Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2006/Candidates/en

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Contents

Under 18[edit]

I have removed a total of three candidates who are under 18; you must be 18 in order to be a candidate. This is a requirement of Florida law and is not subject to being changed. Anyone under 18 will be removed immediately. Essjay (TalkConnect) 11:53, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, I would hope that even mere 18 year olds are not seriously considering becoming a board member either. This is something that is going to require considerable judgement and maturity, and have had quite a bit of experience with multiple Wikimedia projects as well. Being multi-lingual would be a huge plus, as international issues seem to have been a major issue, and I would also strongly recommend that you speak English at least as a secondary language and are able to do basic communication in English if you wish to be on the board. Out of curiousity, how did you know that the candidates you removed were under 18? --Roberth 16:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
They said so [1] :-) Cormaggio @ 16:25, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
.*sigh* silly Florida law. Just out of curiosity, what is it about this position that doesn't allow any minors to be in it? Is it something relating to employment? (Not that I'd run anyways, most people had qualms with voting for me as an ArbCom candidate). —Ilyanep(Talk) 17:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Being the board, they might have to make legally binding decisions. I don't think there are many countries that would allow minors in the position. Zocky 18:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, 18 is a quite normal age for that. Although I think that Robert is incorrect here, suggesting that younger people would be impotent to fulfill this kind of position. People of 18, 19 etc are lots of times behaving much older then people in their 30's do... So I think you should judge people on their abilities, how they behave etc, and not on their age, except when the law requires it. So please check rather how someone talks with others, how (s)he handles people, how (s)he handles delicate cases, then just thinking, well he's under 25, so not good enough. Maybe there are indeed a lot of younger people not good enough, but please judge them on that and that only, and not on the age their passport says. Effeietsanders 21:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be a very rare and exceptional 18 year old that would be able to run for the foundation board and succeed. While I would not specifically make this requirement, I would strongly recommend that the person who is running for board to have had some life experiences and maturity to be able to understand that they will be the brunt of many accusations, and you should have some incredibly thick skin.... particularly if you are going to be trying to make some changes to policy over what has happened in the past with the board. It isn't accidental that some elective offices require an age of 30 or more before even being considered for the position, as most younger people don't really have a clue as to what is going on. Still, if you want to make a name for yourself and try to push forward some issues that you think are being neglected by the other candidates, go ahead and run, raising the issues in the process. It can only help the discussions and in a few years or so they may be serious candidates for the board as they get older. Not everybody can run and win the first time out. --Roberth 22:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Everyone here is refering to base ten earth years, correct?--Lkjhgfdsa 01:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I would encourage any 18 year olds that feel they are capable to fill out the form. Down with ageism. Heqs 14:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Confirm me.[edit]

Since I have stood previously, there should be no obstacle in confirming my candidateship immediately. Cimon Avaro 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Sorry for your inconvinience. Now you are confirmed. --Aphaia 14:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Jeffrey V Merkey.[edit]

Jeffrey V Merkey[edit]

I am going to withdraw my nomination as a candidate and focus on WikiGadugi development. I have a lot of other projects which are exciting involving Wikipedia and its sister projects. I have given the matter further thought, and I have come to the conclusion this would be in the best interests of management of my time. I have several business interests requiring more of my focus and I feel I can really make difference with these projects. I appreciate the opportunity to put my name in and let the community know where I stand on many of these issues. I also just sold another company this week, and I need to focus on transition of this company and my new role, which will preclude me focusing my time in this position. The Wolf Mountain MediaWiki Company will continue and I have hired a community driven CEO to run it who I feel would be more effective at dealing with this community and the Foundation. I remain the Chairman of the Board and hold majority interest in the venture and I am currently providing its sources of funding.

I also appreciated Francis taking the initiative to address the issues on the English Wikipedia and allowing me to communicate its closure. I really think the Board of Trustees should be comprised of responsible folks who can interact well with the community. Most of the community members have a unique view and mission, but I see some gaping disconnects between real world business objectives and harsh realities, and the mission of the encyclopedia given the current composition of the community. What's required to bridge that gap is someone who can effectively work on both sides, and that is not a herculean task I think I can solve for the foundation.

I sincerely wish all the candidates the best and hope the foundation can find a worthy candidate who can bridge this gap.

ᏙᏅᏓ ᎪᎲᎢ ᏩᏙ

Jeff

Archived Discussion

Board travel[edit]

"Candidates should be aware that Board positions are not paid and do not offer per diems; Trustees must be able to financially support their activities as a Trustee (including international travel) and must be able to devote a significant amount of time to Trustee duties."

Much of that is not correct. We have a travel budget for board members and at least Jimmy Wales uses per diems fairly often. The statement as is implies that board members have to pay everything related to travel. That is simply wrong and will likely limit the number of people who become candidates. --Daniel Mayer 11:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

That was my addition, as it was my understanding that Trustees were not paid, and were responsible for thier own travel (for example, when Angela went to the Florida meetup, that the Foundation did not pay for that). If it is incorrect that Trustees should have the resources to attend the various events required of them, please correct it. Essjay (TalkConnect) 05:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

trustees are reimbursed of some of their costs, but not all and not always. Travels are not always reimbursed or not entirely. Phone costs is our business. Printing stuff as well. Child care as well. I would certainly advise not running to someone who has not a decent source of money for a living. Short of cash students may end up in trouble. However, the availability in terms of time is much more serious than the one money related. Ant
I've removed it in favor of a vanilla statement that candidates should know the requirements of a Board position, i.e., that they should be aware of what they're getting themselves into. I've also asked, privately, that the two existing Community Reps write up a "what it's like to be on the Board" statement; I continue to have concerns that some candidates may be unaware of what the position entails, and am making every attempt to provide some background on the position for those who may be unaware of what the position entails (for example, it was mentioned recently that there are instances where Trustee's may have financial and/or legal responsibility for the activities of the Foundation (think the Enron situation) and it concerns me that many candidates may be unaware of such things.) I believe it is the responsiblity of the Election Officials (myself included) to make sure that candidates have a clear picture of the job they're applying for. Essjay (TalkConnect) 06:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Have you been successful in procuring a "what it's like to be on the Board" statement and, if so, where is it? I'm quite interested in standing and believe I am qualified, but I consider it not a little unwise to stand for election to a post without knowing as much as possible about it! :) --Kingboyk 19:12, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
What is important to note is that board members should not receive compensation for being board members or to use their position as trustees for economic gain. However, having your official Wikimedia travel expenses paid *is not* a form of net compensation. It is needed to ensure Trustees do their job (getting together for meetings and such). --Daniel Mayer

It was a opportunity to test another form of enlist candidates[edit]

Approval voting is a is a voting system used for elections, where a "list of candidates" must be pre-defined. If the list have "democratic origins", the election by approval voting will show a democratic result. It is a perfect system for wikipedia community...

But what is a "candidate" in a direct democracy? People that wants power? Marketing? Volunteers? Whant help others? It was good if I, or you, or your friends, be a candidate? (And how many candidates on the list to be a democratic list?).

PS: "To be eligible as a candidate (..) must have more than 400 edits on at least one Wikimedia project (...)" is only a "filter", not a legitimacy criteria.

We have on Wikipedia community a exceptional opportunity to do a "more truth" democracy... the goal of this community is to colaborate on articles, and through articles we know people. Only on this "known people" we can vote (!). Not names or promises on a "Elections list of self-candidates".

We haven't time to investigate another people, only ours "known people", and this is a good principle: colaborators voting on a colaborator from (and only from) the articles where he/she was colaborate. From this first ease voting we can produce a very surprised and democratic "list of potenctial candidates"... and invit the "best approval" of then to become candidates.

PS: I do not know the candidates listed, and have nothing against them. PS2: See also "objective operationality" on Approval voting Talk.

-- Krauss

I am interested in this question of democracy over the digital divide. Every person over 21 years could be elegable to be elected. Then some people would have to have lost voting rights because that have broken wikipedia rules. From the remaining group a number will have become known in the wikipedia experience. If we were all asked to nominate one person for the position that we felt was best and we were not to talk about it or have electioneering then wikipedia would wash up a person who would be the people's suggestion. However this would not work due to language differences as I do not know any one from the chinese wikipedia community. So a local area governing body needs to be developed where wikipedia people from locations with in a country come together in an incorporated body to be the local house of justice for wikipedia for that area. This suggested yearly elected body of say nine people have regular meetings with the wider community say once every three week to get recommendations and suggestions. Also the main body of wikipedia sends down to the local house of justice information for the world community to know. Each year a regional grouping of people from local houses of justice come together to elect a delegate to attend a national convention where the national house of justice is elected for wikipedia. This body every five years can come together to elect a universal house to look over wikipedia's interests. That way the present election process will not be hijacked and or removed from a popular vote structure. RoddyYoung 22:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

1,000 charachters suggestion[edit]

I realize it was only a suggestion for the statements to be limited in length (or rather recommendation, which is a bit stronger word). However making it three times longer (Cerejota, Cimon Avaro) is a bit of the stretch. Not only is it creating impression of 'having more ideas' or 'caring more' by disrespecting guideline (which others agreed to follow), it's also disrespectful of volunteer translators. If anything, I'd at least like to point that out to the voters. Just a thought. SWojczyszyn 09:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that a candidate should be free to exceed the limit as long as xe doesn't expect it to be translated if xe does. Jon Harald Søby 11:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops; my mistake. I honestly read it as 1000 words. I will edit my statement post-haste, and paste the long statement to my sub-page. There was no deliberate intention to flaut the guideline. Apologies again. -- Cimon Avaro 02:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Quickview[edit]

Instead of "in the #Quick view of candidates section of the English page" it should be "in the quickview" (the multilingual template). Wikimedians are multlingual. Why must they edit only on the english which is "official" ? Why not make as a rule that anybody can edit the candidate list through a multilingual template. Because only officials may edit the page I didn't make it myself. AL .

I think I modified this and put the list into a template. If you find unchanged version, please fix it. Thank you! --Aphaia 14:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Collaborative consensus-based nature.[edit]

When Angela resigned, she wrote that "the collaborative consensus-based nature Wikimedia had before the start of this year continues to deteriorate and it's no longer an environment I can work effectively in." I'd appreciate the candidates thoughts on how the board can return to a being more collaborative and consensus-based. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-05t10:19z (E.g. voting on a wiki instead of having discussions[2]. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-12t04:20z)

Not only do I agree, but I think than along with funding development and the "wikiality" issue, this is one of the key questions facing the Wikipedia Foundation's Board in the next years. I do beg to differ from Angela in terms of "continues to deteriorate", as these are inevitable growing pains as wikipedia both grows in reader exposure and editors.
There is history to this:
The internet in the early 1990s exhibited some of this collegial athmosphere, and many decried the loss of this, for many reasons raging from the market driven popularization of closed solutions (Internet Explorer's un due influence on HTML for example) to the predomiance of advertising.
Yet I think the internet today is better: the closed standard gave way to great community-based insurgence in the form of the explosion of the Open Software and Free Software movements, the predominance of advertising has actually generated so much revenue that people can actually run popular, community driven sites without charging money.
There are lessons to be learned in this process, and I believe two are very applicable to wikipedia:
  1. Trust the community - The mass ecology tends to develop and self-regulate if given clear goals to rally around. I am smart, very smart If am allowed not to be humble, but I cannot be possibly smarter than the collective output of millions seeking the same goals.
  2. Foundations and organized formal efforts are key to establishing clear goals to the community - The EFF, the OSF, etc etc etc are way the communities found inderect guidance, not on how to do things, but on why and what to do, based on specific principles and goals.
I think the Wikipedia Board has to assume this same role. With power comes responsibility, and unless we want the terrible prediction of Stephen Colbert regarding "wikiality" becomes a verifiable fact, the Board must assume its responsibility in this regards.
In concrete terms, I don't think there is a "solution" to the diminishing collegiality, but I think there is a possibility to diminish its negative impact on the goals of writing dictionaries, encyclopedias, and ebooks, by having the Foundation be a proactive and strong focus points to that goal, which is hasn't been to date. If we both trust the community and evangelize strongly for collegiality, I think we can survive and thrive, and let the community-driven mechanisms that exist or emerge to deal with non-collegial behaivior work its wonders. --Cerejota 21:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Posting a resignation on the mailing list and turning it into a public spectacle was probably not the best approach. Board matters, resignations and the like should be private within the board itself until as such time as the board has an "official" public position on the departure of one of its members. More so because those types of "real world" positions can impact foundation donations, financial matters, and public image of the organization if a Board member turns the Board room into a public stage. I've been a CEO for 8 years, I've run Boards of companies and I've had upwards of 500 people reporting to me during my career. I have never seen a public resignation from a board sent on a mailing list before. I was a little shocked by it and disturbed. This is not to say it could or should be or not be done this way, but it did cause me some pause, and probably would any investors into the projects. Given that, I have avoided pointing out the contents of this posting for those very reasons to preserve Angela's dignity and that of the Board. I do wish Angela the best. Jmerkey 20:56, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Revoking candidacy[edit]

MakeChooChooGoNow was running for a position, but appears to have stepped down. He deleted all related content off his talk page, when questioning became critical, yet in some aspects off topic. This page records all of the discussion on his talk page, most of which he deleted when it went against him. en:User_talk:MakeChooChooGoNow/Board_questioning -- Zanimum 14:14, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My inquiry again went unheeded. -- Zanimum 17:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Cassalette[edit]

Cassalette has submitted a candidacy on the de page. Can we get a translation? -- Zanimum 14:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have translated the statements from German to English and posted to the main page. I had my wife who is a German Citizen review my translation for accuracy. Jmerkey 16:02, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I left the original statement in German (italicized) posted to the main page as well as the English translation. I think it is important that the candidates own words be used on the main page along with a translation so German speakers can hear them in their own words. One of the words used to express classes of society is a special word and conveys meaning beyond the English translation to German speakers. Jmerkey 16:17, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

ArnoLagrange and Kelly Martin[edit]

Both Arno and Kelly did not specify ages. Some form of action should be taken, whether asking again for their ages and requiring a proper response or booting them from the candidate list. Personnally, I prefer the former to the latter. Jfingers88 19:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Ho ! I'm sorry, I didn't notice the age was required. I just copied pasted my last years' candidature : last year I was confirmed by officals. I'm not becoming younger since this time. Arno Lagrange  03:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
not sure stating age should be a requirement. it is rude to ask a lady age anyway :) I met both. They are both over the requirement... ant
IMHO asking for the age of someone (lady or not) who is running in an election is definitely not rude. -- Arne (akl) 16:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Both Danny and Aphaia have seen my government identification which verifies my identity and age. I won't repeat what Brad said about all this nonsense. Kelly Martin 02:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, what does Brad have to do with the fact that I'm interested in the age and the real life background (see below) of the candidates? I really hope that you don't call these questions nonsense... -- Arne (akl) 07:47, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Linuxbeak confirmed[edit]

I confirmed Linuxbeak with Brad, and noted it borrowing Takot's laptop. --Aphaia 22:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

What about real life?[edit]

Since board member is a real life job, it would be nice if the candidates would provide more of the information usually given in a job application. At least a picture, the exact age, and some kind of CV would be nice. This is far more interesting than the contribution pages. Thanks -- Arne (akl) 08:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, it would be reassuring to know they have real life experiences that could contribute to the Foundation's management. -- Zanimum 17:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I also expected to see a link to proper CV here (although in the US pictures are quite discouraged on these things). Would the elections officials please consider adding a subpage or some sort of encouragement for CV's? I really was not planning on considering candidates who did provide one.--BirgitteSB 18:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I am reluctant to release my full resume here because of the opportunity for harassment it creates. I do not need people like the guy who was stalking me a few weeks ago (as Jimbo and Danny well know) calling my employer and making trouble for me just because I put my employment info on the web for the purpose of this position. I can provide a redacted resume that omits enough information to prevent identifying my current employer, but I have a job, and I need to keep that job. I don't think my employer will have any problem with me serving on the Board of a charitable organization not related to its industry (I work for a capital leasing firm; the only conceivable way there would be a conflict is if we considered leasing equipment and I would simply recuse for all such discussions), but I can't say they'd be too pleased if some nutcase started calling my CEO at all hours of the day and night -- which is exactly what might happen if I publicly reveal the name of my current employer. Kelly Martin 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly a redacted resume would be better than nothing. Without seeing what you are willing to reveal, I do not know if it will be enough to satisfy me personally. I do sympathize with your concerns, but I would prefer to have board members (especially community reps) who do not have reservations about making themselves public. For one reason, if a person with reservations is elected and publicly outed or receive harassment afterward, then I feel they will be more likely to resign in response. I would hate to have to go through all of this again in a few months, since it seems there are issues preventing interim appointments of board members. Of course such information will certainly help in the decision process as well. On the other hand if all of the candidates reveal no more than you are willing to, it can not be an issue. I do respect that you must make the decision to do what is in your best interest rather than the voters, especially since revealing any info does not guarantee a board seat.--BirgitteSB 19:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
In my case I've already revealed most of the information that I expect candidates will likely reveal. I'm a very public person with the specific exception that I keep work out of my personal life. Wikimedia is part of my "personal" life, and so it is something that I try to keep separate from work. (My supervisor is aware that I am involved in Wikipedia, although he has no idea what it is or what the level of my involvement is.) This is partly the result of previously having worked for a political lobbying organization. If I had said anything as part of my personal life that ended up being attributed back to my employer, I could have been held responsible for making a public relations statement without authorization. It's not as much an issue with my current employer, but it's a habit that I am not likely to break. I'm certainly not bothered by harassment, as (again) Jimbo and Danny can readily tell you. But I would be a fool to hand out information to harassers in order to make it easier.
One of the problems with me giving you a redacted CV/resume is that you will be unable to verify most of it. You're going to be relying on my word that the statements presented are true. My previous employer can probably still verify my employment. The one before that no longer exists (I was terminated as part of a corporate shutdown) and I don't have any idea where they escrowed the employment records, or even if they did. You could confirm my college graduations and law school attendance, but my first college will not confirm because I never informed them of my name change. I will not reveal my prior name for the purpose of this election (doing so offends my personal dignity too much, and I would consider it extremely offensive were anyone to attempt to force me to publicly acknowledge my prior name here), so you won't be able to confirm anything before that because I've never had a reason to inform them of my name change (and so they will never have heard of me). If you want more detailed confirmation of any of the facts of my employment or volunteer history, I suggest we work out a deal where I reveal the necessary information for confirmation to a mutually trusted person -- Brad Patrick would be my preference -- and allow him to make the necessary inquiries in private and report back on his findings.
So really, what's the real purpose of asking for CVs or resumes? What information are you looking for, and why do you want to see it? Kelly Martin 19:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Why I want to see CV's[edit]

It is hard to really disagree with many things people are supporting in their platforms. Mostly what candidates are supporting are good ideas and even some ambitious projects. The questions is, do they have any experience doing anything that would give me the confidence they could actually implement these fine things they talk about? I do not want to elect the person that writes the best platform or even has the best ideas. I want to be confident that people I approve can be effective board members. Also that they will stick with it. Working on the board seems to be a very different experience from the other work involved on the projects. Although I certainly plan on looking at everyone's work within the community, I do not want that to be the only thing I look at. Since all the foundation level work is not viewable by the public this leaves some sort of CV as the only thing I can expect in this regard. On top of that, as someone with experience in hiring people, I do have an idea of what these sort of documents can tell me about a candidate. Honestly I completely expected these to be provided and was suprised they were not a standard part of the application. I will say I did not expect phone numbers to be given publicaly, but imagined the election officials would do the verification. That said my expectations were obviously off-base and I suppose I will re-adjust my plans for evaluating candidates.--BirgitteSB 20:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand the interest. As a manager who hires people from time to time I do know how you can find out a great deal about a candidate from the resume/CV, beyond what is stated on the surface. In my case, my resume wouldn't be that useful for evaluating my candidacy because (strangely enough) it is written with a focus on obtaining employment as an information technology manager, not for seeking a volunteer position with an open-source encyclopedia. I would obviously substantially rewrite the resume before submitting it, removing information that you would likely consider irrelevant (do you really care that I've implemented disaster recovery systems using Tivoli Storage Manager at two different companies, or that I implemented a corporate-wide voice-over-IP telephony system at my current employer?) and insert some items that are largely irrelevant to the people who I normally pitch my resume at. You'd be seeing a resume that was custom-crafted for this position and that doesn't closely resemble my usual resume anyway. I am willing, and will hopefully soon have time to prepare, a substitute for a resume that will hopefully meet your expectations. Tonight, I am pledged to do some work on enwiki, and tomorrow I am going to be working late at work, so it'll probably be Sunday or sometime into next week before I actually am able to submit something for your consideration. In any case, though, I stand on my reputation. I hope that people will talk within their trust networks about the candidates, and base their decisions on who to vote for on who they believe is most likely to do a good job, and not necessarily who they like the best (there are people in Wikimedia who I like a great deal but who I think would make terrible Board members). Kelly Martin 20:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I am glad you understand the legitimate interest. I just want to say I never intended my original comments here to be particularly directed at you, but rather what I expected from all board candidates sometime before Sept. 1. I agree that likability is definitely overrated, and I hope people can really focus on effectiveness here. Trust networks are useful, but I think you are familiar with the reputation of people from Missouri ;)--BirgitteSB 21:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

So-called reverts[edit]

Watch out, someone has been trying to modify the page with reasons like "revert" or "revert, vandalism" but was in fact vandalizing the page. --pankkake 14:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Ross.Hedvicek Nomination[edit]

While his nomination seems well-intentioned enough, this user barely meets the guidelines (only 405 edits to enwiki as of this post, according to Interiot's Tool). These occurred over a period of approximately 5 months, only 7 of which were to the WP/WP_Talk namespaces. In summary, I do not believe this user is qualified to even run for the position. -68.57.159.54 21:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, this is my account, I forgot to log in. -^demon 21:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
If you feel that's not enough then don't vote for him, and suggest requirements be upped in the future. If he meets the requirement he should be allowed to run. -- Jeandré, 2006-08-08t19:27z

Fact is, the requirements should not really be in number of edits, but probably more in previous involvment in Foundation matters. Some of the candidates are absolutely unknown to me, it is hard to imagine them as serious candidates. 83.113.74.127

I cannot speak for all of the planet, but in all the places that I know something of, there are usually about 4-5 large and medium parties who altogether form governments over time and are democratically elected to rule the county / country. But on the election day, there are sometimes as many as twenty different lists, movements. In presidential elections there are often candidates who have absolutely no chance of winning at all, yet they take part in the race. That's democracy - everyone (except perhaps very bad criminals and, in dark ages, other people who were not consider worth it) has the right to take part in the event. I think it's a good thing that the rules are not so strict. SWojczyszyn 17:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Ross Hedvicek had signifficant number of edits on deleted pages, such as en:Talk:Ross Hedvicek or en:Vít Zvánovec. These are not counted by the tool, but if you want to take the guidelines to the word, delted edits are probably also edits. So I think from formal standpoint he could run even if he had 350 counted edits or so.
From factual stanpoint he is known well enough in Czech Wikipedia, where he was banned (mainly for intimidation of and personal attacks). If you want to read some foundation-related opinions, I'd reccomend a plea to "stop financially supporting Wikipedia". --Wikimol 23:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions on the project page[edit]

Most of the candidates give the talk page of their project of origin as the place for asking questions. For anyone who is an active editor, those talk pages may change a lot and not allow other people to see the answers given. Could it be that the questions to each candidate on the elections are asked on a page here on meta instead? It would help keep track of the questions asked and the answers given, saving everyone time. Thanx.notafish }<';> 07:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

While I don't think a meta page is absolutely necessary (though it is highly recommended, they should all have sub-pages of their talk pages at least. -- Zanimum 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Having all these pages in one place would help a lot with following the Q&As. At least as long as we don't have single login with joined watchlists for different projects, I would say that meta is the best place. -- Arne (akl) 18:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
And also having the talk pages here on meta allows for users interested in Foundation affairs to use one single login for all candidates, rather than have to create one for every project where the candidates are. notafish }<';> 12:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree the questions should be separate from a candidate's main talk page. Since candidate statements are so short, the answers to these questions are an important way of assessing the candidates and shouldn't be lost amidst the noise of their main user talk pages. Could one of the election officials could ask each candidate to move their questions please? Angela 01:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The pages should be separated. It is horrible to follow the questions and answer on a language you barely manage when they are mixed with a lot of other stuff. I would also note that putting the talk page on the english wikipedia is not exactly the best way to become a representant for all languages and all projects. I am even wondering if all the candidates know about what meta is... 83.113.74.127 (aka ant unloggued)

I've moved my questions pointer to my meta talk page. I get so few messages on my meta talk that it's highly unlikely that there will be anything on it that isn't election-related for the next two months. Kelly Martin 18:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

recording talk wikimania interesting for candidates[edit]

I have made an audio recording with fragments from talks from Wikimania who I believe can be interesting for candidates for the board. It is Jimbo and Anthere giving comments about this election, the current situation with the board and the future of the board.

Actually I feel it is interesting enough to put it on the article page itself. But I feel that is not appropriate if I did that. --Walter 16:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it should go on a main page as well. --SWojczyszyn 13:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflict(s) of interest?[edit]

Rather than ask each candidate separately on their own pages, I wonder whether it could be consolidated into the 'form' on the listing of candidates whether they are currently or have ever been previously employed by (a) The Wikimedia Foundation, (b) Wikia Inc, (c) any country's Chapter, or (d) any firm or organisation which receives payments from, or makes payments to, any of these three. --Alison Wheeler 15:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the only person currently listed to have ever been employed directly by either Wikimedia or Wikia was Kat Walsh who was part of Wikia's Community support team from February 15 to August 10 2006. Angela 16:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Juan David Ruiz (Zuirdj) will now be working part time at Wikia from September. Angela 02:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Asian candidates[edit]

There any no asien candidates! Just one who speaks a little japanese. You should have done more advertising in the chinese and japanese community if wikimedia want´s to become a global organisation. --84.176.135.98 21:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is no candidate who spends not the most time in en:Wiki. And we don't have actually enough Trustees from the en:Wiki (<- sarcasm). There are Peaople who only speak English. Wonderfull (<- ironic) for an international project. There is no one from abroad the USA (or maybe englisch speaking countries) or from other projects than wikipedia. It's poor and silly. Kenwilliams 08:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Well in all fairness to the candidates, we have Arno Lagrange who is from France, Cartman02au who spends most of his time on Wikinews, Cimon Avaro from Finland and Eloquence from Germany. So it's not only en.wiki Americans who run although they are clearly in the majority. --Deprifry 10:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

We can not force people to candidate if they are not interested. Anthere

Of course everybody is free to encourage people to candidate for the elections, especially from groups outside en.wp / America. So I would like to invite "84.176.135.98" to approach people in those communities, and ask them if they are interested. Effeietsanders 12:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
Not counting the one who's resigning, how many en.wikipedians are there on the Board? I count one.—Nat Krause, 01:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion it isn´t necessary not to be an en-wikipedian. But you should have knowledge what is going on in not en-wps. A chinese or japanese speaking american, for instance, would be a good solution. Less travel costs and fluent en-speaking knowledge would be the possitiv sideeffect. For me as an de-wikipedian, it isn´t necessary to vote for an european candidate, because we have enough influence to articulate our interests. --80.135.28.241 10:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
We have one candidate from Rabat, Maroc. I'd definitely consider voting for him if he'd be giving a better impression of himself, or if I spoke passable French. As it is, I'll probably vote for our Finnish candidate. These are (more or less) democratic elections, and we have IMHO enough good candidates from various wiki projects, linguistic backrounds etc., from whom each can choose whom they deem best. If I were feeling these elections lacked or needed more candidates from outside the US/en:wiki community, I myself would run for the post. --Nahum 12:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are no Indian candidates also, I am Indian but I cannot qualify myself at so high level I have just edited some pages but given large contributions. ~ [[3]]

Publicity offer to the candidates[edit]

See Wikizine/election 2006 --Walter 10:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Aaron Burke[edit]

I find no candidates statement for Aaron Burke to translate, but I did notice his entry is already bolded as though confirmed. Is this correct? Jmerkey 04:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawl of Candidacy - Jon Cates[edit]

Dear Interested Parties,

Due to unforseen circumstances which will limit my ability to fill this role, I respectfully remove my name from consideration. I wish all the best to those who seek the open seat on the Board of Trustees. As outside opportunities have been presented, it is in the best interests of all that I take this action and such should not reflect negatively on the Board, the Elections Officers, or the projects of the Foundation.

Please feel free to contact me on User_talk:Jon_Cates.

Sincerely,

Jon Cates 02:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Language ability of the candidates[edit]

Between the 19 candidates todate 7 are not native english speaker (2 german, 1 finnish, 2 dutch, 1 spanish, 1 french speakers). The others are 9 US-citizens, 2 british and 1 australian. Fast all of these announce their ability only in english and that they can use not well a few other languages, or one or none. One exception is an American of Czech origin. Five non-english native (both germans, both dutchs and the finnish) originally provided they statement in english (one the german provides his statement also in german, the finnish didn't yet provide his own statement in finnish). The chilean originally provided his statement in spanish. That's a picture of the lingusitic situation in Wikimedia projects ! I edited my statement first in neutral auxiliary language dedicated to address people which don't know my native language, I then provided translation in my native language and then in others languages if I could or helped translators to provide it (even using Google translation tools). That's my vision of language policy in a multilingal commmunity. Arno Lagrange  08:42, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

update : 11:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Chart showing the weight of some languages by speakers (total and native), economy, net surfer, web pages, Wikipedia articles and Board candidates. read more


Arno: I admit I appreciate all the effort you put into making this election multilingual, I think it's a nice idea. It'd be nice if we all started to learn some languages, but (IMO) it's not the central issue. This board is a board of Foundation that is located in USA, a (primarly) English speaking country. Any legal issues that could be involved will be resolved in EN, not too mention that perhaps some knowledge of US legal system, just overall idea about it, would be perhaps useful. Moreover, I think that English should be the main language spoken by the board (for the reson that it's an US-based organization (the foundation) if nothing else). That's why I believe that the candidate should speak good English. Not fluent perhaps, but good.
I did try to learn Esperanto once, but it was practically pointless. It's a nice idea, but somehow doesn't work too well in practice, a bit like United Nations doesn't really work as Earth-government. Let's be practical about things. Don't you think that electing to the board a member, who doesn't speak English all too well would make things worse managment wise?
And don't get me wrong: I believe that it would be nice if elected candidate would participate in non-en-wiki, it'd be great if she/he took part in many-lang-wiki's, but I think that members of the board should speak EN well, otherwise the organization will lose some efficient managment capabilities. Just my opinion (which doesn't really matter, since I can't vote; a bit like a criminal ;). --SWojczyszyn 16:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The question is : are we working for a US-based english-speaking organization or for a world-wide project in a world where 6700 languages are spoken and where english is not the native language of more than 94% of them ? Arno Lagrange  20:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
I too found it odd that most statements were only in English, while most candidates stated that they participate in several languages (I wonder, what is the level of participation if you don't speak the language...). But what bothered me more was the level of English used in the statements. I've translated candicacy statements before, among other things on foundation and meta, but this was the first time I almost gave up: guys, what difficult words you use! Please keep in mind that the statements are also meant for non-native English speakers. If you use such difficult English now, how will that be when non-native English speakers try and understand board discussions? Fruggo 07:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Within any group of people, in order to communicate practically and efficiently, we should use the language that is spoken by the most people. In our case of a world-wide Internet community, this tends to be English. You yourself make use of that principle by posting to an English language talk page in English.
As a native German speaker, I have been able to meet wonderful people from many countries using English as a bridging language. I have no regrets about that. Using English in situations where it makes sense does not preclude us from building an international community in many languages. It simply means that we need to facilitate interaction with those people who do not speak whatever auxiliary language is available within a group. As this election shows, there is a fantastic community of people willing to translate texts across languages. I believe that we need to make an effort to do so on the organizational level as well, and encourage participation in the committees from people in all languages. This is not a trivial organizational problem, but one that we should tackle.
I do not believe that the Wikimedia Foundation should be in the business of specifically promoting Esperanto as an auxiliary language; it should simply make use of it in situations where a group has more Esperanto speakers than English speakers. These situations can and will occur. I do not believe that Esperanto is a "neutral" language, though it is certainly spoken by a very diverse group of people. So is English, and the best way to make English more culturally diverse and politically "neutral," in my opinion, is to express many cultures and many political beliefs through it.--Eloquence 00:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
yes I post in an english talk page - but I posted the same in the french and in the esperanto talk pages - so you a German, Fruggo SWojczyszyn and I can talk together. it's good we have a common language to communicate (das könnte auch Deutsch sein, warum nicht ? ).

i am happy i can communicate a little with english, but I know a lot of people can't communicate so easily in english, then you even don't hear them.

I don't think wikimedia must promote esperanto, but the wikipedian community could choose to use this neutral language - neutral means that is the language of none nation -. I know that today very few people subtain this idea, but I candidate to let people think about : perhaps in a few years, the situation will change. I don't believe that English is the best way "to express many cultures and many political beliefs through it"; native and no-native will never be equals : for a native speakers it's very easier to express himself and the majority of the others express themself with less or more difficulty. Esperanto should be a better way because it's much more easier to learn for everybody - but it could work only if people would decide to learn it ! - Arno Lagrange  00:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
If the Esperanto project succeeds on the level it needs to, the language gap will exist for Esperanto like it exists for other languages. Some will learn it from early childhood on (some already do), where the human brain is most receptive to language learning. Some will learn it late in life, with considerable difficulty. Depending on what script you are used to writing in, some will find it easy to write, while others will find it hard. Some see Esperanto as Euro-biased in its grammar and vocabulary, and so on. Some nations would promote Esperanto in their school systems, others would not. Even within groups of native speakers, you have great differences of language proficiency. A dyslexic English speaker is often harder to understand for me in writing than a secondary language speaker. See the English Wikipedia article for a detailed discussion of these arguments.
Making everyone "equally disadvantaged" strikes me as a rather strange goal in enabling communications, and a self-defeating one. I respect your single issue platform, but I hope you can see that there are different strategies for allowing us to communicate better throughout the projects. Publishing my platform in English does not mean that I do not respect multilinguality and multiculturalism, to the contrary, it is for the sake of reaching as many people as possible that I do not use my native language.--Eloquence 01:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


Your aguments are interesting and you are talking about the oportunity of esperanto. - I tried to read the mentionned article - it's a bit long, but I know these arguments - We could have a long debate on the theme. But now the first question is "do we need change linguistic policy in wikimedia projects ? " We would discuss about advantages and disadvantages of esperanto after. Sincerly I think that esperanto is not necessarly the best ever proposed solution : one day there could be a better one. However for the moment in my opinion esperanto is the best. People dicussing abstractly look like not knowing what people which are using esperanto together experience every day. The evidence has been made that by learning esperanto one reach a good level very more quickly than learning any foreign language - for very clear explainable reasons : learning a new root, one knows immediatly tens of new words (see in Easy_to_learn it is said "5 to 10 times more quickly" !!!). Of course I don't agree with the idea that esperanto makes everyone equally disadvantaged. Learning such a logical language stimulates the brain and makes it more free : everybody can create new combinations that perfectly reflect own thinkings and is immediatly understood by listener. My aim is not to write now an apology of esperanto. I only talk about things I know while I hear people discussing about things they don't know. Arno Lagrange  01:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I would add : the article en:Esperanto_as_an_international_language don't look to me to be written in a NPOV, but rather as a demonstration that esperanto is inadequat. I recommand you to read what Claude Piron (cs, de, en, eo, fr, ja, nl) has written. This guy is a linguist and a psychologist, was a translator for the United Nations (from Chinese, English, Russian and Spanish into French) from 1956 to 1961. After leaving the UN he worked for the World Health Organization all over the world and he knows what languages are and what esperanto is. AL  07:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I prefer better tools and processes to strong policies that might lead to inefficiency and stagnation. For instance, the LiquidThreads extension, originally one of my crazy ideas which was recently taken up by David McCabe as a Google Summer of Code project, might allow us to gradually move discussions from mailing lists to the wiki, and to facilitate translation of comments through the software (David and I already discussed the latter possiblity at Wikimania). We might also annotate certain discussions as being important, and accordingly devote resources (volunteers and/or translation staff) to translating them as they happen. The current predominant mailing list and talk page approach simply does not lend itself very much to multilinguality. For a person who does not speak a language, content in that language is often merely noise. We should therefore work towards systems where people see only the content that is relevant to them, and where multilingualism encouraged and facilitated.--Eloquence 03:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
I find the multilingualization of LiquidThreads rather a nice idea. Now everybody has to work about ! AL  07:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Other comments :

  • one said to me that I promote multilingualism : I think multilingualism is less bad than the only use of the language of a nation (or few nations), but it's not the better way, because it's heavy (a lot of translation work to do) and slow (translated texts come to reader later). In a multilingual community the use of a common language is better; some people think : we have it, it's english and it works well. I think english doesn't work so well, a lot of people can't communicate (or with difficulties) with english even you don't see them.
    • multilingualism is theorically the principle of the European Union : each representative of any sovereign state in the Union may express him/herself in his/her official language. Translations must be provided in every other official languages. But in fact it doesn't work. One Czech said to me : "if a czech representative express himself in chech, nobody awares, in german it takes months, in french : weeks, in english : he is immediatly heard. So nobody tries to express himself in an other language but in english". I ask you : should we not see the wikipedian commmunities in every languages as souvereign states and the Foundation as a federation where the own language of every community is respected ? and make that work better than it works in the UE ...
  • one said I suggest we had to summarize english discussions in other languages. I suggest we had to summarize discussions in several languages in other languages. It seems somebody see all that happens in english most important and that happens in other languages unimportant : not english speaking people are seen as stupid people for which one must make more translation work, but these people are not expected to express them self : there are only listener of the dominant speaker - which necessarily speak english -. It's like an Empire (e.g. the roman Empire) where there are true citizen and colonised slaves. Do we want to have such an operation in wikimedia projects ?

Arno Lagrange  07:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we won't find an agreement over English as an auxiliary language vs. Esperanto. ;-) I do feel that the EU comparison is valid, and that we can do a better job than the EU at providing adequate translations where necessary. We don't have to hire professional translators, make work contracts, etc. -- we just need to have an interface where it's obvious which pieces are missing, and where volunteers can easily add them. This seems to work well for the election statements, for example. It's just that it's a lot harder for discussions without software changes (some additional software support would be nice even for regular wiki pages, for instance to manage translation assignments, or to support CAT tools like Omega-T). If you want, I'm available for further discussion of this issue by Skype or phone -- perhaps I can convince you that, if elected, I would make the issue of multilingual discussion a priority, even if through a different (if, in my opinion, more practical) strategy. ;-)--Eloquence 11:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
eh english belongs to no nation. There is no such nation as England.Geni 15:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, the most popular language that's not a national language is Javanese. Perhaps Wikimedia could move towards using that for all internal discussions.—Nat Krause 22:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
en is not a national language.Geni 22:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Removal candidates per Officers or their delegate(s)[edit]

Please wait until after the close of the period before making your haste delete. I ask that those that deleted rvt please. RoddyYoung 21:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you give any ground in the election-rules that allows you to be a candidate for the Community-representative? If so, please citate. It would be very unlikely that the board will change the rules during the candidacy or voting, so I would not expect such a desicion. Effeietsanders 22:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment by another candidate?[edit]

The candidate statement from User:Kim Bruning had comments in small text that reminded voters to consider voting for other candidates. If this was added by Bruning, I apologize for bringing it up. However, it seemed odd, so I thought I'd ask about it. Specifically, these were the comments:

Note that with approval voting, you can simultaniously also vote for other candidates with similar programs. If you like a particular idea, please also vote for those other candidates with that program.
If you'd like this to happen, also consider voting for AaronSW, Arnomane, and Oscar.
If you'd like this to happen, also consider voting for Eloquence and Improv
If you're interested in this, also consider voting for Improv

Again, I just wanted to be sure this is kosher. --Tjss 04:06, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It appears this was added by Kim Bruning. Ral315 (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Expanded candidate statements, if anyone's interested[edit]

The English Wikipedia's Wikipedia Signpost community newsletter has compiled a list of candidate questions, which have been answered by 13 of the 20 candidates as of this comment (and more are in the process of writing up answers). The article can be found here. Ral315 (talk) 06:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

We now have replies from 16 of the 17 candidates, with the other candidate in the process of finishing his response. I encourage every voter to read through these important questions and replies. (Then again, I may be slightly biased ;-) ). I do, seriously, though, urge every voter to read through them prior to voting. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected[edit]

I have protected this for the duration of the election.

James F. (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


Add Galician[edit]

I'm translating the Galician election page (Election candidates 2006/Gl), can someone add it to this page please? --68.192.174.131 08:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC) (dannycas

Prevert has done this.
James F. (talk) 16:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Navigation[edit]

Why is Election candidates 2006 redirecting to Election candidates 2006/En? It seems like missuse of MediaWiki's subpage navigation framework far a parent page to redirect to a child page. For one thing it breaks the back link to the parent page. It may be best to do something else next time, like have the English page be the parent page instead of a subpage. There is no shame in using English as a common language this way. It is the model used on Mediawiki.org when there is more than one language version of a page and it works well. :-) Rogerhc 22:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

If the english page would be parent page automatic interlanguage linking wouldn't work anymore. All templates link automatically to every pages in every languages because they all are subpages with /Xx language code suffixe. Yes ! English is a language as all other not the parent language. Should the other languages be children languages ? Arno Lagrange  02:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Please don't make it ambiguation, and don't have me make one more click. We have many stuffs needed to care.
The benefit of creating subpage is well explained by Arno. If not, template for multilingualization may have be more complicated.
On the other hand, keeping it redirect but not ambiguation makes a sense, in my opinion. The reason is the English text is only one official text all Election Officials approved, and the version you need to councel in the most critical moment (luckily we haven't face that until now). Thanks. --Aphaia 09:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Disappointed and frustrated[edit]

I just spent about twenty minutes reading all the candidate statements and trying to narrow down the list I would vote for (I'm glad to see we're using approval voting), but when I went to the vote link to see how it would work, exactly (email confirmation, other?), I was informed that:

 Sorry, you are not qualified to vote in this election here on the English Wikipedia.
 You need to have made 400 edits here before 00:00, 2006 August 1; you have made 131.
 Also, your first edit on this wiki was at 03:57, 2004 September 29; it needs to be
 before 00:00, 2006 May 3.
 You may be eligible to vote on another Wikimedia project where you are active. If so,
 please visit that project and try again. Thank you!

Now, I am not in principle opposed to voting requirements like these -- I'm not a very active contributor, and I understand the need to prevent voting abuse.

I would just like to see the eligibility requirements spelled out explicitly on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Boardvote to avoid wasting the time of any other infrequently active participants who think they will be able to vote (but actually, won't). It wouldn't hurt to have something on the Candidate Statement page (the eligibility text there is for candidates, not voters), and possibly as a link from the words "active members" in the banner headline that got me over here in the first place.

And for the record, since I am not able to vote, I would like to endorse the following candidates, any of whom would, I think, contribute ably and effectively to the WMF:

And although I would not vote for User:ArnoLagrange, I do agree with his appeals for diversity, and would encourage those who can vote to consider not voting for candidates fluent only in English (remember, in approval voting, who you don't vote for is just as important as who you do).

@alex 00:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Attribution[edit]

This page included a number of templates which were later substituted to simplify maintenance and organization. Their edit histories are listed below. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:41:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Election candidates 2006/AaronSw/En[edit]

Election candidates 2006/alex756/En[edit]

Election candidates 2006/ArnoLagrange/En[edit]

Election candidates 2006/Charles Matthews/En[edit]

Election candidates 2006/Cimon Avaro/En[edit]

  • [view or diff] 2007-11-17 10:11 Pathoschild (merged into Board elections/2006/Candidates/en with attribution)
  • [view or diff] 2006-09-1 01:03 Dbl2010 (typo fix)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-28 12:54 White Cat (→Cimon Avaro - moving image inside the template)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-25 06:45 Cimon Avaro (→Cimon Avaro - add portrait of myself)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-21 10:37 Cimon Avaro (→Cimon Avaro - spello)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-16 04:25 Cimon Avaro (condense to conform with lenght guideline, shall condense further later)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-16 02:12 Cimon Avaro (→Cimon Avaro - The Role of the Foundation)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-14 19:52 SWojczyszyn m (→Cimon Avaro)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-13 09:19 SWojczyszyn m (→Cimon Avaro - getting rid of leading ';' from statement by  )
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-11 14:44 Jd m
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-11 14:44 Jd m (→Cimon Avaro)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-11 06:04 Cimon Avaro (→Cimon Avaro - fix formatting, and link to meta sub-page for questions)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-10 18:06 Jd m
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-10 18:06 Jd m
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-10 16:29 Jd m (With Anthere approval, let's streamline this election and have a decent i18n on our very Meta wiki)

Election candidates 2006/Eloquence/En[edit]

Election candidates 2006/Eloquence/Platform 2006/En[edit]

Election candidates 2006/Evrik/En[edit]

Election candidates 2006/Improv/En[edit]

Election candidates 2006/Kelly Martin/En[edit]

Election candidates 2006/Kim Bruning/En[edit]

Election candidates 2006/Linuxbeak/En[edit]

  • [view or diff] 2007-11-17 11:35 Pathoschild (merged into Board elections/2006/Candidates/en with attribution)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-14 19:53 SWojczyszyn m (→Linuxbeak)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-13 11:47 SWojczyszyn m (→Linuxbeak)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-11 14:46 Jd m (→Linuxbeak)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-10 18:12 Jd m
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-10 16:32 Jd m (With Anthere approval, let's streamline this election and have a decent i18n on our very Meta wiki)

Election candidates 2006/Mindspillage/En[edit]

  • [view or diff] 2007-11-17 11:36 Pathoschild (merged into Board elections/2006/Candidates/en with attribution)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-29 00:32 Mindspillage (→Mindspillage - my statement is short not because I don't have more to say, but because the guidelines suggested brevity...)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-27 06:32 Gmaxwell (→Mindspillage - Add headshot, per request.)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-15 17:32 Mindspillage (→Mindspillage - cut some blathering)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-12 03:58 Mindspillage (→Mindspillage - because I don't expect anyone outside the US... or the region... to know where the heck this is)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-12 00:21 Aphaia (→Mindspillage - confirmed)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-11 16:09 Mindspillage m (→User:Mindspillage - fix heading)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-11 14:46 Jd m (→User:Mindspillage)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-11 05:17 Mindspillage m (Election candidate 2006/Mindspillage/En moved to Election candidates 2006/Mindspillage/En: typo)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-11 05:10 Mindspillage (announcing candidacy)

Election candidates 2006/Oscar/En[edit]

  • [view or diff] 2007-11-17 11:36 Pathoschild (merged into Board elections/2006/Candidates/en with attribution)
  • [view or diff] 2006-09-16 10:10 Oscar (→Oscar - 1 more (more will follow))
  • [view or diff] 2006-09-16 10:07 Oscar (→Oscar - adding some endorsements - if opponents do this, why should i not campaign a bit as well?)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-22 12:53 BradPatrick (→Oscar - +confirmed)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-22 00:42 Oscar m (corr)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-20 21:55 Habj m (→Oscar - typo)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-20 19:06 Dbl2010 (→User:Oscar - title fixed. html color codes removed, isnce it doesn't fit into current template)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-20 16:33 Oscar (lnfx)
  • [view or diff] 2006-08-20 16:22 Oscar (my candidacy)

Election candidates 2006/Ross.Hedvicek/En[edit]

Election candidates 2006/UninvitedCompany/En[edit]

Election candidates 2006/Zuirdj/En[edit]

Template:Election candidates 2006/quickview ML[edit]