Of course another way of looking at the "tedious numbers" discussion is that less than 0.5% of the active users on the English Wikipedia bothered to vote in the ArbCom elections. Having something like 1 in 200 of the eligible electorate turning out to vote is an interesting comparison with the WMUK elections where about 1 out of every 6 eligible voters made the effort to cast votes.
I actually think that's quite healthy. YMMV. -- Doug Taylor On 27 July 2012 14:49, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Charles Matthews < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 27 July 2012 12:54, Andreas Kolbe <[email protected]> wrote:> >> Everybody >> > on this list cares about ArbCom decisions, most of the time, and so >> does the >> > entire body of administrators in the English Wikipedia. For the record, >> > ArbCom members derive their authority from 300 to 600 supporters' votes. >> > Wikimedia UK board members, from 40 or 50. >> >> 600 is less than the number of "active" administrators, though. But >> let's not argue about numbers. I have given some context for my remark >> now, which you could have. >> > > > I think you may have misunderstood what I was saying. I meant that each > individual arbitrator was voted into office with 300 to 600 Wikimedians' > support votes, vs. three or four dozen for each Wikimedia UK board member. > ArbCom represents a significantly greater Wikimedia electorate (probably > even within the UK) than the WMUK board. But no matter. I agree arguments > about numbers are tedious. > > > >> > Refusing to acknowledge any problem, and beating up on ArbCom instead, >> > really is the least well advised strategy to deal with this situation. >> >> I have certainly not been attacking ArbCom as an institution. I have a >> long-term problem with the workshop, which I have never liked, but >> otherwise I think ArbCom in general does pretty well. >> >> I sometimes disagree with Arbitration decisions; when I was asked >> about this particular pending decision by a Board member, I said that >> ArbCom is fallible, but it tends to know more about the case than we >> do (i.e. not all the information they have is always public, or fit to >> be made public). >> >> I in fact met three arbs for the first time at Wikimania, with two of >> whom I had worked. I talked also with Risker, who came onto the >> committee after me. I am not attacking any of these people, please let >> me say. There is a half-told story about the Fae case and Wikimania >> and the ban, clearly, but I am also not going to try to tell that >> story either. >> >> I am not going to say "let's move on", because the topic of the thread >> is a legitimate one for members of the chapter to discuss. I am not >> myself a WMUK member, and I have things to do now, as do the Board and >> Fae. I have my own views on framing the issue, which have to some >> extent appeared in this thread. Please everyone respect AGF in any >> further contributions, and minimise personalia. > > > > Fair enough, Charles. > > Let me add that, like everyone else, I don't agree with every detail of > every ArbCom decision either. That's only natural; the arbs don't even > always agree among themselves. But on the whole I believe the committee as > a group get it right, and significantly more so than the community average > as expressed at a free-for-all venue like ANI. If ANI were all Wikipedia > had, all hope would be lost. > > Even where I wish ArbCom had decided differently in a specific case, I can > still see that the decision they made was made in good faith, and within > the realm of what's reasonable. One can't ask for more than that. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
