Talk:Stewards/Elections 2020

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page is for discussions related to the Stewards/Elections 2020 page.

  Please remember to:


Wikimedia Community Logo.svg

Leap year[edit]

This year, 2020, is a leap year. Should the end date still be 28 February despite it being in a leap year, or should it be changed to 29 February? This leap year issue would also affect Stewards/Elections 2024 and Stewards/Elections 2028. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I don't see why a leap year should change any chosen dates in the elections. Stryn (talk) 07:23, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

User with multiple usernames in votes[edit]

Hi election committee, please review (copied from my talk):

User:Renamed user 9ff13960de57f6ee9b1a65311efbb0be[edit]

They were not voting under this account; the record appeared due to this. Ankry (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

See also the discussion under this vote. Ankry (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: Hmm, User:Lionel Scheepmans probably shouldn't have been changing that, as that makes the line have a different name and signature, and the prior name was already on the eligible list. — xaosflux Talk 23:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Their other votes are under their other name, such as in Stewards/Confirm/2020/Defender and Stewards/Confirm/2020/Hoo man. — xaosflux Talk 23:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it is not my role to decide whether they should or not. The best way is to point both cases (user rename and altering the voting page) to the Election Committee. The suggested way to contact them is through #wikimedia-stewards-elections, but it is readonly, so this makes me confused. Ankry (talk) 00:33, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Ankry, #wikimedia-stewards-electionsconnect is read only but chatting is available in #wikimedia-stewards-elections-chatconnect. Hope this helps! ~riley (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@~riley: So probably Stewards/Elections_2020#Members information should be fixed. Ankry (talk) 06:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@Ankry: Fixed, will mark for translation. :) ~riley (talk) 16:17, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Votes by users who changed names during the elections should not be updated to the new username, it just makes confusion and unnecessary work for all. I've changed the vote back to old username. Stryn (talk) 09:11, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 12:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Disqualifications[edit]

Hi. I see that SNN95 has been disqualified, due to not having signed the confidentiality agreement on time. But I also noticed that he did sign it, as he was added to the noticeboard on 10 February together with Lionel Scheepmans. Perhaps he wasn't on time either? Or did Lionel signed it before 8 February and SNN95 after that date? Could someone clarify please? Trijnsteltalk 00:28, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Lionel Scheepmans signed before 8 February and SNN95 too late. Stryn (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how to comment on confirming stewards[edit]

Hi, I don't see how to vote or comment in Stewards/Confirm/2020. At the top of the page, I see only tabs "Read", "View Source", and "History", but nothing that indicates "Edit" or "Vote". I am logged in as User:Jdlh, which has a long editing history on en.wikipedia.org. What UI should I be seeing to vote on Stewards/Confirm/2020? Should User:Jdlh be able to vote? Thank you, Jdlh (talk) 22:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

@Jdlh: the page itself is protected, but it contains transclusions of each discussion; click on the edit link next to each steward you would like to comment on. — xaosflux Talk 23:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I do not see an "edit link next to each steward". What I see is a section heading for each steward, e.g. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/Confirm/2020#Jon_Kolbert, with a subsection heading "English" with information about the steward, and another subsection heading "Comments about [steward's name]". None of these headings has an edit link. Is there a screen shot somewhere showing what I should see, and what this edit link looks like? Would you like me to give you a screen shot of what I see? Thank you! Jdlh (talk) 21:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Jdlh: OK thank you, I understand now. @MarcoAurelio: your page protection is preventing this contribution, should participants file edit requests? (Jdlh) while this is pending you may put your answers as an edit request at Talk:Stewards/Confirm/2020. — xaosflux Talk 23:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I am not sure the page protection is the cause, otherwise no one else could have commented. @Jdlh: Do you contribute from a desktop computer or a mobile device. Which MediaWiki skin (monobook, vector, etc.) do you use? From their description of the issue I assume you're using the new Minerva skin and should be seeing something like https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/Confirm/2020?useskin=minerva If that is the case, Minerva skin does not seem to handle well transcluded subpages but that's a bug on the Minerva skin itself. Regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 10:38, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: you protected the page Stewards/Confirm/2020, requiring (auto)confirmed level to edit it. The confirmation discussion, unlike the new stewards election is not using transclusions. There is not a suffrage requirement to be confirmed on meta-wiki for the confirmation discussions. The contributor making this complaint, Jdlh is not confirmed, so they (and anyone else in their situation) is being barred from directly contributing to the confirmation discussion. As an aside, Jdlh happens to not be eligible to vote in the main election but: (a) the confirmation election has lower voter eligibility requirement and (b) this could also be preventing others. The confirmation discussion eligibility requirement is to have edits (on any wiki) before 8 February. — xaosflux Talk 13:23, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: I protected the page in response of abusive LTA vandalism as you can see in the page history. I was not aware that'd cause task T15079. I'm not sure why you mention elegibility requirements when no one is suggesting this is an elegibility issue. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:45, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: I think several different things are getting confused here, apologies for any confusion! If this problem is still around next year maybe we can work around it by providing a wikilink at that top of each confirmation subsection that links in to that section, instead of relying on only the automatically generated section edit links. — xaosflux Talk 15:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: No worries! Any improvements are certainly welcome. We can have a post-mortem discussion after the elections/confirmations on 'things that didn't go well this year and should be fixed for the next one'. Best regards, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 16:02, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
This is a known issue and is being tracked at task T198011. My advice would be to temporarlily switch to a different skin -or- access the individual confirmation subpages using Special:PrefixIndex/Stewards/Confirm/2020/ which will offer you a list of each individual confirmation subpages that you can click and access. Hope that it helps. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
That looks like a different issue. The correct task would be phab:T15079 and it's unrelated to skins.--Sakretsu (炸裂) 12:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Edit protection has been removed. Jdlh should now be able to more easily comment. —MarcoAurelio (talk) 15:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@MarcoAurelio: I appreciate your attention to my access to this process. To answer your questions: I was experiencing this access problem from a macOS computer using the Firefox browser. From my user prefs, it looks like I am using the "Vector" skin, and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Stewards/Confirm/2020?useskin=vector duplicates what I see, while the Minerva skin does not. I am now able to see edit links; I am guessing that is due to removal of edit protection. Thank you! Jdlh (talk) 05:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Mehdi khazaee[edit]

I would like to notify the Election Committee, that according to this tool user Mehdi khazaee is missing the eligibility criteria by one edit (599/600) and I think their contribution may need extra checking as:

  • it is not explicitly specified in the SE eligibility criteria whether only non-deleted edits are counted or the deleted ones also; while some other regulations explicitly mention that only non-deleted edits are counted
  • I doubt if the eligibility tool can count deleted edits

I am just leaving this case to the Election Committee for consideration (of course, I do not know if they have any deleted edit on fawiki). Ankry (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Ankry for the information. I checked and they have under 600 edits on fawiki, and other wikis too, as of 31 October 2019. The tool is not counting deleted edits, but even if it does, it would be under 600. Stryn (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2020 (UTC) Edit: I misunderstood how the tool is counting these edits, so counting of live edits it's under 600, but if removed edits included, it's a bit over 600. Stryn (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

600 edits[edit]

The "600 edits" rule isn't clear if it required "live" edits, or if deleted edits should be also considered (as noted above the checking tool does not have viewdeleted access and realistically only stewards can confirm deleted edits across every project independently). This may also be what is going on at the report in Wikimedia_Forum#A_bug?. I suggest that for next year this is clarified in the suffrage rules so that it will be clear to voters and volunteers assisting in eligibility checks. — xaosflux Talk 15:32, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Indeed it's something we need to clarify for next year. But I would say let's go this year like before (so only count live edits). Stryn (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Won't xtools help, I mean this should show deleted edits? Is it reliable?--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 12:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: I don't think it is "reliable" for that, also I think it counts non-user-generated edits, such as imported edits. Also, makes it harder for anyone to independently verify. Personally, I'd be supportive of requiring the edits be publicly accessible at the time of verification. — xaosflux Talk 16:04, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: True. Imported edits is one issue. For live vs all edits, I am quite hesistant to say we do all live edits, as stewards are involved in xwiki abuse tracking, if a user who is proficient in xwiki tagging of spam / vandalism, and they rack up 600 edits globally, they should have the right to vote? --Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Camouflaged Mirage: the election commission is comprised of other stewards, who could always review a claim to eligibility as needed, so that is always an option. Since we don't use secure-vote, everything is out in the open. They are really the only group that can investigate every edge-case. — xaosflux Talk 16:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
@Xaosflux: Valid points. In some cases GS might be able to help but mainly stewards. If stewards think that this checking is too onerous, then live edits should be fine. This is an issue to be ironed out for next SE to avoid confusion. Or can we write a script which checks for deleted edits?--Camouflaged Mirage (talk) 16:11, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Question about checking[edit]

I got a ping with this edit where someone added a vote template that already said I checked it. --DannyS712 (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you should have DannyS712 as the template linked to you. The voter didn't follow the directions and shouldn't have voted like that, but it doesn't appear that any follow up is necessary now (they are actually eligible). — xaosflux Talk 03:37, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
If I recall correctly from past years on electcom, the bot still double checks those improperly added templates against the master list. Could be wrong about that. Either way, it's very likely just a good faith error, and can be checked if seen. – Ajraddatz (talk) 03:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)