Talk:Stewards/Elections 2016

This page is for discussions related to the Stewards/Elections 2016 page.

Please remember to:

Sign posts using the four tildes (~~~~)
Remain civil and polite during discussions.
Place new text under old text (start a new post).

Steward election question[edit]

Are we doing the steward election this time, right stewards? The election just begin as yesterday on 2/8 until it finishes on the day before the leap day and March begins, it means 20 days of the election voting progress, and I decide to keep them as volunteered for the beneficial process of helping Wikimedia. I hope I can seek another steward election for each year in February. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 05:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Steward elections happens every year on the 2nd week of February, running for no more than 21 days..it won't change anytime soon...--Ste moc 06:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We need to have a Steward in Gilaki Wikipedia. why you disqualified user:varg?--AminSanaei (talk) 15:42, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@AminSanaei: Hi. Stewards/Elections 2016/Votes/Varg says The Wikimedia Foundation did not receive this user's signature on the confidentiality agreement prior to , 2016, as mandated by the election prerequisites. This candidate is therefore disqualified. Details can be found on the talk page. Matiia (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, stewards are not elected for specific projects, and User:Varg would not even be allowed to use his tools on glkwiki, should he become a steward, as that is his home wiki. --MF-W 17:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gender[edit]

Are any of these candidates female?--Dthomsen8 (talk) 17:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We don't ask the gender of the candidates, and it's up to them to disclose that private information if they wish to. Thanks. —Marco Aurelio 18:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Steward-Candidate Tufor, in German Election window, is not eligable[edit]

I Inform you that I cannot elect the candidate Tufor. There is no button to "Abstimmen" (Elect) on the Site of Tufor. Please control this. Thanks. --Seedorfjohnny (talk) 16:59, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He withdrew his candidacy and so no more votes are being accepted. -Barras talk 17:00, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The election page has not been updated, yet. Thanks for noting that. --Vogone (talk) 17:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice added. —Marco Aurelio 18:07, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Translation symbol[edit]

From Wikipedia to here there a buttons for translating, but there is no symbol and defeats its own purpose by being in English. When I login there's a symbol at the very top representing translations which might be good to add to these pages on steward elections. Schyler (talk) 20:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the link to the actual vote page?[edit]

This is not clear at all on the content page. Debresser (talk) 09:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Click on the "yes" "no" or "neutral" buttons, or go to the statement page and to the vote page from there. You're right though, the vote stuff should be included on the statement page, or at least the vote page should be the only thing linked to. Ajraddatz (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Debresser: For each candidate:

--Syum90 (talk) 09:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why in the world do I have to vote on eleven different pages? Ed ^{[talk] [en]} 06:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because there are 11 different candidates? Ajraddatz (talk) 06:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Debresser and Ed, above. It is ridiculous to have to visit one page for each vote. If you want to have greater participation in your elections, try to facilitate voting by new voters. I don't know enough about the candidates to vote in this election — I would rather let those more knowledgeable than myself decide. I WOULD, however, like to understAnd the process, for future reference. It seems to be an extremely unwieldy process, which could be improved immensely, IMHO. Ragityman (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Ragityman (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So please make a proposal how this could be done. Note however, that the candidatures already each received 150-250 votes. It would be very unwieldy to have it all listed on one page. --MF-W 16:05, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of this was not evident at all. I thought that the link on the nominee's name would go to their userpage instead of to a statement page. Votes and statements should preferably be on the same page. Voting for all candidates on one and the same page would be nice, but I a not sure it is technically possible. Debresser (talk) 02:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SecurePoll allows votes for multiple candidates to be presented on one page. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:04, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmation solutions missing[edit]

@Election Committee:, Jyothis, Mardetanha, Shanmugamp7, SPQRobin, and Stryn: could you please also publish the confirmation solutions and make them visible on this page without further clicking and scrolling? Thank you. --.js^{[democracy needed]} 06:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The confirmation process is not yet complete (or fully set up). You'll see it on this years' confirmation talk page soon. Ajraddatz (talk) 06:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]