[Foundation-l] Concerns over en.wikipedia.org ArbCom Election Process

[Stephanie Erin Daugherty]

Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>   
>> Alphax (Wikipedia email) schreef:
>>     
>> Hoi,
>>  From where I stand, the English language Wikipedia arbcom, is very much 
>> an issue of the English Wikipedia community. However, the arguments that 
>> apply for the Arbcom elections are very much the same for the Steward 
>> elections. The voting is done in a similar way and from the way you 
>> approach it, you cannot know the people who stand for office like the 
>> people who know them from their native projects.
>>
>>     
>
> ... and being "open", we're having exactly the same problems as with
> Arbcom elections. People saying nasty things about candidates etc.
>   
That will happen regardless... however, with secret ballots, people are 
more inclined to form their own opinions, and are empowered to act on them.

>   
>> Effeietsanders for instance has his roots very much in the Dutch 
>> language projects. I have got to know him a great guy. He is senior in 
>> the Dutch realm, he is trusted and he is respected. There is however no 
>> chance for you to know him like I do.
>>     
>
> Doesn't mean I can't voice my opinion though. Stewards are also rather
> more global than arbitrators, and don't have as much influence. Also,
> you might want to check how I've voted wrt. stewards.
>   
>
Voicing of opinions are a healthy part of the process political process. 
However, to be truly free elections, we need secret ballots.
For every one person that will publicly oppose a given candidate, there 
are probably 10 others that feel as strongly, but don't want those views 
to be make public.

The same goes, although not as strongly, for supporting.

> Again, stewards are very different to arbitrators. Arbitrators on en:
> are directly appointed by Jimbo, and there is a quota to be filled -
> it's not like we can say "oh, it doesn't matter that nobody got elected,
> we've got enough to cover". We WILL have 5 new arbitrators whether we
> like it or not; I don't know if you've experienced it on the projects
> you're active on, but my experience on en: Wikipedia is that people vote
> for their friends, and that stupid people tend to have lots of friends
> who will vote for them, because the votes are visible to everyone.
>
>   
In an election, when you can't say how you really feel about someone, 
thats a problem. Just because I'm friends with someone does NOT mean I 
think their suitable for arbcom, steward, board, or even adminship. I 
should be able to vote without risk to friendships, or the influence of 
various wikipedia cabals.
>> What do you achieve by applying this "I vote with my feet" logic? The 
>> vote will still go ahead. You earn some more "malcontent" points. You 
>> /will /be able to say, "I always said it would be no good" when the 
>> arbcom does things that you disapprove off. This is a negative behaviour 
>> that does get you nowhere. When you do not want to vote, do not vote. 
>> Voting does not necessarily get you the results that you want, but that 
>> is exactly what voting is meant to do.
>>     
My refusal to vote in this election has to do with the fact that were I 
to vote my conscience, I cannot do so without causing
my decisions being openly questioned and argued, and that were I to vote 
as I feel I should, quite a few people would be offended.