Talk:Affiliate-selected Board seats/2019/Questions

Yuri Chernetskiy

@Jaluj: Shouldn't "Yuri Chernetskiy" be ""? Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

There were actually 2 people named Yuri running. One of them though didn't get the necessary endorsement, so is really not running at this point. --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 16:50, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Shouldn't you then add a subhead "Yuri Astrakhan" for each of the questions? Geert Van Pamel (WMBE) (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyone can do that, including candidates themselves :) --Elitre (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Funny, I actually came here to ask about that - I first assumed that that was a mistake, and simply renamed them all to my last name, but then I noticed that Yithello responded for a few of them. I feel bad about deleting someone else's comments, but at the same time I feel it would be confusing to readers to have a non-running candidate's answers mixed in with the running ones. @Yithello: would it be ok if i remove your comments? Anyone else has thoughts on that? Thanks!

CC: Elitre (WMF), Geert Van Pamel (WMBE).

--Yurik (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I think this is not the first time in the history of mankind, when in one group there are two people who have the same names. For example, when you were studying at a school, were not two students with the same names in the group with which you were studying? Probably, there were similar situations in your life before. Personally, I distinguish my comrades according to their full names, and not by the names that coincide.

In the end, these issues were initially addressed (from April 4th) to nominees who have not yet been finally approved by the candidates in these elections. Since I was nominee (from April 27th), then, of course, I started answering these questions. I did so until Elitre (WMF) officially told me that my candidacy would not be on the list of approved candidates. I received this message on May 1 at 08:54. Since then I have stopped my answers here. — Yithello (talk) 06:22, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

As far as I could see all comments on the Questions page were signed by the candidates, so their username (or signature), are visible to everyone. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Concernment about who asks questions

Hello. Today I noticed User:SylvestreJordan added this question about Carta de Santiago. The question itself implies that the Carta de Santiago is a declaration from chapters against user groups. As a signer of the Carta de Santiago and coordinator for a User Group, I would like to clarify at first that what that question implies is totally not the intention of the Carta de Santiago. Later on, I want to add to the point that this user has been created just hours ago as you can see here. This is clearly an account created for a mere purpose, and I feel the question is really misinformed. --Edjoerv (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Edjoerv, I am not sure of what their motive might be but it's almost impossible for new user to create an account within an hour and add a question to candidate's nomination page. Consequently, I have gone ahead to remove their question. Regards. T Cells^Talk 10:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Consolidating long question

@DarwIn: Q15 and Q16 are currently quite long and on a very similar topic:

• What is your position on the policy/practice of secret and termless punishments currently in practice at the Wikimedia Foundation, applied over members of the Wikimedia Community without even informing them they are being subject to such punishment, nor why?
• 16In case you agree with the current WMF practice on this, should the victims of WMF imposed termless and secret punishments be informed of them, and the right of defense be granted to them before making them effective?

Would it be possible to consolidate them into a single question? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 02:16, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: I agree. I tried to merge them into one initially, but it was quite long. The first is about the well documented practice inside of the WMF of secret, completely out of process courts and decisions, apparently very much unchecked, of which the best example is AffCom. The second is just asking if the targets have any rights of defense and appeal, or should at least be informed that something about them was ruled and decided inside the WMF, and do not have to know that from 3rd parts. If you find a better way to merge them in one, I would appreciate too.--- Darwin ^Ahoy! 14:36, 6 May 2019 (UTC)