Jump to content

Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021

Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

A user-friendly and translatable election main page[edit]

Hi @Sänger: just a note to say that the Board election facilitation team has plans to work on the election pages and offer content that is concise, user-friendly, and easily translatable. The goal is to increase participation overall and especially among volunteers who haven't participated in an election before. For this, we plan to depart from the usual structured used in previous elections. We recommend anyone to hold on for a bit before we propose a structure for this page and subpages. We also need to work in coordination with the Elections Committee. Qgil-WMF (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

I suggest a video of a person voting to imagined candidates, to see the process. On the other hand, improve the tools, so no one can vote two times to the same candidate or leave a blank voting between to voted candidates (i.e. 1. Candidate X 2. Blank 3. Candidate C ...). Also, we wan a link to the candidate user page, so see what the candidate proposes (I would vote a candidate that proposes good tools for users in Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects). --BoldLuis (talk) 08:23, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Reconsideration of eligibility criteria for technical contributions in election[edit]

The 2021 Board elections are scheduled to take place in the next few months. I would like to flag the voting eligibility criteria for “Developers” previously and should be reconsidered. In 2017, the criteria were

  • Are Wikimedia server administrators with shell access;
  • Or have commit access and have made at least one merged commits in git to Wikimedia Foundation utilized repos between 1 October 2016 and 1 April 2017.

The wording used is not commonly used in the MediaWiki and Wikitech communities. Issues with the above criteria are:

  • The group of “Wikimedia server administrators with shell access” nearly completely overlaps with Wikimedia staffers.
  • There is no hard-defined category as “Wikimedia Foundation utilized repos” (there is some work in progress: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T190891, but nothing concrete as of now)
  • "commit access" has an unclear meaning nowadays. It made sense in SVN days but we use Git and Gerrit nowadays. Now anyone can create a Developer Account and "commit" a change to Gerrit as a proposed code change, but whether the change will also get merged ("+2'ed", means: included and made available by default to everyone pulling that codebase) depends on someone else first reviewing that proposed code change in Gerrit.

A significant number of folks do not necessarily make edits to mediawiki.org but are still developing tools, gadgets etc. A good number of them work on Wikitech and/or Gerrit/Git. That requires using an LDAP account (aka 'Developer account'). An LDAP account is separate from the SUL (Single User Login) account used for mediawiki.org and also used by SecurePoll. There are several people who develop and run bots, user-scripts, building tools for deployment on Toolforge (or anywhere else), but don’t necessarily make edits on mediawiki.org or contribute to MediaWiki core - they are being excluded as well.

It seems like these criteria were developed long ago and have not been updated with the changes in practices of MediaWiki and Wikitech contributors. I don’t have a perfect solution as of now but would like to raise this issue with the Elections Committee. It would be helpful if other developers can share their thoughts and what can be good criteria. This will affect not only the upcoming elections but others such as the Steward elections.

Also created a Phabricator task: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T281977

@AbhiSuryawanshi, Carlojoseph14, HakanIST, Mardetanha, KTC, Masssly, Matanya, ProtoplasmaKid, and Ruslik0: -Jayprakash >>> Talk 12:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for raising this issue! I think we, as a committee should hear feedback from the technical community and revise the criteria based on colleced feedback. Matanya (talk) 13:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)Reply
These observations are correct. The criteria were definitely developed a long time ago and don't match the current technical situation anymore. It isn't just "shell access yes/no" anymore. We have many admin groups with different privileges. We also do have a few volunteers with deployment access but it is true that the vast majority are WMF staff. We also have some former staff who used to work for WMF and then kept their access in a volunteer role. Back in the days "shell access" meant resolving tickets by doing things directly on servers. That is something we now try to avoid as much as possible by using configuration management / devops. The thing that most people would associate with that nowadays is deployers, people in the specific admin group needed to deploy MediaWiki (config) changes. Regarding LDAP, yes the Wikitech user is considered the "Developer Account" and it gives then access to code review (Gerrit), Cloud VPS and other things. So having one of those could be a good criterium, it definitely indicates someone is involved in more than just editing projects. Having it is also a requirement for the things building on that, like shell acces. Mutante (talk) 17:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

For those who don’t have 500+ edits across all WMF wikis, the development requirements are quite important for eligibility. Committing code to Gerrit is somewhat of a strict requirement. In my case, I’ve released several MediaWiki extensions since joining the community recently, and due to my company’s policies, these extensions are not uploaded to WMF version control. I propose allowing people with a certain amount of participation on Phabricator tickets to also be able to vote. MyWikis-JeffreyWang (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@AbhiSuryawanshi, Carlojoseph14, HakanIST, Mardetanha, KTC, Masssly, Matanya, ProtoplasmaKid, and Ruslik0: We got response from technical community here and on the phabricator task. I request you to go through them and compile them.--Jayprakash >>> Talk 18:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Jayprakash12345: The Committee is currently discussing eligibility requirements and has taken note of the discussion in the Phabricator ticket. Carlojoseph14 (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Agree. The technical bar is set far too high, and in archaic terms. A more reasonable threshold would be something like "a developer with at least one patch merged to a production Wikimedia repository". I also like the suggestion that some level of involvement on Phabricator should qualify.

Please note however that the bar for editors is quite high as well, requiring an average "active editor" (5 edits per month) level of editing over the previous 5 months, and what equates to 5 years of this level of editing (300 edits = 60 months * 5 edits per month) overall. Relatedly, some might be interested in task T282563, which begins to show how common it is for editors to lapse in active editing and then start again. The same data could be used to explore our definition of a sufficiently-engaged contributor. —Adamw (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

The updated criteria are published at Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021#Developers. KCVelaga (WMF) (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Updated timeline[edit]

Hi there, friends! The timeline for the Board of Trustee election has been updated. This is the timeline the Election Committee is proposing to the Board of Trustees. In practice, this timeline is two weeks later than the original to allow for more time to implement Single Transferrable Vote on SecurePoll Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

@JKoerner (WMF): Great, thanks for the notice! Please update the dates on the content page when you have time, I see references to August 4th, 17th, and other times which no longer make sense. —Adamw (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Adamw: My original message was from May. I believe the dates have been updated on the Meta election pages regarding the election delay. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

What do communities want to know about candidates?[edit]

Update: An Election Volunteer asked for a page to be created so it was translatable. JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 12:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi all, The Board Election facilitators have been looking at what was done in previous elections and how we can support community participation in the Board of Trustees election. We were thinking about how the community reviews the candidates and what would be helpful for the community to know.

Then we knew what we needed to do! We should ask you: What are the things you would like to know about candidates?

We are asking very informally here and on social media. Please let us know what you think and feel free to reply in any language you wish. We thank you for your feedback! Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 17:52, 11 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I miss an overview sortable table of the candidates or at least their data one after another on one page. — The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikePC (talk) 20. Aug. 2021, 13:02:01 (UTC)

What data? How sortable? As for everyone other data are important there had to be at least all their election pages in there, and how should those long text fields be sortable in a reasonable manner? As nothing of real value for an election decision can be written in a sortable cell of a table, it's an impossible task, or you just fill in unimportant clutter like birthdays or such, and what value shoulod that have? Now you have the pictures and names in a unsortable, but randomized, order, and linked all the pages with important information about them. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:12, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hallo Sänger, thanks for Your prompt reaction. But nearly nothing is impossible, so e.g. year since active in WM, (structured) language abilities, active in e.g. Wikidata Y/N, video statement Y/N, priorities fields filled Y/N, ... make me sense for a table. Grüße — The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikePC (talk) 20. Aug. 2021, 13:39:15 (UTC)
And? WD as such is completely irrelevant, just one project among many, either all or nothing, and that's a few hundred possibilities/items/columns. Same for languages, fill them in one cell might be OK, but sortable? How and with wich priority? Number of spoken languages? Discount English, , how much other? Alphabetic order, thus Arab on top, an Swahili down? No, as it has to be a one-size-fits-all table, I don't think it's doable. Your suggestions are at least completely irrelevant for me, so that's a wrong table. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Certainly a lot was done for these elections, still it is not much average-user-oriented. I e.g. noticed just 1 of the candidates in the past. The current way looks like some general elections, where many/most voters decide (if ever) on a photo or a social network headline. I am curious how many of the possible/invited voters will vote, and compared to some well prepared web questionnaire. IMHO only enthusiasts explore those details of (all) the candidates. Grüße — The preceding unsigned comment was added by MikePC (talk) 20. Aug. 2021, 15:19:25 (UTC)
There are Questions to the candidates, but those answers don't fit in some dumbed down table. Same for the candidates info pages, they are as well too content rich to dumb them down in some silly buzzwords. We are encyclopedists here, we care about good and well founded information, not just bot snippets. And regarding the most used plattform for project usage now: How would you make such a table work on a mobile phone?
And as a side note: talk page stuff needs to be signed, do so by either write 4 tildes (~~~~) at the end, klick on the signing button somewhere (depends on what editor you're using), or use the beta feature Discussion tools, it has automagical signing build in. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 14:16, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Really, on my Android 5.1.1 handy, the sorting e.g. in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#Platform_information is not shown. BTW, I meant just the main WM projects, which are 13 of them now. Grüße MikePC (talk) 08:36, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
There are no main projects, there are proper projects and there are not-ready-for-primetime-projects in the incubator. Cherry-picking any projects as main projects is imho arrogant and anti-wikimedian. And you can't compare that meagre list with something useful about those candidates. Anything, that would fit in such a list is rather misleading, as it has to be dumbed down beyond recognition. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:19, 23 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Eligibility criteria not having user account age[edit]

Previous elections’ eligibility requirements didn’t have any criteria regarding an account’s registration time, for example, something like at least six months old. I am not sure why, but I feel having something like this is quite important. Given the requirement for the edit count is not very high, creating an account and getting 300 edits is quite easy, especially with Wikidata and Structured Data on Commons. There is a chance that accounts are created in mass and edited to favour a particular candidate. What are the Elections Committee thoughts on this, and if anything is thought about mitigating the risk mentioned above? @AbhiSuryawanshi, Carlojoseph14, HakanIST, Mardetanha, KTC, Masssly, Matanya, ProtoplasmaKid, and Ruslik0: R Ashwani Banjan Murmu (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, do you have any evidence this is a real risk? Matanya (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Let us be assured of the access of all communities[edit]

There are only two or three volunteers for each project. logically, they are not in contact with all the wikimedia communities that contribute to the project. In addition, they do not have access to mass messaging (since it is reserved for administrators). It is not too late to provide them with the means to reach as many people as possible. Kitanago (talk) 15:12, 3 june 2021 (UTC-5)

Hi there, Kitanago! I agree with you. It takes a lot of people to get the message out. What would be helpful? Do you have any ideas? Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hello JKoerner (WMF)!, I think Mass messages could reach at least a minimal percentage. If we could also give the volunteers the possibility of contacting some contributors by email that would be interesting. And as we do the headband is even more interesting. Kitanago (talk) 22:11, 16 june 2021 (UTC-5)

Candidate Resources[edit]

I am considering possible WMF 2021 board candidacy. In doing so, I noticed omissions on the 2021 election page. Correction could help other potential candidates.

The election timeline diagram is great! It starts with "June 4 Candidate Resources published". Candidate Resources aren't mentioned in the 2021 election page timeline sub-section though. There IS a "Candidate Resources" link in the Documentation box. I navigated there and found a page titled Candidate Toolkit. The URL for the Candidate Toolkit page is


The page name is "Wikimedia Foundation elections/Candidate Resources - Meta". I'm still uncertain because it isn't year-specific, unlike other 2021 election pages, so I checked the page history, expecting to see 4 June. Creation date is 7 June, and this edit was on 8 June 2021: "moved page Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees: Candidate Toolkit to Wikimedia Foundation elections/Candidate Resources: better location". Great, this confirms that the toolkit is the resources page! Most content was in place on 9 June, and final revision is on 15 June.

Correction to Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021 page
Timeline sub-section: insert as follows between current bullet points

  • 2021-06-09 to 2021-06-29 Call for Candidates<--linked-->
  • 2021-06-09 Candidate Resources<--linked--> published
  • 2021-06-30 to 2021-07-02 Announcement of confirmed candidates

Information for candidates sub-section: Currently is one paragraph, ending with "The Call for Candidates<--linked--> opened on 9 June 2021." Append the following sentence: "The Candidate Resources were published on 15 June 2021."

Correction to Candidate Resources page
Change first level heading (title) from Toolkit to Candidate Resources.

I am BOLD, so I will make the corrections.--FeralOink (talk) 12:43, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, FeralOink! Thanks for being so thorough in reviewing the content. The dates changed for the publication and that was after we created the timeline graphic. I am not sure the date difference of a few days impacts usability.
It is not listed on the timeline template on the election page. Candidate Resources is something for all election years, not just 2021. We published it on the infographic because that may be circulated by itself and does not have the benefit of a navigation box.
Thank you for correcting the name and the content on the page. Yes, the naming was confusing. This was a miscommunication between folks and "toolkit" was added to the name when it was published. Thanks for making the edits to make this more clear. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Make links to useful pages clear?[edit]

I just found out about Wikimedia Foundation elections/Candidate Resources and Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021/Peer support for potential candidates - despite having read through all of the pages. The first seems to be linked to from Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021/Apply to be a Candidate - but I didn't see the link, it's not in a prominant place. The second page isn't linked to at all! Perhaps the links could be made clearer? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

About photo uplaoding[edit]

Is it required for candidates to attach a photo with the candidates form ? Thanks Md. Abdul Ahad Khan (talk) 10:24, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

How can I found out information to be able to ask a question to board candidates?[edit]


I want to ask the board a question but I'm unable to find the information needed to be able to ask the question well. I'd like to know

  • How much WMF raised last year, including how much is raised through the banner
  • How much WMF gave as grants to chapters, user groups, individuals etc, I assume this is all through the grants programme but I'm not sure, this page says $8.4 million where as this page says $12.6 million for awards and grants.
  • How much WMF spends on everything apart from grants
  • How much goes into the endowment

Looking at this page on the annual reports I think has the information I want but don't know what a lot of the terms mean e.g 'Professional service expenses' (is this this WMF contractors and consultants?). Is the 9c per dollar amount quoted as a cost for fundraising held in the 'Salaries and wages' expense?

Maybe Qgil-WMF could you suggest where to find this information or who might be able to help me?

Thanks very much John Cummings (talk) 17:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

@John Cummings Hi, do you want to ask questions to Board candidates (as the title says) or to the actual Board (as the questions themselves seem to imply). Qgil-WMF (talk) 11:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Qgil-WMF sorry for the typo, I mean the candidates. thanks, John Cummings (talk) 14:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@John Cummings Alright, I just wanted to confirm. See Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Apply_to_be_a_Candidate#Community_Questions_for_Candidates Qgil-WMF (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks very much Qgil-WMF, I understand the process, my question was how can I find the information about budgets etc to ask my question. John Cummings (talk) 13:06, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@John Cummings Sorry for keeping not understanding you. I promise I don't do it on purpose. :) Your questions fall out of the general knowledge our team has and I cannot offer you answers right away. I can ask, but given the timeline I'm not sure you would get your answers on time to write your question to perfection. I wonder, is there a way to ask your question to candidates in more broad terms? Qgil-WMF (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

* not be blocked on more than one project[edit]

Was will mir das sagen? Das ist eine der gerade eingefügten Voraussetzungen für meine Wahlberechtigung. Heißt das: In nicht mehr als einem Projekt gesperrt oder In mehr als einem Projekt nicht gesperrt? (Mal abgesehen von dieser anglophonen Unverständlichkeit betreffs Block und Ban.) Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 05:47, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

This one is still open, as I don't know what the criteria are. Blocked in no more then one project vs. Not blocked in at least two projects. It's ambiguous. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Mehman (WMF), KCVelaga (WMF), and JKoerner (WMF): Könnt Ihr bitte mal klar stellen, was diese völlig unklare Aussage bedeuten soll? Could you please elaborate, what this completely ambiguous sentence is supposed to mean? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 04:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Sänger: (Mehman, Krishna, Jackie, I take care, thanks) - danke für deine Ansprache, hier fliegt gerade ziemlich die Kuh, deshalb entschuldige bitte das Wartenlassen. Danke auch für deine Übersetzungsarbeit (überhaupt, nicht nur hier). Zu deiner Frage: das bedeutet In nicht mehr als einem Projekt gesperrt. Ich reiche deinen Hinweis auch mal weiter an das Elections Comitee, die für die Definition und Formulierung der Kriterien zuständig sind. Beste Grüße, DBarthel (WMF) (talk) 09:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Dann hätte ich mal eine Frage zur Definition von Projekt: Ich gelte nämlich als wahlberechtigt, bin aber im Phabricator und MediaWiki gesperrt, weil ich da etwas zu deutlich gegen irgendwelche Lügenmärchen betreffs unerwünschter Lieblingsprojekte aufgetreten bin. Und beide Projekte haben ja keinerlei echte Revisionsinstanz, nur indiskutable en:Starchambers, da besteht also keine Chance auf ein korrektes Verfahren. Sind das keine zwei Projekte? Oder hätte ich mit der Frage lieber bis nach der Abstimmung warten sollen? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:42, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Laut Special:CentralAuth/Sänger bist du nur auf einem Projekt gesperrt. Für Phabricator hast du rein technisch gesehen ein anderes Konto, jedenfalls kein verbundenes. --Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 03:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
D.h. es gibt Projekte, die keine Projekte im Sinne der umseitigen Aussage sind. Auch beim Phab melde ich mich über SUL an, augenscheinlich irgendwie etwas komplizierter, aber über SUL. Letztens bin ich auf noch ein Projekt im Wikiversum gestoßen: Wikitech, was auch immer das ist, aber die waren irgendwie für das kurze Abschalten der Editiermöglichkeiten verantwortlich. Wäre doch irgendwie mal nett, wenn geklärt würde, welche Projekte im Wikiversum nun Projekte mi Wikiversum sind, und welche warum nicht. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 04:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
I have used google translate, so apologies for any misunderstanding. I have a few concerns
Blocked users are analogous to prisoners. In many countries prisoners are allow to vote. Passions can run high in wikipedia or people may vent their external issues.
This would seem to be a very unlikely edge case. There was one complaint I could see.
The number of blocked users, that are not anonymous IP addresses or vandals is very low. If we add on the other requirements for > 300 votes, then even less
Potential for vote rigging, by blocking users which disenfranchises them
Possibly this rule could be addressed by using number of edits less reverts Wakelamp (talk) 03:01, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi Wakelamp, Thanks for your feedback. When the Elections Committee reviews criteria for the 2022 Board of Trustees election, I am sure they will take feedback like yours into consideration. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Übersetzungsproblem bei $vote[edit]

Ich habe gerade den ersten Satz bei Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021#Voting_information neu übersetzt, da war was gestrichen worden, und dann auch den Platzhalter $vote übernommen, und prompt führt der Link nur noch zur enWP, also nur in den monolingualen Anglozentrikerbereich. Was soll so ein Mist? Wo ist so etwas definiert? Wer hat da mal wieder vergessen, dass es neben dem Englischen auf dieser Welt auch noch weitere Sprachen, und es sogar Artikel über das Wahlverfahren in diesen Sprachen in den verschiedenen Wikipedien, gibt? Ich habe es wieder auf den direkten Link in die deWP geändert, damit die LeserInnen auf Deutsch wenigstens an die richtige Stelle geführt werden, nehme dies aber als weiteren Hinweis auf die Verachtung für andere Sprachen seitens der WMF zur Kenntnis. Ach ja: Der neue Abschnitt zu den Wahlberechtigungen ist so nicht übersetzbar, da wurden rudimentäre Tags vergessen, um den Abschnitt in Einzelabschnitte aufzuteilen. Wer auch immer seitens der von uns bezahlten Staffer zuständig ist, der möge dies bitte asap regeln! Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 06:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sänger, wir hier alle im Moderationsteam und bei den Wahlhelfern bemühen uns sehr darum, das möglichst viele Communitymitglieder angemessen und in ihrer eigenen Sprache unterrichtet werden. Das so etwa wie hier mit dem "vote" passiert, ist ärgerlich, klar, und wir fixen das auch nach Meldung, aber vielleicht kann man mal ein wenig runterdimmen und solch einen Fehler melden ohne gleich "Verachtung" und "Anglozentrismus" zu konstatieren. Danke für den Hinweis! Beste Grüße, DBarthel (WMF) (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ehrlich gesagt ist mir das zu häufig, als dass ich da nonchalant drüber weg gehen kann und will. Ja, es ist ein klein wenig besser geworden, aber nur ein klein wenig. Die WMF, und damit auch alle (WMF)er, sind de facto unsere Angestellten, Anglophonie ist nur eine Minderheitenposition, die aber durch den extremen Anglozentrismus, insbesondere durch den der monolingualen Native Speaker, leider eine viel zu große Macht hat. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 05:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply
Ach ja, ein gutes Beispiel für den extremen und rücksichtslosen Anglozentrismus ist z.B. das hier: w:Jogi Löw. Warum geht das zur enWP? Das :w: sagt lediglich Wikipedia, ich habe in meinen Einstellungen de als Sprache gewählt, also sollte das natürlich in die deWP führen. Aber das geht den monolingualen Anglozentrikern natürlich gegen den Strich, hier andere Sprachen berücksichtigen zu müssen, soll doch gefälligst jedeR ihre Sprache lernen oder abhauen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 05:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Übersetzungen der Bestimmungen zur Wahlberechtigung[edit]

Aktuell ist der neue Abschnitt nicht übersetzbar, weil die ganzen dafür erforderlichen Tags fehlen. Mehman (WMF) Marked this version for translation,aber so, wie das aktuell aufgeteilt ist, geht das schlicht nicht. Wer kann da was dran ändern? Ich pinge mal ein paar Leute an, die früher was in diese Richtung getan haben: @Felipe da Fonseca, Pols12, and Bachounda: As a service for the pinged ones: The mentioned part of the other side has to be broken down in translatable snippets, in its current state it not translatable. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sänger habe es gamacht, kann aber jetzt nicht überprufen, köntest Du das machen? Ich habe schon Mehman (WMF) mehr als einmal gesagt, dass wir tvar benützen müssen. Grüss,--Felipe da Fonseca (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Können Sie das jetzt überprüfen? :) --Bachounda (talk) 10:52, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ich habe jetzt mal alles übersetzt, allerdings teilweise zwei Mal, weil zwischenzeitlich die Syntax geändert wurde ;) Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:31, 28 June 2021 (UTC)Reply

Die Seite der Kuratoriumsgeschichte ist völlig veraltet[edit]

Ich wollte die Kuratoriumsgeschichte gerade auf Stand bringen, so wie ich es auch schon beim Template:BoardChart gemacht habe (was aber noch immer in der veralteten Version angezeigt wird, muss das gesichtet werden oder was?), habe aber wegen der ausufernden Quelltextzermüllung mit irgendwelchem Übersetzungskram gar nicht erst angefangen, da mögen sich bitte Leute drum kümmern, die diese Quelltextaufblähung irgendwie verstehen. Zumindest ist da nichts, in Worten gar nichts, seit 2017 aktualisiert worden, das ist imho extrem peinlich für das Kuratorium. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 11:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Sänger: thank you for bringing this into attention. This might be something that I could try to do, but please allow several days to learn all the complicated translation tags -- I hope I won't do much damage to the page! Cheers, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 18:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Single transferrable vote will be used as the voting method.[edit]

-says the page. As the linked article makes clear, there are any number of varieties of STV schemes. A lot more detail is needed for voters, especially as many or most will have no experience of such schemes. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, Johnbod! Thanks for the question and your patience in waiting for a response. The election will be using Meek's STV with Droop quota. The facilitation team is in the process for designing information about the election method and should have that out soon. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi @JKoerner (WMF) can you give a link to a resolution by the Election Committee to use Meek? Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Ad Huikeshoven! I'd like to be able to provide you with decision information from the Elections Committee but I do not have access to their communication or institutional knowledge of their discussions about STV. That might be something you'd need to connect with them about. Sorry I could not provide you with the specific item you asked about. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 13:37, 9 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Translations outdated[edit]

As usual, those, who change something on the english language pages don't bother to contact some translate admins to make them aware of it, so other languages still show the outdated stuff without even showuing it's outdated. @Mike Peel, Xeno (WMF), MNadzikiewicz (WMF), and DBarthel (WMF): Please do something about it. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 07:12, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've marked this page for an an updated translation, hope that helps. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:33, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
THX! Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 07:42, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
But....@MPossoupe (WMF): changed another time without making it/letting it make translatable.
Perhaps there should be a huge red edit notice above all translated pages, that all those who change something, are required to either update the translation themselves or at least ping some translations admin. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 12:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
(I've marked it for translation now) - Laurentius (talk) 13:27, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, but I just saw, that User:MPossoupe (WMF) only changed the non-essential time, not the one inside the template. I've just changed that, as I think it was meant to be both @1700. Could you please mark it again? Yes, I know, it's annoying, but unfortunately there is no automatism with it. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 13:34, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Done - Laurentius (talk) 17:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Und schon wieder wurde vorne was umgestellt, ohne das korrekt zu markieren, diesmal von jemandem, der augenscheinlich eigentlich korrekt arbeiten könnte, wenn denn mal Gedanken an die internationalen MitleserInnen verschwendet würden. @JKoerner (WMF): Was sollte das? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hey, @Sänger: Könnten Sie erklären? Ich weiß nicht, was Sie meinen. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2021 (UTC)Reply
Nach den letzten Änderungen hast Du vergessen, Seite für das Übersetzen vorzubereiten, damit waren die Änderungen nur auf der eher unwichtigen Englischen Seite zu sehen, nicht auf den wichtigen internationalen. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:00, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Um genau zu sein ist das mit diesem Edit passiert, inzwischen wurde der von User:Xeno (WMF) zurückgesetzt und das Ganze damit repariert. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 08:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Dates have been updated, and that change has not been marked for translation. Would someone mark for translation when convenient. Dreamy Jazz talk to me | enwiki 22:20, 2 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

And another change has to be made translatable. Here as well: Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates. @JKoerner (WMF), Ата, Ameisenigel, and JSutherland (WMF): again. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 21:33, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Done --Ameisenigel (talk) 21:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Sänger: Thanks for the ping. I made the changes and then went into meetings and did not go back to change them. I think Ameisenigel and I were at it at the same time! Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Einen einzigen Tag vor Wahlbeginn einfach so mal eben aufgeschoben?[edit]

Was ist das denn? Plötzlich und ohne jede Begründung und Ankündigung wird der Wahltermin verschoben. Und das einen Tag vor geplantem Start der Wahlen, gibt es dafür eine Begründung? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 04:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

It was announced at [1], along with a promise to update this talk page. (I don't know why Wikimedia Foundation staff are making these annoucements instead of the Election Committee.) TomDotGov (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
And I fail to see any reason for not using the official Wiki for this updates first, instead of the nice-to-have mailing list. I just saw, that the election isa not even mentioned yet on the Main Page yet. 450 people paid by us volunteers, and nobody there for real service jobs? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 05:16, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Sänger: we are working on distributing the announcement. Please be patient. RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 05:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Inzwischen gibt es auch schon eine entsprechende Seite hier auf Meta. Auch schon in mehreren Sprachen.
Aber es ist schon extrem peinlich für die riesige WMF, mit Massen von bezahlten Kräften, die für genau so etwas eigentlich da sein sollten, die sich aber lieber um solch kompletten Unsinn wie Branding oder irgendwelche unerwünschten Lieblingsprojekte wie FLOW oder so kümmern, statt die wichtigen vorhandene Software ordentlich zu warten. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 05:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Translate voting page[edit]

Just wanted to log in to vote.wikimedia.org and translate the voting page into Persian/Farsi, but found out I had been blocked there and cannot log in. I used to be an electionadmin there for several votes. I have good understanding of SecurePoll and STV in particular. It would be great if you could unblock me so that I can translate pages. Please ping me if/when done. Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@4nn1l2: Thank you for offering to do this. Having translations is important and your time doing this is appreciated. Let me connect you with @DBarthel (WMF): who is coordinating the translation efforts and knows the process better than I do. Right now it is his night, but he will respond during his waking hours. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@4nn1l2: If you ping me once Farsi translations are completed I will happily import them to votewiki. At this stage we're not adding any other electionadmins to this election, but thank you for the offer to help there directly. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 01:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
In case anyone else come here looking for the place to translate votewiki page, it's here: Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021/Translation. Ата (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@4nn1l2: I see that Amirufc translated this text (thank you!) but he also translated the magic words (beginning with $), so I'm finding it difficult to replace those with full links. If you do get a moment I'd love to be able to add those translations into SecurePoll, for which I'll need the magic words intact (i.e. in English / Latin). Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 18:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@JSutherland (WMF), Ата, JKoerner (WMF), and DBarthel (WMF): please update "bn" translation in votewiki, i have made some changes in translate page --MdsShakil (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@MdsShakil: Done - you need only ping me or Denis about this :) Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 18:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@JSutherland (WMF): Farsi done. By the way, I never asked to become an electionadmin there. I know that election admins have access to private data of all voters and I'm not eligible to have access to those data. I just asked to be unblocked at vote.wikimedia.org to be able to translate the election there myself directly. And I believe all editors can do that and they do not need to be an election admin there. Thanks anyway 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

German translation of the voting page has a syntax error[edit]

The German translation of https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/1079 contains a syntax error. See screenshot. I think there is one line jump too much in it. Syrcro (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Syrcro: Thanks a lot for flagging this, I believe it is now fixed. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)Reply


Be able to change the page pics of the person 07225535Nm (talk) 08:48, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

??? I don't have the faintest idea, what you would like to do where and why. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 10:23, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Spoiled ballots[edit]

Currently it's not possible to make a spoiled ballot, that is a ballot which is blank and recorded. The ability to spoil a ballot is an important democratic principle, and would ask that this be looked into. --SW1APolitico (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, that's a normal part of an election. I think that the easiest way to do that would be allowing a "blank ballot", i.e., allowing a vote where no candidate is ranked (right now it is not allowed). That would have no effect on the election, but would be recorded. - Laurentius (talk) 17:20, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Arrogant editors removing content as not notable.[edit]

I’ve seen numerous examples of this. A person with academic credentials, who can produce lots of fancy footnotes, can get an article published on some obscure topic, like a new species of beetles. An ordinary person who wants to write about a group that they’re part of — such as a neighborhood that might have several thousand people or a new 12 step program that might have several thousand people — can get their topic deleted, because some self important person decides that it’s not notable. I want to hear with the candidates’ stand would be on this an inherent bias in favor of academia and against ordinary people. Skysong263 (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Still broken ("You must log in to vote in this election")[edit]

Just like the last election, I had to fill and submit the form twice for MediaWiki to accept my vote. Same error as reported in 2017. Considering this is likely going to persist until the next election, I'm adding a warning to that effect. --Chealer (talk) 03:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply


@Ата: I am sorry for the addition, which I know is large and must be a pain for those driving translation. Thanks for reviewing and shortening, but I am afraid the result is less clear and probably not optimal. There are 3 points:

  1. "you will most likely not be able to login on the voting wiki": The voting wiki prompts for credentials. There is a banner at the top warning that few editors have an account on that wiki, but it took me at least 3 attempts, 1 minute, and starting to doubt my memory of my credentials before I finally noticed it, so I suspect many more will also be confused without a clear warning.
  2. "rejects a valid vote": I think that precision is quite important, because the system will also reject invalid votes. There is no instant (client-side) form validation, so a large proportion of rejections will surely be caused by duplicate entries or empty slots. The warning's advice should not be followed in those situations (to my knowledge).
  3. "if you try going back to it": What I meant by that is that if a clever user tries using its browser's Back button to go back to the form hoping to avoid having to fill it again, the form will unfortunately be blank again. It is actually possible to recover your vote, but that's out of reach of those without web development experience. I know the original version is not super clear when you haven't experienced the problem, but I wanted to keep the warning brief. I recommend to either keep the if, or also remove "The voting form will be blank".

One thing which would probably help not translators but at least readers might be to bolden "If your vote is rejected". --Chealer (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

And it's still not translatable, it will probably become a new T:X, so I refrain from changing the German translation for now. @Ата: Could you straighten that as well, please? Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 14:51, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Sänger: Sorry, I am inexperienced with MediaWiki translation, but do you mean it should not be a new unit? --Chealer (talk) 16:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
No, of course not, those items should be not too long. But only translate-admins can organise and activate them, so someone like Ата has to do this, I can't, and you can't as well. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 16:20, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Chealer, @Sänger, I would not like to write the 1. point; instead I'd write smth like "don't try logging in on votewiki, just start over". Ата (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
I can't say anything about it, as I have no experience with the bug. I voted once and changed it afterwards without any problem. Keep it simple, Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 17:59, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Right, that would probably be as clear as the original, and a bit shorter. --Chealer (talk) 14:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Upvotes in Wikipedia articles[edit]

Hi, I would like to know if there are candidates interested in making an upvotes system in Wikipedia articles. For example: "Did you find this article helpful?" with only upvotes in fact the downvotes make the system toxic.--Lovepeacejoy404 (talk) 05:24, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

My vote (and yours?)[edit]

Since there are lots of candidates and I for one didn't know many, I've published my vote, which ranks all candidates, though not precisely. In case you don't know me, my post mostly explains how I evaluated candidacies. Feel free to use this section to publish your own votes. --Chealer (talk) 16:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

My eligability to vote.[edit]

As one of some 70k eligable to vote, I voted, but nowhere can I find any indication as to what criteria made me eligable.

Who is eligable, and why? Markdask (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

On the other side is a box in the upper right corner with lots of links, and as an eligible voter you should know how to use links. In there is a link to Voting information, something that should be no problem for you as a good wikimedian to deduct from, that you will get more information about this election. Et Voila. there you are, all you asked for ist written on that page. Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 07:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Post mortem[edit]

As per tradition I created the page Wikimedia Foundation elections/2021/Post mortem. I originally wanted to only create the headers but then I ended up writing down some observations which I fear I'd otherwise forget in future years. Let's document things which will become harder to remember or find out later! Nemo 14:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Is there a difference in purpose between the subpages "Post mortem" and "Post Analysis" (which was originally named "Post mortem")? —2d37 (talk) 09:08, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
The one is from the community, the other one from the WMF (and yes, there is a difference). Grüße vom Sänger ♫(Reden) 09:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hi all, Sänger is right. The facilitation team which supported the Board election is working on a Post-Analysis. That will be posted on that coordinating page in a few weeks. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

What happens during process/counting?[edit]

I'm wondering why the counting process takes a whole week. Pardon my ignorance, but if this is electronic, shouldn't the results have been calculated in the order of a few microseconds? BirdValiant (talk) 15:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, BirdValiant! This is a great question. Part of the process is providing the Elections Committee time to audit the ballots from the election to check for duplicates and other irregularities. This process takes about a week to ten days to complete. The results will be shared once they have completed their review. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Are there statistics on the number of irregularities? Wakelamp (talk)

Close Election - Are additional Statistics available?[edit]

Hi, The election was quite close with only 12 votes deciding the fifth seat, and 212 separating first preferences for the first and fifth. So, it might make things more transparent if some more statistics were made available or clarified.

  1. Wiki Null. On Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Stats, there are 1599 users associated with the NULL project, none of whom voted
  2. Are the candidates supported by a narrow base - voters by main project.
  3. Percentage that voted for each voting eligibility category. It is a concern that the non-wikipedians could influence the election.
  4. Number of voters that asked to vote, as they met the additional criteria (repo commits etc), but not the normal criteria
  5. Voters (>= 600 edits AND < 20 edits) in 2021
  6. Blocked users - It is also unclear how many genuine editors were blocked in more than one project. (The blocked voters being excluded, seems similar to prisoners not having the franchise).
    1. Voters >= 600 edits AND (>= 20 edits in 2021) BUT ineligible as blocked in multiple project (I expect 1 based on comments)
    2. Voters >= 600 edits AND (>= 20 edits in 2021) BUT blocked in 1 project (I expect 0)
  7. IP only/anonymous editors >600 edits AND ( >= 20 edits in 2021)
  8. Number of votes investigated and the number with irregularities. ( It was advised on a talk page that counting takes a week because of checks)
  9. Electorates on Wiki Table. On the stats page, it is not clear what electorate means and where the stat was from
  10. Voters by year of first edit

Wakelamp (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wakelamp, Thanks for reaching out. There is some data available on the Stats page for the 2021 Board election. While some of your questions seem engaging, I am not sure how they would further inform this work. Best, JKoerner (WMF) (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I am having difficulty understanding "engaging" and "inform the work" - but I assume you are saying politely no. This is not a statistics for the sake of statistics nerdiness. Apathy is encouraged by non-transparency or where there is too much or too little information.
  • Bloc voting )by project or even worse by perceived name ethnicity or likability based on their picture) is bad.
  • Different eligibility requirements allowing vote rigging by non-editors, but this eligibility is not allowing the needed skills to be available to the board
  • A non-transparent voting review process allows vote rigging
  • There is a chance of minor corruption on the associated fundraising committees
  • Deadlock on the board

Overall the election is failing to produce the Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Candidates#skills needed, long running issues in wikipedia are intrenched, and the editor/foundation interactions are still fraught. Wakelamp (talk).