The Arbcom voting ended at 7 PM EST tonight.

Top five (the ones most likely to get Arbcom seats) are Newyorkbrad, FT2, FayssalF, Sam Blacketer, and Deskana.

Giano finished with just a 58% approval vote, good for 10th.

The only Arbcom member standing for re-election, Raul654, didn't do much better, finished 8th at 65%.

Of course, none of this matters, in reality, as now we wait for the only voter whose vote counts -- the Sole Flounder -- to pick five names from the list.

Interesting note: Newyorkbrad drew the most attention in the vote, with 567 voters signing his vote page. Second was... Giano. 541 voters signed his vote page.

Giano got far more oppose votes than any other candidate, with the doomed candidacy of White Cat second, and Raul654 third.

In a small sign of hope, the JoshuaBot couldn't even get over the 50% threshold.

Vote count

Do we know the age, real name, occupation, and state of residence of the lucky winners?

Why?

But those who tucked tail and quit simply couldn't rack up any more Oppose votes.

I consider this election a success, simply because none of the really awful candidates--Raul654 and Rebecca in particular--got into the top five. As for the ones who did make it, I have a pretty solidly favorable impression of NYB, and more vaguely favorable impressions of FT2 and Sam. I have a vaguely negative impression of Deskana, but not enough to make me think he's really terrible, and I can't recall anything whatsoever about Fayssal. I think this election will lead to an improvement in the ArbCom process, although it might be only a subtle change.

Worryingly, Jimbo could expand the ArbCom in order to appoint some of the people who made it into the sixth to eighth range. I hope the recent controversies have convinced him to play by the books and not pull any funny business like that.

He's going to appoint whoever he wants anyway. He managed to get JayJG re-elected.

He wouldn't dare exclude anybody from the top five. There would be a terrible outcry. Outside of the top five, he may feel he has some room to maneuver.

Congratulations, NewYorkBrad! You just won Survivor: Wikipedia 2007 ArbCom! But instead of $1 million, you get to listen to Wikipedians belly-ache for 3 years and, if you're lucky, you'll do or say something that may very well destroy Wikipedia! Or at least make the Community very angry at you.

Maybe I should be congratulating the losers, instead of the winners?

There are mine fields everywhere in the Wikipedia community.

Those fields are yours? They're certainly not mine!

Nothing on Wikipedia belongs to any one person. Everything belongs to the whole community.

Interestingly, an early Ayn Rand novel, Anthem, featured a totalitarian society where the main slogan is "There is no I, only we!" So, did Randist Jimbo actually pattern his project after the villains of a Rand book?

I imagine Wow was concerned with accountability. I believe those appointed have to demonstrate to WMF their age, and by extension their names. But WMF isn't always so good about fact checking.

It's an unpaid position isn't it?

If people had to forsake their privacy ArbCom would be prone to the main problem that Citizendium's had- not many people wanting to join up. Particularly women wouldn't then want to be on ArbCom due to the potential to get hastle.

Also you know how much wikipedia has been in the papers etc. Those on ArbCom may not want to be "famous" under their real names, but just to be involved in wikipedia, which is a hobby.

If WMF has to know their details then that's fair enough, but arbitrators shouldn't have to share their details publicly- their not being paid, are they?

They're just solving (correctly or incorrectly) rows on a website.

Given the very heated nature of some of the disputes, and the nature of some of the groups/people they might have to restrain ("cults", individuals who make threats etc.), the potential for aggro in real life if their everyday names were known to everyone is very high.

Yes, this is the standard issue defense of the pseudonymous exercise of authority at the cost of accountability and social responsibility.

It's internal 'authority' over content of a website It would be different if they were actually running the WikiMedia Foundation or something.

Look, you can't have it both ways. If ArbCom authority is trivial than there should no concerns that they need to be protected from those who they upset with there decisions. Besides, as far as I know, no ArbCom member has ever been harmed in any matter whatsoever by any aggrieved party. It is just more WP paranoia.

Even a petty hooded star-chamber is not a good thing.

Well, as someone who recently went through vetting for checkuser, I can vouch for their being pretty strict these days. There's a requirement for proof of age, provable through some recognized form of documentation. I submitted my stuff to Cary, who signed things off some time later. What sort of background checks they do once they have that info is anyone's guess, but they are pretty strict about it being verifiable.

That's the Wikipedia philosophy, isn't it? They're not concerned with truth, only verifiability.

It's pretty smart to have Cary Bass verifying identities since he probably has an assortment of whips, chains and clubs to reign upon those who try to pull a fast one.

are you saying that no one should meth with bass?

Well, when I was told to "submit to Cary", that wasn't quite what I'd had in mind

I'm sure Cary's a really nice guy and all, but just be sure to carry a bottle of Lexol™ with you if you're planning to drop by the Foundation offices for a chat.

Boy, I'm sure that the Sargaent at Arms in that organization gets some interesting email...