Wikipedia talk:Esperanza/June 2006 elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Closing date for candidates

When is the closing date for adding yourself as a candidate? -- Banes 13:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

2006-07-02. —Celestianpower háblame 13:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I thought it'd be a little sooner than the day of the election, but thats cool. :) -- Banes 13:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
In the last election we allowed nominations to continue even when the election was halfway done. While this provides an obvious disadvantage for the candidate in question, I don't see any problem with it. Any objections to nominations being allowed throughout the course of the entire election process? EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 22:52, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I am against late candidacies. Frankly I wonder why we have such a long pre-election period to start with. It's not just the frequency of elections that has been an issue in the past, but the fact that we spend 3 weeks doing it from the time we open nominations. It feels like an endless campaign. NoSeptember 22:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the time is a bit too long. Perhaps we can start a discussion on what the appropriate length is for future elections. Perhaps a reminder message to all users, followed by 5 days of nominations and 5 days of voting? On the other note, I'm curious as to what's wrong with late candidacies; I think they're fine, since they don't extend the election length in any way, don't really create too much more work for the election staff, and give someone a chance to run if they have a last minute change in heart or simply forgot/didn't know about the elections until a day or so after the deadline. However, I'm sure there's some major negative that I'm not taking into account, and I'd be happy to hear it. :o) EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 04:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It is a bit unconventional to have late entries, but I guess it is only to their disadvantage to enter late. As long as the election staff are not burdered by it, and there are not any underlying issues that we're missing, it seems like it would be okay. As for the whole pre-election time, true, it's a bit long, but it does give time for people to consider if they want to run, and for people who may have been gone to still run. -- Natalya 04:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A quick note from Celestianpower

Firstly, as Admin Gen and the neutrality precedent, I will not be voting in this election.

Secondly, and more importantly, after this election, I will step down as Admin Gen. I want this new system to work and, as such, will just become a councillor. Now, should the rest of the councillors decide they want me to stay on then so be it (I'd love to continue), but if not, that's okay too. Esperanza's future is most important to me, and if it is believed that someone else as the head will help this, that's wonderful. Thanks! —Celestianpower háblame 17:32, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Running partners

Can we have running partners? GangstaEB EA 21:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that would work (by the way, I think the commonly used term is running mate). For one, a running mate is for a different position (for instance, president and vice president), while all 4 positions for which people will be elected, are equal in rank. Second, there are many people living in countries where running mates are an unknown concept, and many of our members that will be voting, are from those countries. I think these kind of elections have proven themselves complex enough, let's not make them more complex... --JoanneB 22:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
This idea almost sounds like having political parties with candidate lists. We could have the Esper party versus the Anza party ;-). NoSeptember 23:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
We could 7+ members on each party. We could have the Project (leaning toward building the comMunity with WikiProjects) and the Userspace (leaning towards building the community with userpages) parties. Just saying, not gonna enforce if elected. And you are right, the more common term is running mate. Why'd you link there anyway? GangstaEB EA 01:00, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
I linked there, because as I said, it's an alien concept to most non-Americans. So in order for them to have any idea what you were talking about, I thought a link would be good :) But no, I don't think politics should become such a big deal in elections or in Esperanza's leadership. It creates divisions between groups that were not as explicit before, and that may become harmful to Esperanza rather than helpful. --JoanneB 08:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Please, no. Esperanza should not become the "Green" party under any circumstance, nor advocate their creation. I've opposed all efforts to politicize the organization, and will continue to do so. Titoxd(?!?) 04:56, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
While I applaud your enthusiasm GangstaEB, that idea would only lead to unnecessary conflict and discord. Esperanza is about unity and common ground, not division and discord. Unfortunately your idea would only lead to the latter; even the best of intentions have unintended consequences. -JCarriker 08:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Wow, that's what I meant myself, well worded! --JoanneB 08:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
"Parties" would simply divide the group, and running partners would make it too political. I think we should stick with what we have. If someone elected on to the council happens to make an informal alliance with another council member, so be it. But official alliances should be avoided - • The Giant Puffin • 09:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

While we're on alien concepts, voting is one in some countries where they have dictators, kings, and hostile military takeovers. I've noticed a lot of the latter in Western Africa during the '80s and '90s. (P.S. I'm so entusiastic because I'm on vacation and have no life*!) GangstaEB EA 13:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC) *=except WikiMedia Wikis.

[edit] "June" 2006?

I find it quite ironic that the June 2006 elections are being held in July... haz (user talk) 20:58, 24 June 2006

lol - they're meant to be held in June, but they're late this year, so I chose to list them under June. Sorry for any inconvenience this may have caused! Regards, —Celestianpower háblame 21:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The December ArbCom elections were held in January. It's all part of the Wikipedia tradition ;-). NoSeptember 14:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Candidates voting

Just to clarify, am I right in thinking that candidates can vote for others? Petros471 10:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct. Candidates can vote as they wish (or not vote at all). —Celestianpower háblame 10:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Can candidates vote for themselves? Highway Rainbow Sneakers 11:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
As all candidates are self-noms, isn't it rather implied that they both accept and support themselves? Therefore is there actually any point them voting for themselves? Petros471 11:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually, Redwolf24 voted in favor of all candidates who did not vote for themselves in a previous election, to serve as an equalizer vote, and if needs warrant, I intend to do the same this time around. Titoxd(?!?) 05:30, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Just to Clarify

Is there a limit to the number of terms a user can serve, e.g. No succesive terms etc etc? Kingfisherswift 12:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Why cant people have successive terms? If they are doing a good job, shouldnt they be allowed to stay on? If they do not deserve a second term, Im sure the members will realise this and vote against a second term. As fas as I know, there is currently no limit on the total number of terms someone can serve - • The Giant Puffin • 11:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool, just checking that I can re-stand once I inevitably lose this election! Good luck! Kingfisherswift 17:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Withdrawing

Can a candidate withdraw? GangstaEB• ice slides) 18:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course, at any point. — FireFox 18:47, 02 July '06
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/s/p/Wikipedia_talk%7EEsperanza_June_2006_elections_45d6.html"