Thanks for sharing the result. I am not happy with this result for several reasons. I was expecting one Indian this time -- it is of course a reason of my unhappiness, but more importantly I think several things are unclear.
*Point 1: So many neutral votes?* I hope I am not only one who is unhappy with this: Sailesh Patnaik – User:Saileshpat <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Saileshpat> 1,010 *3,150* 1,007 50.07% Syed Muzammiluddin – User:Hindustanilanguage <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Hindustanilanguage> 816 * 3,491 * 860 48.69% Nisar Ahmed Syed – User:అహ్మద్ నిసార్ <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:%E0%B0%85%E0%B0%B9%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%AE%E0%B0%A6%E0%B1%8D_%E0%B0%A8%E0%B0%BF%E0%B0%B8%E0%B0%BE%E0%B0%B0%E0%B1%8D> 735 * 3,481 * 951 43.59% Now for Sailesh 3000 of 5000 voters are neutral (I *know* neutral votes are *not* counted). When on the English Wikipedia "Request for adminship" (RFA), one gives a "neutral" vote", that actually means-- "I am not ready to vote (support/oppose) now. I am neutral now, watching discussions, his answers, will change vote if needed. And yes, they often change to "support"/"oppose" I have *never* seen any En WP RFA with more than 3% or so neutral votes. 66% neutral votes?! And what does *"neutral" mean here*? I am feeling at this moment-- unlike RFA and other on-wiki process where every candidate has a separate page, here on board election I saw all candidates' names were listed on one page, and the default vote was "neutral". To assess everyone's answers, stats, it'll take at least 2 hours (or more). So I feel *many editors* just supported their favorite candidates and just not making any change anywhere else. *From another point of view* Now, let's see it from another point of view, in *small Wikis*, where there are 50 or 100 active editor, naturally there will not be many votes or more important 'eligible voters". Suppose 50 voters are voting from Telugu/Urdu Wikipedia, but 600 or 800 voters are coming from large Wikis like Italian, French, (umm English). Chances are many of them came to support their candidates OR supported only those candidates they know and remained neutral for others. *IF* there were tendency/mentality (*which should be here*) that "I'll not spend 2 hours to examine all candidates, but I'll support only those candidates I know, and remain neutral for others "after all I am not doing any harm by remaining neutral, let others decide"", --this *is* dangerous. everytime an editor is thinking "I am not doing any harm by remaining neutral, let others decide", he is actually giving +1 vote to his candidate and 0 to others who he has not examined. Small Wikis just can not compete it. [If it was 3000 oppose votes, I could understand. Why so many neutral votes? It is result of either a combination of the weak voting system and negligence of voters or we have just evidenced a mass-neutrolo-voting. :) This was the first thing/point I was feeling. There were a few more points, but the post is already very long. :) Congrats to all who were elected, specially Doc James :) On 6 June 2015 at 08:23, Ashwin Baindur <ashwin.bain...@gmail.com> wrote: > Link : > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Results > > -- > Warm regards, > > Ashwin Baindur > ------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimediaindia-l mailing list > Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l >
_______________________________________________ Wikimediaindia-l mailing list Wikimediaindia-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from the list / change mailing preferences visit https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaindia-l
