Sorry for this title a bit provocating, but i just wonder how a candidate for the board election 2008 (User:Thekohser, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thekohser ) can run with :
* being banned indefinitely on en.wp (see : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag...) * having at least 34 blocked sockpuppets on en.wp (see : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_MyWikiBiz )
Did somebody already checked it, or is it really allowed to vote for such candidate ?
Best Regards
Guérin Nicolas
On 01/06/2008, Nicolas Guérin nguerin.zurich@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for this title a bit provocating, but i just wonder how a candidate for the board election 2008 (User:Thekohser, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thekohser ) can run with :
- being banned indefinitely on en.wp (see :
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag...)
- having at least 34 blocked sockpuppets on en.wp (see :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_MyWikiBiz )
Did somebody already checked it, or is it really allowed to vote for such candidate ?
I don't know of any of the candidacy requirements that would be violated by any of that. I would hope people would take it into account when voting, but if people want to vote for someone that's been banned from a project, they're allowed to do so. One project can't dictate whether or not someone can stand for the board of the whole foundation, can they?
2008/6/1 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
On 01/06/2008, Nicolas Guérin nguerin.zurich@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for this title a bit provocating, but i just wonder how a candidate for the board election 2008 (User:Thekohser, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thekohser )
can run
with :
- being banned indefinitely on en.wp (see :
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag... )
- having at least 34 blocked sockpuppets on en.wp (see :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_MyWikiBiz )
Did somebody already checked it, or is it really allowed to vote for
such
candidate ?
I don't know of any of the candidacy requirements that would be violated by any of that. I would hope people would take it into account when voting, but if people want to vote for someone that's been banned from a project, they're allowed to do so. One project can't dictate whether or not someone can stand for the board of the whole foundation, can they? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
No. Many users are banned on enwiki that are very welcome on other projects. An example is Poetlister, who until recently was banned from enwiki. She is a bureaucrat on en.wikiquote.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Al Tally" majorly.wiki@googlemail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 10:15 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board Election 2008 : fake candidature ?
2008/6/1 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
On 01/06/2008, Nicolas Guérin nguerin.zurich@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry for this title a bit provocating, but i just wonder how a candidate for the board election 2008 (User:Thekohser, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thekohser )
can run
with :
- being banned indefinitely on en.wp (see :
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&pag... )
- having at least 34 blocked sockpuppets on en.wp (see :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_MyWikiBiz )
Did somebody already checked it, or is it really allowed to vote for
such
candidate ?
I don't know of any of the candidacy requirements that would be violated by any of that. I would hope people would take it into account when voting, but if people want to vote for someone that's been banned from a project, they're allowed to do so. One project can't dictate whether or not someone can stand for the board of the whole foundation, can they? _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
No. Many users are banned on enwiki that are very welcome on other projects. An example is Poetlister, who until recently was banned from enwiki. She is a bureaucrat on en.wikiquote.
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
I thought I recognised the name; but he claims to be active on en:wikipedia, which cannot be true. Not everyone will check this out, particularly from other wikis, and therefore this must be miselading. Notwithstanding his bona fides elsewhere, should this not be made more apparent to voters?
I think he said he had another username on enwiki that he uses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Arise_Sir_Loin_of_Beef
----- Original Message ----- From: "Casey Brown" cbrown1023.ml@gmail.com To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board Election 2008 : fake candidature ?
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 5:22 PM, Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk wrote:
I thought I recognised the name; but he claims to be active on en:wikipedia, which cannot be true. Not everyone will check this out, particularly from other wikis, and therefore this must be miselading. Notwithstanding his bona fides elsewhere, should this not be made more apparent to voters?
I think he said he had another username on enwiki that he uses. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Arise_Sir_Loin_of_Beef
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
That account, too, is blocked for sockpuppetry. Do we seriously have rules that allow multiply-blocked editors to stand for election to the Foundation even though they may be in good standing elsewhere? Maybe some time ago, but this was only blocked six weeks ago.
Note: This e-mail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails sent to this address will probably get lost.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 8.0.100 / Virus Database: 269.24.4/1476 - Release Date: 31/05/2008 12:25
That account, too, is blocked for sockpuppetry. Do we seriously have rules that allow multiply-blocked editors to stand for election to the Foundation even though they may be in good standing elsewhere? Maybe some time ago, but this was only blocked six weeks ago.
Yes, we do. Why should one project be able to dictate who can and can't stand? There should be a way to make sure voters are aware of critical information like this, but we shouldn't stop people standing.
2008/6/1 Phil Nash pn007a2145@blueyonder.co.uk:
That account, too, is blocked for sockpuppetry. Do we seriously have rules that allow multiply-blocked editors to stand for election to the Foundation even though they may be in good standing elsewhere? Maybe some time ago, but this was only blocked six weeks ago.
So what if they are banned on one project? That project might have it wrong for all we know.
There's no rule "for" the idea, nor is there a rule "against".
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
So what if they are banned on one project? That project might have it wrong for all we know.
There's no rule "for" the idea, nor is there a rule "against".
Agreed. It's my experience that Wikipedian admins are a little more quick to pull the ban-trigger then admins at other projects. en.wikibooks, for example, has only ever banned 1 good-faith user from editing over behavior problems and edit warring, and that user was rapidly unbanned and continues to edit actively still. Several editors who have been blocked from WP have moved to WB and become valuable and prolific editors and authors.
Being blocked on en.wp is therefore not that big a red flag. However, vandal-style behavior (massive sockpuppetry) is a bit of a red flag on any project. We can't stop him from running for behavior problems at WP, but it is something that people should be made aware of. I would maybe be interested in examining why this user was blocked and why he resorted to sockpuppetry in the first place but I have neither the time nor the inclination to undertake such an investigation myself.
--Andrew Whitworth
I don't know of any of the candidacy requirements that would be violated by any of that. I would hope people would take it into account when voting, but if people want to vote for someone that's been banned from a project, they're allowed to do so. One project can't dictate whether or not someone can stand for the board of the whole foundation, can they?
No. Many users are banned on enwiki that are very welcome on other projects. An example is Poetlister, who until recently was banned from enwiki. She is a bureaucrat on en.wikiquote.
Just to clarify, that was a rhetorical question.
Just that the candidate gives on his candidature page links to his blocked sockpuppets, and nothing else. So it is impossible to know if he's really activ on another project.
Guérin Nicolas
2008/6/1 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
I don't know of any of the candidacy requirements that would be violated by any of that. I would hope people would take it into account when voting, but if people want to vote for someone that's been banned from a project, they're allowed to do so. One project can't dictate whether or not someone can stand for the board of the whole foundation, can they?
No. Many users are banned on enwiki that are very welcome on other
projects.
An example is Poetlister, who until recently was banned from enwiki. She
is
a bureaucrat on en.wikiquote.
Just to clarify, that was a rhetorical question.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-------------------------------------------------- From: "Nicolas Guérin" nguerin.zurich@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 4:34 PM To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board Election 2008 : fake candidature ?
Just that the candidate gives on his candidature page links to his blocked sockpuppets, and nothing else. So it is impossible to know if he's really activ on another project.
Guérin Nicolas
2008/6/1 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
I don't know of any of the candidacy requirements that would be violated by any of that. I would hope people would take it into account when voting, but if people want to vote for someone that's been banned from a project, they're allowed to do so. One project can't dictate whether or not someone can stand for the board of the whole foundation, can they?
No. Many users are banned on enwiki that are very welcome on other
projects.
An example is Poetlister, who until recently was banned from enwiki. She
is
a bureaucrat on en.wikiquote.
Just to clarify, that was a rhetorical question.
He is, indeed, eligible to run.
I'm not sure that we as an election committee would want to get involved in stating whether someone is a blocked or banned user: that seems dangerously close to advising someone how to vote, which we try very hard not to do - we do our best to remain totally neutral.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
<snip>
He is, indeed, eligible to run.
I'm not sure that we as an election committee would want to get involved in stating whether someone is a blocked or banned user: that seems dangerously close to advising someone how to vote, which we try very hard not to do - we do our best to remain totally neutral.
<snip>
* '''Comment''' From what I can tell every candidate at this time appears eligible to run. I am however, sure that the voting members will take into account each candidates level and ''nature'' of participation be it participation on the mailing list (or lack of) and style of participation on the projects. This is only one dimension that someone can use when voting. Many more exist.
I have not commented on any particular candidate in my statement, my comment was generalized.
Best, Jon
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
<snip> > > He is, indeed, eligible to run. > > I'm not sure that we as an election committee would want to get involved in > stating whether someone is a blocked or banned user: that seems dangerously > close to advising someone how to vote, which we try very hard not to do - we > do our best to remain totally neutral. <snip>
- '''Comment''' From what I can tell every candidate at this time
appears eligible to run. I am however, sure that the voting members will take into account each candidates level and ''nature'' of participation be it participation on the mailing list (or lack of) and style of participation on the projects. This is only one dimension that someone can use when voting. Many more exist.
Indeed. I for one welcome the ability of critics, banned users, etc. of Wikipedia to stand for the board (as long as they meet somewhat minimal participation requirements, which Mr. Kohs does), though I can't say I feel he represents my sentiments as a community member. I suppose we all have to vote for who we think will represent us best and has the best ideas and sense of what it means to be a Wikimedian. I do find it somewhat gratifying that the issue of paid editing, which is what Mr. Kohs is probably best known for being involved in (and was first banned over) has not actually come up in the questions so far (though the issues of conflict of interest and prior contributions have).
Note that though banned/blocked users are eligible to run, they are not eligible to vote (from the project they are blocked from) which seems fairly sensible for keeping down potential sockpuppetry etc.
-- phoebe
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:31 PM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Philippe Beaudette wrote:
<snip> > > He is, indeed, eligible to run. > > I'm not sure that we as an election committee would want to get involved in > stating whether someone is a blocked or banned user: that seems dangerously > close to advising someone how to vote, which we try very hard not to do - we > do our best to remain totally neutral. <snip>
- '''Comment''' From what I can tell every candidate at this time
appears eligible to run. I am however, sure that the voting members will take into account each candidates level and ''nature'' of participation be it participation on the mailing list (or lack of) and style of participation on the projects. This is only one dimension that someone can use when voting. Many more exist.
I have not commented on any particular candidate in my statement, my comment was generalized.
Best, Jon -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFIQyM56+ro8Pm1AtURAnM4AKCYo0guOpLsxs+01dnKHp4YqTXolwCfSfEu bjVYRJzyL0GHA4g3yR/cCyc= =ba8d -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jon, you said that:
I am however, sure that the voting members will take into account each candidates level and ''nature'' of participation be it participation on the mailing list (or lack of) and style of participation on the projects.
This is the reason the Board election is little more than a popularity contest. Looking at the credentials of those running, Greg is arguably more qualified (in terms of education and relevant experience) than most of those running. However, due to the fact that this election _is_ a popularity contest, he is unlikely to win.
Personally, several of the candidates should withdraw, as they have clue as to how to manage a non-profit organization. Simply: they have no business there. However, I leave that for the voters to decide.
-Chad
This is the reason the Board election is little more than a popularity contest. Looking at the credentials of those running, Greg is arguably more qualified (in terms of education and relevant experience) than most of those running. However, due to the fact that this election _is_ a popularity contest, he is unlikely to win.
Personally, several of the candidates should withdraw, as they have clue as to how to manage a non-profit organization. Simply: they have no business there. However, I leave that for the voters to decide.
They're not managing the organisation, they're directing it. There is a difference. The role of a community member of the board is to represent the communities views on issues. There are appointed board members and staff for the areas that require expert knowledge.
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 7:30 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
This is the reason the Board election is little more than a popularity contest. Looking at the credentials of those running, Greg is arguably more qualified (in terms of education and relevant experience) than most of those running. However, due to the fact that this election _is_ a popularity contest, he is unlikely to win.
Personally, several of the candidates should withdraw, as they have clue as to how to manage a non-profit organization. Simply: they have no business there. However, I leave that for the voters to decide.
They're not managing the organisation, they're directing it. There is a difference. The role of a community member of the board is to represent the communities views on issues. There are appointed board members and staff for the areas that require expert knowledge.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I should hope we elect our trustees to do more than just share community concerns. I would rather they also have at least /some/ knowledge of what directing (to use your word) such an organization is like. If the most director- esque experience a candidate has comes from being an admin or arbcom member, I would pray they take these talents elsewhere. Popular community member does not good board member make, necessarily.
-Chad
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
This is the reason the Board election is little more than a popularity contest. Looking at the credentials of those running, Greg is arguably more qualified (in terms of education and relevant experience) than most of those running. However, due to the fact that this election _is_ a popularity contest, he is unlikely to win.
Personally, several of the candidates should withdraw, as they have clue as to how to manage a non-profit organization. Simply: they have no business there. However, I leave that for the voters to decide.
-Chad
Of course popularity plays into the process; I can't name one actual "election" where popularity is not a motivating factor. I sincerely hope that a candidate with some form of relevant experience, whether it be in business, non-profit, or technical experience, is elected. Perhaps this is why the board restructuring, of which many protested and I'm undecided on, was done.
As for Mr. Kohs, of course he's free to run, as he's met the requirements. His record on the English Wikipedia can and probably should be part of a voter's decision, along with many other variables, including his business experience, and perhaps most importantly, his ideas.
On Mon, Jun 2, 2008 at 7:22 AM, Ryan wiki.ral315@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 7:18 PM, Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
This is the reason the Board election is little more than a popularity contest. Looking at the credentials of those running, Greg is arguably more qualified (in terms of education and relevant experience) than most of those
running.
However, due to the fact that this election _is_ a popularity contest, he is unlikely to win.
Personally, several of the candidates should withdraw, as they have clue
as
to how to manage a non-profit organization. Simply: they have no business there. However, I leave that for the voters to decide.
-Chad
Of course popularity plays into the process; I can't name one actual "election" where popularity is not a motivating factor.
If you really want people to make the voting decision on the candidate's statement *only*.. you should remove the names and replace it with "candidateNo.1, candidateNo.2 etc."...
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Philippe Beaudette philippebeaudette@gmail.com wrote:
From: "Nicolas Guérin" nguerin.zurich@gmail.com Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 4:34 PM To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board Election 2008 : fake candidature ?
Just that the candidate gives on his candidature page links to his blocked sockpuppets, and nothing else. So it is impossible to know if he's really activ on another project.
Guérin Nicolas
2008/6/1 Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
I don't know of any of the candidacy requirements that would be violated by any of that. I would hope people would take it into account when voting, but if people want to vote for someone that's been banned from a project, they're allowed to do so. One project can't dictate whether or not someone can stand for the board of the whole foundation, can they?
No. Many users are banned on enwiki that are very welcome on other
projects.
An example is Poetlister, who until recently was banned from enwiki. She
is
a bureaucrat on en.wikiquote.
Just to clarify, that was a rhetorical question.
He is, indeed, eligible to run.
I'm not sure that we as an election committee would want to get involved in stating whether someone is a blocked or banned user: that seems dangerously close to advising someone how to vote, which we try very hard not to do - we do our best to remain totally neutral.
Indeed, if the community really feels that Mr. Kohs is the best candidate, we ought to let ourselves elect him. If the community feels he's unsuitable, or that someone else is better suited (and I certainly believe the latter), then let them not elect him.
The community has lost enough influence on the board of late. Let's not snatch any more from them.
WilyD
Nicolas Guérin wrote: Sorry for this title a bit provocating, but i just wonder how a candidate for the board election 2008 (User:Thekohser, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thekohser ) can run with
Leave it be. Consider: You don't want to give one project's admins veto-power over who can run for the board, or be able to put a black mark on a candidate's presentation.
This shouldn't be read as endorsing his candidacy. But there's no sensible reason to raise a fuss over it. The Wikimedia Foundation has at times brought significant embarrassment upon itself due to various people picking spite-fights with critics. There's no point to it here.
This is really funny for me because i'm was never activ on en.wp , sorry for you. I just saw all candidate presentations and checked the given links, that all. If you consider that i try to oppose en.wp to one candidate, you are totally wrong, i just consider board election as something serious for the whole communauty.
Regards
Guérin Nicolas
2008/6/2 Seth Finkelstein sethf@sethf.com:
Nicolas Guérin wrote: Sorry for this title a bit provocating, but i just wonder how a candidate for the board election 2008 (User:Thekohser, see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thekohser ) can run with
Leave it be. Consider: You don't want to give one project'sadmins veto-power over who can run for the board, or be able to put a black mark on a candidate's presentation.
This shouldn't be read as endorsing his candidacy. But there'sno sensible reason to raise a fuss over it. The Wikimedia Foundation has at times brought significant embarrassment upon itself due to various people picking spite-fights with critics. There's no point to it here.
-- Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer http://sethf.com Infothought blog - http://sethf.com/infothought/blog/ Interview: http://sethf.com/essays/major/greplaw-interview.php
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org