Election results, Voting has begun Options

While I approve entirely of secret balloting in ArbCom elections, I do not understand why people are so upset about canvassing. It's an election! Of course there will be canvassing!

Just how far up your collective asses do you Wikipedians have your collective heads stuck?

Basically agreed. The issue with canvassing on Wikipedia is in small, localized discussions with a large suffrage base; the presumption is that participants in these small discussions are representative of The Community as a whole (or whatever portion of The Community can be expected to have views on whatever issue is being discussed), and canvassing disrupts that. It would be roughly analogous to juries consisting not of twelve randomly selected citizens but of whoever happened to show up; absent external pressures, you could possibly expect that these juries would be roughly the same as randomly-selected ones, but once canvassing enters the picture that ceases completely to be true. So if Wikipedia's going to run itself on its current basis (and, to be honest, I think its current basis works well-ish for small, localized, relatively non-controversial decisions, though not at all for other kinds), canvassing has to be minimized.

But Arb Comm elections aren't intended to be small, localized discussions. They're not supposed to be decided by a representative subset of The Community, but by The Community as a whole. The reasons to minimize canvassing are completely inapplicable.

While I approve entirely of secret balloting in ArbCom elections, I do not understand why people are so upset about canvassing. It's an election! Of course there will be canvassing!

Just how far up your collective asses do you Wikipedians have your collective heads stuck?

Basically agreed. The issue with canvassing on Wikipedia is in small, localized discussions with a large suffrage base; the presumption is that participants in these small discussions are representative of The Community as a whole (or whatever portion of The Community can be expected to have views on whatever issue is being discussed), and canvassing disrupts that. It would be roughly analogous to juries consisting not of twelve randomly selected citizens but of whoever happened to show up; absent external pressures, you could possibly expect that these juries would be roughly the same as randomly-selected ones, but once canvassing enters the picture that ceases completely to be true. So if Wikipedia's going to run itself on its current basis (and, to be honest, I think its current basis works well-ish for small, localized, relatively non-controversial decisions, though not at all for other kinds), canvassing has to be minimized.

But Arb Comm elections aren't intended to be small, localized discussions. They're not supposed to be decided by a representative subset of The Community, but by The Community as a whole. The reasons to minimize canvassing are completely inapplicable.

You have a good point. And the vetting criteria already prevent going outside the pre-existing community for the sudden purpose of this election, anyway. So "canvassing" is already restricted to people who've been editing awhile and have every right to vote. And who should be just as subject to "voter turnout drives" as anyplace else where voters are "canvassed" on the basis that they "reside" in the place which is being represented by the people standing for office! So long as nobody's being bussed in to vote, fair is fair.

For an encyclopedia with 1600 odd admins and thus probably 10-20 times as many users... there sure are few votes flying around... wjscribe had the most votes cast at 311 (for and against) the next is sub 300...

So basically only the prolific are voting?

Where's the "Vote for Arbcom" banner? So even those editors that never drama monger can vote... or wait... those votes would be too down to earth

Jimbo gives admin votes more weight than non-admin wotes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=256105292

I have traditionally looked at %support, and looked at the others carefully to see if they indicate anything particularly interesting or alarming. Another thing I have always looked at is %support by admins because if there is a major deviation between admin support and more general support, this could indicate a number of different kinds of problems. (For example: an external campaign by an activist group attempting to influence the election. For example: a rift between admins and some significant constituency of non-admin users.) As people often say "voting is evil" so what I am looking for is a consensus. And I'm most interested in a consensus of the thoughtful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo gives admin votes more weight than non-admin wotes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=256105292

I have traditionally looked at %support, and looked at the others carefully to see if they indicate anything particularly interesting or alarming. Another thing I have always looked at is %support by admins because if there is a major deviation between admin support and more general support, this could indicate a number of different kinds of problems. (For example: an external campaign by an activist group attempting to influence the election. For example: a rift between admins and some significant constituency of non-admin users.) As people often say "voting is evil" so what I am looking for is a consensus. And I'm most interested in a consensus of the thoughtful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What an ignorant remark, activist groups or interest groups will have more easiness in having administrators vote by the help of what they are good at. Diplomacy.

Jimbo gives admin votes more weight than non-admin wotes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=256105292

I have traditionally looked at %support, and looked at the others carefully to see if they indicate anything particularly interesting or alarming. Another thing I have always looked at is %support by admins because if there is a major deviation between admin support and more general support, this could indicate a number of different kinds of problems. (For example: an external campaign by an activist group attempting to influence the election. For example: a rift between admins and some significant constituency of non-admin users.) As people often say "voting is evil" so what I am looking for is a consensus. And I'm most interested in a consensus of the thoughtful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If he passes over a successful candidate, the community is going to scream bloody murder and may very well strip him of his self-proclaimed right to make these appointments.

Jimbo gives admin votes more weight than non-admin wotes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=256105292

I have traditionally looked at %support, and looked at the others carefully to see if they indicate anything particularly interesting or alarming. Another thing I have always looked at is %support by admins because if there is a major deviation between admin support and more general support, this could indicate a number of different kinds of problems. (For example: an external campaign by an activist group attempting to influence the election. For example: a rift between admins and some significant constituency of non-admin users.) As people often say "voting is evil" so what I am looking for is a consensus. And I'm most interested in a consensus of the thoughtful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If he passes over a successful candidate, the community is going to scream bloody murder and may very well strip him of his self-proclaimed right to make these appointments.

The "community" can go and wank. Nobody is stripping Jimbo of anything unless you get the WMF board to agree. They legally control the private property which is the hardware. From thence, all power flows. End.

Jimbo gives admin votes more weight than non-admin wotes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=256105292

I have traditionally looked at %support, and looked at the others carefully to see if they indicate anything particularly interesting or alarming. Another thing I have always looked at is %support by admins because if there is a major deviation between admin support and more general support, this could indicate a number of different kinds of problems. (For example: an external campaign by an activist group attempting to influence the election. For example: a rift between admins and some significant constituency of non-admin users.) As people often say "voting is evil" so what I am looking for is a consensus. And I'm most interested in a consensus of the thoughtful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If he passes over a successful candidate, the community is going to scream bloody murder and may very well strip him of his self-proclaimed right to make these appointments.

The "community" can go and wank. Nobody is stripping Jimbo of anything unless you get the WMF board to agree. They legally control the private property which is the hardware. From thence, all power flows. End.

He doesn't have any formal role as project leader, bestowed upon him by the WMF. He just asserts that he is the boss, and the community goes along with it because "it's always been that way". If the community gets fed up with him, it's not going to let him keep these special self-declared powers he has.

It would be interesting to see how everyone compares if only votes from admins are counted. Is it an easy thing to calculate with some form of bot? May have to post this on WP:ACE page......

The "community" can go and wank. Nobody is stripping Jimbo of anything unless you get the WMF board to agree. They legally control the private property which is the hardware. From thence, all power flows. End.

Jimbo asserts that his authority over the English Wikipedia does not come from the WMF, but instead flows from his role as Founder, and therefore the WMF has no authority to strip it from him. In any case, the WMF takes a "hands-off" position toward governing the projects, mainly because Jimbo has long insisted that that is the proper course to follow. Jimbo effectively controls the WMF too so it's a moot point.

The fact remains that the community could throw him out by choosing to disregard his authority, but I suspect that it appeared that that was happening Jimbo would have his Tories throw the revolting colonists into Boston Harbor.

Jimbo gives admin votes more weight than non-admin wotes:

This is the kind of stupidity -- in effect, he is saying that non-admins might as well not vote -- that blind ballots go a big step towards curing.

The "community" can go and wank. Nobody is stripping Jimbo of anything unless you get the WMF board to agree. They legally control the private property which is the hardware. From thence, all power flows. End.

Jimbo asserts that his authority over the English Wikipedia does not come from the WMF, but instead flows from his role as Founder, and therefore the WMF has no authority to strip it from him. In any case, the WMF takes a "hands-off" position toward governing the projects, mainly because Jimbo has long insisted that that is the proper course to follow. Jimbo effectively controls the WMF too so it's a moot point.

The fact remains that the community could throw him out by choosing to disregard his authority, but I suspect that it appeared that that was happening Jimbo would have his Tories throw the revolting colonists into Boston Harbor.

He might attempt to, but THAT final scene would go down a bit like the end of the movie Robocop, where the corporate Board fires the bad CEO, and 5 seconds later, the corporate-controlled killer robot ED 209 blasts him out the boardroom window.

The SF police are bound to follow the CEO and board, as to who legally physically accesses the server building. And the programmers are hired and fired by the foundation, and they damn-well do what the board says. Jimbo can file all the lawsuits he likes (on his own nickel) but in the end, the board rules and will rule. (Of course, in San Francisco, the police would politely take Jimbo in yellow-gloved hand, and escort him out of the purple WMF building and maybe buy him a latte).

Founder, flounder, bounder, whatever. Jimbo is not an owner, by his own choice (to avoid taxes and maybe even screw another early Bomis investor), and in a society where the notion of "property" still exists, the Golden Rule is that: him who has the gold (or control of it) makes the rules. That's not Jimbo. In typical fashion he wants the power without any of the responsibility, but this will catch up with him eventually when the bloom wears off, as it does to everyone.

Jimbo gives admin votes more weight than non-admin wotes:

This is the kind of stupidity -- in effect, he is saying that non-admins might as well not vote -- that blind ballots go a big step towards curing.

Jimmy has long weighted votes in the elections; he has made it clear that he will reject a candidate who does well overall but is opposed by his close circle.

This is definitely a very strong argument for the election being a secret ballot; the community should absolutely demand this for the next election.

The SF police are bound to follow the CEO and board, as to who legally physically accesses the server building. And the programmers are hired and fired by the foundation, and they damn-well do what the board says.

As far as I know, the servers are still in Florida and there are no plans to move them.

Jimbo has never understood that he doesn't own Wikimedia. He believes that it's his personal property to use and control; the WMF thing is just a legalistic dodge that doesn't alter his moral right of control. The concept of "fiduciary duty" is completely lost on him, as is the concept of "charitable organization". It's pretty clear that the only thing preserving his control over Wikipedia is the fact that most of the Wikipedia community is teenaged boys who have an innate need for defined hierarchy and clear leaders. Jimbo fills that need for them; he pretends to be their leader and they support him in that role. As long as Wikipedia continues to primarily recruit from that demographic, I don't see this changing.

The SF police are bound to follow the CEO and board, as to who legally physically accesses the server building. And the programmers are hired and fired by the foundation, and they damn-well do what the board says.

As far as I know, the servers are still in Florida and there are no plans to move them.

Doesn't matter. There are apparently 5 different IT managers distributed geographically all over. The headquarters where orders are given, is in SF. The 400 servers are mostly in a server farm in Tampa (you're right), but they sound like they're rented. Fine. They do what the IT people (run by Brion Vibber) tell them, and the IT people answer to WFM, which is run by the CEO, which answers to the board.

http://www.computerworld.com/action/articl...54&pageNumber=1

Jimbo has never understood that he doesn't own Wikimedia. He believes that it's his personal property to use and control; the WMF thing is just a legalistic dodge that doesn't alter his moral right of control. The concept of "fiduciary duty" is completely lost on him, as is the concept of "charitable organization". It's pretty clear that the only thing preserving his control over Wikipedia is the fact that most of the Wikipedia community is teenaged boys who have an innate need for defined hierarchy and clear leaders. Jimbo fills that need for them; he pretends to be their leader and they support him in that role. As long as Wikipedia continues to primarily recruit from that demographic, I don't see this changing.

No doubt. But the question is: how do you keep it from changing? It only takes a one-time collusion of a majority of the WMF board to change everything, forever. For as long as they want. I suppose Brion and Co. could declare loyalty to Jimbo and sabotage the software or in some way stage a passive-aggressive "strike." But strikes can be broken, and it only takes one IT person to defect, also. This whole thing is massively unstable, due to the fact that it's not owned by Jimbo, and is therefore entirely driven by the willing-suspension of disbelief, by the board-audience in their chosen "actor." But an audience is a treacherous thing, as any actor (or speaker) can tell you. Lose your audience, and you're dead, dead, dead.

the IT people answer to WFM, which is run by the CEO, which answers to the board.

From what I've heard, the CEO (Sue Gardner) does not answer to the board at all, and in fact the board is effectively powerless over her, in part due to a golden parachute in her employment agreement (basically, firing her would bankrupt them). The WMF board is an essentially powerless entity.

It only takes a one-time collusion of a majority of the WMF board to change everything, forever.

Unlikely to happen; nobody gets on the WMF board now without getting personally approved by both Jimmy and Sue. Elected seats now comprise a tiny minority of the board, with the remainder appointed through mechanisms that are entirely controlled by either Jimmy or Sue. In my opinion, this was done in response to the near-coup late last year, in which a vote to "pack" the board with people unfriendly to Jimbo (and which would likely have been followed by a vote to eject Jimbo from the board) failed by a single vote.

For as long as they want. I suppose Brion and Co. could declare loyalty to Jimbo and sabotage the software or in some way stage a passive-aggressive "strike." But strikes can be broken, and it only takes one IT person to defect, also.

Brion is not going to revolt as long as they continue to pay him, and I suspect he'd even remain loyal even if not paid for a while. Just not the sort of person he is. Whatever feelings Brion has on the social and political issues, he keeps very much to himself.

Jimbo has never understood that he doesn't own Wikimedia. He believes that it's his personal property to use and control; the WMF thing is just a legalistic dodge that doesn't alter his moral right of control.

That's a riot. Especially considering that Wikipedia wasn't even Jimbo's idea, and when Sanger proposed it Jimbo had reservations. (looking for the link now)

This post has been edited by Pumpkin Muffins: Sat 6th December 2008, 9:31pm

That's a riot. Especially considering that Wikipedia wasn't even Jimbo's idea, and when Sanger proposed it Jimbo had reservations. (looking for the link now)

Yes, but when Wikimedia took off Jimbo considered it his property, inasmuch as it grew out of Bomis, which was also "his property" even though he was a tiny minority shareholder in the company, which he subsequently looted by transferring its only valuable assets (a few servers and the Wikipedia name) to the newly-minted WMF, just in time to avoid having them attached by looming litigation.

the IT people answer to WFM, which is run by the CEO, which answers to the board.

From what I've heard, the CEO (Sue Gardner) does not answer to the board at all, and in fact the board is effectively powerless over her, in part due to a golden parachute in her employment agreement (basically, firing her would bankrupt them). The WMF board is an essentially powerless entity.

And good heavens, who voted Gardner such a package, when the board members themselves have nothing of the sort? They really must be idiots.

It only takes a one-time collusion of a majority of the WMF board to change everything, forever.

Unlikely to happen; nobody gets on the WMF board now without getting personally approved by both Jimmy and Sue. Elected seats now comprise a tiny minority of the board, with the remainder appointed through mechanisms that are entirely controlled by either Jimmy or Sue. In my opinion, this was done in response to the near-coup late last year, in which a vote to "pack" the board with people unfriendly to Jimbo (and which would likely have been followed by a vote to eject Jimbo from the board) failed by a single vote.

Very interesting. Well, board members can still be bribed by outsider take-over foundations with money. If WMF pays them little and Gardner a lot, again that's very unstable as soon as everybody realizes how they're being screwed.

For as long as they want. I suppose Brion and Co. could declare loyalty to Jimbo and sabotage the software or in some way stage a passive-aggressive "strike." But strikes can be broken, and it only takes one IT person to defect, also.

Brion is not going to revolt as long as they continue to pay him, and I suspect he'd even remain loyal even if not paid for a while. Just not the sort of person he is. Whatever feelings Brion has on the social and political issues, he keeps very much to himself.

And he's famous for editing WP rarely (45 edits last year, 29 this year). Not the admin with fewest edits of all, but second-place. So you can't smell the sewer if you refuse to raise the manhole cover.

It would be interesting to see how everyone compares if only votes from admins are counted. Is it an easy thing to calculate with some form of bot? May have to post this on WP:ACE page......

I agree, this would be a neat calculation. Giving my own votes a cursory glance, I don't think they'd change that much but they could for other editors.

Edit: I bet they'd especially change for Jayvdb, because that'd pretty much chuck out most of the A-A voter bloc.

This post has been edited by Hemlock Martinis: Sun 7th December 2008, 3:20am

Jehochman quits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=256346518

My candidacy is causing more heat than light at this point. Thank you. Jehochman Talk 03:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)