----- Original Message ----- From: "Al Tally" <majorly.wiki(a)googlemail.com> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)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(a)gmail.com>om>: 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. -- Al Tally (User:Majorly) 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? [[User:Rodhullandemu]] _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l(a)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

----- Original Message ----- From: "Casey Brown" <cbrown1023.ml(a)gmail.com> To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 10:46 PM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board Election 2008 : fake candidature ? 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. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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

2008/6/1 Phil Nash <pn007a2145(a)blueyonder.co.uk>uk>: 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". -- Al Tally (User:Majorly)

Just to clarify, that was a rhetorical question.

-------------------------------------------------- From: "Nicolas Guérin" <nguerin.zurich(a)gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, June 01, 2008 4:34 PM To: "Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List" <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org> Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Board Election 2008 : fake candidature ? 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.

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Jon <scream(a)datascreamer.com> wrote: 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

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 7:18 PM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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. -- [[User:Ral315]]

On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Philippe Beaudette <philippebeaudette(a)gmail.com> wrote: 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

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(a)sethf.com>om>: