Talk:Stewards/elections 2010

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

Todo list[edit]

Please add to this list

Meta:Babel discussion[edit]

Note that the preliminary discussion is happening at Meta:Babel#2010_Steward_Elections. --John Vandenberg 00:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Some mention of suffrage requirements probably is needed in the intro material of the page this is the talk page of. {Stewards/elections 2010) ++Lar: t/c 06:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I assume you mean in the intro itself instead of just the link to the guidelines that have it? James (T|C) 06:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, in the intro itself, because it's not really fair to waste someone's time if they're not eligible to vote. Certainly we want people to read all the supporting materials, but we know they won't, and suffrage requirements are important enough to merit mention in the intro itself, IMHO. At least a one liner that summarizes the key points and links to the details. By the way, thanks for taking the lead on slogging through last years pages and starting to set things up. Much appreciated. ++Lar: t/c 06:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation Page setups[edit]

I've created my reconfirmation page but I may have munged it up, as it's not embedding quite right, there are stray links I think. You may want to try creating and embedding an actual page for user ExampleReconfirmMe to see if it's right... (when I worked on this a few elections back I used an actual page for user Example to make sure things were right but things have progressed a lot since then). ++Lar: t/c 06:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea I was looking at that too, I'll definitely see what we can do to fix that. I'll try to rework the English version of the intro now too so we can mark it for updating and try to get as much of the translations done quicker. I'm also want to make an edit notice either tonight or tomorrow so that can get translated as well, was going to put that on the voting pages to bring attention to it as well. James (T|C) 06:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Nod. I see a few other stewards also added theirs and they're getting the same anglebracket thing at the beginning, I'm sure once you sort it it will be easy enough to fix for everyone. Thanks! ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
BTW, Lar, you need to change the 2009s to 2010s in the statement (I did that for you). -- Avi 07:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Avi, I missed that in my hasty cut and paste! And thanks for the he translation as well. ++Lar: t/c 17:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
My pleasure. -- Avi 17:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Statistics[edit]

I've set up a page on the toolserver with a tally: tools:~stewardbots/elections.php. --Erwin 13:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Should be useful - thanks (of course I am not active enough to be interested...:)). --Herby talk thyme 13:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
[citation needed] :) ++Lar: t/c 18:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Identifications[edit]

Hi. It seems a large number of candidates will be disqualified due to their missing proof of identity to the foundation. I've marked all candidate statements that have sent their identifications with | ident= <revision-id on [[IN]]>. Of course, we have to look at all new identifications sent until 2010-01-31 and I encourage all contributors to watch this diff (currently empty) that displays new changes on the Identification noticeboard. On 1st of February we can change the template to mark all candidates that have not identified themselves as disqualified. Regards, --Church of emacs talk 13:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note: Please do not disqualify users without identifications yet. There might be some identifications that came in during the weekend that still need to be posted to the noticeboard. Thanks, --Church of emacs talk 23:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Candidates eligible to vote[edit]

How is it that User:darkillo can enter to become a steward because they have created an account before the deadline despite the fact that this user has only 6 edits across the whole of the wikimedia network can someone please explain why this is possible and who made up the rules? when you run the confirm eligibility it should see if the user has a minimum amount of edits like you have to have to vote for instance not allow people to stand for stewardship with 6 votes. Corruptcopper 21:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been wondering about that already a few times too. It seems to me it would make sense to require a steward candidate to have at least as many edits as the contributors who are eligible to vote in the elections. Wutsje 21:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
While I agree that candidacy requirements should be set stricter for next election, I would like to point out that the requirement of identifying oneself to the Wikimedia Foundation will filter out many candidates who aren't really serious about their candidacy or don't really know what stewardship is about. I estimate that this year we'll have about 25 candidates. --Church of emacs talk 22:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Aye, the requirement to run has been the same for a bit but it is clear that for the next election we need to discuss it and raise it a bit. The original thinking was that broader was better because the baddies would be filtered out in the voting (since the voting did have regulations in place) but I think with the larger use of Central Notices etc it has become more a useless drain on resources to deal with superfluous amazingly low editcount accounts (which we have quite a few of this year. I'd still say "relatively" low requirements but even the requirements to vote aren't that high, it might be good to consider using those for both. James (T C) 10:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Cross-wiki contributions[edit]

tools:~erwin85/xcontribs.php might be interesting for the upcoming elections. --Erwin 11:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Validation of votes[edit]

Hi. I was told there were some plans on the Steward mailing list to organize validation of votes, however that seemed a bit vague.

Are there any tools beside AccountEligibility yet? It would be useful to have a feed of all changes on Stewards/elections_2010/votes/* pages by users who are not eligible to vote. Any other ideas? --Church of emacs talk 14:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thecurran appears twice[edit]

Thecurran appears in both disqualified and as a valid candidate. Can this please be updated to reflect the desired case. billinghurst sDrewth 00:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done removed the DQ'd version, he is identified and eligible so should be valid as far as I know. James (T C) 00:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Identification[edit]

Per discussion at Talk:Stewards/elections 2010/Questions, basically per James' last comment there, I've postponed the deadline for identification to the start of elections. Identification has to be received before 7 February 2010, 00:00 (UTC). --Erwin 20:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

si voto negativo por alguien, este me bloqueara?[edit]

quisiera saber por si queda y luego la agarre con migo, ya que considero que debo calificar negativo a alguien??

No, pero si no cumples los requisitos para votar, tu voto será descontado. es:Drini 22:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Vote[edit]

  1. Firstly can we only vote once? It doesn't seem to be indicated anywhere. I am presuming that we can only vote for one candidate otherwise it would clearly say so.
  2. Secondly is this vote actually a vote or will someone later argue that it's to be decided by consensus, decided by rock, paper, scissors or decided by the sysop who's most enthusiastic?--Xania 01:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
You can vote once on each candidate.
This is actually a vote (though technically the Board appoints stewards, they've never contradicted the results of the vote)
 — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 01:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Figured it out after I noticed others voting for more than one person. I understand that the Board can veto if necessary which seems quite sensible.--Xania 02:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)--Xania 02:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

How to vote?[edit]

Is there some app interface to allow easy voting, or is one expected to manually edit each voting page?

If there is a nice interface, it's well-hidden; if there is no nice interface, voting for such a long list of candidates is quite tedious. (Hence I've not voted in this election.)

Could you please have a "VOTE HERE" link or "TO VOTE, edit each page" text clearly listed? Ta!

Nbarth 04:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just use the "[edit]" section link wherever you wish to vote and add your signature on the bottom. There is no nicer interface. For editing help, see Help:Editing. --Church of emacs talk 11:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for clarification, Church of emacs!
For the voting usability people: the 2009 board elections used the Special:SecurePoll interface, which was very easy to use – why isn’t it being used here?
Manually voting for a long slate (almost 30 candidates) by manually editing multiple pages is completely unusable, which is why turnout is quite low.
Further, this reduces the legitimacy of the election, because most members of the community will not go to the bother of voting if it’s a pain.
In future, could we please have a usable and prominent voting mechanism, especially for a vote that is advertised across projects? Thanks.
Nbarth 04:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi Nbarth, This is definitely something we need to talk about for the next election. The biggest thing is the argument between Open and Closed voting (SecurePoll being closed). I think there are very legitimate arguments for both (and very loud advocates for both). One one side the open voting tends to encourage people to give reasons and comments which I think both helps other voters to really understand who they are voting for and also gives valuable feedback to the candidates. I think (whether it is meant to or not) closed voting tends to make those comments much rarer even when you have a spot to make them. Closed voting of course is a bit easier to understand (with interfaces like SecurePoll), it also eliminates the "pressure" to vote one way or another and at least theoretically allows people to vote their mind. WMF has traditionally had more open voting and it is only recently that more votes have moved to closed voting (The poll extension was created for the board vote and more recently has been used for En Arbcom and audit committee votes). It is an important discussion and to be totally honest I haven't completely decided which one I think would be better in the long run. James (T C) 06:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Hi James,
Thanks for your thoughtful note, and explaining the issues. The issue of Open and Closed is a good point, on which I’m agnostic – I’m primarily concerned with interface and ease, and from your description the choice is either “Open with manual editing“ or “Closed with easy interface”.
It would be delightful if there were a nice (SecurePoll-like) interface for Open voting (or if SecurePoll could be so extended) – a (brief or large) space next to your vote where you could express a comment, both to ease voting and commenting in Open votes, and to make the issue of interface independent from Open/Closed. I understand that this may require some technical work, and that there is certainly value in Open voting and discussions, so issues can be raised, flagged, addressed, and discussed; comments are certainly valuable.
Thanks again, and look forward to ever improving voting!
—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawal from stewardship elections[edit]

From readng all of the comments I feel that there are alot of people who think that I am not suitable for the role as steward as I don't have enough life experience from what I have read. It seems that the community around here are all either old and take offence to younger people wanting to edit the wikis and look after it or they just like being in control of things. Therefore I regret that I will withdraw my standing in this election, maybe if the community actually gave youngsters a chance to show themselves then I would consider it. Unless I can see some support in this then I don't see the point in editing the wikis anymore and will have lost a very hard working contributor to the wikis although my input hasnt been as the community would like to see there has been alot that I have done to combat vandals and so on.

I await input from the community if people are brave enough to speak out I would appreciate your support.

Corruptcopper 11:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And come off it, that itself is a quite an immature response. This is not a beauty contest, nor a badge of honour, it is simply a role to be undertaken with a bigger mop. No pay, no special gratitude, just plenty of work.
I am not a young candidate (have been working for longer than you have been alive and then some), and I too have been told that I am not wanted by a significant part of the community. Guess what? That is quite okay. I put my name forward as I thought that my skills would be useful, the broader community doesn't think so.
Whose loss? Not mine. Primarily I am here to bring sources to the community (the editor in me), and to run around with a mop and bucket (the admin side). I also help to bring people into my wikisource: community and assist them to be involved making us have a stronger community with better resources. If that itself is not enough of a role in this space, then you need to have a reflective moment on what is really important. In the grand scheme of things, a caring and skilful editor who can assist others to progress is the prime and most useful function for anyone!
That said, it does go on, and people do ask how you are going, and people do tend to make judgements about you, and do make comments can be thoughtless, or sometimes slanderous. Sometimes the spotlight is less than glamorous. <shrug> We put yourselves there. C'est la vie. billinghurst sDrewth 12:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
ack & plaudit, -jkb- 12:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a target number of Stewards?[edit]

I'm new to Stewardship elections this year but am trying to be a good citizen by participating in the process. One thing that's nagging me is that I have no idea how many Stewards it is desirable to have. This might influence my voting since if, for example, we appear to be lacking in stewards I would be inclined to give the inexperienced yet willing and competent the benefit of a "yes" vote in order to ensure we have a decent population. Conversely, if few are needed I'd be inclined to support only those that fulfil more stringent criteria. Can anyone give me some guidance? --Bodnotbod 11:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no target number. Having as many stewards as possible is a plus, since that can better ensure that requests aren't left unattended for a long period of time. --FiliP ██ 11:57, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
It's just like administrators, there is no target number, limit, minimum number, etc. Cbrown1023 talk 15:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Suffice to way we are nowhere near the minimum number of stewards we need.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 05:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


2010 Steward Appointments[edit]

According with the recent election results, the Board approves the eight candidates below as Stewards.

  1. Avraham
  2. Dferg
  3. J.delanoy
  4. Jyothis
  5. Melos
  6. Mercy
  7. Sir Lestaty de Lioncourt
  8. Wutsje

Thanks to all candidates for their time and interest, and to everyone who helped facilitate a smooth election. SJ+ help translate 23:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy welcome to all new fellows! :-) —DerHexer (Talk) 00:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, \o/ -- @lestaty discuţie 00:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. -- Avi 00:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. — Dferg (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Congratulations, everybody! –Juliancolton | Talk 01:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Congrats, stewards! --Church of emacs talk · contrib 21:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)