Talk:Stewards/elections 2010/Questions

Could we try to keep the number of questions posed to all candidates to a minimum? They're nearly useless - it'd be far more helpful to those participating in the election if questions would be tailored to each candidate instead of simply tossing up a boilerplate. Thanks — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 15:47, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree. It seems that certain candidates seem to get a lot more questions than others, and while I agree that sometimes, it is good to ask a lot of questions, this is not one of those times. I think that candidates that have already been asked more than, say, three questions should not be asked any more questions. Anyone in agreement here? Razor flame 19:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Setting a max ammount of questions isn't a good idea, since we'd then have to find which of all the questions people want to ask, are important enough to be answered. It's better to reply "I think I answered that in xxx edit". If the question has been answered before. Laaknor 22:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Sounds good to me. Cheers, Razor flame 01:53, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why have I been disqualified?[edit]

Why have I been disqualified though I had sent a copy of my passport to the office of WMF by smail on 26th January 2010? Did they not get it? --Bletilla 23:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bletilla, I assume you meant you sent it by physical mail? I just talked to Cary and he said the people who open the mail are on the lookout but have not received anything yet. That was indeed why you were marked as disqualified. Do you think it would be possible to scan your passport so that you could send it to them via email? That would be the fastest way but if they receive it by snail mail you should still be fine and we can take off the disqualification mark as long as it arrives in the next couple days. James (T C) 00:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the case for me as well? I thought that after the elections We were required to send in identification. Cutno 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proof of identity must be received before February 01, or you will be disqualified. Katerenka (d) 00:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aye Cutno, you had the same problem (no identification after we waited for Cary's update this morning). Have you mailed it in via snail mail as well? Where is it coming from? Is it possible to scan it in and email? As I said to Bletilla I'm sure we can Assume Good Faith and wait for a couple days for it to arrive and then just unmark the disqualification marks. In the end the decision on how long to wait is up to the stewards but I would think a couple days is valid. James (T C) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bletilla's identification has been received. We need a decision on what we do about this. Pmlineditor ∞ 16:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, undisqualify, I would say. :o If the identification arrives prior to the opening of the voting I would say we should just be accommodating and not be too strict. --თოგო ^(D) 16:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to agree with this and it seems the overwhelming majority of stewards/candidates/otherusers, at least on IRC (yes not the place to make consensus), think that they should be given at least a couple more days and most believe until the vote begins. The honest fact is that the original rule (from last year) was the identification had to be received before voting began. When we pushed the voting back by a week for more time we did not change the date to submit identification for a couple reasons:

A couple users (like 2-3) said they would prefer or not mind if it remained as February 1st (at least one because they wanted people identified earlier).
No one said otherwise
Laziness to not change all the translations again (partially on my part since I was did most of the date changes before).

I think that a consensus exists to do this for at least a couple days and it does not make sense to do it for 1 or 2 and not others. I talked to Cary and was told that it was the communities decision because all he cared about was that they got identified, preferably before they are elected. I've decided that I'm going to be bold and go undisqualify those who have now had their identification received. I think that waiting too much longer is unfair to the candidates involved and any prospective questioners given the impending approach of the voting period. I will fully admit that part of this is because I feel bad that I had concerns about not changing the date when we moved voting earlier and didn't say anything, it also looks a little odd given that I am a candidate in the election. If anyone has a concern about this they are welcome to revert me, I will leave a note on any candidate I place back into the system both telling them I have done so and referring them to this discussion so that they know there is a possibility others will disagree with me and that it may have to be overturned and be discussed a bit more. James (T C) 20:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with postponing, but to avoid further confusion I'm closing this discussion. --Erwin 20:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Identification has to be received prior to the start of elections, i.e., before 7 February 2010, 00:00 (UTC). --Erwin 20:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Annotation of reason for disqualification?[edit]

It would seem reasonable and practical to annotate why someone was disqualified, rather than leave people unknowing, especially the candidates themselves. Could we do a <ref> to a reason? billinghurst sDrewth 01:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

aye I think that's fair, I know I made annotations on the statistics page but we could put something on the pages as well, there is actually a notation on the statement page I believe but its hidden on the vote page, we should reveal it. James (T C) 01:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I change the template to show notices also on the votes/ pages. However, I don't think it is necessary to inform each disqualified candidate on the user talk page. I informed all candidates which had a problem that could be fixed (such as a missing SUL account or in cases where the statement page was created by another user). To my knowledge, all of them have been disqualified by now (due to a missing identification). I don't really see the use in informing all users who have failed to meet the (low) requirements. If they're interested in their candidacy, they'll visit their statements page again and see a disqualification notice. It's too late anyway, there's nothing they can do about it. --Church of emacs talk 11:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Didn't see individual statements. So they were informed, and that is meets minimum requirement. Neat. billinghurst sDrewth 13:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Questions adding?[edit]

Weren't questions supposed to stop being added by the 6th of February? Razor flame 21:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it was mentioned to the stewards about the possibility of putting a note on the page, though it doesn't seem to have happened. Whether to answer is going to be to the individual to respond or to notify that questions closed on the date that was stated. billinghurst sDrewth 00:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]