User talk:Jimbo Wales

Your children are savage and misbehaving

Someone was blocked. Their case was on WP:ANI. They provided an explanation. The polite thing would be to transfer their explanation to WP:ANI. As a result of this doing this (and offering no excuses for the person or any commentary), people are attacking me and calling for me to be blocked. People have invaded my privacy and looked up IP data (and they found I am "unrelated" to the blocked person).

You need to stop this childish and savage behavior. If not, nobody with any brains is going to want to write for your encyclopedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ANI#User:DBZfan29_unblock_request

Is anybody going to block Acme Plumbing? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Acme Plumbing is  Unrelated, just someone trying to be helpful by cross-posting DBZF's talk page comments. However, someone should ask DBZF about edit warring while logged out and the other two accounts operating from his home. Thatcher 20:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC) ..."Curiouser and curiouser." Durova310 02:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC) (A renewed attack)

Acme Plumbing (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Acme Plumbing is already blocked from editing. Indefinetly too. Should keep him out of trouble cause nobodys gonna unblock this bad boy. RascalthePeaceful (t) 18:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't, I say, just don't. What I can see here, is that he is making continous harrassments, and somehow the notice above "If not, nobody with any brains is going to want to write for your encyclopedia" is what Acme Plumbing had left on your talk page. Do not unblock Acme Plumbing until he is clear of those harrassments. Certainly, he is a bad boy.--BoeingRuleOfThe9th-700 (talk) 14:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Speaking from experience, if the crazed disgruntled folks can't tighten up their narrative so that it's at least mostly understandable, the appeal fall flat. I'm sure something sinister happened here, but I don't have the strength to wade through that breathless stream of thought to figure it out. -- Thekohser 18:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Role of the Public Editor?

Jimbo, I first heard about the project from some friends of yours at the CBOE, I was clearing First Options at the Board. I remember the first time I came to the site - it was barren beyond belief, articles half written - major topics like States and continents unlisted.

I signed on and have been adding content since before 9/11. I've always prided myself on the quality of my edits, interesting content addition has always been a forte of mine. I travel extensively and have edited from small dark rooms in Tibet to overly bright cafe's in the Galapagos - I estimate I've easily made over 10,000 edits from dozens of nations over the last 9 years, and that's a very conservative estimate. (I've even created articles as an IP since after that was blocked off through requests to account holders. :) )

I've done all of this as a Public Editor, anonymously.

Around 2006 or so there was a cultural shift, anonymous editors began to become suspect - this was actually not the worst thing, the scrutiny made for strong editing as every ref or edit was considered fully, but fairly.

Lately though, certainly for the last year, IP editors have become the peons and plebes of many here. IP's routinely have the most basic and solid edits reverted and rejected - discussing or resisting is met with easy bans, page locks and wholesale reversions. It's a common and painfully true complaint of editors with an account that Administrators give little time or effort into considering a dispute before applying their not inconsiderable powers. The situation is far more pronounced when an IP is involved.

Much of this is institutional, the politics of social networking may have begun to pervade and poison neutral interaction and traditional consensus building. Those of us who historically have contributed evenly across topics of all kinds are giving way to the Gatekeepers and committed ideologues that seem to have entrenched themselves and built unspoken alliances. Pattern editing, in which one works from a specific identifiable angle across multiple related topics in order to paint an ideological picture throughout related articles is increasing rapidly. The historic individual edit-warriors, adept at skirting the rules while manipulating the levers of Wiki for their own ends are slowly being replaced by a growing body of a much more sophisticated animal - individuals that now have an objective and goals. Far short of the legendary "Cabals", but the pattern of evolution is not promising.

I've been inside most every nook and cranny, and grown with this project since its inception but now it seems nearly impossible to edit as a member of the public.

What are your thoughts on the role of the Public Editor? 99.144.240.242 (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure why you are referring to an unregistered editor as a "Public Editor". We are all public editors. From what I see, unregistered editors are usually less experienced (although there are exceptions) and are less aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, which make their edits less likely to conform to Wikipedia's standards. If you consider only IP edits that are sourced and that have reasonable edit summaries (which many IP editors leave blank, contrary to guidelines), good edits stick and bad ones don't. There is one IP who has very substantially, and very effectively, rewritten articles relating to Euclid and Euclidean geometry. He or she had no problem with good edits being reverted and has become a very respected editor in math articles. I see a lot of good edits by anons that are not reverted. —Finell (Talk) 08:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, "unregistered editor". It's a critical part of the success of the project and the source of much content, for many it's also their first and most important interaction with the encyclopedia. 99.144.240.242 (talk) 04:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

While blatant vandals tend to be IP users, I'm seeing more and more spam coming from registered users. So I try to not judge a situation based on registration status. One frustration I have with IP users is that it can be impossible to ask them a question about their edits. WP:BRD rarely works because they don't have a watchlist. In the case of something that is questionably sourced, reverting is often the only option. Of course I leave an edit summary when doing so. But new users often don't check the summaries, which can leave them frustrated that their changes were taken out. I think this situation is getting worse as articles mature and new edits stand out for being poorly sourced. UncleDouggie (talk) 12:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

"Articles maturing..." This may be one of the more important variables at work here, defensive editing is definitely on the rise as people feel they have a controlling interest in a topic they've invested time in. 99.144.240.242 (talk) 01:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree this can be an issue, although it's not really what I was referring to here. In patrolling recent changes to articles on which I've had no contributions, especially BLPs, people will throw stuff in with no sources, or sources to a blog, while the article already has lots of well sourced material. I'm not talking about obvious vandalism. The only choice is to take it out with an edit summary and let someone with more experience in the subject put it back in later with a source if appropriate. Cases like this tend to get resolved more easily for registered accounts with talk pages, etc. It is more of an issue with editor experience than user type. However, it's harder to help people build experience when they're an IP user. UncleDouggie (talk) 04:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

One of the more interesting things I've noticed with intelligent IP edits I've witnessed recently is an immediate suspicion of puppetry (which itself is quite obviously soaring). I honestly wonder if its not time to abolish IP editing entirely, a half measure like delayed edits requiring approval by registered editors may cause more harm as Gatekeepers reject based upon their opinions rather than a vandal/no vandal consideration. 99.144.240.242 (talk) 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No, doing so would have no benefit, at least as long as creation of an account has no cost [with its broadest meaning] to the kind of people who now make edits that are uninformed or malicious. -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article.[1] A serious study came out just last month finding:

"We consider this as evidence of growing resistance from the Wikipedia community to new content, especially when the edits come from occasional editors." ... ("Note that edits related to vandalism and edits performed by robots are excluded.")

An article that discusses the study can be found here:http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2009/aug/13/wikipedia-edits. Also interesting to note is a comment left by a reader at the study page: "I just did a few random edits as an anon IP. A day later, about 1/3 of them were reverted, despite being accurate. 2 or 3 years ago this wasn't the case. Hypothesis confirmed." Nothing more than anecdotal, but interesting nonetheless. 99.144.240.242 (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It's an interesting study but this inference seems odd. This "growing resistance" looks to me like an epiphenomenon. Anyway, if you want to increase the chances that your edits will be taken seriously, you're free to get a username and stick to it (and to advise your chums to do the same). -- Hoary (talk) 03:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's another article on the study: [2]

Chi's team discovered that the way the site operated had changed significantly ...Today, they discovered, a stable group of high-level editors has become increasingly responsible for controlling the encyclopedia, while casual contributors and editors are falling away. Wikipedia – often touted as the bastion of open knowledge online – has become, in Chi's words, "a more exclusive place".

I really am open to the idea of dropping IP edits entirely - the potential damage caused to the project through what could be exaggeratively called almost a fraternity level of hazing to those wishing to contribute to the project as an IP is not a net positive. Not even close in my opinion. The level of frustration endured should not be overlooked, and its importance should not be discounted.99.144.240.242 (talk) 03:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The quote from an unspecified reader -- it proves very little. I can easily add a dozen accurate facts to that many articles, but perhaps most would deserve removal. Accuracy isn't enough: the additions need to cite reliable sources. Now, it could very well be that people are a lot more suspicious of unsourced additions by IPs than they are of the same by logged in users. I'd say they're right to be suspicious of the former and wrong not to be suspicious of the latter. In view of the large percentage of new content that's unsourced, if there is indeed a growing resistance to new content, this doesn't trouble me in the slightest. What's your own experience of the reaction to your addition of reliably sourced, non-trivial new content to articles? -- Hoary (talk) 03:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I note the quote above, and I can relate to it on a personal level. For a period earlier this year, I was using insecure computers so didn't want to log in particularly, and decided to do some nice relaxing wikignoming (spelling corrections, noun/verb agreement, formatting refs, stuff like that). I was flabbergasted to realise that at least a third of my completely uncontroversial edits were being reverted. To a large extent, I blame tools that permit easy reversion; we made them for clueful editors to revert vandalism, and instead they're being used by unclueful editors to build up their numbers and revert without thinking. It's only my own experience again, and it's anecdotal, but it certainly hit home. And yes, once I realised I was being reverted for *good* edits, I stopped editing. Risker (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Somebody should give it a go and log the results. Clueless reverters shouldn't have tools that encourage the exercise of cluelessness. -- Hoary (talk) 05:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I did it. Ten good copyedits to random articles as an IP user. Not a single revert after one hour. I'll check again tomorrow. On one article I deliberately made a good edit, but not the best edit, because it would have taken more time. Within a few minutes another user showed up and took the time to make the best edit. He or she was a rollbacker who had been fixing vandalism all night, and they still took the time to stop and fix this not so popular article the right way. I was so impressed I gave them a barnstar. It was their first award despite hundreds of incidents of fighting vandalism and making copyedits. Somewhere there's a very confused user wondering how in the world they got a barnstar from an IP user with only 10 edits! I think the lesson here is that the system can work very well. However, there are those who act too fast or abuse the tools. I'm reminded of the mantra for those on dab repair: it is more important to disambiguate correctly than to disambiguate quickly. The same can be said for reverts. Perhaps we need to look at some random samples of reverts to IP edits and see just how many good edits were reverted. Perhaps we can even identify a few bad apples that are hurting more than helping.

I'll also throw in that I've seen lots of good edits from IP users. I think it would be a mistake to ban them and it wouldn't slow down vandalism. OK, it would slow down gross, opportunistic vandalism, but ClueBot already catches this. The tougher cases won't be impeded by needing to create an account. My comments further up were aimed at encouraging frustrated IP users to create an account because it would be easier for us to help them. UncleDouggie (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Similar story here. Nine edits (some trivial), to not-randomly-chosen articles. After more than an hour, none has yet been touched by anyone else, but then most of the edits were to articles on obscure people. When I'm wider awake, I'll try editing articles that are likely to be on more people's watchlists. -- Hoary (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

To Hoary's Question, "What's your own experience of the reaction to your addition of reliably sourced, non-trivial new content to articles?" Well, within the same dynamic IP I recently made edits to the BLP's of a Republican Congressman and a visible commentator of the left. Both were resisted with repeated reversions and extensive discussion, both had NYT's ref's rejected. Both contained accusations of POV against me. In one my edits eventually stuck - in the other not one period, comma, word or ref from any source was retained in any way.99.142.13.201 (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you give us some links to demonstrate what you mean, because at the moment you are showing the other problem with IP editors (particularly those with dynamic IPs) which is that you have no history outside of the six or so edits that are traceable to this IP. Also BLP edits are the most closely scrutinised (and for good reason) of any edits, and (in my experience) most IP edits to BLPs tend to be vandalism, and that may be small edits or it may be page blanking, and I know a lot of other registered users find the same problem. The same can happen with registered users (usually the ones without user pages) but it is easier to see it with IPs. I have seen good IP edits, and there are good IP editors, and I hope the Flagged Revision trial will help IP editors to edit more, and also help registered users to stop so much vandalism from being visible (both of which are the main problems with pages, too much protection, and too much vandalism), both of which hurt the overall project. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What if I were to tell you that one article had a claim of an award - but that no one, even in discussion, was able to say what the year of award, title of work, or even affiliation - not even the award itself is named or linked ... and that just this tag: was reverted on site. No removal of the specious claim, just a request for citation. Can you envision an appropriate argument that defends the revert of a tag when applied to a specific claim of award - when no reference exists of any kind, reliable or not?99.142.13.201 (talk) 23:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

If you were to tell me that, then I'd want to look and see for myself. Let's have the diffs. -- Hoary (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) <outdent. Without diffs, it's difficult to evaluate. In specific cases, it depends on the vigilance of individual editors, either because they have some vested interest in watching an article, or that someone has brought it to their attention, or they've picked it up in watching Special:Recent Changes. Any way, some vandalism is always, sadly, going to slip through our processes. In the particular case you mention, if it was that important to you, you could have looked into it, one way or the other, rather than leave it. This is a human-based system, and therefore subject to imperfections, intentional or otherwise. On your last point, where no reference exists, we should omit it, per WP:RS and probably WP:NOT. Rodhullandemu 23:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, for discussion purposes here only - and not as a content dispute for purposes of the article itself. Here's the sentence with the disputed tag, "She received a regional Emmy award, along with two colleagues at WDSU-TV, for the documentary A Grave Injustice, on the theft of artifacts from New Orleans historic cemeteries, and a Louisiana Associated Press Award for her reporting in Israel." And here's the dif. [3] I made several edits in addition to that one - all are defensible (and each and every one of them was also entirely reverted), but I believe this one stands alone as a fairly pure example - I doubt anyone here would disagree that citing even just the existence of the named award is a bare minimum, let alone the year of the award, title of piece or professional affiliation on that unknown date. Again, I'll emphasize that it was a tag as specified by WP:CITE. 99.142.13.201 (talk) 01:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

References

The award seems to exist. I haven't yet found anything else to show that she received it. It would have been prior to 2001 when the NG article was published. UncleDouggie (talk) 01:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll just add that when I'm not foolishly editing articles that have a connection to left/right interests I sometimes cajole[4] editors into creating articles for me to fill.[5] 99.142.13.201 (talk) 02:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the diff. Let's look at it:

She received a regional [[Emmy award]], along with two colleagues at [[WDSU-TV]], for the documentary ''A Grave Injustice'',<ref>...</ref> on the theft of artifacts from New Orleans historic cemeteries, and a Louisiana Associated Press Award{{Citation needed|date=August 2009}} for her reporting in Israel.<ref>...</ref><ref>...</ref><ref>...</ref>

(Ellipses are mine.) Right now I can't be bothered to look at any of those three references at the end. Let's assume that none of them backs the claim that this person got a Louisiana Associated Press Award. If so, when adding the "citation needed" flag why not also rejuggle the sentence so that none of them appears to back it? If on the other hand one or more of them does "authoritatively" (by WP's sometimes dodgy criteria) state that she won this thing, but you have good reason to think that this is untrue (e.g. because no such award exists) then you're right to say so. And I see that you did just that, here. So this is less an editing/reversion matter than a non-communication matter: you come off there as tiresomely repetitive, your opponent as stolidly blinkered.

Meanwhile, I'm up to 13 anonymous edits on 10 discrete articles and not a single one has yet been reverted.

Where is the best place to continue this discussion? Not here, I think. -- Hoary (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I did rejuggle the refs, but it proved too contentious so I settled on adding just the tag. The three refs are largely identically written self-bios that make the vague claim of the award and are widely plagiarized in the article itself with several verbatim lifts, The self-bio do not cite any supporting info as to Title, Date, Affiliation, Year, etc... As the self-bio makes the claim I left it in under a broad interpratation of BLP but added the neutral tag as directed by WP:CITE. 99.142.13.201 (talk) 02:28, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)

I looked into this out of concern about the alleged anti-IP bias. The already-cited National Geographic article supported the Louisiana Associated Press Award, so 99.142.13.201's {{citation needed}} tag was not warranted and properly reverted. 99.142.13.201's later reverted edits deleted apparently-sourced (I didn't check the sources) facts with no edit comment. I would revert such an edit by a registered editor. So 99.142.13.201 is not a poster boy or girl for the unfairly maligned IP editor. Frankly, 99.142.13.201, I wish you hadn't wasted about 25 minutes my time on this goose chase (yes, I would say the same thing to a registered editor in the same situation, and have done so more than once). —Finell (Talk) 02:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So a claim of an award, with no date, unknown media, unknown employer, unknown title, and no known details whatsoever is complete and beyond reproach? 99.142.13.201 (talk) 02:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems to have been something of a content dispute, or a series of little content disputes, about a TV talking head who has minor notoriety for once being less than supremely patient with "TEA Party"-goers. The whole thing looks too silly to me, but I do see some merit in what the IP says about this elusive award, now "sourced" to three pages of which two don't even mention it. I've written more on its talk page, and suggest that the discussion of it continues there rather than here, as Jimmy Wales, whose page this is, has (understandably) expressed no interest. -- Hoary (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll remove myself from the conversation as I have become a distraction, thank you for considering the topic. I urge you to continue the discussion of the reports findings without me as the greater subject does merit attention.99.142.13.201 (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As promised, here is the result from my test of editing 10 random articles as an IP user. After one day, not a single revert. My barnstar awardee went back and made yet more improvements to the article I had originally edited. A little praise goes a long way. On the Susan Roesgen article, I agree with the recent comment by Finell. I'll add that it would be nice to have details on the award, as suggested by 99.142.13.201, because it may have been a fairly minor recognition. However, this is an issue for the article talk page. If consensus is to keep it, I don't see any reason that it can't stay. I don't think the outcome would have been different if 99.142.13.201 had been a registered user. UncleDouggie (talk) 05:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

But if he had been one, he might have appeared to resemble User:Iadmitmybiaswhycantyou?, or any of several others who have been indefinitely blocked. -- Hoary (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel that I'm a sock of some type, I'm not[6][7], nor am I wedded to that article.

I also don't feel that I am in any way a poster child for Anon's - hardly. I am not representative of the class, I am however exceptionally experienced as an anon and strongly suggest that the cited reports findings be considered for the benefit of the project.

I'll close by underlining my earlier statement - I have no ideological bias regarding anonymous editing, if it benefits the goals of the project we should abandon it. Period. I only ask that serious discussion be given the broad issues raised above. The current direction of change, unwatched and left to its own devices, may not be in the best interests of all of us concerned about the greater good of this institution.99.141.240.41 (talk) 18:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ashida Kim

As the nominator in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (2nd nomination), you may be interested to know that its sixth deletion discussion is now at Deletion Review. You can follow it at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 September 4#Ashida Kim. For what it's worth, your question of October 2005 remains unanswered almost four years later, despite my pressing for it to be answered here and again here. Ironically, the badly sourced biographical content that so incensed the subject back then is still being replaced into the article even now. You can read my thoughts on our perennial failure to apply policy here, in the face of a determined effort by the owners/members of a WWW discussion forum to out-vote it again and again, at User talk:Backslash Forwardslash#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (6th nomination). Uncle G (talk) 07:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh. What a mess.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:40, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note: UncleG's comment can now be found at User talk:Backslash Forwardslash/Archive 7#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashida Kim (6th nomination). Graham87 15:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Your guestbook

Hi Jimbo! I noticed you have lots of people requesting for you to sign your guestbook here. Have you looked there lately to take the links they put there for you to sign theirs? RascalthePeaceful (t) 14:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, I hadn't! Thanks for pointing me to it. If I get the time (not this week, sadly!) I would love to go and sign everyone's in return...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

There are drawbacks to being popular. Lack of personal time is one of them, and finding you don’t have the hours in the day to do all the things people want you to do.--BSTemple (talk) 16:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming ArbCom "advisory" election

Dear Jimbo

I write concerning the arrangements for your appointment of arbitrators pursuant to the December "advisory" election. I wonder whether you will agree to a change in these arrangements, specifically, a declaration before the start of the electoral process of:

1. how many candidates you will appoint; and
2. whether you will extend the term of any sitting arbitrator or make any appointment beyond the scope of the election results.

There may be two key advantages in these changes: first, greater community confidence that its opinion will be directly reflected in the composition of ArbCom; and second, that the voters, candidates, and ArbCom itself will know in advance the size of the Committee next year, with important considerations for the planning of arbitrators' workload and leave, and the delegation of specific business.

Thanks in advance for your time. Tony (talk) 08:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I intend to keep the size of the ArbCom the same, unless there are compelling arguments offered now and with majority support of the sitting ArbCom. And second, I intend to form a new review committee composed of former arbs and checkusers, tasked specifically with doing "background checks" on the winning candidates for sockpuppets, past bad behavior, etc. Their reports will be the only thing that I would consider legitimate as a reason to not appoint, that is to say, I want my "appoint" role to be purely ceremonial this time around. And third, I will insist that all ArbCom members identify to the Foundation before taking office. I have discussed some of the details of this with ArbCom but haven't yet gotten around to reaching a final conclusion about the details - and I welcome input.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo: that is all good news. The only other matter that that might be worth considering in the medium term is a reduction of the norm of the three-year term – it seems long. I believe WP.de terms are 12 months, staggered via six-monthly elections; that seems like the other extreme. If you're in a mind to discuss something in between with ArbCom, I can't image there would be opposition from the community. Thanks! Tony (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for raising these issues, Tony. No matter the size of the ArbCom, it's important to know in advance how many Arbs we're electing, because that can determine the voting patterns. I also agree that the three-year terms seem long. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo: In my opinion, full disclosure to the Foundation of an arbitrator's identity, background, and details of commercial affiliations is essential, and a lesson to be learned from history. In the future, I would favor such a requirement, along with verification of the credentials and the sort of on-Wiki background check that you propose, when a Wikipedian becomes a candidate for ArbCom, with the investigation to be completed before voting starts; that would prevent possible controversy after the election, if a winning candidate is found to be unfit for the office. As for the term, I am not sure that three years is too long, but one year is too short, in my opinion. It is important to have a contingent of experienced arbitrators in such a demanding, powerful, and responsible position. I suggest looking to present and past ArbCom members for guidance about the term. —Finell (Talk) 19:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Finell, I agree with your points about full disclosure, before the election. It's all a bit of bother, but it can only raise the prestige of ArbCom. As for arb terms, the staggered-terms system does provide both experience and new blood simultaneously (if we can reduce the rate of departure through mishap, that would be even better). I'd not ask the US President whether s/he would be OK with a change to a one-term limit or an extension to three terms: conflict of interest. Tony (talk) 02:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

While I can see the arguments for it, it reeks of WP:OUTING, and is likely to have a chilling effect on candidacies. Just informing all of the participants that they will have to be verified if elected should have the same effect for less work on all sides. If it works for the IOC (where medal winners are drug tested), it should work for Wikipedia. AKAF (talk) 07:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It's one thing to be an essentially anonymous registered editor. It is quite another to be an anonymous candidate for ArbCom and the power that it wields over all of us. The Foundation should check the qualifications and background of candidates before the election, not afterward to invalidate the vote. —Finell (Talk) 00:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The current committee is a hair away from being completely publicly identified, some of them against their will—don't you think that is chilling? If you want to remain anonymous, you should not run for ArbCom, period. It's probably practical advice to make it known from the get-go, but it shouldn't be a requirement. Cool Hand Luke 18:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That is excellent news - thank you, Jimmy! --Tango (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"tasked specifically with doing "background checks" on the winning candidates for sockpuppets" This is TOTALLY against CU policy, ie, CU is not for fishing. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Disgraced sockpuppeting arbitrators are also contrary to policy – what alternative would you suggest to prevent these slipping through?  Skomorokh  20:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

By that logic ALL USERS should be CU'd and investigated as all puppeteers are a disgrace. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

All users are not is as sensitive position as ArbCom are. As long as it is made clear to candidates that this will be done before they decide to stand, I don't see any problem with it. If you have something to hide, don't stand for ArbCom. --Tango (talk) 00:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Simply make it clear in the election criteria that all candidates must agree to be checkusered. Cla68 (talk) 00:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I'm missing the point, but I can't see what the issue is. All ArbCom members must be identified to the Foundation, is that right? (If not, then they ought to be.) If all members must be ID-ed, how can it have a chilling effect to ask that all candidates be ID-ed?

I think we need to stop pussy-footing around with this. We've had a few bad situations with ArbCom members not being quite who or what they said or implied they were, so let's put an end to it and introduce some professionalism. (a) Let's be told exactly who we're voting for, (b) let's be told how many places we're voting for, and not have the number changed after the election closes; (c) let's have a secret ballot, and (d) let's allow the results of that ballot alone determine who is appointed, and not have Jimbo or anyone else decide it. All these measures are long overdue. Playing around with anything less suits only people with vested interests in secrecy or cabalism or unprofessionalism. Let's move beyond all that as a community, and have free and fair elections. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In the past, Arbcom members have not been required to identify to the Foundation, despite CU data and OS issues flowing across the Arbcom list regularly. This should be addressed at all levels. In regards to Checkuser, it is not a panacea; it will only be useful to prevent candidatures like Catherine de Burgh.

The only solution is to ask the candidates hard questions, such as divulging their previous accounts as required by policy at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Policy#Transparency, and kick the shit out of them if we find out that they lied. If we dont ask the hard questions, and dont insist on clear answers, these problems will continue.

Needless to say, I agree we should stop pussy-footing around, and that your recommendations are long overdue. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, John. I didn't realize ArbCom members weren't required to identify, which seems absurd. What is the procedure for sorting all this out in time for this upcoming election? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, that "past" refers to AC elections prior to the last, and in any case, after the recent little kerfuffle as far as I know all AC members are fully identified. So that issue seems to be solved already, it's now a requirement for AC membership. I still see no reason for candidates to provide identification. The serious vs. unserious candidates become apparent within the first week, and we've never had a case that I know of where a candidate was elected but couldn't fulfill the ID requirements (though there was a young and very capable fellow who withdrew based on the age-of-majority limit). In any case, if a candidate-elect fails whatever scrutiny, election proceeds to the next candidate in line, so we never get "screwed" by a hoax.

To SV's points, a) we are told who we're voting for - the editor associated with the pseudonym they selected on signing up. Their record is open to examination (but we'll never know every one of their email, IRC and gchat missives). Once those candidates are selected to serve, they need close scrutiny by WMF staff and current and former AC members - but only because they will be privy to sensitive information. Mere candidacy shouldn't require the same level of examination. b) as I recall, the number of places assigned last go-round was premised partly on planned departures to which most were not privy, and partly to address workload issues and Arb availability and participation. I personally have no big issue with the "executive decision" which gave the current result. Given the "short tail" of the ACE2008 results, I think it was admirable in fact, and I'm not aware of any damage that resulted (feelings maybe, but not in terms of actual operation of the site); c) I seem to be in the minority on this, but I thought TenOfAllTrades made very cogent points in the RFC and I personally favour open outcry elections. They allow the site editors to explicitly give their opinions with their votes, and I for one am always very interested in the opinions of my fellow editors. I rarely agree, but I do like to read how wrong all you other people are ;) TOAT made an excellent point that open-style voting lets others quickly identify fringe candidates and focus their limited time on scrutiny of issues with the realistic candidates. And open voting would have indicated pretty quickly that Lady Catherine wasn't a viable candidate last time, so we wouldn't have needed a CU - enough people had a clue there. And d) well actually, it's not all that uncommon for "other people" to decide the results of an election. I can think of at least one election in a major country in the last 10 years that was eventually decided by a majority vote among just nine eminent persons.

So no, SV, I don't think I have any of the vested interests you describe above, and I disagree that your proposals are the only way to achieve "free and fair" elections. Free and fair is such a nebulous and abused concept that I don't even want to touch it (as in, didn't Stalin hold "free and fair" elections? Like that...) Sorry Jimbo and all others for the long post! Franamax (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Any project which have either oversighters or checkusers will have sensitive data ending up in the hands of the arbitration committee. The wmf:Access to nonpublic data policy was very strict about identification, however Arbitrators have become exempt due to the wmf:Resolution:privacy policy update April 2008 (see "users elected by project communities to serve as stewards or Arbitrators"). Irrespective of that, the meta or en.WP community can determine requirements for their own arbitrators and candidates. On meta, meta:Arbitration Committee and meta:Wikimedia Arbitration committees election processes are the relevant pages. On English Wikipedia, WP:ACE2009 is editable ;-)

The executive summary of the ArbCom secret ballot RFC is that a "return to secret ballots for ArbCom elections has been resoundingly endorsed" so now we need to execute that.

IIRC, the technical infrastructure for the secret ballot is already being discussed somewhere.

I think it would be a good idea to ask the Board election committee if they would oversee our upcoming Audit-subcom & Arbcom elections, as they have recent experience, they provide necessary external oversight as many are not regulars here on en.WP, and their authority comes from the WMF board.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 06:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the technical limitations of the Checkuser extension, it would be pretty simple for a maleficent user to avoid getting caught - if they know when the CU will be done. I'm not going to say how, but if they can't figure it out, it's not too likely they'll answer the candidate questions well either. I agree with Rlevse on this, it's against CU policy and I don't see why it's necessary or even helpful. Franamax (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo: would the review committee be tasked with anything else? Such as allegations of inappropriate conduct by sitting arbitrators? The lack of any independent review body may have contributed to several problems, such as arbcom list leaks and a few rather bad spurts of drama. Durova³¹⁵ 01:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And Jimbo, could you just confirm that "keep the size of the ArbCom the same" means 17, as I believe it was after the previous appointments? Tony (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Jim Hawkins

This article has been AfD'd a second time. The discussion for the first AfD was blanked by you]. This now means that anyone referring to the old AfD cannot see the previous arguements for and against. As it was yourself that blanked the discussion I'll bow to your judgement as to whether or not to revert the blanking.

The subject is against having an article about himself on Wikipedia. I believe that as a former broadcaster on a national UK radio station he passes the notability threshold to have an article. We wouldn't delete Barak Obama's article if he asked us to, would we? Mjroots (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The previous AfD was blanked, not deleted. Anyone can see the old arguments by looking through the history of the previous AfD. The only difference the blanking has is that Google doesn't pick it up, AFAIK. Fram (talk) 08:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fram, I know that, but it is extra effort required to see previous arguements. As I said, I'll bow to Jimbo's judgement as to whether or not to unblank the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 08:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)