Other guides: User:MF-Warburg/Board election 2013, User:Theo10011/VoterGuide2013

useful links: Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2013/Candidates


Who am I and what am I looking for?Edit

I have been a Wikimedian for 8 years now. I am an admin on the English Wikipedia, Wikidata, English Wikivoyage, and Meta. I have written election guides for the English Wikipedia ArbCom elections for 6 years: 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012.

My guides have tended to be very point-based for ArbCom, with lots of partial credit, but for here I'm going to use a much simpler structure: 1 point if I like the answer, 0 points if I don't.

My standards:

  • Part 1
    • 1 Sisterproject of wikipedia - Wikimedia is not just the English Wikipedia.
    • 2 About MediaWiki development - See Wikiafication.
    • 3 Improving quality - while volunteers write the content, I believe the Foundation should look into making more resources available for those writing the content, and encourage higher quality. On the English Wikipedia there's a ton of crummy articles, and over 600 of the 700-ish WMF wikis are only edited by spambots.
    • 5 Communication and activity level - Important.
  • Part 2
    • 6 Child protection and the WMF - This is a serious issue. The English Wikipedia has a very stringent child protection policy, but once you leave or get banned from there (due to repeated oversighting of personal information by young kids), there is little that stewards or oversighters can do about kids posting too much personal information. And volunteers should not be handling child porn issues.
    • 8 Foundation wiki coup and multilingual communication - Important after that whole scandal. Incorporating elements of the private wikis question (9) as well.
  • Other
    • Some experience in Wikimedia outside of editing.
    • Edit count. This isn't ArbCom or steward, but if you've done very few edits for the amount of time you've been here it makes me wonder.
    • User rights. Ditto to the above; also, it makes me wonder how issues relating to advanced userrights (Ombudsman Commission, privacy policy) will be handled.
    • Platform. What are they running for?
    • Anything else I know about the candidate (+1 if nothing bad).

WMF BoardEdit

ThelmadatterEdit

  • Home wiki: English Wikipedia/Commons
  • Edit count: 48968   +1
  • Rights: Commons: Autopatrolled, English Wikipedia: Account creator, Ed program, Filemover, IPBE, Reviewer, Rollbacker, Outreach: Admin   0
  • Wikimedia involvement: Wikimedia Mexico, GLAM   +1
  • Platform: Education   +1
  • Sister projects: "While I hate to trash anyone's valuable volunteer time, I do worry about the "dilution" of the Wikipedia brand. New projects are exciting but real value is had only with long-term, stable participation by a community."   0
  • MediaWiki: no expertise   0
  • Quality: sure   +1
  • Communication: missed the point, really   0
  • Child protection: Sure   +1
  • Foundationwiki/private wikis: not really stoked   0
  • Other: nothing   +1
  • Total: 6

  Neutral The answers to a lot of the questions weren't that great, though candidate has a lot of good experience so I don't want to flat out oppose.

PhoebeEdit

  • Home wiki: English Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 19797   +1
  • Rights: English Wikipedia: Autopatrolled, Reviewer, Wikidata: Autopatrolled, Meta: Autopatrolled, English Wikivoyage: Autopatrolled, Outreach: Bureaucrat, Admin   0
  • Wikimedia involvement: Ex-Board, GLAM, research   +1
  • Platform: Ex-Board, pivotal time   +1
  • Sister projects: All good points.   +1
  • MediaWiki: Yes, communication   +1
  • Quality: one of the better answers   +1
  • Communication: fair answer   +1
  • Child protection: Yes.   +1
  • Foundationwiki/private wikis: kill private wikis (but see note)   +1
  • Other: I'd have to agree with MF-W about the foundationwiki handling, where she basically endorsed a lot of it.   0
  • Total: 9
  •   Support don't agree with everything but would be all right I think.

Francis KaswahiliEdit

  • Home wiki: Meta
  • Edit count: 2962   0
  • Rights: None, but blocked 3 months on Commons for repeated copyvios   0
  • Wikimedia involvement: Wikimedia Arusha bid (and sockpuppetry allegations related to it [1])   0
  • Platform: Africa, concerts (!?)   0
  • Sister projects: nonsensical   0
  • MediaWiki: "The key thing is to create the habit of visiting the Wikimedia community to eliminate the performance of this growing industry" !?!!?   0
  • Quality: ???   0
  • Communication: ???   0
  • Child protection: "Perhaps if we seriously intending to fight against the violations we can work together to find solution that we can maintain order as one Community, as well us we have very competent lawyers our movements will end this problems whether to be handled under the bot policy may be this can be helpful." ????   0
  • Foundationwiki/private wikis: wow.   0
  • Other: Arusha   0
  • Total: 0

  Oppose off the bat, from all I've seen.

YuyuEdit

  • Home wiki: Chinese Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 21558   +1
  • Rights: Chinese Wikipedia: Admin, Meta: Autopatrolled, WM 2013: Admin, Bureaucrat, Translationadmin, Russian Wikipedia: Upload, Outreach: Admin   +1
  • Wikimedia involvement: Wikimedia Hong Kong, ChapCom, ComCom, WM 13   +1
  • Platform: Communication, Asia   +1
  • Sister projects: yes the answer was disappointing.   0
  • MediaWiki: no expertise   0
  • Quality: sure   +1
  • Communication: sure   +1
  • Child protection: sure   +1
  • Foundationwiki/private wikis: not really stoked on this one.   0
  • Other: nothing   +1
  • Total: 8

  Neutral because while it was 8 points, frankly a lot of the answers just weren't inspiring and were vague.

SjEdit

  • Home wiki: English Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 40918   +1
  • Rights: English Wikipedia: Admin, Meta: Bureaucrat, Admin, Foundation: Admin, Commons: Autopatrolled, Filemover, Swahili Wikipedia: Admin, English Wikibooks: Editor, Nahuatl Wikipedia: Admin, Wikidata: Autopatrolled, Outreach: Admin, Russian Wikipedia: Upload   +1
  • Wikimedia involvement: WM 2006, Board, ChapCom, Audit Com   +1
  • Platform: Effectiveness, investing   +1
  • Sister projects: meh   0
  • MediaWiki: Yes, communication   +1
  • Quality: sure   +1
  • Communication: yes!   +1
  • Child protection: Yes, global policy!   +1
  • Foundationwiki/private wikis: I think that's a fair answer.   +1
  • Other: nothing   +1
  • Total: 10

  Support Pretty much got everything.

DrmiesEdit

  • Home wiki: English Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 133821   +1
  • Rights: English Wikipedia: Admin, Commons: Autopatrolled, Dutch Wikipedia: Rollbacker, German Wikipedia: Autopatrolled, Simple English Wikipedia: Rollbacker   +1
  • Wikimedia involvement: Education (compared to the other candidates, this is remarkably lower)   0
  • Platform: Education, retention, crosswiki   +1
  • Sister projects: sure   +1
  • MediaWiki: Yes, communication   +1
  • Quality: sure but see further comment later   +1
  • Communication: Not super excited with this one, no mailing lists, cited lack of experience   0
  • Child protection: Could have answered a bit better, been more direct   0
  • Foundationwiki/private wikis: no answer   0
  • Other: An addendum to the quality bit: while as a founder of a content WikiProject on the English Wikipedia I support content, I've seen a bit too much on the other side of the spectrum, where good content is basically a "I can do whatever I want" card (and this is in regards to multiple situations).   0
  • Total: 6

  Neutral This was a tough call (especially being a fellow admin on enwiki). The two things that kept me from supporting were the sharp lack of Wikimedia involvement compared to other candidates, and the "other" issue I noted, though I don't really know how much the Board could do in regards to this on such a small scale, the overall belief concerns me. But on the other hand, I think that he would be good on the content aspect. Could see myself supporting in the future.

ErrantXEdit

  • Home wiki: English Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 21353   +1
  • Rights: English Wikipedia: Admin, Meta: Autopatrolled, English Wikibooks: Editor   +1
  • Wikimedia involvement: WMUK   +1
  • Platform: Technical, community   +1
  • Sister projects: Yes.   +1
  • MediaWiki: Yes, communication   +1
  • Quality: sure   +1
  • Communication: Good   +1
  • Child protection: Yes, global policy.   +1
  • Foundationwiki/private wikis: no answer   0
  • Other: nothing. I think he took an okay stance with the Wikipediocracy issue.   +1
  • Total: 10

  Support seemed reasonable in the answers.

RaystormEdit

  • Home wiki: Spanish Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 22499   +1
  • Rights: Spanish Wikipedia: Admin, Bureaucrat, English Wikipedia: Reviewer, Rollbacker, Wikidata: Autopatrolled, Meta: Autopatrolled   +1
  • Wikimedia involvement: Wikimedia Espana, AffCom, IEG   +1
  • Platform: Volunteering   +1
  • Sister projects: meh   0
  • MediaWiki: Poor stewards who have to maintain everything and get no tools   0
  • Quality: WIKIPROJECTS! :D:D:D   +1
  • Communication: Languages, consulting   +1
  • Child protection: Yes.   +1
  • Foundationwiki/private wikis: See SJ.   +1
  • Other: nothing   +1
  • Total: 9

  Support didn't get everything but seems pretty reasonable.

MindspillageEdit

  • Home wiki: English Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 12132   +1
  • Rights: English Wikipedia: Admin, Meta: Autopatrolled, Outreach: Admin   +1
  • Wikimedia involvement: Ex-ArbCom, Board   +1
  • Platform: Transition to new ED   +1
  • Sister projects: basically a non-answer   0
  • MediaWiki: Not super impressed with answer   0
  • Quality: WMF has no role at all   0
  • Communication: bit defensive (and that's not entirely her fault) but didn't answer the question either   0
  • Child protection: no answer   0
  • Foundationwiki/private wikis: no answer   0
  • Other: nothing, the lack of answering is already noted   +1
  • Total: 5

  Oppose I mean no disrespect, but I think it's time for someone else to serve on Board, at least for now, to have some fresh perspectives.

WittyllamaEdit

  • Home wiki: English Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 6163 (since 2005?)   0
  • Rights: English Wikipedia: Autopatrolled, Reviewer, Rollbacker, Commons: Autopatrolled, Filemover, Meta: Autopatrolled, Outreach: Admin, Bureacrat   0
  • Wikimedia involvement: GLAM, Wikimedian in residence, WMAU, cultural part, Wikipedia Weekly   +1
  • Platform: Support movement of communities   +1
  • Sister projects: Yes.   +1
  • MediaWiki: Yes, balance   +1
  • Quality: WIKIPROJECTS! :D:D:D   +1
  • Communication: Consultation   +1
  • Child protection: Wikilegal kind of misses the point here.   0
  • Foundationwiki/private wikis: Very good on the first, okay on second   +1
  • Other: nothing   +1
  • Total: 8

  Support overall gets it, and the answers were thorough, which was a tip towards support.

John VandenbergEdit

  • Home wiki: English Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 108128   +1
  • Rights: English Wikipedia: Admin, Abusefilter, English Wikisource: Admin, Commons: OTRS, Admin, Meta: Autopatrolled, Old Wikisource: Admin, Latin Wikisource: Bureaucrat, Reviewer, Admin, Russian Wikisource: Autopatrolled, MediaWiki: Coder, Editor, German Wikipedia: Autopatrolled, Editor, Russian Wiki: autoeditor, uploader, Outreach: Admin   +1
  • Wikimedia involvement: Education, WMAU, GLAM   +1
  • Platform: Values, MediaWiki development   +1
  • Sister projects: Yes.   +1
  • MediaWiki: LiquidThreads, eww (see MF-W's guide). OpenID, more linking of accounts, and accounts to real-life identity, so we can have more outing, eww.   0
  • Quality: Yeah, he got the problems down pretty well, but the solutions are just not good (see above).   0
  • Communication: sure   +1
  • Child protection: Missed the point - the issue is policy not software   0
  • Foundationwiki/private wikis: basically a lukewarm answer.   0
  • Other: very unhappy with the politicking in Wikimedia Australia. I realize it takes two to tango especially in this situation, but I saw some stuff that was just not okay from him.   0
  • Total: 6

  Oppose what tipped me towards this was while he is experienced, some of the things he is advocating for I just cannot support, and rather vehemently oppose.

FDCEdit

Unlike the WMF Board, I know nothing about the FDC or the candidates, so I'm just going off overall impressions here. Take whatever I say here with a grain of salt.

SmallbonesEdit

  • Home wiki: English Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 34295
  • Rights: English Wikipedia: Autopatrolled/reviewer, Commons: Autopatrolled, Outreach: Sysop (not that great)
  • Wikimedia involvement: Audit Comm, WMDC
  • Other: CPA, MBA
  • Platform: Competence, chapters

  Support Okay.

Cristian CantoroEdit

  • Home wiki: Italian Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 5914
  • Rights: Italian Wikipedia: Autopatrolled, Commons: Autopatrolled, upwizardca, Wikidata: Autopatrolled, Meta: Autopatrolled (not that great)
  • Wikimedia involvement: Wikimedia Italia, FDC grant writing, WLM
  • Platform: Anti-bureaucracy, accountability

  Neutral Editing record isn't that great, and has good Wikimedia involvement, but not enough to move me to support.

NotafishEdit

  • Home wiki: French Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 16272
  • Rights: French Wikipedia: Admin, Meta: Admin, Commons: Admin, French Wikinews: Editor, Reviewer, German Wikipedia: Autopatrolled, editor, Switzerland Wikimedia: Admin, Outreach: Admin
  • Wikimedia involvement: Grant Advisory Committee, ChapCom, WM France, WMDE
  • Other: Event managing
  • Platform: Understanding, communication

  Support Okay.

ImperfectlyInformedEdit

  • Home wiki: English Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 9762
  • Rights: English Wikipedia: Reviewer (not good)
  • Wikimedia involvement: no
  • Other: Career work
  • Platform: Shouldn't just give out money

  Oppose This one's pretty clear right off the bat... not enough experience in any area, certainly not crosswiki.

AbbasjnrEdit

  • Home wiki: Swahili Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 1619
  • Rights: Meta: Autopatrolled (uhh....)
  • Wikimedia involvement: Grant Advisory, Movement roles, Kenyan chapter
  • Platform: Non-English diversity, transparency

  Oppose Editing record is just too scant for me to support, even with the good Wikimedia involvement. I don't expect FDC to be prolific editors, but the record is just not there.

MikyMEdit

  • Home wiki: Serbian Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 18770
  • Rights: Serbian Wikipedia: Admin, Serbian Wikinews: Bureaucrat, Editor, Reviewer, Admin, Meta: Autopatrolled, Serbian Wikisource: Admin, Serbian Wikimedia: Admin, Serbian Wiktionary: Admin, Serbian Wikibooks: Admin, Serbian Wikiquote: Admin
  • Wikimedia involvement: WM Serbian, IEG, Grant Advisory Comm, writing grants
  • Platform: Rational recommendations, communications, diversity

  Support Okay.

Aegis MaelstromEdit

  • Home wiki: Polish Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 12658
  • Rights: Polish Wikipedia: Editor, Sysop, Meta: Autopatrolled, Poland Wikimedia: Admin
  • Wikimedia involvement: Wikimedia Poland
  • Platform: Problem solving, empowerment

  Support Okay.

FDC OmbudspersonEdit

This one is a bit close - I'm voting for MBisanz on a familiarity basis, but this is really a call that people have to make for themselves.

MBisanzEdit

  • Home wiki: English Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 122421
  • Rights: English Wikipedia: Admin, Crat, CU, OS, Commons: OTRS, Admin, Meta: Steward, German Wikipedia: Editor
  • Wikimedia involvement: Audit Comm, WMDC
  • Other: CPA, MBA

Overall MBisanz has a record of good auditing and making the tough calls. My only worry is the number of hats that he currently holds, but he's generally been good at all of the ones that he holds.

LusitanaEdit

  • Home wiki: Portuguese Wikipedia
  • Edit count: 51046
  • Rights: Autopatrolled on Commons and German Wikipedia... not that impressive.
  • Wikimedia involvement: Incumbent, Wikimedia Portugal

I'll admit that I am not familiar with this editor... but the statement they wrote does not convey any enthusiasm at all for the position, and that's not exactly encouraging. That being said they held the position last year, and nothing severely bad happened so...