other part of a suggestion I've seen thrown around by a few people is to eliminate oppose voting. This would remove the ability to do easy tactical voting, and would make the elections much easier to track. At the same time, it'd be difficult to tell if a candidate is controversial simply by number of supports. A candidate who is well liked by many can also be hated by many, and our current system allows oppose votes to show this (assuming they're used correctly). A further idea I've seen tossed around is to limit the number of votes each user gets to the number of seats to be filled. Seven, in this election. Whether with or without oppose voting, it certainly be an interesting one to try. Most votes doesn't bode well for those without name recognition.
|
|
|
|
Lifebaka |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 95
Joined:
Member No.: 9,305
|
QUOTE(Viridae @ Wed 10th December 2008, 12:59am) QUOTE(Lifebaka @ Wed 10th December 2008, 4:43pm) The other part of a suggestion I've seen thrown around by a few people is to eliminate oppose voting. This would remove the ability to do easy tactical voting, and would make the elections much easier to track. At the same time, it'd be difficult to tell if a candidate is controversial simply by number of supports. A candidate who is well liked by many can also be hated by many, and our current system allows oppose votes to show this (assuming they're used correctly).
A further idea I've seen tossed around is to limit the number of votes each user gets to the number of seats to be filled. Seven, in this election. Whether with or without oppose voting, it certainly be an interesting one to try.
Most votes doesn't bode well for those without name recognition. No system bodes well for those without name recognition, really. I do agree that a simple most votes system is probably not ideal, though.
|
|
|
|
UserB |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 63
Joined:
Member No.: 4,555
|
QUOTE(SirFozzie @ Wed 10th December 2008, 1:28am) while a good idea in theory, I see significant problems with it, in that 95% of WP's users... probably won't do jury duty.
Even if you only have a pool of 200, that's like 1 case/year.
|
|
|
|
Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
QUOTE(Lifebaka @ Wed 10th December 2008, 12:43am) QUOTE(Viridae @ Tue 9th December 2008, 11:57pm) Well no, if i I couldnt see the ranking/votes as the election progressed I would have just opposed everyone that I wasn't supporting, not just those who had a hope of beating them.
The other part of a suggestion I've seen thrown around by a few people is to eliminate oppose voting. This would remove the ability to do easy tactical voting, and would make the elections much easier to track. At the same time, it'd be difficult to tell if a candidate is controversial simply by number of supports. A candidate who is well liked by many can also be hated by many, and our current system allows oppose votes to show this (assuming they're used correctly). A further idea I've seen tossed around is to limit the number of votes each user gets to the number of seats to be filled. Seven, in this election. Whether with or without oppose voting, it certainly be an interesting one to try. I observed after the last election on wiki that different methods would produce different results. A "support-only" method would have given us a second term of Raul654. I voted for him last year. That's one of many edits I'd like to have back. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) We would have also elected Giano, whom I opposed. That's another edit I'd like to have back. Ah, the wisdom of hindsight!
|
|
|
|
Lifebaka |
|
Junior Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 95
Joined:
Member No.: 9,305
|
QUOTE(Shalom @ Wed 10th December 2008, 3:19pm) I observed after the last election on wiki that different methods would produce different results. A "support-only" method would have given us a second term of Raul654. I voted for him last year. That's one of many edits I'd like to have back. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) We would have also elected Giano, whom I opposed. That's another edit I'd like to have back. Ah, the wisdom of hindsight! One of the more interesting suggestions is to use a preferential voting system such as the Schulze method or single transferable vote instead of a support/oppose system. One of these systems was used in the last Board election (if I remember right) and it seemed to work there, so it should work for ArbCom elections. A preferential voting system would also help a lot to get candidates without as much name recognition to be able to "win". Only downsides (which I have thought of) to these systems is that it's difficult without some sort of special page to do it on (or an outside website doing it) and it's difficult to do live tracking of the election due to the complexity of calculating the top picks.
|
|
|
|
Steve Crossin |
|
New Member
Group: Contributors
Posts: 25
Joined:
From: Australia
Member No.: 8,557
|
QUOTE(One @ Thu 11th December 2008, 6:46am) I need to think about preferential voting, but I think support-only would be a very bad thing. That system gives name recognizably too much weight. "Oppose" votes are a necessary check on name recognition--they allow voters to say "I do recognize this candidate, but I also recognize that I don't want them on ArbCom.
I think the idea of a secret ballot in general might be best. It prevents pile-ons and would allow people to vote without worrying if their vote will influence others (serving arbs, for example). As for preferential voting, I'm not so sure if its a great idea. I don't think many could support Kmweber, even in a preferential system. But then again....we had to in Board Elections...
|
|
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
I suppose this is a good place to point out the recently started RfC on the ArbCom, dealing with term lengths, the size of the committee, and the way the forthcoming election should be conducted. I'm in favor of one year terms, in line with my proposal from last year, in which I called for all the arbitrator seats to go up for election each year. However, two year terms appear to have broad majority support--apparently people think the arbitrators get better with experience, although I would suggest that they are about equally bad throughout their tenure, and the only difference is in their level of activity (longer terms producing greater lethargy). The big split is on the question of public vs. secret voting: currently there's 20 in favor of each. Personally, I think wiki-related matters should be conducted transparently in almost all cases, so I'm in favor of continuing with public voting.
|
|
|
|
A Horse With No Name |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
|
QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Sat 31st October 2009, 4:35pm) QUOTE(Kurt M. Weber @ Sat 31st October 2009, 1:27pm) Should I run?
No. If you wish, you should consider returning to Wikipedia at some point to contribute to article content, if you can do so in a collaborative fashion, but your participation in governance-related discussions was consistently unhelpful. Don't listen to him, Kurt! After Arbcom's utter lack of transparency, honesty and due process in the Law/TU and Eastern European mailing list debacles, and in view of the failed "reforms" (BASC, anyone?), it is time to have some new leadership.
|
|
|
|
Shalom |
|
Ãœber Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 880
Joined:
Member No.: 5,566
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sat 31st October 2009, 7:37pm) QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Sat 31st October 2009, 4:35pm) If you wish, you should consider returning to Wikipedia at some point to contribute to article content, if you can do so in a collaborative fashion, but your participation in governance-related discussions was consistently unhelpful. And in precisely what way has your presence on Arbcom improved that "encyclopedia", sir? I'd like to see a list of your "major accomplishments", please. Hey, don't hate on Newyorkbrad. His article contributions are considerable, close to 100 as I recall, and he has acted as the primary author on some important ArbCom decisions. In the C68-FM-SV case, nobody seemed to know how to move forward until NYB came out of retirement and wrote a decision that everyone could agree with. (I would have written a slightly different decision, but I was of course biased and declared my opinion.) One of the problems with ArbCom, being a microcosm of Wikipedia's community, is a lack of leadership. Someone has to step up and do the unpleasant drudgery. Newyorkbrad has done that on enough occasions to earn my respect in the Wikipedia context. Having met him in person, I respect him in a real-world sense too -- and that's more important.
|
|
|
|
everyking |
|
Postmaster
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,368
Joined:
Member No.: 81
|
QUOTE(Shalom @ Sun 1st November 2009, 1:46am) Hey, don't hate on Newyorkbrad. His article contributions are considerable, close to 100 as I recall, and he has acted as the primary author on some important ArbCom decisions. In the C68-FM-SV case, nobody seemed to know how to move forward until NYB came out of retirement and wrote a decision that everyone could agree with. (I would have written a slightly different decision, but I was of course biased and declared my opinion.) One of the problems with ArbCom, being a microcosm of Wikipedia's community, is a lack of leadership. Someone has to step up and do the unpleasant drudgery. Newyorkbrad has done that on enough occasions to earn my respect in the Wikipedia context. Having met him in person, I respect him in a real-world sense too -- and that's more important.
Ah yes, such "unpleasant drudgery" as upholding outrageous allegations against hard-working volunteers. Of course people poke fun at Weber's views, but if I'm forced to choose between a candidate who supports abolishing the ArbCom and a candidate who supports branding me as a dangerous stalker and harasser until the end of time, who do you think I'm going to pick?
|
|
|
|
A Horse With No Name |
|
I have as much free time as a Wikipedia admin!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 4,471
Joined:
Member No.: 9,985
|
QUOTE(Shalom @ Sat 31st October 2009, 7:46pm) Hey, don't hate on Newyorkbrad. His article contributions are considerable, close to 100 as I recall, and he has acted as the primary author on some important ArbCom decisions.
In fairness, Brad was the only arbitrator in the Law/TU case who behaved in an intelligent manner -- he immediately recused himself without snide commentary, he immediately answered the question on whether he was aware of the Law/TU connection, and he made no open announcements afterward. If you had to redo Arbcom, Brad is the only one I could recommend keeping. QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Sun 1st November 2009, 10:56am) My fantasy arbcom:
1. Kelly Martin 2. Everyking 3. Durova 4. Geogre 5. Giano 6. Bishzilla 7. Fred Bauder 8. David Gerrard 9. PhilSandifer
chaired, of course by
10. Newyorkbrad
My fantasy Arbcom: 1. Lara 2. CharlotteWebb 3. Alison 4. FlyingToaster (come back, mama, Horsey misses you!) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/boing.gif)
|
|
|
|
Casliber |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 425
Joined:
Member No.: 3,559
|
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sun 1st November 2009, 10:25am) QUOTE(Newyorkbrad @ Sat 31st October 2009, 4:35pm) If you wish, you should consider returning to Wikipedia at some point to contribute to article content, if you can do so in a collaborative fashion, but your participation in governance-related discussions was consistently unhelpful. It has yet to be demonstrated that it is possible to contribute to a governance discussion on Wikipedia in a manner that is actually helpful. Oh I dunno, I thought we did pretty good to at least push a quasi-post-finding push to get names on Ireland and West Bank sorted.... (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) QUOTE(Doc glasgow @ Mon 2nd November 2009, 2:56am) My fantasy arbcom:
1. Kelly Martin 2. Everyking 3. Durova 4. Geogre 5. Giano 6. Bishzilla 7. Fred Bauder 8. David Gerrard 9. PhilSandifer
chaired, of course by
10. Newyorkbrad
Can anyone think of a combination more able to case DRAMA and LOL?
Oh yes, naturally
11. Jimbo Wales
Oh Scott you cheeky boy, you forgot to put yourself in (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif)
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |