Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Election results
Wikipedia Review > Wikimedia Discussion > Bureaucracy > ArbCom Elections > 2008 Arbcom elections
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
D.A.F.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 6:52pm) *

My experience with Eastern European nationalists (no matter what the stripe) is that they view promoting the superiority of their own national creed to be of such great importance that it abrogates lesser rules. They will therefore blithely disregard rules that stand in the way of doing so, while at the same time manipulating such rules to the detriment of their identified enemies. Every Eastern European nationalist I've encountered doing this is flatly and utterly convinced that their actions (no matter how outrageous they might seem to one not committed to their cause) are absolutely beyond reproach. Anyone who suggests otherwise is simply a shill for the opposition.

I'm reasonably convinced that's what's going on here. This is one of Wikipedia's unsolvable problems, in that solving it requires banning, quite frankly, most of Eastern Europe (and a good fraction of expats from Eastern Europe), which simply isn't going to happen.

For a good time, try reading one of the Wikipedias in one of the national languages from one of these countries. You'll get a really interesting twist on "neutral point of view", especially on the projects where admins are empowered to decide content disputes and block people who come out on the wrong side thereof.


Kelly, I am preparing an answer to the concerns raised and will be posting it soon. I just assure that after readers see what John has done they will stop claiming this to be an ethnic conflict. Just wait.
D.A.F.
PART I

I will be answering this and what has been addressed on WP because this is becoming rather intimidating. The ''Armenian Block'' claim is totally ridiculous, over half of those users already knew even before John was to run that he was going to run and were waiting to oppose. Both Iranian opposes and Armenian opposes have nothing or very little thing to do with each others.
On the CU request, those who are close to the topics know that most users there are legitimate (I cannot say all, because I didn<t know the existance of many of them), rejecting members just because they happen to be Armenian, Iranian, is the very same reason why this has degenerated this far, because the problems concerning those issues have been very badly handled and tagged by the ethnicity of the contributors.

I had decided to not dig John participation because I did not want others to think that that was vendetta but the way things are handled as if this is a baseless concern force me to.

See this edit here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=156399477

John is requesting to throw the article for deletion or redirecting it(which in this case will be equivalent to delete). Let’s see when he requested it; this was the state of the article when he requested it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=157370321

The 19 footnotes in question were in reference to his ethnicity. If you check the history of the article: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...&action=history You will find out the several socks (organized by Adil Baguirov) who fought on this claiming him to be Albanian. As a result 19 sources were provided to stop the edit war. After providing that much references, not only does John request it deletion by also claim to write ‘’Armenian or Albanian’’. The period which he wrote (the author which the article is about) Albanian (Caucasian Albania, nothing to do with current Albanians) was indicative of the region of Albania rather than an ethnicity. John other contributions suggest that he knew that, the article created about Caucasian Albanians shows this. The article was created by Haji, while there were some legitimate concerns about the article itself given the hasty way it was build, the subject was legitimate and Haji was working on it to address those issues. Grandmaster comes and continues the vote, 14 minutes later John vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Art...asian_Albanians

A group of users which Grandmaster is part of have done everything to prevent any articles about the term Caucasian Albanians which would require to add about the fact that after the 5th century the term Albanian was rather referred to individuals from the region of Caucasian Albania than an ethnicity. They rather created articles about the Udi, they even forked the article and created nearly two identical articles about the same thing. When one of the two copies was posted for deletion they opposed in mass. An administrator deleted it obviously because it was a copy.

The request for deletion which John engaged in, and his comment there shows a particular understanding from his part of the position of the lobbying group run by Adil Baguirov and another member (name to be disclosed privately) of Wikipedia, Atabek. See more here his reply. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=165621208

Those who don’t know the subject will find nothing here, but this is on the surface. What is behind that reveals more. The same lobbyist group advance the theory that all Albanian books (to explain why those books were written in Armenian during that period) were destroyed and burned after being translated in Armenian. Probably the last volume was written by another person indeed. But the fact is his knowledge of this particular information which is used by the lobbying group to question the original language and the person why wrote it. First part, written mostly by an ethnic Albanian, then an Armenian taking the first part translating it, destroying the original and finishing it. That basically sums the claim.

There are many things which links John with this group (which presence like I repeat is documentable). For now I don’t have time to type the rest, I will be doing it bit by bit, including why Iranian members oppose John (concerns which are legitimate too)

I advice those who throw stones and make baseless charges to wait... before throwing stones.

I will also ask to ChrisO to step down at commenting about something which he totally ignore about and not make this as vendetta because he had conflict with Iranian users. The reason those users oppose to John, has nothing to do directly with articles or actions by John directly relating to their contribution.
D.A.F.
If any candidate I have already supported (or indicated I would support but haven't yet done so) asks me to change my support of them to an oppose of them in order to counteract this sort of skewing that they consider unfair to other candidates, and to keep the relative standings properly balanced, I will do so (marking my oppose as an offsetting one done at request of the candidate I'm opposing). And... respect them a great deal to boot. It would send a strong message to those block voting that elections should be carried on the strength of the candidates, not on ethnic rivalries or BADSITES dramas. Anyone else willing to do so, or is this a crazy idea? ++Lar: t/c 03:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

After reading this stupid answer comming from Lar, an alleged respected member of the community I rest my case. I won't continue posting anything else about the subject.

Just for your information, I have emailed two members who had something against him to oppose. That's all the canvassing I did, a huge sin, since I have no right to vote.
Kato
Abusive Sockpuppeteer and known canvasser JoshuaZ proposes that email checks be made on the accused.
QUOTE(JoshuaZ)

This may be a bad idea but I thought it should be at least put up for consideration: As I understand it, it is now possible to verify which Wikipedia email user functions were recently used with whom. Could the people with that capability (checkuser or maybe just developers?) look at that and see if there is any evidence of using it directly to canvass to these users? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


Yeah. That is a bad idea.

Why can't they just accept that a bunch of people didn't like a decision this guy made, for whatever reason, and voted oppose. As is apparently their right? Jayjg has been orchestrating these kinds of things all over the site for years, with impunity and under everyone's nose. That is the system you operate in - like it or leave it.

I mean, it isn't anywhere near as bad as those Cool Hand Luke opposes, which came from people being duped by a malicious smear attempt by Ryan Postlethwaite.
D.A.F.
They can use any tools they want on my account and check if I ever sent anything to anyone beside two emails which I don't remember if they were sent through Wikipedia.

Besides, Cool Hand Luke opposes were vendetta's, while John is opposed because he is not trusted to access CU and arbitrators mailing list. Lar is actually proposing to undo users vote by supporting someone that they don<t want to support, while opposers really wanted to oppose him.

QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 4th December 2008, 12:20am) *

Abusive Sockpuppeteer and known canvasser JoshuaZ proposes that email checks be made on the accused.
QUOTE(JoshuaZ)

This may be a bad idea but I thought it should be at least put up for consideration: As I understand it, it is now possible to verify which Wikipedia email user functions were recently used with whom. Could the people with that capability (checkuser or maybe just developers?) look at that and see if there is any evidence of using it directly to canvass to these users? JoshuaZ (talk) 04:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


Yeah. That is a bad idea.

Why can't they just accept that a bunch of people didn't like a decision this guy made, for whatever reason, and voted oppose. As is apparently their right? Jayjg has been orchestrating these kinds of things all over the site for years. That is the system you operate in - like it or leave it.

I mean, it isn't anywhere near as bad as those Cool Hand Luke's opposes, which came from people being duped by a malicious smear attempt by Ryan Poslethwaite.
Lar
QUOTE(Xidaf @ Thu 4th December 2008, 12:26am) *

Besides, Cool Hand Luke opposes were vendetta's, while John is opposed because he is not trusted to access CU and arbitrators mailing list.

I expect some people will say exactly the opposite... that the CHL opposes are good faith concerns and the Jayvdb opposes are vendettas.

I expect the truth is that there is some of each motive present for opposes of both candidates.

As for my suggestion, I don't think you've quite gotten the point of it yet.
D.A.F.
QUOTE(Lar @ Thu 4th December 2008, 12:54am) *

QUOTE(Xidaf @ Thu 4th December 2008, 12:26am) *

Besides, Cool Hand Luke opposes were vendetta's, while John is opposed because he is not trusted to access CU and arbitrators mailing list.

I expect some people will say exactly the opposite... that the CHL opposes are good faith concerns and the Jayvdb opposes are vendettas.

I expect the truth is that there is some of each motive present for opposes of both candidates.

As for my suggestion, I don't think you've quite gotten the point of it yet.


Well I did, I just believe the analogy is not quite there. Several of the users there knew before the presentation of the candidates that John will present himself. After fixing the Azerbaijan's copyright issue he came here to ''fix'' policy. His platform include many issues which will make it hard to address real things. An example being that before accepting a case the scope should be made clear This way of reducing the scope was what was the main problem with AAI, AAII and Ehid_Lesar. I provided those things and several others to the two members I ''canvassed''. Those who opposed know why they opposed. They do not trust him access to CU and arbitrators mailing list, if he can become an arbitrator without such access, I can tell you that some members I know could change their votes. But brushing away votes this way just does not do it.
Kato
QUOTE(Lar @ Thu 4th December 2008, 5:54am) *

QUOTE(Xidaf @ Thu 4th December 2008, 12:26am) *

Besides, Cool Hand Luke opposes were vendetta's, while John is opposed because he is not trusted to access CU and arbitrators mailing list.

I expect some people will say exactly the opposite... that the CHL opposes are good faith concerns and the Jayvdb opposes are vendettas.

I expect the truth is that there is some of each motive present for opposes of both candidates.

As for my suggestion, I don't think you've quite gotten the point of it yet.

I wonder what Jayvdb's motives were for opposing his closest rival's bids and then voting for Jehochman? The first seems like poor sportsmanship, the second like poor judgment. It has also been suggested that it was the opposition of potential rivals that spurred his downward spiral, not these phantom Eastern European canvassers.

And the guy didn't even bother answering your questions Lar - so there is no clue as to what he thinks about the crucial issues of Wikipedia. Rather than moaning about some phantom opposers on admin pages, why isn't he spending time answering them?
D.A.F.
The guys crucial issues have nothing to do with Wikipedia.

QUOTE(Kato @ Thu 4th December 2008, 1:10am) *

QUOTE(Lar @ Thu 4th December 2008, 5:54am) *

QUOTE(Xidaf @ Thu 4th December 2008, 12:26am) *

Besides, Cool Hand Luke opposes were vendetta's, while John is opposed because he is not trusted to access CU and arbitrators mailing list.

I expect some people will say exactly the opposite... that the CHL opposes are good faith concerns and the Jayvdb opposes are vendettas.

I expect the truth is that there is some of each motive present for opposes of both candidates.

As for my suggestion, I don't think you've quite gotten the point of it yet.

I wonder what Jayvdb's motives were for opposing his closest rival's bids and then voting for Jehochman? The first seems like poor sportsmanship, the second like poor judgment.

And the guy didn't even bother answering your questions Lar - so there is no clue as to what he thinks about the crucial issues of Wikipedia.

Cla68
It looks like at least some of this election is going to descend into outright farce. I think one way to fix this, as Gomi suggested in another thread, is to use secret balloting. Although it won't prevent canvassing, it would make it harder to game the system by tactical opposes/supports and it would help prevent pile-on voting like what happened with Ryan's comments on CHL's and Neil's pages. The final vote tallies would just need to be announced before Jimbo made his appointment announcement.
D.A.F.
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 4th December 2008, 1:13am) *

It looks like at least some of this election is going to descend into outright farce. I think one way to fix this, as Gomi suggested in another thread, is to use secret balloting. Although it won't prevent canvassing, it would make it harder to game the system by tactical opposes/supports and it would help prevent pile-on voting like what happened with Ryan's comments on CHL's and Neil's pages. The final vote tallies would just need to be announced before Jimbo made his appointment announcement.


Mass canvassing will be easier this way. This kind of things should not be repeated, but people must understand that what is going on here has nothing to do with editing conflict. He said he will recuse in AA matters, and he could for other matters. It is a question of trust on his access to the arbitration mailing list and CU.
Milton Roe
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 4:39pm) *

QUOTE(Xidaf @ Wed 3rd December 2008, 7:18pm) *

ChrisO comment on Jayvdb page is incredibly stupid, making it appear that the opposition against him is due to some conflicts between Azeri and Iranian users. Just because he had some problem with some Iranian users he's making an ignorant and misleading comment. Well ChrisO, if you happen to read here, ask John what was behind his work on legislations regulating copyright in Azerbaijan on Wikisource. Ask him why he killed a formal mediation between a group of users, or his ''innocent'' contributions about Caucasian Albanian matters in support of a documentable lobbying organization established on Wikipedia. Invite him here at WR so that he dare making the claims he makes on his page about AA affairs and see how he's been dishonest.

If you are really fighting to have accurate content on Wikipedia you will put aside your personal vendetta's and search the real rational behind the opposition.

If you check, you will see the oppositions comming from Armenian, Assyrian, Persian, Kurdish and Greek etc. members, because he had acted hand in hand with an ultranationalist Azerbaijani organization who is pushing fringe theories over Wikipedia. You're voting to give such a user access to the arbitration mailing list as well as CU access.


There appears to be some canvassing going on among a certain group of editors trying to sink John's candidacy. Seven editors showed up today to oppose who didn't meet the eligibility criteria. That's a smoking gun.

Were they Caucasian Albanians or Baltic Albanians? Or Armenians? Wait-- it's got to be those heavily-Russified Caucasus Germans still living in Azerbaijan. There's nothing like the ultranationalist Russified CaucasioGerman-Azerbaijani. If you haven't experienced it, you don't want to. unsure.gif
Somey
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 4th December 2008, 1:47am) *
Were they Caucasian Albanians or Baltic Albanians? Or Armenians? Wait-- it's got to be those heavily-Russified Caucasus Germans still living in Azerbaijan. There's nothing like the ultranationalist Russified CaucasioGerman-Azerbaijani.

Well, you shouldn't confuse Armenians with Muslims, Slavic or otherwise. That's just wrong!

I mean, you might as well confuse Iowans with these so-called "people" from Missouri. Sheesh!
D.A.F.
QUOTE(Somey @ Thu 4th December 2008, 2:01am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 4th December 2008, 1:47am) *
Were they Caucasian Albanians or Baltic Albanians? Or Armenians? Wait-- it's got to be those heavily-Russified Caucasus Germans still living in Azerbaijan. There's nothing like the ultranationalist Russified CaucasioGerman-Azerbaijani.

Well, you shouldn't confuse Armenians with Muslims, Slavic or otherwise. That's just wrong!

I mean, you might as well confuse Iowans with these so-called "people" from Missouri. Sheesh!


True, they're Raelian.
KamrynMatika
Haha, I just tried voting in the elections and had all my votes removed as I voted from a different account (I don't remember the password; sue me). Apparently as the vote counters are too lazy to confirm this via email I'm banned from voting. Regardless of the fact that I've helped write featured articles, GAs, etc, I get told in IRC not to 'bother' them with it. And I got reverted by a user that does nothing but use bots. I suddenly realise how Peter Damian must have felt. WP really does not give a shit about you or your contributions. It's like.. a revelation to me. You give hours and hours of your time and effort to the project and it's like.. you're not even worth the two seconds it would take to confirm you have suffrage to vote in the elections for the de-facto governing body?

I was half-minded to begin writing articles again (my main intention in registering an account), but stuff like this is just a complete slap in the face. Basically what I'm trying to say here is: Fuck you, Wikipedia.

I have better things to do with my time. angry.gif
D.A.F.
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Thu 4th December 2008, 2:08am) *

Haha, I just tried voting in the elections and had all my votes removed as I voted from a different account (I don't remember the password; sue me). Apparently as the vote counters are too lazy to confirm this via email I'm banned from voting. Regardless of the fact that I've helped write featured articles, GAs, etc, I get told in IRC not to 'bother' them with it. And I got reverted by a user that does nothing but use bots. I suddenly realise how Peter Damian must have felt. WP really does not give a shit about you or your contributions. It's like.. a revelation to me.


dah!
Sarcasticidealist
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Thu 4th December 2008, 12:08am) *

Haha, I just tried voting in the elections and had all my votes removed as I voted from a different account (I don't remember the password; sue me). Apparently as the vote counters are too lazy to confirm this via email I'm banned from voting. Regardless of the fact that I've helped write featured articles, GAs, etc, I get told in IRC not to 'bother' them with it. And I got reverted by a user that does nothing but use bots. I suddenly realise how Peter Damian must have felt. WP really does not give a shit about you or your contributions. It's like.. a revelation to me. You give hours and hours of your time and effort to the project and it's like.. you're not even worth the two seconds it would take to confirm you have suffrage to vote in the elections for the de-facto governing body?

I was half-minded to begin writing articles again (my main intention in registering an account), but stuff like this is just a complete slap in the face. Basically what I'm trying to say here is: Fuck you, Wikipedia.

I have better things to do with my time. angry.gif
Or, in other words, "No worries"?
KamrynMatika
QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Thu 4th December 2008, 7:22am) *

Or, in other words, "No worries"?


What I am talking about is what happened afterwards when I joined IRC to look at the live data. Someone immediately asked me if I had joined to talk to him about removing my votes. I was like ? and then I noticed that he was currently removing my votes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255798636

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255799019

I offered to confirm it via email and was told that the vote counters are too busy to write an email, and to not 'bother them with it'.

C'est la vie. I won't be bothering the so-called 'community' again.
east.718
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Thu 4th December 2008, 2:28am) *
What I am talking about is what happened afterwards when I joined IRC to look at the live data. Someone immediately asked me if I had joined to talk to him about removing my votes. I was like ? and then I noticed that he was currently removing my votes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255798636

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=...oldid=255799019

I offered to confirm it via email and was told that the vote counters are too busy to write an email, and to not 'bother them with it'.

C'est la vie. I won't be bothering the so-called 'community' again.

I wasn't around in the channel when this happened, but would have called out all the people that blew you off if I were. In lieu of that, I've smacked around a couple folks who thought "the bot says no!" is a legitimate reason to disenfranchise somebody. I also saw to it that your votes were put back; let me know if you run into any more nonsense.
Eppur si muove
QUOTE(east.718 @ Thu 4th December 2008, 8:15am) *

I wasn't around in the channel when this happened, but would have called out all the people that blew you off if I were. In lieu of that, I've smacked around a couple folks who thought "the bot says no!" is a legitimate reason to disenfranchise somebody. I also saw to it that your votes were put back; let me know if you run into any more nonsense.


Aren't the ultras going to regard this as a disaster? An issue is raised about the evil admins and then someone goes and fixes it. Could someone please go and block the user for forum shopping (and worse to the big bad WR) just so that everyone's belief systems can be saved? evilgrin.gif
Peter Damian
QUOTE(east.718 @ Thu 4th December 2008, 8:15am) *

I wasn't around in the channel when this happened, but would have called out all the people that blew you off if I were. In lieu of that, I've smacked around a couple folks who thought "the bot says no!" is a legitimate reason to disenfranchise somebody. I also saw to it that your votes were put back; let me know if you run into any more nonsense.


Welcome, East.718
KamrynMatika
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 4th December 2008, 10:54am) *

QUOTE(east.718 @ Thu 4th December 2008, 8:15am) *

I wasn't around in the channel when this happened, but would have called out all the people that blew you off if I were. In lieu of that, I've smacked around a couple folks who thought "the bot says no!" is a legitimate reason to disenfranchise somebody. I also saw to it that your votes were put back; let me know if you run into any more nonsense.


Welcome, East.718


He's been around for a while.

And thank you, East.

Edit: Although, the votes I linked above have not actually been restored tongue.gif
Peter Damian
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Thu 4th December 2008, 11:09am) *

He's been around for a while.
And thank you, East.


Oh yes (Nov 2007, not 2008).

I'm actually testing my new signature.
Heat
How's that working out?
Kelly Martin
QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 4th December 2008, 12:13am) *
I think one way to fix this, as Gomi suggested in another thread, is to use secret balloting. Although it won't prevent canvassing, it would make it harder to game the system by tactical opposes/supports and it would help prevent pile-on voting like what happened with Ryan's comments on CHL's and Neil's pages. The final vote tallies would just need to be announced before Jimbo made his appointment announcement.
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?
Heat
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 4th December 2008, 2:15pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 4th December 2008, 12:13am) *
I think one way to fix this, as Gomi suggested in another thread, is to use secret balloting. Although it won't prevent canvassing, it would make it harder to game the system by tactical opposes/supports and it would help prevent pile-on voting like what happened with Ryan's comments on CHL's and Neil's pages. The final vote tallies would just need to be announced before Jimbo made his appointment announcement.
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?


I think being elected to arbcom is supposed to be like being elected Pope.

BTW, I just realized that if you ever became a celebrity the tabs would refer to you as K-Mart.
Kelly Martin
QUOTE(Heat @ Thu 4th December 2008, 8:17am) *
BTW, I just realized that if you ever became a celebrity the tabs would refer to you as K-Mart.
I've been subjected to that nickname both here and at ED for some time now. It's kinda odd that Kellie Martin isn't subjected to it; then again, she's not a very high drama celebrity.
Robert Roberts
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 4th December 2008, 2:15pm) *

QUOTE(Cla68 @ Thu 4th December 2008, 12:13am) *
I think one way to fix this, as Gomi suggested in another thread, is to use secret balloting. Although it won't prevent canvassing, it would make it harder to game the system by tactical opposes/supports and it would help prevent pile-on voting like what happened with Ryan's comments on CHL's and Neil's pages. The final vote tallies would just need to be announced before Jimbo made his appointment announcement.
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?



I've been puzzled by this as well - you have candidates who make statements about how they will reform government to serve the people. Then franchised individuals vote (and not a wikipedian !vote either) in a tactical manner to get their people in. It's a straight political process (well except for the bent godking bit at the end), how can you not expect canvassing in any political process?
Heat
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 4th December 2008, 2:20pm) *

QUOTE(Heat @ Thu 4th December 2008, 8:17am) *
BTW, I just realized that if you ever became a celebrity the tabs would refer to you as K-Mart.
I've been subjected to that nickname both here and at ED for some time now. It's kinda odd that Kellie Martin isn't subjected to it; then again, she's not a very high drama celebrity.


K-Mart would probably object to having their trademark diluted.
east.718
QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Thu 4th December 2008, 5:54am) *
Welcome, East.718
Shouldn't I be welcoming you, since I've been around longer? tongue.gif
QUOTE(KamrynMatika @ Thu 4th December 2008, 6:09am) *
He's been around for a while.

And thank you, East.

Edit: Although, the votes I linked above have not actually been restored tongue.gif
Someone else in the IRC channel (surprise!) didn't notice me chewing everyone out and decided to reindent the votes again. It should be fine now. I think it's pretty demeaning to not take the two minutes required to ensure the suffrage of somebody that's donated enough of their time to have written featured articles, but that just might be me.
Sarcasticidealist
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 4th December 2008, 7:15am) *
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.
Milton Roe
QUOTE(sarcasticidealist @ Thu 4th December 2008, 6:41pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 4th December 2008, 7:15am) *
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" ohmy.gif 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.
Jacina
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 wink.gif
The Wales Hunter
Jimbo gives admin votes more weight than non-admin wotes:

QUOTE


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)
D.A.F.
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Fri 5th December 2008, 3:59pm) *

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

QUOTE


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.
everyking
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Fri 5th December 2008, 9:59pm) *

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

QUOTE


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.
Milton Roe
QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 5th December 2008, 9:49pm) *

QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Fri 5th December 2008, 9:59pm) *

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

QUOTE


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.
everyking
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 6th December 2008, 6:31am) *

QUOTE(everyking @ Fri 5th December 2008, 9:49pm) *

QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Fri 5th December 2008, 9:59pm) *

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

QUOTE


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.
Casliber
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......
Kelly Martin
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 5th December 2008, 11:31pm) *
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.
taiwopanfob
QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Fri 5th December 2008, 8:59pm) *
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.
Milton Roe
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 6th December 2008, 6:39am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 5th December 2008, 11:31pm) *
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.
Kelly Martin
QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Sat 6th December 2008, 8:31am) *

QUOTE(The Wales Hunter @ Fri 5th December 2008, 8:59pm) *
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.


QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 6th December 2008, 10:06am) *
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.
Milton Roe
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 6th December 2008, 9:59am) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 6th December 2008, 10:06am) *
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

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 6th December 2008, 9:59am) *

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.
Kelly Martin
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 6th December 2008, 2:08pm) *
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.

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 6th December 2008, 2:08pm) *
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.

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 6th December 2008, 2:08pm) *
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.
Pumpkin Muffins
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 6th December 2008, 8:59am) *
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)
Kelly Martin
QUOTE(Pumpkin Muffins @ Sat 6th December 2008, 3:17pm) *
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.

Milton Roe
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 6th December 2008, 1:41pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 6th December 2008, 2:08pm) *
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.

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 6th December 2008, 1:41pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 6th December 2008, 2:08pm) *
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.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 6th December 2008, 1:41pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 6th December 2008, 2:08pm) *
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.
Hemlock Martinis
QUOTE(Casliber @ Sat 6th December 2008, 12:26am) *

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.
The Wales Hunter
Jehochman quits:

QUOTE

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)

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.