At 12:31 +0100 17/9/08, David Gerard wrote:
2008/9/17 Tom Holden <thomas.holden(a)gmail.com>om>:
I would be very very wary about removing people
from the list even if
you have definite proof that they've committed some rather more
heinous sin than using a sock. If that's an issue that should
disqualify people from standing, we have to trust that the voters will
have the sense to realise this. (Obviously we want to take reasonable
precautions against both a user and their sock voting, but that's a
different issue entirely.)
Unless we get a zillion of 'em clogging the list, then yeah, leave it
to the voters to have a clue. If they vote for someone playing silly
buggers like this then they get what they deserve.
- d.
I am concerned about that implied definition of "voters", and the
"they get what they deserve" throw away.
Wikimedia UK is meant to be open and inclusive (please correct me if I err).
Hence, the ins and out of Wikimedia, Wikipedia, WMF, ARBCOM,
checkuser, Commons etc, etc may mean very little to a diligent editor
who works away at articles from time to time.
Wikimedia UK should involve everybody, not just the hardened old
timers, admins, and the cognicenti.
Gordo
--
"Think Feynman"/////////
http://pobox.com/~gordo/
gordon.joly(a)pobox.com///