Last Sunday I wrote to the elections committee asking them what they intended to do about people who had put themselves forward as candidates but had not either signed the declaration or provided their full name. The community consensus appears to be that candidates have to do both or they are disqualified from the election, but I presumed the elections committee would be the appropriate body to decide specifics. I have had no reply.
Since then everyone who has put themselves forward has either provided the details or withdrawn apart from one person - ScribblewikiLover - who has still not provided his full name.
Voting is due to start very soon. It is unacceptable to start an election without knowing who the candidates are. I had hoped that the election committee would resolve this question with a clear decision one way or the other but all we have had from them is a resounding silence - they seem either unwilling or unable to make any decisions like this. I think it falls to the community to decide in their absence.
I suggest one of two avenues: - either we agree that s/he hasn't answered the question (which according to the timetable s/he should have done by 13 September) and is therefore disqualified - or we say he must answer the question by 20 September or he will be disqualified.
What do others think?
Andrew
Since then everyone who has put themselves forward has either provided the details or withdrawn apart from one person - ScribblewikiLover - who has still not provided his full name.
Did we actually require people to reveal their names at this stage? If elected, it's certainly necessary, but I'm not sure it is necessary at this stage.
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 22:39 +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Since then everyone who has put themselves forward has either provided the details or withdrawn apart from one person - ScribblewikiLover - who has still not provided his full name.
Did we actually require people to reveal their names at this stage? If elected, it's certainly necessary, but I'm not sure it is necessary at this stage.
You can look at it both ways I guess. It was stated as a mandatory question.
KTC
2008/9/18 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 22:39 +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Since then everyone who has put themselves forward has either provided the details or withdrawn apart from one person - ScribblewikiLover - who has still not provided his full name.
Did we actually require people to reveal their names at this stage? If elected, it's certainly necessary, but I'm not sure it is necessary at this stage.
You can look at it both ways I guess. It was stated as a mandatory question.
KTC
They agree to give names if elected or they will be pulled when the election starts.
On Thu, September 18, 2008 22:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Did we actually require people to reveal their names at this stage? If elected, it's certainly necessary, but I'm not sure it is necessary at this stage.
Take a step back here and look at what you are trying to find.
You are selecting people to *run a company*. A registered business which is going to have serious legal consequences both for the individuals concerned and for Wikimedia in the UK.
If someone doesn't provide their bona fides now how can you find out what experience and skills they presently have? Whoever gets involved is going to need to have more than a little common sense and preferably some experience with company law, accountancy, and business-to-business relationships. If they won't say who they are then what is the point of even putting them on a ballot paper!
Alison
2008/9/18 Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com:
On Thu, September 18, 2008 22:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Did we actually require people to reveal their names at this stage? If elected, it's certainly necessary, but I'm not sure it is necessary at this stage.
Take a step back here and look at what you are trying to find.
You are selecting people to *run a company*. A registered business which is going to have serious legal consequences both for the individuals concerned and for Wikimedia in the UK.
If someone doesn't provide their bona fides now how can you find out what experience and skills they presently have? Whoever gets involved is going to need to have more than a little common sense and preferably some experience with company law, accountancy, and business-to-business relationships. If they won't say who they are then what is the point of even putting them on a ballot paper!
At this stage I'm trusting people to be honest about their skills and experience, so I don't need to know their names. It's pretty much impossible to verify someone's experience with just their name, anyway, do you want candidates to supply complete CVs with references?
At 23:05 +0100 18/9/08, Thomas Dalton wrote:
2008/9/18 Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com:
On Thu, September 18, 2008 22:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Did we actually require people to reveal their names at this stage? If elected, it's certainly necessary, but I'm not sure it is necessary at this stage.
Take a step back here and look at what you are trying to find.
You are selecting people to *run a company*. A registered business which is going to have serious legal consequences both for the individuals concerned and for Wikimedia in the UK.
If someone doesn't provide their bona fides now how can you find out what experience and skills they presently have? Whoever gets involved is going to need to have more than a little common sense and preferably some experience with company law, accountancy, and business-to-business relationships. If they won't say who they are then what is the point of even putting them on a ballot paper!
At this stage I'm trusting people to be honest about their skills and experience, so I don't need to know their names. It's pretty much impossible to verify someone's experience with just their name, anyway, do you want candidates to supply complete CVs with references?
Could do that? Or use a web of trust?
Gordo
Alison Wheeler wrote:
On Thu, September 18, 2008 22:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Did we actually require people to reveal their names at this stage? If elected, it's certainly necessary, but I'm not sure it is necessary at this stage.
Take a step back here and look at what you are trying to find.
You are selecting people to *run a company*. A registered business which is going to have serious legal consequences both for the individuals concerned and for Wikimedia in the UK.
If someone doesn't provide their bona fides now how can you find out what experience and skills they presently have? Whoever gets involved is going to need to have more than a little common sense and preferably some experience with company law, accountancy, and business-to-business relationships. If they won't say who they are then what is the point of even putting them on a ballot paper!
Exactly!
Ross
2008/9/18 Alison Wheeler wikimedia@alisonwheeler.com:
On Thu, September 18, 2008 22:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Did we actually require people to reveal their names at this stage? If elected, it's certainly necessary, but I'm not sure it is necessary at this stage.
Take a step back here and look at what you are trying to find.
You are selecting people to *run a company*. A registered business which is going to have serious legal consequences both for the individuals concerned and for Wikimedia in the UK.
If someone doesn't provide their bona fides now how can you find out what experience and skills they presently have? Whoever gets involved is going to need to have more than a little common sense and preferably some experience with company law, accountancy, and business-to-business relationships. If they won't say who they are then what is the point of even putting them on a ballot paper!
Alison
I tend towards initial inclusivety then dropping people latter. But if people feel that names should be a requirement for running that is not a problem.
Current skeleton for the voting system can be found at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK_v2.0/Vote
On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 23:12 +0100, geni wrote:
I tend towards initial inclusivety then dropping people latter. But if people feel that names should be a requirement for running that is not a problem.
Current skeleton for the voting system can be found at:
As Alison stated, the election is for (what will be) a position on the board of a legally registered company. If this were an election held after the forming of the company, then a candidate legal name would be required information before the election, so it's good practice to do that now as well.
However, since I've already stated my personal position on this particular candidate, I'll shut up now.
KTC
On 18 Sep 2008, at 23:12, geni wrote:
Current skeleton for the voting system can be found at:
Please could there be a statement on that page saying whether candidates are allowed to vote and, if so, whether they can vote for themselves?
(note that given the choice, I would vote, but abstain for myself.)
Thanks, Mike Peel
At 22:59 +0100 18/9/08, Alison Wheeler wrote:
On Thu, September 18, 2008 22:39, Thomas Dalton wrote:
Did we actually require people to reveal their names at this stage? If elected, it's certainly necessary, but I'm not sure it is necessary at this stage.
Take a step back here and look at what you are trying to find.
You are selecting people to *run a company*. A registered business which is going to have serious legal consequences both for the individuals concerned and for Wikimedia in the UK.
If someone doesn't provide their bona fides now how can you find out what experience and skills they presently have? Whoever gets involved is going to need to have more than a little common sense and preferably some experience with company law, accountancy, and business-to-business relationships. If they won't say who they are then what is the point of even putting them on a ballot paper!
Alison
Hear hear!
El Gordo
2008/9/19 Andrew Turvey raturvey@yahoo.co.uk:
Since then everyone who has put themselves forward has either provided the details or withdrawn apart from one person - ScribblewikiLover - who has still not provided his full name.
Since he's using his full name on this mailing list, it doesn't seem like the issue is with not wanting to provide his name.
But weren't people supposed to be over 18 to be on the board?
Angela
Poking around Meta I see that Spacebirdy has blocked the account for voting on the elections as abusing multiple accounts. Is this why we changed it to email the user?
Chris
_________________________________________________________________ Make a mini you and download it into Windows Live Messenger http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/111354029/direct/01/
On 19/09/2008, Chris Wood hot20024@hotmail.com wrote:
Poking around Meta I see that Spacebirdy has blocked the account for voting on the elections as abusing multiple accounts. Is this why we changed it to email the user?
I'm not sure how it was abusive, but it was a role account and they are often frowned upon. I'm not sure what you mean about it changing to email the user, what was it before? The account can still be emailed even when blocked, so I don't think we have a problem.
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 12:11 +0100, Thomas Dalton wrote:
On 19/09/2008, Chris Wood hot20024@hotmail.com wrote:
Poking around Meta I see that Spacebirdy has blocked the account for voting on the elections as abusing multiple accounts. Is this why we changed it to email the user?
I'm not sure how it was abusive, but it was a role account and they are often frowned upon. I'm not sure what you mean about it changing to email the user, what was it before? The account can still be emailed even when blocked, so I don't think we have a problem.
Sigh & *Rolleyes*
That's just (possibly) following the letters of some policy without thinking about the actual reason those policies are in place. Interesting definition of abusive....
KTC
2008/9/19 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
That's just (possibly) following the letters of some policy without thinking about the actual reason those policies are in place. Interesting definition of abusive....
He was socking on Meta too.
- d.
2008/9/19 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
2008/9/19 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
That's just (possibly) following the letters of some policy without thinking about the actual reason those policies are in place. Interesting definition of abusive....
He was socking on Meta too.
- d.
Yes but so far Genisock2 remains unblocked.
2008/9/19 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2008/9/19 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
He was socking on Meta too.
Yes but so far Genisock2 remains unblocked.
I speak, of course, of abusive sockpuppeting in the sense of faking consensus.
- d.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 3:23 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
2008/9/19 geni geniice@gmail.com:
2008/9/19 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com:
He was socking on Meta too.
Yes but so far Genisock2 remains unblocked.
I speak, of course, of abusive sockpuppeting in the sense of faking consensus.
- d.
Eh?
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 15:15 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
2008/9/19 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
That's just (possibly) following the letters of some policy without thinking about the actual reason those policies are in place. Interesting definition of abusive....
He was socking on Meta too.
Huh? I was talking about [[User:UK voteing account]] being banned on meta.
KTC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kwan Ting Chan wrote:
On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 15:15 +0100, David Gerard wrote:
2008/9/19 Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info:
That's just (possibly) following the letters of some policy without thinking about the actual reason those policies are in place. Interesting definition of abusive....
He was socking on Meta too.
Huh? I was talking about [[User:UK voteing account]] being banned on meta.
It's probably because Voteing is spelled "voting" :) (that's not different in UK English, is it?)
- -- Cary Bass Volunteer Coordinator
Your continued donations keep Wikipedia running! Support the Wikimedia Foundation today: http://donate.wikimedia.org Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. Phone: 415.839.6885 x 601 Fax: 415.882.0495
E-Mail: cary@wikimedia.org
It's probably because Voteing is spelled "voting" :) (that's not different in UK English, is it?)
"Voting" is "Voting" in proper english, and any modern variant of English that I know of (excluding older versions of english, before spelling was invented. ;-) )
Mike
2008/9/19 Chris Wood hot20024@hotmail.com:
Poking around Meta I see that Spacebirdy has blocked the account for voting on the elections as abusing multiple accounts. Is this why we changed it to email the user?
Chris
No it was always going to be to email the user and I'm going to need to find a meta admin.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 1:12 PM, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
2008/9/19 Chris Wood hot20024@hotmail.com:
Poking around Meta I see that Spacebirdy has blocked the account for
voting
on the elections as abusing multiple accounts. Is this why we changed it
to
email the user?
Chris
No it was always going to be to email the user and I'm going to need to find a meta admin.
I created a new account, this time with the right spelling. I sent the password to you Geni.
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But weren't people supposed to be over 18 to be on the board?
Yes, they were. Has he said somewhere that he's not?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2008-September/002419.htm...
Note the email address and then check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Chris19910
Angela
On 19/09/2008, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But weren't people supposed to be over 18 to be on the board?
Yes, they were. Has he said somewhere that he's not?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2008-September/002419.htm...
Note the email address and then check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Chris19910
Well spotted!
Election committee, please remove this under-age candidate, thank you.
Wasn't the issue of under-18s still under discussion?
On 9/19/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/09/2008, Angela beesley@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 9:05 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
But weren't people supposed to be over 18 to be on the board?
Yes, they were. Has he said somewhere that he's not?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediauk-l/2008-September/002419.htm...
Note the email address and then check
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Chris19910
Well spotted!
Election committee, please remove this under-age candidate, thank you.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
On 19/09/2008, Owen Blacker owen@blacker.me.uk wrote:
Wasn't the issue of under-18s still under discussion?
No-one on the side of allowing under-18s gave any indication of how they intend to satisfy the various things the charity commission recommends for charities with under-18 directors, so the discussion pretty much stopped there. The candidate list is closed now, so it's too late to start that discussion again - feel free to contact the chair prior to the AGM and have to issue put on the agenda if you want it reconsidered for the next board.
No no, fair enough. I merely hadn't realised the issue had wound down.
On 9/19/08, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/09/2008, Owen Blacker owen@blacker.me.uk wrote:
Wasn't the issue of under-18s still under discussion?
No-one on the side of allowing under-18s gave any indication of how they intend to satisfy the various things the charity commission recommends for charities with under-18 directors, so the discussion pretty much stopped there. The candidate list is closed now, so it's too late to start that discussion again - feel free to contact the chair prior to the AGM and have to issue put on the agenda if you want it reconsidered for the next board.
Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org