Re: [Gendergap] Eligibility to vote in arbcom elections - and encouragement to do if you have not yet
the librarian who tweeted "cutural buzzsaw" also tweeted: "good luck with that. remember the buzzsaw. I personally won’t touch WP w/10ft pole." finding 300 librarians who would is the hard part. On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 8:28 PM, Pine W wrote: > I agree with Kevin on most points. However I would point out that WMF has > overruled community decisions on multiple occasions, and Jimbo also can > theoretically override Arbcom, so for better and for worse, Arbcom is not > always ENWP's binding authority. I am hopeful that, with the new > composition of the WMF board this year, we will continue to see an > improving relationship between WMF and the community. > > Please do participate and vote in the elections. > > Pine > On Oct 20, 2015 5:19 PM, "Kevin Gorman" wrote: > >> Hi all - >> >> I'll be circulating this to multiple lists, in part to ensure that >> everyone is aware of both the importance and ability of ENWP's >> arbitration committee, and in part to ensure that everyone who is >> eligible to vote is aware that they are eligible to vote, and aware >> that their votes are anonymous - and aware of how significantly they >> can count. Although oppose votes do carry more weight than neutral >> votes or support votes, in our last tranche of elections (which had a >> steep decline in voters from previous elections,) an arbitrator was >> elected with only 227 support votes, and a total of only 593 votes >> cast in relation to that arb in general. >> >> The arbitration committee has, for all practical purposes, binding >> decision making ability on all matter that come before the English >> Wikipedia. For members of that committee to have been elected on the >> basis of only 227 support votes seems (sorry to the arb in question >> for using him as an example) absolutely bizarre to me. The >> arbitration committee is the body ultimately responsible for ensuring >> the health of ENWP's community, including on issues of gender, >> harrassment, and everything else. I'm not going to suggest who you >> vote for (especially because another three weeks of nominations are >> coming in,) but if you are concerned about the state of ENWP's >> community, please take the minimal time necessary to scrutinize >> candidate statements and cast your anonymous votes according to those >> candidates who you believe are most likely to represent your >> interests. >> >> In comparison with the 227 positive votes and the 593 total votes that >> an arbitrator was actually elected with last year, this list alone has >> over 400 members, most of whom are eligible to vote in arbcom >> elections. Again, I'll be circulating this (or a very similar >> message) around to multiple other lists, and won't be making direct >> suggestions or endorsements of candidates on-list, although I may >> compile a voter candidate guide on-wiki when all nominations are in. >> >> If you meet the fairly minimal requirements to ote, please take the >> fairly minimal time out of your day once elections start to cast your >> anonymous votes in favor of the candidates who best supports your >> interests and the interests of the community - and I know that even on >> this list, there are certainly people who will disagree with me about >> what candidates will be represent the interests of the community, and >> am totally fine with that - vote how you want to vote. But vote! >> ENWP's final ruling body shouldn't be determined by a small fraction >> of eligible voters who will all be effected by the decisions our next >> arbcom makes: >> >> These are literally the only requirements to vote in the English >> Arbcom's upcoming elections: >> "(i) has registered an account before 28 October 2015 >> (ii) has made at least 150 mainspace edits before 1 November 2015 >> and,(iii) is not blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of >> their vote. >> (iii) is not blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of their >> vote." >> >> If you meet those requirements, please consider the candidates and >> their position statements and their answers to questions, and vote for >> whatever candidates best think represent how you would like the future >> of ENWP's community to be. >> >> Best, >> Kevin Gorman >> >> ___ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please >> visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Eligibility to vote in arbcom elections - and encouragement to do if you have not yet
I agree with Kevin on most points. However I would point out that WMF has overruled community decisions on multiple occasions, and Jimbo also can theoretically override Arbcom, so for better and for worse, Arbcom is not always ENWP's binding authority. I am hopeful that, with the new composition of the WMF board this year, we will continue to see an improving relationship between WMF and the community. Please do participate and vote in the elections. Pine On Oct 20, 2015 5:19 PM, "Kevin Gorman" wrote: > Hi all - > > I'll be circulating this to multiple lists, in part to ensure that > everyone is aware of both the importance and ability of ENWP's > arbitration committee, and in part to ensure that everyone who is > eligible to vote is aware that they are eligible to vote, and aware > that their votes are anonymous - and aware of how significantly they > can count. Although oppose votes do carry more weight than neutral > votes or support votes, in our last tranche of elections (which had a > steep decline in voters from previous elections,) an arbitrator was > elected with only 227 support votes, and a total of only 593 votes > cast in relation to that arb in general. > > The arbitration committee has, for all practical purposes, binding > decision making ability on all matter that come before the English > Wikipedia. For members of that committee to have been elected on the > basis of only 227 support votes seems (sorry to the arb in question > for using him as an example) absolutely bizarre to me. The > arbitration committee is the body ultimately responsible for ensuring > the health of ENWP's community, including on issues of gender, > harrassment, and everything else. I'm not going to suggest who you > vote for (especially because another three weeks of nominations are > coming in,) but if you are concerned about the state of ENWP's > community, please take the minimal time necessary to scrutinize > candidate statements and cast your anonymous votes according to those > candidates who you believe are most likely to represent your > interests. > > In comparison with the 227 positive votes and the 593 total votes that > an arbitrator was actually elected with last year, this list alone has > over 400 members, most of whom are eligible to vote in arbcom > elections. Again, I'll be circulating this (or a very similar > message) around to multiple other lists, and won't be making direct > suggestions or endorsements of candidates on-list, although I may > compile a voter candidate guide on-wiki when all nominations are in. > > If you meet the fairly minimal requirements to ote, please take the > fairly minimal time out of your day once elections start to cast your > anonymous votes in favor of the candidates who best supports your > interests and the interests of the community - and I know that even on > this list, there are certainly people who will disagree with me about > what candidates will be represent the interests of the community, and > am totally fine with that - vote how you want to vote. But vote! > ENWP's final ruling body shouldn't be determined by a small fraction > of eligible voters who will all be effected by the decisions our next > arbcom makes: > > These are literally the only requirements to vote in the English > Arbcom's upcoming elections: > "(i) has registered an account before 28 October 2015 > (ii) has made at least 150 mainspace edits before 1 November 2015 > and,(iii) is not blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of > their vote. > (iii) is not blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of their vote." > > If you meet those requirements, please consider the candidates and > their position statements and their answers to questions, and vote for > whatever candidates best think represent how you would like the future > of ENWP's community to be. > > Best, > Kevin Gorman > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Eligibility to vote in arbcom elections - and encouragement to do if you have not yet
I made a whoopsie in the title. "If you have not yet" was intended to mean "if you have not in past cycles." To be clear, voting in this season's elections is not yet available. I'll keep an array of lists updated with relevant timelines, etc, as I can. If you're interested in running yourself, but not sure what it entails, please contact me offlist, and I can walk you through a lot of what you'll be dealing with. Also of note, even though we've never had an arb who has not yet been an admin, there's no actual requirement that arbitrators be admins. Best, Kevin Gorman On Tue, Oct 20, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Kevin Gorman wrote: > Hi all - > > I'll be circulating this to multiple lists, in part to ensure that > everyone is aware of both the importance and ability of ENWP's > arbitration committee, and in part to ensure that everyone who is > eligible to vote is aware that they are eligible to vote, and aware > that their votes are anonymous - and aware of how significantly they > can count. Although oppose votes do carry more weight than neutral > votes or support votes, in our last tranche of elections (which had a > steep decline in voters from previous elections,) an arbitrator was > elected with only 227 support votes, and a total of only 593 votes > cast in relation to that arb in general. > > The arbitration committee has, for all practical purposes, binding > decision making ability on all matter that come before the English > Wikipedia. For members of that committee to have been elected on the > basis of only 227 support votes seems (sorry to the arb in question > for using him as an example) absolutely bizarre to me. The > arbitration committee is the body ultimately responsible for ensuring > the health of ENWP's community, including on issues of gender, > harrassment, and everything else. I'm not going to suggest who you > vote for (especially because another three weeks of nominations are > coming in,) but if you are concerned about the state of ENWP's > community, please take the minimal time necessary to scrutinize > candidate statements and cast your anonymous votes according to those > candidates who you believe are most likely to represent your > interests. > > In comparison with the 227 positive votes and the 593 total votes that > an arbitrator was actually elected with last year, this list alone has > over 400 members, most of whom are eligible to vote in arbcom > elections. Again, I'll be circulating this (or a very similar > message) around to multiple other lists, and won't be making direct > suggestions or endorsements of candidates on-list, although I may > compile a voter candidate guide on-wiki when all nominations are in. > > If you meet the fairly minimal requirements to ote, please take the > fairly minimal time out of your day once elections start to cast your > anonymous votes in favor of the candidates who best supports your > interests and the interests of the community - and I know that even on > this list, there are certainly people who will disagree with me about > what candidates will be represent the interests of the community, and > am totally fine with that - vote how you want to vote. But vote! > ENWP's final ruling body shouldn't be determined by a small fraction > of eligible voters who will all be effected by the decisions our next > arbcom makes: > > These are literally the only requirements to vote in the English > Arbcom's upcoming elections: > "(i) has registered an account before 28 October 2015 > (ii) has made at least 150 mainspace edits before 1 November 2015 > and,(iii) is not blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of > their vote. > (iii) is not blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of their vote." > > If you meet those requirements, please consider the candidates and > their position statements and their answers to questions, and vote for > whatever candidates best think represent how you would like the future > of ENWP's community to be. > > Best, > Kevin Gorman ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Eligibility to vote in arbcom elections - and encouragement to do if you have not yet
Hi all - I'll be circulating this to multiple lists, in part to ensure that everyone is aware of both the importance and ability of ENWP's arbitration committee, and in part to ensure that everyone who is eligible to vote is aware that they are eligible to vote, and aware that their votes are anonymous - and aware of how significantly they can count. Although oppose votes do carry more weight than neutral votes or support votes, in our last tranche of elections (which had a steep decline in voters from previous elections,) an arbitrator was elected with only 227 support votes, and a total of only 593 votes cast in relation to that arb in general. The arbitration committee has, for all practical purposes, binding decision making ability on all matter that come before the English Wikipedia. For members of that committee to have been elected on the basis of only 227 support votes seems (sorry to the arb in question for using him as an example) absolutely bizarre to me. The arbitration committee is the body ultimately responsible for ensuring the health of ENWP's community, including on issues of gender, harrassment, and everything else. I'm not going to suggest who you vote for (especially because another three weeks of nominations are coming in,) but if you are concerned about the state of ENWP's community, please take the minimal time necessary to scrutinize candidate statements and cast your anonymous votes according to those candidates who you believe are most likely to represent your interests. In comparison with the 227 positive votes and the 593 total votes that an arbitrator was actually elected with last year, this list alone has over 400 members, most of whom are eligible to vote in arbcom elections. Again, I'll be circulating this (or a very similar message) around to multiple other lists, and won't be making direct suggestions or endorsements of candidates on-list, although I may compile a voter candidate guide on-wiki when all nominations are in. If you meet the fairly minimal requirements to ote, please take the fairly minimal time out of your day once elections start to cast your anonymous votes in favor of the candidates who best supports your interests and the interests of the community - and I know that even on this list, there are certainly people who will disagree with me about what candidates will be represent the interests of the community, and am totally fine with that - vote how you want to vote. But vote! ENWP's final ruling body shouldn't be determined by a small fraction of eligible voters who will all be effected by the decisions our next arbcom makes: These are literally the only requirements to vote in the English Arbcom's upcoming elections: "(i) has registered an account before 28 October 2015 (ii) has made at least 150 mainspace edits before 1 November 2015 and,(iii) is not blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of their vote. (iii) is not blocked from the English Wikipedia at the time of their vote." If you meet those requirements, please consider the candidates and their position statements and their answers to questions, and vote for whatever candidates best think represent how you would like the future of ENWP's community to be. Best, Kevin Gorman ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
