[WikiEN-l] The Wikipedia Ombudsman

Mon Jan 9 14:36:59 UTC 2006

I liked that as I was able to vote for a number of people, including  
some that have no chance at all of being elected. If we could only  
vote for a few people I would then have to engage in grim  
calculations, trying to be very careful when I really don't know all  
those people very well. I think I would probably make some mistaken  
votes in those circumstances and then have to live with them. Using  
this approach I was able to vote for a wide variety of candidates  
including some whose views differ from mine.

The thing is, the questions that we really have about arbitrators  
can't be answered abstractly. You know something when you see them in  
action in that role. It is very difficult to predict. Almost everyone  
who ran might be a good arbitrator. Or might be a good arbitrator for  
two weeks then we have to beg them to look at cases. One thing I did  
consider very negative, lengthy and wordy responses to questions. I  
can't stand written or oral filibusters.

Fred

On Jan 9, 2006, at 6:21 AM, Peter Mackay wrote:

> I've just cast my eye over the voting process for the ArbCom and I  
> have got
> to say that it sucks. Every editor gets multiple votes, because  
> they can
> support or oppose every single candidate. That's like a single  
> voter being
> able to vote twice over in every voting district in the country.  
> The end
> result will be a remarkably uniformly thinking ArbCom that has the  
> support
> of a majority, while the minority will find that their views are
> unrepresented.