Jump to content

Stewards/elections 2005-2

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

New candidate (s)[edit]

Jean-Christophe Chazalette (villy)[edit]

People seem to be not so active as expected. I have free time now. Editor at Foundation web site, admin on Wikimedia meta-wiki, admin and bureaucrat on the Commons & on French Wikipédia. And have some serious legal backbround. Speaks OK fr & en + es-2, it-2, de-1, ja-1, zh-1. villy 14:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The election starts 9th of december 2005 and ends 19st of december 2005.
nope. Elections of stewards are not done one person by one person, but by group of interested people. Otherwise, a language could easily outgrow all the other languages. Besides, though certain stewards unfortunately act this way, stewards are not meant to act only on one project but to help all projects. So, having candidates from only one language is not suitable, as many languages are not yet covered. In short, this is the reason why steward elections are not handled as sysop elections are, but are handled in group. If we handle elections in group, starting today, for only 10 days, and doing advertisement only here and on the french wiki is NOT suitable. It is very unfair to other projects. If you want a new election, you must advertise it on other channels of communication for all languages to be aware of it, and give a decent time for other candidates to show up, and give enough time for people to vote. On an international elections, it is never 10 days, but rather 2 or even 3 weeks. Add at least 1 week advertisement on top. This is why it seems good to me to say elections 2006, but I do not mind starting a new election in 2005, even if it will never end in 2005. Anthere 14:49, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Voting is only fair when voting rules have been defined. You have not even taken the time to read the voting rules of last elections, nor even taken the time to discuss new rules; Elections without any rules is bullshit and has no validity whatsoever. You being a judge should know that. Any body could say AFTER the vote that after all, a quorum of 500 votes is necessary, or that a support of 1% is sufficient. So, please, either respect the rules of last elections by following them and indicating them here, OR discuss the rules. Meanwhile, votes are NOT VALID. Anthere 15:04, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

oh gosh, I didn't think it was such a big deal to offer my time ans my feeble skills. This is like we are in such a complicated thing. Allright ant, I just forget it I suppose and get back to the status of an asshole. But please don't try to fake friendship between us - obviously, you just want to promote a bossy attitude, good for you. Meanwhile I love you. Sincerely hoping you'll got the baby you're waiting. Take care. Hugs. villy 15:14, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Villy, given the fact that you are usually in favour of sticking to the rules (as you demonstrated on the Gemme case on fr:), this outpour seems a bit unfair on poor old Ant. I suggest you calm down and think about it with a clear mind. Cher collègue, pratiquez zazen, cher collègue, pourquoi tant de haine ? David.Monniaux 15:22, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see "hatred" ?? Of course, I just want to be more useful, that's all. villy 15:52, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Anth, grouped vote make sense but it looks like yet another policy stated nowhere except in the way the previous vote was done, or, as Villy, I missed one page where this policy is stated. It's not so easy from an example to deduce what are rules and what are artifact created semi-randomly. Given than Villy wrote on various talk page of the previous vote I really doubt your wording about Villy not reading discussions is fair. Villy, on the other side one of your anwser is really harsh. Phe 14:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]