At 12:31 +0100 17/9/08, David Gerard wrote:
2008/9/17 Tom Holden thomas.holden@gmail.com:
I would be very very wary about removing people from the list even if you have definite proof that they've committed some rather more heinous sin than using a sock. If that's an issue that should disqualify people from standing, we have to trust that the voters will have the sense to realise this. (Obviously we want to take reasonable precautions against both a user and their sock voting, but that's a different issue entirely.)
Unless we get a zillion of 'em clogging the list, then yeah, leave it to the voters to have a clue. If they vote for someone playing silly buggers like this then they get what they deserve.
- d.
I am concerned about that implied definition of "voters", and the "they get what they deserve" throw away.
Wikimedia UK is meant to be open and inclusive (please correct me if I err).
Hence, the ins and out of Wikimedia, Wikipedia, WMF, ARBCOM, checkuser, Commons etc, etc may mean very little to a diligent editor who works away at articles from time to time.
Wikimedia UK should involve everybody, not just the hardened old timers, admins, and the cognicenti.
Gordo