Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Coordinators/Election 2

Why elections?
It seems like lists of volunteers would be better - if a volunteer doesn't have the time to clear the backlogs anymore, anyone could (re)move them from the top of the lists. It's not a game, it's an encyclopedia in progress. -- Jeandré, 2008-03-15t16:22z
 * I think that this sentence at WP:FILMC explains it best: There is fairly little involved that couldn't theoretically be done by any other editor, of course—in only a few places have the coordinators been explicitly written into a process—but, since experience suggests that people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done, it has proven beneficial to formally delegate responsibility for this administrative work to a specified group. It's not a game at all; any major project like Wikipedia requires communication and coordination, which is best accomplished when there is an actively involved group of editors helping to pave way for improvement. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 16:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not mind being a volunteer and would help in that regard regardless of the outcome of the Coordinators selection process. I tend to believe that commitment is the actual issue of concern rather than the means by which coordinators are put in place. In that regard, a larger group of concerned volunteers would be the ideal solution to any build-up or stockpiling of work. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC).
 * A larger group certainly is needed, which is why we've expanded the number of coordinators. This also helps address commitment by creating a degree of redundancy necessary for when coordinators periodically have wikibreaks for vacations, schoolwork, real-world work, family issues, etc. Beyond that, the idea of a larger group of concerned volunteers is what a WikiProject is. However, as mentioned above, and as the record tends to show, a project of this size, with a very large number of articles, many editors, and a diverse scope tends not to run very efficiently without some degree of coordination. While this used to be a de facto matter, many leading editors have over time either dropped out, changed their focal point of editing interest, or simply slowed down their editing activity. That's all fine and to be expected, but since people tend to assume that someone's running things, it sometimes led to points of project stagnation, since there was no formal structure behind it. Mainly, the advantage in this regard is having openly designated points of contact whom are regularly re-elected or replaced. Hope that answers your concerns! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

While having several editors volunteer who we all agree on that can do many of the important WP:Film tasks is a much need thing I'm sorry but I must admit I find this Lead Coordinator thing and elections a little pretentious. While I feel it is important that films is coordinated well and indeed work load is taken off Giro and shared a little I just find this title a little over the top, as if being a lead coordinator gives you superiority over other project members. It certainly is needed to improve project coordination though and if this helps this is great but I would rather there was a group of coordinators rather than somebody being a lead or an assistant  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 12:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Superiority? I can't recall an instance in which I've actually used the title in any attempt to pull weight, if that's what you're implying. The coordinator model was started at WP:MILHIST, and has spread to several other projects, such as WP Novels, LGBT, and several others I can't recall offhand at the moment, so this isn't exactly something concocted at random. I would agree, however, that Assistant Coordinator perhaps should be restyled simply as Coordinator. The Lead position is designed more as a primus inter pares, and while expected to set a general tone and initiative, is still expected to have the consensus of the other coordinators. (I also expect this to be much more apparent as the number of coordinators increases - it's hard to get a sense of it from last term, when we had three coordinators, one of whom wasn't even active.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that whoever is elected will do a great job and the better organized this project is the better really isn't it. I am very grateful for your work Giro at coordinating and sorting out many problems for WP:Films to date and if you could share the workload a bit this is great. Its just I find the lead coordinator title and his assistants a bit off putting as if it implies ownership or rulership of the project and that any procedure must be made with or authorized by the leader rather than by general community census. If a group of dedicated editors or simply coordinators take responsibility for the pillars of the project this is fine, I;m just admittedly not too keen on bureacracy. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦      $1,000,000? 21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've rewritten the page to eliminate the "assistant" from Assistant Coordinator - I think you're probably right that it does seem to create too much of a pecking order between the two, which is neither the intention nor the role of the positions. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I saw the Signpost articles about the wp:MILHIST elections and thought it very unwiki and bureaucratic, so when I was notified of this election I read up on it - including the "people tend to assume that someone else is doing whatever needs to be done". I didn't make the comment to be a dick but to find the reasons for it. It seems to me that a public backlog list with unelected volunteers chipping away would be best, but if the project elections work better, then power to them. -- Jeandré, 2008-03-16t22:21z

I know fully that it wasn't intentional and that you are always insistent on wide consensus between the project members Giro and you have always handled things very well. It was just something bureacratic about it that didn't appeal to me. I had to be honest. A coordinator group which bears responsibility for much of the core functions of the project is a good thing I think as long as it doesn't imply authority or elevation over other members. Best regards  ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦       $1,000,000? 23:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Two ?s of little importance, but great interest

 * I have two questions for all of the running coordinators which may or may not effect my take on the election. They may seem a bit off topic, but humor me if you will. What is your favorite film? And finally, what is your favorite film of the year? Thanks for your time. MwNNrules (talk) 15:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll add this to all of the candidates' question sections instead. This talk page is really more for comments and questions regarding the election itself. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Truncating lists
I've edited the candidate statements to the effect that lists of film articles must be selected first to be shown. This will keep the candidate statements more cohesive and make the page easier to peruse. Your contribution history is linked through the User template, and I'd also encourage candidates wishing to list their articles to consider doing so on their user page, since the coordinator positions are more about involvement with the larger project functions and issues. Let me know if you have any concerns. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No concerns at all, the change is perfectly acceptable as the film lists were fairly lengthy. I was about to compress the list I made with templates so your revision came at the right time. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC).

Proposal to extend nominations
I'd like to request among the candidates that the nominations period be re-opened for the duration of the voting period. At the moment, we have five candidates for five positions, and I am concerned that this may both lower potential turnout and also have consensus issues, since it creates a de facto result without any actions from the community outside of the self-nominations. It would be better, IMHO, to have at least one more candidate, that way votes (and therefore community participation) will be necessary. However, I want to first run this through the other four candidates. Please let me know your thoughts on the matter. (For the record, we had a similar situation with the last election.) Many thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I would be fine with an extension. Perhaps we can include mention of the election in the upcoming newsletter? — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 05:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I would like the election to definitely have the headline for the newsletter. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Not an issue for me, more candidates would allow for a contest rather than an acclamation. With greater representation, I concur that a fuller discussion may ensue, but at the same time, maybe not... FWIW Bzuk (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC).
 * Well, I'm not so sure about an extension. I felt very lucky to be able to receive the position, but I'm afraid I wouldn't receive it if the nomination stage was extended.  Limetolime  talk to me • look what I did! 14:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that the coordinator position needs to be viewed as a stronger obligation than that of the typical Wikipedia editor. Discussions are completely transparent and not at all limited to the elected coordinators.  I think that those who are elected are a little more compelled to be involved in discussions about improving WikiProject Films, since the candidates stepped forward to have a degree of responsibility.  The position isn't anything more than that, in my opinion. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 14:26, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I should probably also mention that when we extended the nomination period into the voting period last time, we didn't have any new nominations. Obviously that doesn't mean that the same will happen here, however. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (outdent) I am strongly in favor of extending the nomination period. Hopefully more strongly qualified members will decide to throw in their hats. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Further support for extending the nomination period here as well. John Carter (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe that given the current discussion, we have three candidates for it, one on the fence, one without recent activity (AFAIK), and two outside editors for it. I think that demonstrates that there is an active interest and consensus to allow nominations continue to be made throughout the election, and therefore I am reopening them, unless there are convincing arguments otherwise. (I'm sympathetic to your concerns, Limetolime, but I don't see the issue being unfair - the action does not favor any candidates particularly, and all prior candidates will have had extra time to handle questions and garner votes.) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite block
One of the candidates running for a coordinator position in this election, Creamy3, has been [ indefinitely blocked ]. While I acknowledge that there are no guidelines to address this kind of situation, I think we should consider this outcome to be an automatic disqualification. Obviously, the editor would not be able to perform his duties when indefinitely blocked. Perhaps we could mark the editor's section as closed and retain the content as it stands for historical purposes? — Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The block could theoretically be lifted, so it probably is too premature to do anything about it. That being said, if the block stands as of the close of elections in a week, then it could be seen as disqualifying. Hopefully, there will be another candidate or two before then, but assuming that none come forward, then the other coordinators could decide whether to either hold another round of elections for the remaining spot, or simply appoint a trusted editor willing to assume the post. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Project coordinators have effectively appointed other coordinators before, with Kirill Lokshin's recent appointment as "coordinator emeritus" over at Military history, so I don't see any real objections to something similar taking place here. Sorry about not checking the contributor's recent history before finally adding the "support" vote there, by the way. Maybe I was right the first time. ;( John Carter (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Numerous requests by Creamy3 to be unblocked have been declined, so I think it's fair to say that Creamy3 will not be able to serve as a coordinator. In addition, the recent support by a day-old account is highly suspicious. I've contacted Gb, who handled the sockpuppetry report for Creamy3, for his input. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * While I may personally agree with your conclusions, I'd like to request editors to assume good faith on the part of the voters unless there is hard evidence or community consensus that editors should be disqualified from voting. I'm not inclined to make personal judgments on the voters, especially when I am a candidate myself, and there are other forums for determining this with community consensus. Overscrutinizing the voters does little to help our image, and is of no value if the candidate will not be eligible at the end of the voting period anyway. Any suspicious behavior which affects the result and has not been independently corroborated through the proper admin channels should be brought forward immediately after the election for investigation. Does this sound acceptable? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Works for me; I acknowledge that the outcome is the same in either case, but I suppose it's a little offensive to see such an attempt made to bolster a now-banned candidate. I'll wait to see what Gb has to say about the matter. — Erik  (talk • contrib) - 22:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I feel similarly, but it is worth remembering that the reaction can also be seen as offensive, regardless of the truth of your conclusions. Aside from having voted for Creamy, there's no direct evidence that this user is associated with him - for all we know, it could just be a new editor who didn't bother to read the questions and comments section thoroughly. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, Gb has blocked Flakes41 for abusing multiple accounts. — Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How can a party who has been blocked indefinitely be a candidate?
Just asking, but I really think the name of that party should be removed. John Carter (talk) 00:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations
Girolamo, congratulations for running a very smooth election and, of course, for your taking on the leadership role again. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC).