Jimbo outlines new elections process
A chat with the elected Arbitrators
6 February 2006
Jimbo Wales appoints 11 arbitrators, increases committee size
23 January 2006
Arbitration Committee elections continue; ArbCom member resigns
16 January 2006
ArbCom candidates (part two)
9 January 2006
ArbCom candidates
2 January 2006
Straw poll closes
19 December 2005
Jimbo starts new poll regarding election
5 December 2005
Last chance to run for ArbCom
28 November 2005
ArbCom voting process
14 November 2005
ArbCom duties and requirements
7 November 2005
A closer look: the calls for reform of the ArbCom
31 October 2005
A look back: the 2004 ArbCom elections
24 October 2005
Current ArbCom members
17 October 2005
Criticism of the ArbCom
10 October 2005
About the Arbitration process
3 October 2005
The history of the Arbitration Committee
26 September 2005
Introduction to a special series: A look at the upcoming Arbitration Committee elections
19 September 2005
|
|
|
A chat with the elected Arbitrators |
This week Jimbo Wales outlined sweeping changes in the ArbCom elections process. In an edit on the elections page, Wales wrote:
"The exact procedure is yet to be determined, but will be radically different from last year's, reflecting our learning about what did and didn't work.
The most likely process will be direct appointments by Jimbo based on nominations and volunteerings, with the appointments made in consultation with the existing and former ArbCom members and the community at large, followed by confirmation votes from the community requiring some supermajority."
If this is implemented, it would be a radical change from last year's elections, where the community used approval voting. Jimbo did not give any input on the candidates last year, instead only commenting on the voting process at the time.
The community response was limited, as most Wikipedians were unaware of the changes, given that the change was not posted on the mailing list or another more frequently-watched page. However, Jguk immediately voiced his opposition to the changes, saying that "[While Wikipedia is indebted to you, Wikipedia] needs to grow and improve without its founder if it is to succeed in the long-term, and therefore it would be better if you stepped back as far as possible from the detail." He was the only Wikipedian to comment on the changes as of press time.
Meanwhile, earlier in the week three more Wikipedians listed themselves as candidates: Blankfaze (statement), DG (statement), and Sam Spade (statement). It is unclear whether the candidate statements will still be effective with the new changes.
Discuss this story