Talk:Stewards/Elections 2021/Questions

Who is responding to these questions

I'm unclear why it appears that individuals who have not yet put forward a candidacy are answering general questions directed to all candidates. I suggest that an instruction be added that only those who have already added their candidacy should answer questions. I'm not sure if the answers we are seeing are from individuals who just haven't put their candidacy forward, or from informed but uninvolved members of the community. Risker (talk) 01:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Which comments are you referring to? --Rschen7754 01:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Questions for all candidates section. Risker (talk) 01:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

The only editor who has responded is a candidate (Stanglavine). --Rschen7754 01:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah. All I could see is "Raphael". Shame they haven't used their actual username in responding; it is disorienting and distracting, and I don't believe we have had any stewards to date who use a pseudonym for their pseudonym. Thank you for pointing this out. Risker (talk) 06:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

There is username in their signature. Just not linked. — regards, Revi 08:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

This is fairly common, for example علاء signs as Alaa since people can't easily type علاء. --Rschen7754 19:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rschen7754 have a look at WMF_Bylaws_Changes where User:Camouflaged Mirage seems to have hi-jacked(?) the section Ottawahitech (talk) 13:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech I am a qualified voter and hence, I could be allowed to ask 2 questions per candidate, that was just a supplementary question. This is very common if you see the past few elections. Saying it as hijacking is a gross mischaracterization of my purposes, and I will hope you will take that back. I will cc @Rschen7754 here. Thanks. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:46, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Collapsing of legitimate information

@-Revi, REVI, and Revi:(sorry for the botched ping, no option seems to work) you collapsed two questions by User:Leaderboard and the answers provided by User: Lofty abyss. Just curious why you did that? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Ottawahitech, the collapse message is: “These questions were filed in violation of 2 Questions rule.” As such, you could reasonably expect that the questions were collapsed because they were filed in violation of the 2 Questions rule. Vermont (talk) 01:27, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

As just a thought, maybe next time the collapsing should be done before most of the candidates have already answered the questions. --Rschen7754 01:55, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech It's apparently you do not know how to ping people, I hope you can see my concerns when I did what I did there where you responded with " It is incredulous that you did not know that I know how to ping Vermont - we have known each other for so long". For -revi, the right way to ping is via @-revi:. I pinged on behalf and partly this is relevant to Electcom and they should be notified here. Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 13:52, 14 February 2021 (UTC)