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.