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


  1. I don't think than a IRC debate with 18 candidates will bring more useful information to users than written questions to each candidate.
  2. Obviously this would favour native English speaking candidates, and fast answered questions rather carefully thought solutions. Yann 10:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What about...

A skype-debate? Do it like Wikipedia Weekly. I think that might be very interesting, that way you can actually use the timings, and the candidates can really interact. A demand would be that the debate would be split up, and each should take no longer as 10 minutes imho. It could be recorded and put online. Effeietsanders 14:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not misreading things it appears that all of the candidates speak english at a fairly high level. Perhaps a recorded candidate statement of no more than 5 minutes would also be an asset. We could take each bit, sequentially add them to the podcast (no editing of the content itself) and volia, it's done. -- Tawker 19:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


This is an attempt to graphically display the possible times for this debate. I did this to hopefully help out. It should be noted that no matter what time is selected at least one candidate won't be able to show. We can expect eight out of the nine candidates to show up at 1800 UTC, and a one our IRC debate can be held. We lose one candidate if the time is extended to 2 hours. It could start at 1700 and end at 1900 or start at 1800 and end at 2000, either way we will be missing two candidates, though one of the two will be around for the 1800 to 1900 timeperiod. Table is below, there are references to interesting details, which follow at the end. 05:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to note that X is equal to an available time, and O is equal to a time where the candidate is not around. —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
Name 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
Eloquence[1] O O O O O O O O X X X X X X X X X X X X O O O O
DragonFire1024[2] X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
WarX[3] O O O O O O O O O O X X X X X X X X X O O O O O
^demon[4] X X X X X O O O O O O O O O X X X X X X X X X X
UninvitedCompany X X X X O O O O O O O O O X X X X X X X X X X X
Frieda[5] O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O X X X X O O
Kat Walsh [6] X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Kim Bruning [7] O O O O O O O O O O X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
Michael Snow O X X X X X O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O
New canidate here 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

  1. Assuming that Europe time is 'Paris time', also assuming that start is 10AM (1O00 hours) local time, and that evening hours end at 10PM (2000 hours), please adjust if this gets clarified, or anyone has a better idea :)
  2. Note as candidate has given no specific time, all times are assumed available.
  3. Time converted from GMT+2
  4. Time converted from EST
  5. Not Thursday 28
  6. Irregularly scheduled meetings, no specific times given, assuming any time other then these unknown meeting times
  7. Time is UTC +2, no specific times, but assuming sleeping times of 2200 hours (local) to 800 hours (local)

No debate[edit]


May be I wasn't clear enough. I won't take part in a IRC debate, and I think there should not be a debate if some candidates do not agree to participate (only 9 out of 15 are listed here). And the opinion of the Election Committee should be taken into account, and I see that the Committee does not agree too. Yann 21:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

It is the opinion of one member of the Election Committee, it does not necessarily reflect the official position of it. One member does not make a committee. As for your choice not to participate, that's fine and I'd expect dmcdevit would place a notice saying to the effect that this is not a mandatory debate and that not all candidates are present. -- Tawker 22:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "It is the opinion of one member of the Election Committee, it does not necessarily reflect the official position of it. " <--- Does it or does it not? Was it opinion or reasoning? Hillgentleman 05:25, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Tawker, In all elections, fair coverage of all candidates are crucial. That is why the organisers and translators have tried hard to be fair and uniform in all languages. Do you not think that your proposal skews the advantage towards English speakers, candidates and electorates alike? Hillgentleman 05:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the problem exists across all mediums, there is simply no way every question posted on wiki will be translated, it's simply too many pages. I did note that each candidate did post an original statement in English and en.wp does have a very large audience. Do I think it's perfect, no, do I think it's a good try given the circumstances, yes. Nothing is ever perfect, all we can do is try the best we can. In any case, it's not my call to make, it's a group of people who want to be educated about the issues at hand. Would I like to be able to have a more formal discussion in every language, yes, just as I'd like to see every question translated on the official pages. We have limited resources and we must do the best we can with them. To not try is to try to fail. -- Tawker 06:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Archived section to concerns about neutrality[edit]

Seeing how this matter has been resolved, I see no need to rub salt into wounds and continue it. I would prefer to simply remove it and have it visible in the history but Hillgentleman disagrees and that's fine, I can't find an handy archive template but if I could find one, I think this section would need it. -- Tawker 06:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

The organizer endorses some particular candidates, and hardly to be considered a neutral party.

Creating a page does not make one an organizer despite Aphaia's claims. I am far from the only editor of this page - all I did was try and find a moderator all candidates would agree too and ask them if they are open to it. It's a wiki page, edit it as you wish. I have no rights here and can't hide stuff, it's all in the history for you to see. Aphaia seems to think that I'm locking and removing anything I don't like. Nothing can be further from the truth. -- Tawker 00:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed unsigned. There is no reason to leave the other part not to tag —The preceding unsigned comment was added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]]) . And you have no good reason to remove my emphasis. To reduce the impression you are partisan is already a partisan act in my humble opinion. And your "anyone can edit" is only used a rejection to my opinion. As Election Committee chair I strongly disappointed to receive such disrespect about Election related things. I hereby states I individual have a strong opposition to the debate in general, because of its linguistic partiality and share the concerns with Yann and Kat. --Aphaia 05:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I understand you have objections and I do feel that people here have tried to accommodate them and operate in as transparent of a manner as possible. There are always problems in any type of situation (including the question pages that do exist have language issues as well) - all we can do is try the best to meet the needs of everyone. If you do not wish to participate, that is your choice however I ask that you do not post further comments to that effect here. I do not appreciate your personal attacks with statements that I am engaging in partisan politics here when it is clearly evident that nothing can be further from the truth. The Election Committee does not control discussion - it is clear that the Election Committee does not sponsor this debate and if candidates choose to join, it is their choice. -- Tawker 05:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You call my comment "Actually some advice from Eleccomm member was simply rejected by the organizer." bogus. I retrieved that because it is true. You didn't accept any advices from me. You therefore spread here a false. You rejected my advice to move this page to your user subpage. Also you didn't start page with any disclaimers, moreover you put it onto the official system. You have kept disrespect any opinions from Eleccom it is my deep grievance. --Aphaia 05:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not comment? Sorry, no. As far as it is concerned with Election 2007, either official or unofficial, it is on my responsibility, particular on Wikimedia wikis. We are oblige to some extent to watch the internal and unofficial campaigns as well as the internal media coverage. "Eleccom do not control" doesn't mean you have a right not to follow the Eleccom instruction, if Eleccom as body submits an official note. At least in my understanding. But for you, it means you can expel the Eleccom member from that page. I am very shocked.--Aphaia 05:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ugh, would it help if someone else did this? If so why would it help? As long as tawker does not act as one of the moderators in the actual debate, what is the difference? Just pick impartial moderators. If you note it is now in the user subpage, and has disclaimers. Any other problems? —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

What where when?[edit]

I was told the debate is today...and i was never informed of when it was going to be held. I did sign up, but if its today in a few minutes, like I was told, then I will be unable to attend. I have some bills to pay and errands to I will try to be there a bit later...So when does it start? What time? and what channel? (I cannot recall the channel). DragonFire1024 17:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

It's on now in #wikimedia-debate. Angela 19:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

No disclaimer again![edit]

You did not place any disclaimers on the debate log and actually people are now confused. They put now in the official notice from Eleccom. My deep regret. --Aphaia 09:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC) ,