Talk:Board elections/2008/Archive1

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Removed questions[edit]

Questions below were removed from the Questions to candidates page as violations of the rules.

On Jimbo[edit]

As a simple measure of cultishness versus independence, I want to ask a simple question: how would you rather describe Jimmy Wales - as "the founder" or as "a co-founder" of Wikipedia? Bramlet Abercrombie 18:35, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attack sites[edit]

What is your opinion on so-called "attack sites" such as Wikipedia Review and Encyclopedia Dramatica? Majorly talk 14:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Range voting[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

This still allows old style approval voting, but also allows much finer grained options and distinct "no opinion" non-votes instead of making "no opinion" effectievly a disapprove vote.
It's simple in that all candidates start off with "No opinion" selected, then there's a "fully approve" (100%) option, percentage approve entry box option, and a disapprove option (0%). A minimum number of non "no opinion" votes could be required to prevent a 100% score from only 1 voter for an unknown candidate. -- Jeandré, 2007-12-30t20:32z

"Conflicts of Interest"[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

Hi all, I removed the following sentence from the draft: "If you are elected, you must resign from any Wikimedia committee, chapter, or paid position to avoid conflicts of interests." First of all, I wouldn't know when this has been decided, if I am not blind, it has not been in previous years' notices. Second, I don't really see why WMF board members shouldn't be allowed to be on chapters boards. I consider the committee part rather absurd, as often board members will be voted into committee again anyway (e.g. Frieda is sitting in ChapCom as board representative) and I don't see why board members should be forced to leave their respective committees. Third, as far as I am aware, there is no rule in the bylaws which prohibits "paid position holders" to serve on the board, thus I'm challenging this as well. I'm not saying that the idea itself is generally bad. But I would like to have a discussion on this and either consensus or a decision by board or Election Committee. --Mbimmler 15:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is usually prohibition in charity law (with possible variation according to jurisdictions) that prevent a trustee of a charitable body from being paid as well, with specific exceptions for expenses arising out of duties carried out as a trustee and other tightly defined things. It *is* possible for someone to be both an employee and a trustee of a charitable body (this from personal experience), but example such as that usually arise out of a large organization where the employee position is very very far removed from anything the board might deal with. For an organization the size and structure of the WMF, I am not sure there are any such positions. KTC 23:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elections committee candidate selection[edit]

The following discussion is closed: The call for candidates is over, and the election committee members have been selected.

Candidate statements

Candidates are:

  • Arria Belli (Arria Belli)
    Wikimedia editor since October 2006, I am an admin on the French-language Wikipedia, Commons and Meta. I tend to stick to the translation side of things, helping if I can on the LangCom and on OTRS. I subscribe to foundation-l as well as various and sundry mailing lists (fr:, it:, Commons, wikitrans, and a few others from smaller wikis), which I read every morning. I'll admit having had little experience with board elections beyond helping with translations last year (as well as eventually voting), but hopefully, if chosen, I'd be able to give a hand with coordinating, particularly the translations. I'm nearly always online, so availability is not a problem. Happy editing, Arria Belli | parlami 00:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Daniel (Daniel Bryant)
    I have been a Wikipedian for nearly two years now, and an administrator on the English Wikipedia for over one. My main focus is on the English Wikipedia and the English Wikinews (where I'm an administrator also), where I mainly write about sports and natural disasters. I have assisted the Foundation in replying to OTRS messages on the Quality queue for around a year, and also served a single term as the Chair of the English Wikipedia's Mediation Committee (which I have been active on for just over one year). For those who don't know anything about me without my Wikipedia hat on, I'm currently living in Adelaide, Australia and studying a law and journalism double degree. I'd like to help out on the Committee because I feel I could bring a lot to the co-ordination side of things, including (from all reports) the required experience and trust in parallel roles, my whacky time zone (which only Mark shares of the others), and my experience with similar organisations and the challenges they face. The names already listed above and below me are all people who I feel I could interact positively with. I look forward to the opportunity should all the pieces fall into place.
  • Datrio (Darius Siedlecki)
    I am a Wikimedia editor since February 2005 (3 years already!?), mainly active on Meta and the Polish projects. Lately I've been in hiatus because of the personal projects I'm working on, but I'm constantly observing the community discussions (mainly via mailing lists) and I'm ready to become an official again. I've been an election official in 2005 and 2006. I've been elected Steward in 2005, but I've left the position during the last Steward confirmation process. Datrio 23:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jon Harald Søby (Jon Harald Søby)
    I am one of the stewards, and my home wiki is the Norwegian (Bokmål) Wikipedia, where I've been contributing since February 2005, though I'm also active in other Wikimedia projects. I was an assistant election official in the 2006 election, and a member of the election committee in the 2007 election. I am also a member of the election committee of Wikimedia Norge, although not much is happening there at the moment, pending official chapter status (long story very short). I would very much like to serve in the election committee this year as well, as I have enjoyed the experience in earlier years, and have several ideas about the election, and experience from previous years. Jon Harald Søby 14:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KTC (Kwan Ting Chan)
    I am a plain old en.wp editor since end 2004. My contributions level varies according to my offline activities. I help along on the en.wp helpdesk and AFC when I can, and am subscribed to wikien-l, foundation-l, and wikimediauk-l, and also goes on WM channels on IRC when I could. I have a strong background in politics and elections, having been involved in multiple student elections in my university's student association [1] and the national student union [2]. With my student association and university societies and sport clubs, I have served on numerous committees both political and otherwise. During 2006-2007, I was an elected trustee of my student association which is a registered charity in Scotland [3]. I also have a background in mathematics, and speak/read cantonese/traditional chinese. -- KTC 00:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Majorly
    About me: I am a Wikimedia editor since June 2006, active in Meta issues since January 2007. I serve as an admin on four major wikis, plus bureaucrat on Meta-wiki. I am also an OTRS volunteer, and I ran (unsuccessfully, but with a high amount of support) for the steward election in 2007. I subscribe to many, many mailing lists including foundation-l, and while I don't take part in every thread, I read every message. The reason I'd like to volunteer for this position is, while I haven't had much experience with prior elections, I am interested in how the Foundation works, and its future. I have not been particularly opinionated about who makes up the board, so instead I'd like to help prepare the process, and help it run smoothly from beginning to end. I am a perfectionist, and I like to get things done right, so I think I am good for the job. Outside my online "life", as part of my college course I study politics, and we cover election systems, and I believe I am knowledgable, and suitable to be part of the election committee. Thanks. Majorly (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mark Ryan (Mark Ryan)
    I'm from the English Wikipedia, which I've been editing since late 2001. I have been an administrator there since mid-2004. I've been an active OTRS agent since about mid-2006, so I am accustomed to maintaining strict confidence for the Foundation. I also help to run a mailing list (WikiEN-l) and subscribe to several other key lists. In the past I have interacted with Wikipedians from a broad linguistic background both when creating the old and new Wikimedia multilingual error messages, and on IRC where I have strived to create environments more welcoming to the many community members who use languages other than English. I also make an effort through all of the above avenues of communication to seem approachable to all people who need help or have complaints of some sort. I haven't been involved in organising the Board elections before, but am keen to help out in new and challenging ways. I am almost finished a Law degree, and would be comfortable helping to oversee these elections. - Mark 15:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philippe (Philippe Beaudette)
    I was an election official for the 2007 election. I have a degree in Politics, and a strong interest in elections and election systems. I have experience as a neutral election monitor for a non-governmental organization. I currently work for a program evaluation firm that deals with statistics and modeling. I believe that this year may be a pivotal year for Wikimedia elections because of the amount of interest surrounding them, and I think that I have a lot to contribute to that discussion. Of course, I will not support a candidate for election, nor will I vote, per the rules. I'm an administrator on en-Wikipedia, a volunteer for OTRS, and a member of the Foundation-l and WikiEn-l. I look forward to this election. Philippe 15:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question to candidates: voting system

There has been complaints about the approval voting system that we used in the past. See, for example, John Schmidt's blog on the English Wikiversity (v:User:JWSchmidt/Blog/19_December_2007#Follow-up). In particular, a controversial but well-known high-vote-getter can gain an advantage, ahead of the quieter others, even in the face of strong opposition. For example, since from the ballot paper we can't tell whether a voter opposes a candidate or is simply indifferent to her, we don't know whether the 40% that the top vote-getter got means she has strong support or she has strong opposition. What do you think of this phenomenon? (For example: Do you think it is good for wikimedia? Do you think it has unwikiness? Are there alternatives? Should the system be changed?) Hillgentleman 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really a question for the election committee? It doesn't seem to be within its role to determine the actual voting system which will be used in the election; that would have to be decided by the board itself, I think. In any event, an alternative (though more complex) system would be to require voters to rank every candidate in order of preference, then gradually eliminate those with the lowest vote count and redistribute those ballots to the next most preferred candidate on each, and continue until there are only 4 candidates left. See generally Preferential voting. A possible problem with that system is that it requires successful candidates to have broad support from a wide range of voters, and so does not necessarily lead to the election of board members from minorities. Hence, it could lead to all 4 elected board members being from the English Wikipedia, for example. - Mark 01:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Ryan, to determine the actual voting system which will be used in the election has been historically one of roles of Election Officers/Committee. Personally I agree with you, Mark, and have never been happy to get involved into these deciions, but it is the fact. And presumably, it will be, since no strong opposition has been made to this scheme, and the Board rather have seemed to be happy to nod the recommendation of the Election Committee at this point, too. --Aphaia 04:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I didn't realise that. Thank you for filling me in. :) - Mark 05:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Ryan, "it doesn't seem to be..." and "...I think"? <-- See the next section. "Preferential voting"<--w:Single transferable vote has been suggested before, but it was objected for its failure of the w:monotonicity criterion. Hillgentleman 01:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Ryan, As you are a candidate, please provide concrete answers on your views, (ie Is the current system suitable for wikimedia? Is there a problem? Should there be a change?) and not merely possible suggestions and maybes. Hillgentleman 02:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Schulze method for evaluating ranked preference ballots seems to solve the monotonicity criterion problem you point out, though it is mathematically more complicated. Yes, I am a candidate, but only for the election committee, not the actual Board itself. Presumably the system of election of people to the Board of Trustees of the Foundation is an official, legal, matter which would need to be changed by the Board, not discussion on a wiki. In that light, my opinion on the matter is worthless without the agreement of the existing Board, so you will have to forgive me for not expressing strong opinions either way. I personally agree with you that the problem you observed can lead to the election results not representing the wishes of the cohort of voters. I would support changing the voting system if my opinion counted, and if it was not going to be too inconvenient to the developers and too confusing to the voters. - Mark 02:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give a real life example of the good side of approval voting - during the last Steward elections, one of the candidates had many votes on support, and a lot of (legitimate, of course) votes of non-support from one specific project. She wasn't chosen as a Steward because of that, even though everyone in the global community knew she'd do a great job and would be a wonderful Steward. Approval voting would help her and would be fair in this case. Personally, I'm against any kind of negative voting. After all - if someone would be negatively voted by the community, in approval voting, he just wouldn't get any vote.
Of course I understand that approval voting has some problems. But... I'll be completly frank - going with John Schmidt's post, would electing the same board year after year be a bad idea? As long as they're doing their job good, I think it's a good thing to elect them every year again and again.
Just my $0.02, as a candidate. Datrio 23:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Datrio, Notice that there is no limit on the number of stewards. In a steward election one evaluates the operational suitability of a candidate. If we were to set it up as an approval voting, what threshold do you propose? And why?Hillgentleman 03:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Datrio, if some of those users opposing had felt really strongly about it, they would have simply voted for all the others, and in effect opposing. Majorly (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I previously proposed a modified single-transferable voting system for the 2008 elections (see User:Pathoschild/STV), but my expertise is not in political science. My main contributions would be to other committee tasks, as I've explained in more detail in my listing above. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:30:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I find the example you've given on that page a bit confusing, because it does not explain what the second (and third) preferences of the first-eliminated people were, and seems to assume that they would all go to a particular place. What do you think of the Schulze method? That seems to involve looking at each possible pairing of two of the candidates, and seeing which of the two candidates is ranked above the other one the most often, then looking at the results for each pairing, and seeing who was the mostly highly-preferenced overall through the results. It would still require people to rank candidates, the same as your method. - Mark 05:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The general idea is the classical STV idea, but extended for multiple-selection elections. You vote for as many candidates as you want in preferred order. If one preferred candidate loses, your vote is transferred to your next favourite candidate. This eliminates the need for strategic voting, and ensures that if you vote for your favourite candidate who is less popular, it won't be "wasted" but instead increase the chances that your second-favourite candidate will win. If you cast three votes, they will be repeatedly transferred until either three of those you voted for are selected, or there are no other candidates you support. For example:
initial votes votes after John eliminated
1. John
2. Joey
3. Jane
1. Joey
2. Jane
Reading about the Schulze method, it looks like an implementation of what I proposed. (But, as I've said, political science is not my strength and not what I intend to contribute most to.) —{admin} Pathoschild 08:45:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Response from User:Philippe - During the last election cycle, I was a strong proponent for evaluating whether our voting system should be changed. Unfortunately, during the cycle there was insufficient time to make the technical changes that would have been necessary, so it quickly became a theoretical debate. For the record, I'm not a great proponent of approval voting, although I recognize the place that it has in the historical perspective of the Foundation. While I'm not sure that Single Transferable Vote is the right answer, it's the one that comes to mind immediately. There are a number of factors that come into play for this decision, and I think it deserves deliberate, appropriate study from the committee. Philippe 04:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm I think a STV system is nice, but possibly too complex for some people. Some just like to "support" or "oppose" and be done with. Majorly (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The technical implementation of the system is complex, but using it is very simple. Voters are simply asked to rank the candidates they support from favourite to least favourite. —{admin} Pathoschild 20:12:24, 02 March 2008 (UTC)
<no political theorist either>The problem of non-monotonicity (ie tactical voting) lies mostly in when you have a voter (or a group of voters) who holds decisive votes at some point and know how the others are voting. This doesn't appear to me to be the case for the wikimedia foundation election. Hillgentleman 11:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No voting system is perfect. At the end of the day, selecting which voting system to use comes down to what are the most important basis on which to select the winners. Do you want to select based on the persons with the most support as good enough for the job, with the least opposition for the job, a combination of both, with the most support as number 1 choice, etc. As our election would be online computer based, we can choose system that might not be consider practical paper based.
Some choices that comes immediately to mind are
  • SNTV - It's simple, both voting and counting wise. Assuming the lack of tactical voting, it produces a list of winners who covers different area of support. As has already been pointed out, tactical voting mostly occur when the voters know how each other are voting and can coordinate their votes and that the group(s) hold enough votes to be decisive which shouldn't be the case here, so SNTV main problem should be okay.
  • Some form of STV (strict / reduces to Instant-runoff) - More difficult to implement especially in the case of the strict STV. Difficulty arise when filling vacancies or board expansion. Can still be affected by tactical voting. Allow the expression of who one like (1st preference) and dislike (last preference).
  • Approval with or without limit to the number of votes allowed - The "election of "lowest common denominator" candidates disliked by few, and liked by few". Without limit, one can express extreme dislike by voting for everyone else, extreme preference by voting for no one else. The current system means people are directed to choose the X number of candidates they think are most suited.
  • Approval with disapproval explicitly expressed (like en.wp AbCom)
  • Some form of cumulative voting
If a decision on the voting system is to be taken, then a decision on which basis we want to select our winners most need to be decided first, then select a system most suited to it, rather than just arguing whether one system is better than another. KTC 16:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. My very first question was: Do you think it is good for wikimedia? And my second question was: Do you think there is unwikiness in approval voting. KTC, what do you think? Hillgentleman 16:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing inherently bad about approval voting. If there were, enough would have been made about it such that we would have changed already. With the current system, the most popular candidate, in terms of desired for from voters wins. Yes, voters can't express who they really don't want for the job, but should we be focusing on the positive namely who we think are best, or negatively who we think are bad? KTC 23:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. What's this "closed" list of candidates above? Are these the candidates for the election committee? I thought the election for the board itself involved an as-yet open list of candidates. Harel 15:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, those were candidates for the election committee. Since the committee has been selected, that issue is closed. Philippe 14:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How will the officials be selected?

The draft makes it sound like there will be voting (labeling them as "candidates", etc.) If the board will be picking them, as it sounds like, can we change this to "users interested in joining the committee", or some derivative thereof, and make it clear in that section that the Board has the final say?

I am also curious (however contradictory this may sound) -- will there be a way for editors to contact the Board regarding this issue, with public or private opinions on certain candidates? Ral315 (talk) 08:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are great questions, and would be very interested in the answers as well. Philippe 18:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ant send this to foundation-l:

Thank you for all the candidates for proposing their (much welcome) help. Before proposing this list to the board, I'd like to offer the opportunity to the community to jump in if they feel that there is any problem with the current candidates. Please either comment on the talk page, or privately by email to me. .....

-- KTC 15:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translations not accepted?[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Translations are now accepted

What does it mean " Translations will not be accepted."? There are translations. Are they illegal? When begins the translation? Bináris 15:26, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Translations will begin on the 1st of May Nakon 15:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject to Board overview?[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

What does it mean precisely (on the Committee page)? Thanks.--Yaroslav Blanter 19:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the board is basically their "boss", the board reviews the committee and defines their role/job. Cbrown1023 talk 21:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this is what I thought.--Yaroslav Blanter 22:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many candidates do we elect?[edit]

The following discussion is closed: One candidate

According to this page we elect one candidate, but according to Wikimedia Board of Trustees 3 positions should be free on June 2008? So how many candidate do we have to elect really? Guérin Nicolas (messages) 22:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One, because of foundation:Board of Trustees/Restructure Announcement. Cbrown1023 talk 22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answer, as people will vote soon, i have three suggestions :

Cordially. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 11:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The election is for being a member of the WMF Board of Trustees. The position of Chair for the Board is decided by the Board itself once election is over. Whoever the community elect in this election may or may not end up being Chair. KTC 15:24, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, please consider only the two other suggestions. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 16:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Board of Trustees is not wrong. Please read the full announcement and attached FAQ ;-). Michael and Domas' seats are being converted to "chapter-selected seats". Cbrown1023 talk 20:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is clearly written in Board of Trustees that "Michael Snow, (term until June 2008)" and "Domas Mituzas, Executive Secretary (term until June 2008)", according to me this is not really what is written in Board of Trustees Restructure Announcement... Please make it clear for future voters. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 16:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The election committee has, we believe, been very clear: we are electing one candidate. All of our documentation refers to that, I think. Issues with other pages should be addressed to their appropriate talk pages. For election purposes, we are electing one candidate. Philippe 18:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do we read the same pages? Of course it is written everywhere here that we elect "one" candidate, but it also given everywhere a link to the page Board of Trustees, where it is written that "3" Board members have a term until June 2008, and that it is not clear at all! I know that you know the rules and me also, i just try to think as a lambda voter that it is not aware about election and just read the pages, and then read on the current page that we elect one person, but also on Board of Trustees that we should elect "3". Can you just update the page Board of Trustees to make the whole logic and consistent. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 18:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I updated the page. Cbrown1023 talk 21:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is clear now, i just wanted to prevent this point from questions. Guérin Nicolas (messages) 23:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements[edit]

The following discussion is closed: No endorsement round

Will there not be any endorsement stage this year, as opposed to 2007? Harel 19:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't that have to do with the voting system, which, according to the attached page, has not been decided yet? Cbrown1023 talk 20:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There will not be an endorsements round this year, as of this time. Unless something major changes, you can count on that. Philippe 14:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian text updated incorrectly?[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Text is correct

Now the Russian text does not say the same as the English one (Russian: 600 edits before Jan 1; English: before Mar 1). Is this in orer?--Yaroslav Blanter 03:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the requirement for candidates is 600 edits before January 1st. The requirement for voters is 600 edits before March 1st. —{admin} Pathoschild 03:55:59, 04 May 2008 (UTC)

Image bug on Candidates/fa[edit]

The image bug should be fixed like this:

.persian .thumb {
float:left;
}

.persian UL {
display:block;
}

but it doesn't, because that introduces a new bug with ULs. :( I'm working on it. Huji 18:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed.

could someone please add a link to Board elections/2008/Candidates/Submissions in this template? Now it is very very hard to find the current submissions. Thanks! Effeietsanders 10:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added a link in the red box in Template:Board elections 2008. —{admin} Pathoschild 11:17:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Q&A Candidates[edit]

Hi, maybe I'm overlooking, but could someone clarify the status of Q&A with the candidates? Will there be a dedicated page for every candidate on that, if so, when? (it is not in the current submission template) Effeietsanders 08:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There will be a questions and answers system, but we don't know what form it will take yet. One difference from previous years is that there are no candidate-specific pages to use (previously questions were on their statement talk pages). This should be decided and implemented before the 22nd of May, in time for the second translation drive. —{admin} Pathoschild 18:23:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Link to submissions on English candidates page[edit]

The following discussion is closed: No link needed

I added a prominent link to the submissions page, based on a complain on foundation-l, only to later learn that a similar reference had been removed previously.

I think keeping the submissions page visible is an important part of maintaining a transparent process, and don't see why anyone would want to hide this. Dragons flight 15:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it again, as the committee have stated they have left it out for a reason. It is best we let them get on with it. Majorly (talk) 15:48, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The candidate presentation phase has not started yet; we're still preparing for the election. All candidate presentations will be published simultaneously after the submission phase. The candidate submission page is very easy to find for candidates, but it is not intended for voters; it is linked to:
It's not well-advertised to voters, but it's certainly not hidden. We could add a link to it from the navigation menu; we only decided not to so we could spare the translation updates for something that didn't seem to need any extra linking to. —{admin} Pathoschild 19:08:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)