Talk:Stewards/elections 2006

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Unrepresented languaged[edit]

I think it should be noted somewhere that the group of current stewards misses eastern european speaking people and also oriental ones. This could help in forming good candidatures in order to fix this lack. --M/ 22:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It seems ko:, ja:, th: (thai), and ms: (malaysian) depend on the korean servers and the stewards can only access the floridian ones. So actually there is no need for stewards to speak these languages, yet chinese is dearly missed among the candidates. (:Julien:) 12:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

ja, ko, ms, th are on korean servers. It seems the issue of who would take care of them has never been raised since the move. This is a good question. Anthere

[14:03] <Anthere> can stewards also have access over there, or should we have a second batch of stewards somewhere else ?
[14:03] <TimStarling> Special:Makesysop works across wikis, but not across clusters at the moment
[14:04] <TimStarling> I think the way to go would be to automatically give stewards access to both clusters

So, let us say elections cover both clusters by default. Tim Starling will fix the problem quickly. Anthere


No one in current candidates is asian language speaker. You make rules that steward must gain 30+ votes, perhaps you can consider lower bounds for asian language speaker steward candidates since the speaker of those language are relatively lower than western language speaker. Borgx 00:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Availability[edit]

Please make steward become available at irc for better communication. Also please provide information about each steward and candidate's timezone and irc's nick at the list. Borgx 00:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

This election is deeply flawed[edit]

This is no free and fair election process.

The call for candidacies was not announced on Goings-on ! Nor was it announced on the various languages' Wikipedias.

Therefore this vote is not valid. We should first publish a call for candidacies and start voting at least one month later.

The last public announcement about Steward elections was « 29 October 2005: Please give your opinion about a new steward election » on Goings-on, with a link to Talk:Stewards#Another_election. The last talk on Talk:Stewards#Another_election, until december 15th was as follows :

:Maybe we should send a Call for stewards and see how many candidates will be and then Board of Trustees can decide about the number of stewards elected. -Romihaitza 14:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
As the projects grow, more stewards are needed. For. - Kookykman|(t)(c)
Absolutely agree! Borgx 07:58, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

So at this point, we are still waiting for the "Call for stewards" to take place.

Anthere said on Stewards/elections 2005 (n° 2) :

If we handle elections in group, starting today, for only 10 days, and doing advertisement only here and on the french wiki is NOT suitable. It is very unfair to other projects. If you want a new election, you must advertise it on other channels of communication for all languages to be aware of it, and give a decent time for other candidates to show up

And I fully agree with that.

--Theo F 09:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Without commenting on your concerns, let me point out that the Wikipedia Signpost on En reported on the elections in Monday's issue and will continue to provide updates on this event. Thanks! Flcelloguy 20:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Although you do not comment my concerns, I will comment yours. Did the Wikipedia Signpost report any call for candidates? It seems it didn't. --Theo F 11:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
No. I didn't hear about the elections until a few days before it started, and that was after previous Monday the 12th. Thus, the news didn't get published until last Monday the 19th, and because our editor-in-chief was running late, the issue didn't actually get released until Tuesday, after the voting had begun. Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The elections for stewardship were announced on the main page of meta: from the 12th Dec. by Datrio and the first candidacy was registered on the 13th. I agree he should have made his post a bit clearer about candidacies and also post in Going on. Yet the point is having candidates coming from the meta: community not the broad wiki community. You need to be involved in the meta: process to become a stewart (well at least it was the prerequisite before the election). If people don't check the meta: main page for 1 week maybe they are not involved enough in meta: after all.

The main problem troubling me is that language communities (e.g. fr: and it:) tend to come to vote en masse for or against their local candidate regardless of the abilities of the candidate for stewardship and its implication in the meta: community. (:Julien:) 18:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If important announcements are made on Main page and not on Goings-on, I think we should delete Goings-on which is no longer useful to have in one's watching list. --Theo F 10:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Important announcements "for news about generalities, and in particular activities on meta" are made on the "Fil de l'information". Korg + + 12:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
I've just inserted {{Template:Fil de l'information}} so that Main page and Goings-on display exactly the same thing. --Theo F 13:23, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikizine did report this election in number 5. The problem is that the news that this election would take place, 12 december, came to late for Wikizine 4 and so came in the edition of one week later. The publication of Wikizine 5 was only about 12 hours before the start of this election. It would be nice if the announcement came sooner and/or that the internal news media where informed sooner about this. --Walter 18:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm...[edit]

... if I put my name forward, what do people think the chances are of me getting stewardship? I guess I'm asking if people think I'm an appropriate candidate or not: I really haven't contributed to Meta or the other projects. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

I guess no answer means no interest in answering my question. Nice. - Ta bu shi da yu 00:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
Or that many people are on holidays... :-) Honestly, I think most people would say that they are quite many candidates already, and enough satisfying. And that indeed, little participation to meta is not very well perceived. But of course, you could add yourself... or you could wait next elections. Often, no answer is lack of time... or lack of frank opposition. Do not be disappointed I'd say. Anthere 01:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

MediaZilla:00111[edit]

  • bugzilla:00111Return to page after edit of section (where section name occurs multiple times)
  • Hallo! bug 111 is quite iritating. If you have an idea how to make distinct sections please make a proposal here. Thanks in advance! best regards Gangleri | Th | T 15:06, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
In this case, you can just edit the entire candidacy, and add your vote in the yes/no field(s). That way the history will be a lot easier to interpret, and you will get back to the same section. Jon Harald Søby 15:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Agreed. I assumed editing sections could avoid edit conflicts.
BTW: If you edit sections as "yes" / "neutral" / "no" you will not know where you are. Mybe it would be a better idea not to have the sections "yes" / "neutral" / "no" but just the candidates.
Moving candidatures to templates is another method to avoid edit conflicts. The Stewards/elections_2006 page should refresh automaticaly. It would not refresh if you use inclusions from other namespaces. best regards Gangleri | Th | T 15:21, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
By "entire candidacy", I meant the entire section of one user. That way it is clear what user you are voting for, and if you write "yes" or "no" in the summary field, it will be clear what you have voted for that user… Jon Harald Søby 17:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Adding candidacies after the vote begins is allowed?[edit]

Candidates at the beginning of the vote (old version 23:49, 19 December 2005) were listed as follows :

  1. Jean-Christophe Chazalette
  2. Ausir
  3. Romihaitza
  4. Evilphoenix
  5. Arno Lagrange
  6. Walter
  7. Traroth
  8. Klemen Kocjancic
  9. Paginazero
  10. Jredmond

All other candidates were added after the vote had begun. Is that what we call a fair election process? --Theo F 11:38, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "You can list yourself during that time, but you'll have lower chances then" has been in the rules all along. Ausir 11:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it has been this way last time as well; The later people add their name, the less chance they have, but this allows people to do late candidacies if they knew not in time, or if they took more time to decide themselves. Anthere
Also, the election was poorly announced (see section above); I wasn't aware of the vote untill it had begun (though only by a few hours), and probably wouldn't have noticed it untill it was half-way in or so if some Swedish guy on IRC hadn't made me aware of it. Jon Harald Søby 10:25, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
The voters who come voting on the first day should be given the whole list of candidates. This « sentence » creates also an unequality between voters who can choose only between a restricted number of candidates, and voters who can select their choice among a larger set of candidates. The vote should not begin until the list of candidates is closed. --Theo F 10:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
You vote "yes" or "no" for each candidate, you don't vote for one candidate only (as in a presidential election). Jon Harald Søby 10:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
This polling station is open for 21 days because not everyone is free (doesn't have free time or an opportunity to connect from a computer) on the last day (January 10th). If everyone is free on January 10th then the vote should only last for one day with the full list of candidates, and the polling station should remain closed until January 9th included.--Theo F 11:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
(after editconflict (i don't type that fast :( )
But you don't vote: "I want these three in, and the other seven are not yet good enough, so I don't vote for them", right? If I understand correctly, you vote: "this person is suiteble for beeing steward, this one not". If it was the first (pick the best three of them) you would be right, and the list should be closed before voting. Effeietsanders 11:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Both are possible. If you don't want to vote for a user at all, you don't, but if you wish to vote negatively for a user, you do. Entering late is really just a disadvantage for the candidate, as he/she will probably get less votes. Jon Harald Søby 11:08, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutral votes counts?[edit]

I have the impression that "neutral" votes count in this election. For me that is very strange. Neutral; I have made no choice in favor or against. Neutral = blanco. Blanco votes do not count. The only count for the number of total votes but not for the result. If you make them count then it is that "neutral = no". And that is a very strange way of counting --Walter 23:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I also find it very weird that a neutral vote does the same as an oppose. I don't think that's the point, neither of the neutral alternative, nor the point of the people who vote neutral. Jon Harald Søby 07:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Neutral here should not mean no. I suggest they be not counted Anthere
i also agree: neutral should not be counted as a no, hence: not counted. oscar 17:59, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree too; I've changed the partial results [1]. Korg + + 23:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Bottom line it does not make a big difference in this case because this are still nominations. It is the board who make the final decision. --Walter 23:41, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
It does not make any difference, so not an issue. I asked Jimbo and Angela their opinion. Anthere 08:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

My vote for Ascánder[edit]

I wanted to vote yes for Ascánder, as you can see here where I say yes in the comments, but I don't know why I put my vote in neutral. I know it's late to rectify, and now it doesn't mind because Ascánder was elected Steward, but I want to show my support for him. --rsg (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC) Thanks a lot. I really appreciate your message. --Ascánder 01:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)