Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2004/Organizers statement

In just a short while, we will begin voting for new members of the Arbitration Committee. This will be the third election held at Wikipedia: one for the Board of Trustees, and the other also for the Arbitration Committee. In both cases, we have proved that the electoral process is a good way to resolve differences and form committees that can oversee the day-to-day running of Wikipedia. As we grow, this is becoming all the more important, and the responsibilities that lie with the elected members, more onerous.

Unlike previous elections, this election was called spontaneously, without any organized oversight to set the parameters. In effect, it assumed a momentum of its own, however, it may be worthwhile at this time to consider some of the effects and work to amend any problems that have emerged.

We have volunteered our services to help make this election run smoothly, and have received the support of most (but not all) of the candidates. That in itself is a good thing. It shows that even in this position there is a lively debate from which we can only benefit. That said, we do have the majority support, and would therefore like to offer the following comments and suggestions.

General

 * Being elected to Arbitration Committee or any other position is a responsibility but not a privilege. It does not grant the people who are elected any extra rights or status among the general community of Wikipedia users. It merely burdens them with an additional, often thankless task, which they are willing to do for the well-being of the community.


 * Votes should be cast on a per-issue basis. This is not a popularity contest, but rather an attempt to find the best people who can serve as arbitrators, whether we happen to like their style, politics, religious beliefs, biases (yes, everybody has biases), or past editing history.


 * Anyone can announce their candidacy, regardless of their past or current record as Wikipedia contributors. If you, the voter, think that someone is not fit to be a candidate, then do not vote for that candidate. If enough people share that view, then that candidate will not be elected.


 * The endorsement page came into being before the Election Committee formed, so it is irrelevant what we think of it. It exists, and that is a given. Nevertheless, we strongly urge that it not be used to attack candidates. Show your disapproval at the ballot, and offer the good faith belief that everyone who is running has the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, whether we agree with their positions or not.


 * We also urge everyone not to group candidates together in "group endorsements." This is the beginning of factions and parties within Wikipedia, something we should struggle to avoid. The vote is for individuals, so if you feel you must endorse people, we urge you to endorse them as individuals.

Arbitration

 * When voting and running for the Arbitration Committee, it is important to understand what arbitration means. The following definition is taken from dictionary.com:
 * The process by which the parties to a dispute submit their differences to the judgment of an impartial person or group appointed by mutual consent or statutory provision.


 * The role of arbitrators is to serve as those "impartial person[s] or group" appointed by the statutory provision of elections. Their job is to adjudicate between the parties and bring the dispute to resolution. They must be impartial in order to do this successfully.


 * Occasionally, and as a last resort, this will require the members of the Arbitration Committee to censure [ban] a user for a set period of time. However, this does not mean that the role of the Arbitration Committee is to decide whom to ban and subsequently to ban them. In fact, we strongly encourage Arbitrators who have voted for a ban not to use their powers as sysops to enforce that said ban.

Technical

 * The vote will begin at 00:00 UTC, December 4, and end at 23:59 UTC, December 18. This will allow time for the final organization of the election and the counting of the votes.


 * The method of voting is to be determined, and subject to the agreement of Tim Starling, Chair of the Development Committee, who will be responsible for implementing the decision. (This is not an attempt to empower Tim, but rather to ensure that he will be able to encode the proper voting system in the allotted time).


 * The final tally will be made public. If, as a candidate, you do not want your results made public, then you should not run.

Finally, we reiterate our belief that all of the candidates for the Arbitration Committee are doing so with the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. The enormous diversity of opinion among the candidates can only strengthen our community. The success of this election, as of Wikipedia itself, lies in our heterogeneity.

Danny / Elian / UninvitedCompany / Jimbo Wales