Jump to content

Talk:Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Election Compass

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Statement descriptions[edit]

Are the statement descriptions (the part immediately under the headers) going to be used in the compass itself? Or are the statements standing on their own? --Yair rand (talk) 19:37, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is an interesting question - at least a few of these are tricky to understand without the description context. It may be possible to re-write them in a merger style if not simply being included Nosebagbear (talk) 01:16, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, the description won't be included, only the statement itself. If statements are selected in the end that are too ambiguous, I might come back to the proposer to change wording slightly (nothing major of course) accordingly. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 00:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Compound questions[edit]

Could we split any compound questions?

To give an example by @Qgil-WMF::

Meta-Wiki should be the only official place for discussion and decision of the Movement Charter

It would certainly be possible for someone to think we could have discussion on different fora, but any decision-making must be on meta - but the compass method won't allow for split positions Nosebagbear (talk) 01:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Only till tomorrow?[edit]

Many projects were informed yesterday about the possibility to ask questions here. And the deadline is tomorrow? [1] --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 16:37, 27 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Der-Wir-Ing: The end time is 2021-09-28. The date is in AoT. So real, the end time in 2021-09-29 13:59:59 CEST (11:59:59 UTC). Another, I wrote in Sunday in dewiki about the Election Compass Statements. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 17:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC) (UTC)Reply

The Movement Charter should include our values[edit]

Dear @Ad, this is one of your's. May I ask you to reword it a bit. When you read the page you see that it is about the Wikimedia Foundation's values. I would prefer to make that clear in the statement as well. Alice Wiegand (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Lyzzy:: I was so bold and added a "WMF's" to the statement. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 03:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Dankeschön! Alice Wiegand (talk) 07:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
The secondsry statement made it explicitly clear the values to be included are about the Wikimedia movement. I deliberately linked to an old version of the values, ones written by Anthere, as inspiration for the values to be included, not to be copied verbatim. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Only 20 questions[edit]

The ~20 statements with the most votes will be selected and send to the candidates... 20 seems quite few to me. We have 8 groups of statements, so it would be about 2-3 statements per group. That's not much. I'd prefer ~30-40 statements. --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 10:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Der-Wir-Ing:: It is already quite challenging to reach all candidates and get the necessary information from them, increasing the number of statements brings a larger burder for them. I'd like to keep the number limited to 20, because adding more statements means also multiplying translation efforts. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 14:47, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
So far the statement The WMF should use its communication channels to promote language, content and project diversity got no votes. Maybe because the statements are translated in exactly zero languages, efficiently excluding everyone who does not speak English. Same btw. for The Global Council should be largely elected on the basis of regional elections where Wikimedians vote for members to represent their geographical area --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 15:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Well, as explained, this is an experiment born out of the need as we got so many candidacies. We're learning with it, it's far from perfect. The timeline for the whole voting advice application is very tight and providing translations for +80 statements that won't be used, might not be useful. However, we will try to translate the interface as well as the ~20 selected statements. Cheers, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 17:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Voting system not numbering correctly[edit]

it puts a space between signatures which means that every vote is numbered as 1. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Bluerasberry: I know, that's a bug in the template, as Pharos told me. Do you have a solution for that? --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 14:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I fixed it in a way that it will add now *--~~~~ instead of #--~~~~, that makes the space issue less prominent. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 14:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The candidates answer everything[edit]

I suggest that the candidates answer all the questions. If he doesn't know now, how do they handle elected candidates? They will find the answer or take their opinion later. For example, as the dealer of the Movement's Charter in their local communities. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Dušan Kreheľ:: That would be way too much. I'd like to keep it limited between 15 to 20. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 14:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@CKibelka (WMF): On Sunday, I passed all the statements. It was about 40 (or how many). And I remember the following. Only 2 questions I could not answer right away, and 2 I needed to think about the answer. It was not a problem to answer the other questions immediately.

So now I can go through the questions, 1 question = ~ 1 minute, a total minimal of 107 minutes. The kit will rethink the answers to 11 questions (10% of all) in ~ 2.25 questions per day (by the end it is ~ 5*24-5 hours). Plus it goes weekend. So it can be done. Only the first impression is not fun, if you don't think like that. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, Dušan, it's more complicated. You have to actually think about each statement, choose if you support/oppose it (or stay neutral), and ideally also give a reasoning of 500 characters per statement. Doing that for 110 statements (where a couple of them are very similar) is quite a lot to ask from candidates. Cheers, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 17:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
When I read on Sunday, I didn't even mind a lot of questions, but e.g. that with at least 2 questions I would get the answers: "more yes" and "more no". Not everything in life is just 0% or 100%.
If the candidate can comment, it is better.
It might be better to answer all the questions. But any candidate, if he wishes, can somehow publish his answers to all the questions.
If it doesn't bother other candidates in any way, okay, not all statements will be made.

✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Some of them are more or less the same question. There are 3 asking for subsidiarity, and some are the exact opposite of each other. --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 18:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to be honest, I'm really concerned about how extremely overburdened the community is going to be with this process. Even at 20 questions, with 70+ candidates that's over 1400 answers that community members should hypothetically review. Why exactly would there need to be more questions for this role than there were for the (significantly more influential) Board of Trustee roles? I've already had several community members wondering why they can't do S/N/O voting when we're getting S/N/O questions, because it's just impossible to rank 70+ candidates. They have a point. Risker (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Dear Risker, thank you for the feedback and consideration. Especially regarding the burden on the communities.
The idea of the compass was related to making it easier for communities to understand who are the candidates to vote for. The candidate statements amount to a total of 27,261 words and going through that amount of text is not for everyone. As a result, we are trying to find ways how to enable more people to make informed decisions during the election process. In comparison to the Board of Trustees candidates questions, these statements are of different category, asking for a simple answer instead of long elaborated text. As a result, it should be rather easily digestible for the voters.
Regarding the voting process we will provide guidance to select 9 preferences, as we will be electing 7 members and have 2 last eliminated candidates on hold as alternates. We hope that it is manageable with the Single Transferable Vote system. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, Kaarel. That works (more or less) for the community voting. What about the affiliates and WMF selectors, both of which will have to select from candidates that haven't already been selected in the community round? Risker (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Who should vote here?[edit]

It isn't entirely clear to me whether this list is something that the candidates alone should be voting on, or if it's something that all interested people should join in. Guettarda (talk) 14:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Guettarda: Everyone is invited to upvote; I didn't want to limit ourselves by excluding the candidates. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 14:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is there a way to see how many upvotes each statement has?[edit]

I don't know how to efficiently see how many upvotes any particular statement has; with nearly 100 statements, it is very challenging to add them all to one's watchlist, and then keep going back to see how many supports each one has. Could a button be added to the content page that would allow the reader to see how many upvotes the statement has? That way, someone could read the statement and see the number of upvotes while they still remember what the statement was. That would be very helpful to me from a candidate's perspective. Risker (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't know any technical way how to create such an overview that could be updated automatically. My only suggestion would be that I'll create a manually updated overview. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 21:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Risker: See User:Der-Wir-Ing/upvote-overview --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 22:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, DWI. Watchlisted! Risker (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much, DWI :) --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 22:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
You herculean star, DWI - worthy of a WMF-awarded barnstar! Nosebagbear (talk) 12:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Now that you've added each statement to the page it's even more useful. Thanks so much for doing all that work! Guettarda (talk) 12:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm curious myself. So far it seems there is no clear answer to what the most interesting questions are. Few questions have many votes, few have no or few votes, but the big majority has only some votes. --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 13:35, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm still not sure if the concept is broadly understood (that upvoting here "only" means wishing this statement to be in the final selection rather than agreement with the statement). Alice Wiegand (talk) 15:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, I think you're right on that. Normally, given time, it would resolve itself, but our selection time band is very narrow, so that may prove difficult to resolve sufficiently well. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I agree, Alice, but I don't know how to solve that in such a short time frame. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 18:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
What leads you to this impression? (Well, I also voted for statements where I hope many candidates will disagree with. Just to check.)--Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 19:05, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think what leads some of us to hold that opinion is that many people are upvoting positions that they have publicly or privately supported in the past. I know that as candidates we can give more nuance to our response with the short written statements, but that isn't going to change the voting compass, which is based strictly on the S/N/O response. Risker (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Risker: There's also an option to modify the tool in a way that you don't have to choose between Support/Neutral/Oppose, but between Strongly approve/Approve/Neutral/Reject/Strongly Reject. Do you feel this would be more adequate looking at the upvoted statements? --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 21:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@CKibelka (WMF):, I think that has been suggested by at least one other candidate. It sounds like a good idea to me, and would give the compass more nuance too. Risker (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, noted! --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 22:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I like the idea of a 5-point scale too. Guettarda (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@CKibelka (WMF):, Thank you. I'd like to suggest more neutral terms such as agree/disagree, or support/oppose (the latter because it's common usage within our community). The opposite of "approve" is "disapprove", not "reject". The opposite of "reject" is probably "require", and I think these terms are a little too strong for roles that are intended to be collaborative and consensus-building. Risker (talk) 01:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I mean I still don't know how we are supposed to handle the myriad compound questions - unless we can guarantee every voter will read the statement (very unlikely) attached to a candidate's answer, it necessitates an inaccurate answer. Nosebagbear (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I like both the 5 types of answers: yes, rather yes, neutral/unknown, rather no and no. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Statement Discussion[edit]

@Ad Huikeshoven: was not sure if it would mark up the translation set-up if we discussed it on that actual page, so I'll raise here. Currently 92 is needed because of the way that the secondary statements are being handled. If 91 was re-written to include your secondary statement in the actual phrasing, then I'd have no objection to it being merged to yours, along with any non-duplicative voters. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:36, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Nosebagbear thanks for your response. The instruction was to have concise statements. With the collapse of secondary statements, votes have gone to wordy statements. We agree 'all constituents' equals 'all core groups' equals volunteer editors, communities = projects, affiliates, and (Board of Trustees of) the Wikimedia Foundation. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Ad Huikeshoven: - I don't believe "all constituents" could be interpreted as meaning those four areas, without further clarification. For example, some might say it's an "all editors + Trustees" meaning, since projects and affiliates are sub-groups of the total editor count. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:58, 3 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you - maybe one small tweak?[edit]

Thank you for getting all of that work done over the weekend. I didn't find it too difficult to use, and I think it will be helpful for voters/selectors. Especially appreciated was the change to support/oppose as is common in Wikimedia lexicon. I note, however, that it continues to use the approve/reject language when looking at the statements themselves; is it possible to make this language consistent? Risker (talk) 17:39, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Risker:: Could you check again? I needed to go right into the code of the application to change that -- I think I've covered everything. Could you have a look again? Thank you! --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 03:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@CKibelka (WMF): I just checked just now: the language next to the statements is still "approves"/"rejects". --Yair rand (talk) 03:28, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's fixed now. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 03:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Compass issues[edit]

(I suspect there's still work going on, so some of these issues are probably things the team is already aware of, but I'd just like to make sure that nothing gets missed.)

  • In the current version of the compass, a couple dozen statements got scrambled/overwritten. (For an example, my second position got overwritten by a copy of Vis M's, Risker's position on the 5th statement is a word-for-word copy of Reda's (including the French-style spelling of gouvernance, which I'm pretty sure isn't Risker's writing), and Nehaoua's answer on the UCoC was duplicated from Ad's (including the "The reason I proposed this statement..." reference).)
Yeah, I think there are some copy & paste errors on my side, I'll check again. I had to copy 1007 statements one by one, and I think I made some errors.
  • Several position statements are surround by quotation marks, which I assume weren't there in the original. There are also a few "quadruple quote" marks in places.
Yeah, weird copy & paste error from Excel / Google Spreadsheet.
  • Unlike the order on the candidates page, the starting order of candidates on the compass is alphabetical, not randomized.
It's not possible to randomize the order within that application.
  • (This one might be deliberate, I'm not sure.) In the candidate selection, some names are trimmed at the space, resulting in only first names displayed in the main part.
That's deliberate.
  • The compass statements still include their numbers (as during the upvoting), eg "#21c", sometimes with hashes, sometimes without.
Yeah, I have a look again. I think I decided against hashes, and just have to delete them again.

Thanks. --Yair rand (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for all the hints and your patience. I'm doing my best to fix all of this as soon as I'm awake. Cheers from Brazil, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 03:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Cornelius, if you manually copied over a thousand statements one-by-one, you really need to get a programmer involved. A quick scan for duplicates showed 26 obvious errors from that alone. I don't know if mass-copy-paste is a thing that can be done manually reliably at this scale, even with double-checking. A comprehensive check (or redoing) could be done with a really quick program (or macro even, or whatever), but probably not by hand in the little time remaining. --Yair rand (talk) 04:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to keep piling things on, I know you're under a lot of pressure here. --Yair rand (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
List of noticeable duplicates:
Extended content

Questions where multiple candidates are listed with duplicated answers, by statement order and candidate name:

    Anupamdutta, BamLifa
    lyzzy, Manavpreet
    schiste, Robert
    Ad, Nehaoua
    Vis M, Yair rand (I did not write this one, it overwrote mine)
    Supaplex, Sky Harbor
    Reda, Risker
    Guettarda, Gnangarra
    Din-nani1, Djibril016
    Ybsen lucero, Yair rand (I wrote this one)
    Daria, Ciell, (also duplicated in Ciell's answer for 2)
    Ad, Nehaoua
    VALENTIN NVJ, Uncle Bash007
    Robert, schiste
    Didierwiki, Daria

...and users with the same answer for multiple statements, by user, listing statement numbers. (Some of these might not be errors, if the candidate actually submitted the same answer for multiple questions.)

    14, 17
    1, 5
    2, 4
    9, 11
    6, 14
    2, 4, and 6 missing a period. (Plausible that two of those were actually inputted that way?)
    2, 6
    2, 6

This is not a comprehensive list of errors.

--Yair rand (talk) 07:11, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@CKibelka (WMF): I just found Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Election Compass Statements/Raw data, and (automatically) converted it to the compass-compatible JSON-block (to be placed in the "theses" section) at User:Yair rand/Compass JSON. Assuming the raw data is accurate, there are a very large amount of mis-pastes in the current compass. (I'm a bit extra nervous about this being fixed in time, because the current version is misattributing to me a position that I very strongly disagree with...) --Yair rand (talk) 09:52, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
On the off-chance this helps: The following statements in particular have been mis-pasted: (again, assuming the raw data is accurate)
  • 1: BamLifa, 3: Nehaoua, manavpreetkaur, schiste, yairrand, 4: geugeor, supaplex, 5: risker, supaplex, tangomikebravo, 6: dariacybulska, djibril, guettarda, ybsenlucero, 13: nehaoua, 14: supaplex, 16: nehaoua, schiste, valentinnvj, 19: didierwiki
  • (Misplaced positions, not explanations.) 5: adhuikeshoven, 11: ericaazzelini, 15: ericaazzelini, 16: geugeor, 18: robertmcclenon, 19: aegismaelstrom
--Yair rand (talk) 11:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Yair rand:Indeed, I'm not a programer. Besides translations, I didn't have any support on this: It was my ideas, and thus I pursued it. Everything is being documented on my side, so that in the feature dedicate programming support is on side. I've fixed all the mis-pasted and misplaced positions, and I've checked all those with multiple statements, and I'm really sorry for my incompetence here. Sorry. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 11:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@CKibelka (WMF): Thank you, but the fixes seem to have not gone up yet? (A caching issue, maybe? But it's been a while...) --Yair rand (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Yair rand: Are you sure? Please check again, there are a couple of hick-ups on Toolforge's side. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 13:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@CKibelka (WMF): I've been checking repeatedly for most of the past hour, sometimes clearing cache or just switching browsers or devices just in case... The duplicates/mis-pastes are still there. (At this point, I'm getting pretty quick at clicking through all 19 questions and either scrolling to my overwritten answer to Statement 3/#6, or doing Ctrl-F "gouvernance" and seeing the duplicate Risker/Reda positions... :/ ) --Yair rand (talk) 13:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Yair rand: That's weird. Anyway, I took it down and will go over it, before I put it live again. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 13:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Yair rand: Thank you, Yair, for all your feedback. I've reset everything, fixed the issues in the coding (YAML file). The English is up now again, the translations will come up within the next hours. Could you please check again? --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 16:10, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@CKibelka (WMF): It's fixed, thank you! :) --Yair rand (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Yair rand: THANK YOU, Yair! --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 18:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@CKibelka (WMF): Hm, sorry, I just did a more thorough check, and it looks like there are still a few left. (Most have been fixed.) List of remaining: On 4, Geugeor's was overwritten by a copy of Galahad's, Nehaoua's got overwritten in 13 and 16 (by Ad's in both), and Supaplex's on 4 and 14 by (Superswift and Sky Harbor, respectively). --Yair rand (talk) 19:02, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Yair rand: Fixed. --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 20:21, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply


While I think that an election compass is a great idea in principle, I find this particular dataset not very useful, because it is so heavily skewed towards support of the statements. A quick count of the raw data shows

Very opposed: 22 (2.1%)
Opposed: 79 (7.7%)
Neutral: 166 (16.1%)
Supportive: 371 (36.0%)
Very supportive: (392 38.1%)  

With not even 10% of the statements opposed, it's pretty difficult to find the candidates I most agree with. Next time, different questions please. Vexations (talk) 14:06, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I guess, there needs to be more time to dicuss the statments. --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 14:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sure, that's why it was an experiment. @Vexations:, did you participate in suggesting statements? Did you participate in upvoting them? Cheers, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 19:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, I didn't. I saw that too late. Vexations (talk) 21:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
A lot of the people who upvoted questions were inherently giving clues as to what *they* supported, many of which are very commonly held positions within the category of community members likely to participate in this election. I'm not surprised that most people responded with some degree of support for these statements. The real differentiation between candidates is in the written responses. Nonetheless, I have had several people tell me they were surprised when they used the compass and found that I was ranked pretty low, while they found my written answers to be very similar to their opinions. I wonder how many other candidates have heard the same thing. While I understand the reason for the experiment, I don't think it represented candidate positions well except possibly at the extremes. This is particularly unfortunate since it was probably the best tool for candidate assessment. Risker (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

CSV export? Tighter format?[edit]

This is a fascinating process and tool - thank you all! But I find it very difficult to wade thru the output, given the large font, expansive spacing, and frequent repetition of information. I'd much rather have a very tight summary output, that I could ideally put in a spreadsheet for easier viewing, with e.g. 20 columns for questions and a row per candidate. Is there any way to export the results based on my rankings? Or to get the relevant raw data in a way that others can present it in other formats? ★NealMcB★ (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 22:09, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

SecurePoll "List Votes" seems to be acting oddly[edit]

Just noting here that I was reviewing the SecurePoll voter list, and found that there were discrepancies in the way that the list operated when using the "Show X votes per page" feature. At the time of this writing, there should be 1043 votes showing up; some will be greyed out or crossed out for technical reasons. Thus, if looking at 50 votes per page, there should be 21 pages; it only showed me 11 pages. If looking at 100 votes per page, there should be 11 pages; it only showed me 7 pages. If looking at 500 votes per page, there should be 3 pages; it only showed me two. I identified this because earlier in the election, I had sought to identify which projects had produced the largest percentage of voters, and then I repeated that exercise again tonight; when I did so, I noticed that some projects seemed to have *fewer* voters than when I'd looked at it 48 hours before. I hope that the scrutineers will examine this carefully, because this is not normal behaviour; I haven't run into this problem on SecurePoll in the past. Risker (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I tested the the 500 records per list and all is right. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for the report! Everything seems fine for me, but we will check for any glitches. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 13:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC)Reply