Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2006

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

Confirm me or burn ;)[edit]

I have run in both the elections so far, so confirming that I am who I say I am, should be no biggie. User:Cimon avaro

We'll be confirming people shortly; please bear with us, as most of the Foundation hierarchy is working its way towards Boston and communication is becoming more and more difficult. There is no difference between a candidate confirmed on August 1 and one confirmed on August 28; as long as you have your entry in by that time, you will be able to stand in the election, and you've already covered this. Essjay (TalkConnect) 03:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It was a opportunity to test another form of enlist candidates[edit]

Approval voting is a is a voting system used for elections, where a "candidates list" must be pre-defined. If the list have "democratic origins", the election by approval voting will show a democratic result. It is a perfect system for wikipedia community...

But what is a "candidate" in a direct democracy? People that wants power? Marketing? Volunteers? Whant help others? It was good if I, or you, or your friends, be a candidate? (And how many candidates on the list to be a democratic list?)

We have on Wikipedia community a exceptional opportunity to do a "more truth" democracy... the goal of this community is to colaborate on articles, and through articles we know people. Only on this "known people" we can vote (!). Not names or promises on a "Elections list of self-candidates".

We haven't time to investigate another people, only ours "known people", and this is a good principle: colaborators voting on a colaborator from (and only from) the articles where he/she was colaborate. From this first ease voting we can produce a very surprised and democratic list of potenctial candidates... and invit the "best approval" of then to become candidates.

PS: I do not know the candidates listed, and have nothing against them.

-- Krauss

Succession planning[edit]

I don't remember how I actually reached this page, but I found Succession planning which debates on the possibility to have people who can "stand in for" in the case a Board member (or an official?) [has resigned|is ill|can't be contacted|whatever]. Might be interesting. jd  19:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

How does someone nominate an individual?[edit]

I don't see anything that tells a person how to nominate someone, nor do I see anything that tells a person how to determine the number of edits an individual has made. Can you let me know if you can share this info? Thanks.

66.67.58.0 23:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

As I understand, you cannot nominate someone else. This is because, IMHO, the position is a very responsible one, and will require the elected candidate to spend a considerable amount of time in his position as member. A person should not be "volunteered" to such a position by others -- it should be up to him/her to offer himself for the post. Nahum 01:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions about the Boardvote approval voting software[edit]

moved to Election FAQ 2006/En#About the Boardvote approval voting software

On who can edit the notice[edit]

I believe there are many good ways to start an election notice, but

Only Essjay, Datrio or Aphaia may edit this (English) page on meta.

in big bold section-heading style is not one of them.

I think is not relevant and distracting, and should be a comment, so that only people who actually want to see/edit the source should access it. Comments? en:Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that (and the recent) but left it, since the editings themselves are no controversial. As for the latter part of your comment, I have no idea what you meant. As for editing, it won't be realized by technical methods. Any sysop can edit a protected page. As for "people want to see", I think we invite all editors to pay attention to this document. Translators should be given an access to the source, otherwise they have difficulties to start their works. --Aphaia 10:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to say the above text

Only Essjay, Datrio or Aphaia may edit this (English) page on meta.

should be embedded as a comment in the wikisource, using HTML comments, <!-- -->.

In other words, that text should be hidden, unless you edit the page. I am not suggesting preventing people from seeing the wikisource or anything like that. en:Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I think I understood what you meant. I have a different idea and don't understand why you prefer your idea. Our way has been used for the past two election and it has its own benefits. --Aphaia 11:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not to every possible language[edit]

What are the objectives of changing "Translation coordinators will translate the candidate statements to every possible language" to "Translation coordinators will translate the candidate statements into a number of languages"?.[1] Sure there are languages where no one will translate, but how is it decided if a languages should have translations of the election stuff or not? // Habj 01:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

In a sense, nothing. Since all translators are volunteers, we have no right to order/designate them which language version they should make. Only if an editor want to translate the notices into his or her language, then it will be translated. There is no guarantee in that sense. In another sense, into every language as available as possible. We are trying to motivate the global community through methods like sitenotice. The only sureable thing is there is not a language into which the notice should not be translated. --Aphaia 10:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation! // habj 11:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

August's 17th notice[edit]

The August's 17th notice contains a sentence that is difficult to understand even to native speakers (I have checked). "In that case, we recommend you to use the same confirmation you set for your meta mail for avoiding confusion, we'll try to reach you in our all efforts though.". Is it possibly meant to read "we recommend you to use the same email address you set for your meta mail"? // habj 11:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

That's how I translated it. Hope it's correct. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 03:57, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Oops, Habj, you grasped the point exactly. I'll correct it as you suggested. Thanks! --Aphaia 10:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Only 18+[edit]

Why? I find this deeply distrubing considering there are alot of wiki users out there under 18. Not offering them the chance to "vote" is just unfair and rude. MatthewFenton 23:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

They can vote. They cannot run for the Election.

See further Election. Thank you! --Aphaia 10:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Open question: on voters' elibiglity[edit]

Thank you for visiting this page/section.

I found we missed something on elibility on our announcements. Partly my fault (as one of three). I would like to make that missed parts as clear as possible. Ideally, crystal clear.

Besides the restriction already mentioned (editcount & history longer than 3 months), the Election Committees in history have another measure: actual participation/involvement - if someone is blocked/banned from a certain project indefinitely, his or her vote may be stroke, and since this user has been not eligible to vote, either he or she cannot run for the Election (note: every candidate should be elibigle to vote). At the last two elections, officers stroke votes from those banned/blocked users. Even unwritten in this year, I expect we do the same too.

But ... for editors temporally banned/blocked? How about the votes from the users who have been banned from a certain particular pages but not from the entire of a project? How about the votes whose voters won't be able to edit during all the term of Election even including candidate acceptance, but under no restriction on another project? For example, how should the Election Officers treat a vote from a blocked user on a certain project whose blocking has began last year and not finished before the end of this Election?

I want to know how each of you think about the votes from those editors. I want to know how each of you think how we the Election Officers should say to them. We may allow them to vote? To run for the Election? Or we should say "hello, unfortunately, you may not vote for now. I wish you are eligible to vote in the next Election!"

I think it appropriate to request for comments publicly at this moment. Why? Misfortunately, the other two have been unreachable by both wiki and email, and it is uncertain when one more additional officer is approved by the Board. As of yet, there is no resolution nor note to us from them. I asked other two Officials their comment several times, but no responce has come yet.

I don't think it appropriate that I make decisions unilaterally about serious issues like eligibility. Ideas and thoughts are strongly influenced by language and culture, ethnicity, age or whatsoever. One reasoning idea in a certain place might sound absurd in another place. As for vote for community representative, even I should make decision on my own and sole behalf at that time, not based on consensus of all three officers, I would like to know what kind(s) of ideas editors have about this issue.

For neutrarity and influence, I think, it would be nice nor Board members nor candidates input here their opinion about that. They could show their opinion elsewhere in more appropriate ways, I suppose.

The decision about this issue will be made until the beginning of the Election. On consensus of officials, I long for.

Your any input will be appropriate. --Aphaia 11:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. For English & French editors, please note: on most of Wikimedia project wiki, there is no arbcom, and if someone is indefnitely blocked, it is based on consensus of editors as like as other discussion on Village pump/Bistro. --Aphaia 11:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

My opinions:
  • for editors temporally banned/blocked? - most of these users should be able to vote, as the normally used highest blocktime is one week (I think). After unblocking, they should be allowed to vote. Users blocked for a longer time period shouldn't be allowed to vote, because they are either trolls or did something very very bad. Same should apply to candidates (yes, this is the case of at-the-moment blocked Ross.hedvicek)
  • How about the votes from the users who have been banned from a certain particular pages but not from the entire of a project? - this is usually done by Arbcom ruling. These users should be allowed to vote, as they're not "dangerous" (like trolls), but usually just misbehaved in some articles. (Ad PS: We have an Arbcom on cswiki... anyway, most of the voters are going to be from en, I think)
  • How about the votes whose voters won't be able to edit during all the term of Election even including candidate acceptance, but under no restriction on another project? - you mean the case in which they have 400 edits on two project, but are blocked on only one of them? Disallow voting, in my opinion. A long block on one project means they misbehaved a lot, and I see no reason why to consider them "clean" on the other project.
  • how should the Election Officers treat a vote from a blocked user on a certain project whose blocking has began last year and not finished before the end of this Election? - see the longtime block case in your first question. — Timichal • 11:26, 25. Aug 2006
I dislike codifying this in the above way. How will this be enforced with so few election officers to check the logs of all projects? How will this scale in the future? I think community's bureaucrats/Abcom should officially protest the eligibility of those who have been damaging to their particular communities. The officers can then verify this through the block log and strike a persons participation. This way the burden is on the communities to let the officers know of problems. If the burden is left solely to the election officers I fear any guidelines we come up with will not be able to be applied equally to people from all the numerous communities.--BirgitteSB 13:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
My suggestion: anyone currently blocked from editing by a community process (be that en.wp's arbcom, de.wp's mass-vote, whatever) is ineligible. Anyone under a "limited restriction" (no editing pages relating to X, leave so-and-so alone) is fine. Then run this on a complaints-basis - let them vote, and local communities can challege votes as they see fit. Shimgray 13:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
This seems workable. It should also be fairly easy to implement, since blocks are managed by software (the boardvote extension would just need to be able to detect them). I can see the challenges getting tedious for the election officials, though they won't be nearly as tedious as checking logs for every potential voter. - jredmond 15:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

From foundation-l[edit]

  • Copypast from foundation-l, on request of Aphaia. Comment by Effeietsanders, in reaction to jmerkey:

I think th idea of exampting people who don't have the right to work on a wiki anymore should also not be allowed to be part of the group that is represented by the representative is ok. It is not possible to make a good comparison with the American way of democratics, please let us not stick into that discussion, because there are much more other sides to the story, but let's stick to the core of the question.

What are the elections for? We choose a representative. That representative represents the communities. If someone is no part of the communities, should it be able to vote who should represent that community? It's a good question. But I don't think someone should be taken away his or her right to vote when (s)he is banned from a project. That would be as an additional punishment. I think it would be best to state that the edits on the project you are indeinitely banned from do not count. So if it was your only project, you can't vote. But when you were active enough on another project as well, and not banned indef there, it's ok to vote. That way it is not an additional punishment, but a clearer definition of the representation.

  • Copypast of comment by Shimgray:

Yes, that's a sensible interpretation. OTOH, if someone has been blocked from four projects and is only active on one, it might just mean project #5 hasn't caught them yet ;-)

  • Copypast of additional comment by Effeietsanders:

But he still is part of the fifth community. So he should still be able to vote who should represent the communities. At least, that is my point of view. :)

Procédures d'optimisation[edit]

L'expérience de l'effort de multilingualisation au cours des élections successives (2004, 2005, 2006) conduit à concevoir certaines procédures d'optimisation, afin de réduire les interventions manuelles et d'assurer que ce qui est présenté soit autant que possible à jour (? : signifie qu'il faut vérifier quel était le fonctionnement en vigueur) :

2004 2005 2006 projet
Pages de présentation de l'élection  ?  ?

[[Template:Election {{{page}}} 2006/Translation]]
Template:Election2006
déclinés par langue

Présentation des candidats  ?  ?

via Template:Election candidates 2006 et [[Template:Election candidates 2006/<candidat>/{{{langue}}}]] qui inclut automatiquemment dans les pages dans chaque langue l'ensemble des présentations des candidats qu'elles existent ou non (alors elles apparaissent en rouge)

Vue rapide des candidats  ?  ?

mis à jour manuellement
décliné en multilingue via les modèles Template:Election candidates 2006/quickview ML, Template:Election_candidates/quickview_ML/xx, Template:QvEditMl, Template:QvEditMl/xx,

automatisé à partir des modèles
liste des candidats
et
traductions à jour
via des tests conditionnels
Suivi de la traduction des proclamations des candidats  ?  ? apparition de l'ensemble des proclamations qu'elles existent ou non, qu'elles soient à jour ou non via les modèles Template:Election candidates 2006 et [[Template:Election candidates 2006/{{{candidat}}}/{{{lingvo}}}]] ) automatisé à partir des modèles
liste des candidats
et
traductions à jour
via des tests conditionnels
Suivi des traductions  ?  ? réduit à une matrice où les traductions apparaissent en rouge en bleu selon qu'elles existent ou non, sans discrimination sur le critère de pertinence (modèles existants mais non traduits ou incomplètement traduits) automatisé à partir des modèles
liste des candidats
et
traductions à jour
via des tests conditionnels

L'idée est de ne tenir à jour que des éléments centralisés :

  • liste des candidats
  • liste des langues
  • liste de traductions à jour
  • messages déclinés en multilingue

et à partir de cela générer automatiquemement via des tests conditionnels en mode multilingue

  • la vue rapide des candidats
  • la présentation développée des candidats dans les pages de chaque langue (sans liens en rouge pour les visiteurs)
  • un suivi des traductions avec indication des traductions existantes (en bleu si existante; en rouge sinon) et à jour (en gras) à destination des traducteurs.

La version originale des candidatures pourrait être indiquée par une couleur distinctive (proposition: orange) plutôt qur par une indication entre parenthèses avec une expression verbale (à décliner selon la langue) : il suffit de traduire la légende "la version originale apparaît en orange" - plus visuel, plus élégant.

Voici des éléments de réflexion : il suffit de peu de choses pour les mettre en pratique. C'est peut-être un peu tard pour les élections 2006 mais pas pour être mis en place pour d'éventuelles futures élections ou d'autres procédures multilingues ici dans meta.
Arno Lagrange  12:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit count too restrictive[edit]

I was disappointed to learn that my edit count (182) means that I am not eligible to vote. I have made a point of preparing my edits and posting them as a single edit to avoid cluttering the history of each page. Now I learn that this preparation means that I cannot vote. I would have been eligible if I had just broken up each edit into its components, and posted them separately. I have no objection to a high editcount for candidates, but I wish the threshold was lower for voters. Would it be possible to measure the number of words a user has posted which are still in use? What about photos? Could each photo be worth a thousand words? r3 18:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Draft of voting eligilibility clarification[edit]

Thanks to all those who contributed their ideas. After considering the opinions posted on meta, I propose the below as our policies for voter eligibility in the coming Election:

  1. Users indefinitely banned or blocked from any Wikimedia project may not vote in the Wikimedia Foundation Board elections. This means they may not vote using the blocked account or from any other account they may hold on a Wikimedia project.
  2. Users temporarily banned or blocked from any Wikimedia project may not vote from the blocked or banned account for the duration it is blocked. However, they may vote from any other project on which they are eligible to vote, or they may vote after being unblocked if the election is still open.
  3. Election officials may strike votes from users who do not meet the eligibility criteria described above. Officials may find disqualified voters by searching manually, by technical filtering (to be provided by developer(s) if possible), or by third-party reports.
  4. Any Wikimedia user is invited to report questionable votes to the Election Officials. To ensure the authenticity of the reports, we highly recommend that bureaucrats or admins of a local wiki make the reports, and we appreciate the assistance of local wiki admins in checking such questionable votes. Admins of local wikis are welcome to report on projects other than the ones on which they are administrators; however, local admins are expected to be the most reliable source of such information.

Your comments and feedback will be appreciated. The final version will be posted on meta and foundation-l before the Election starts.

Cheers,--Aphaia 07:10, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

feedback[edit]

Possibly. I'm concerned that anyone who would be blocked significantly would have a vote. OTOH, there is the possibility (seems unlikely, but...) that people could be indef-blocked during the voting period for political reasons. Sadly there seems to be no non-heuristic way of knowing that someone is a "worthy" editor with regards to this.
James F. (talk) 09:20, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Theoritically true. It could occur to block someone in purpose of revoking him or her. A new kind of ostracism. That is why my draft was changed from my early thought "the blocked one during the election period should not be allowed to vote".
There is another issue, I find, if it is retrospectively appliable or not concerning indefinitely banned. From the view of technical feasibility it would be easily managable if it is not retrospectively applied. Or not. I am one of laity among technocrats ;) However, if someone is allowed to edit on the all wikis at the certain period, he or she is also invited to vote, so my instinct says to me ... --Aphaia 10:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
These regulations seem both fair and well-formulated, to me. However, the line "they may vote after being unblocked" should be altered – the block time running out is not the same as being unblocked, which is a deliberate act by administrators in order to cancel a block. Jon Harald Søby 12:19, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, so for more clarification it would be better to say "they may vote after their blocking is expired or cancelled"? --Aphaia 21:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice draft, but I have only one tiny problem with it. What about users who have been blocked indef on the wiki in their native language, but are very cooporative and productive on the English Wikipedia? (for instance) It might very well be that this kind of things happens. Not every wiki is as carefull with blockingperiods. Some Wiki's block easily indefinitely, others take dozens of violations, and then it is still 3 years. I think it would be reasonable to leave away the first paragraph. That means that they are allowed to vote with the account on another project. So if I am blocked on the serbian Wikipedia because I did something stupid there a few years back indef, and I am still very productive working on the English Wikipedia, I could be allowed to vote, as my serbian account "just won't count". So you are allowed to pick the account you like, and vote with it, independent of the blocks on your other accounts.
Because as I mentioned before, I think we should consider why we are electing. We are trying to elect a boardmember representative for the communities. If someone is kicked out of one of those communities, he might very well still belong to the group that is represented.
On the other hand, also people whose blocking period expires after one month, might have been very naughty, they still belong to the group that is represented by the boardmember elected. So I am wondering whether this should be changed as well. I think we shouldn't think someone was a bad guy, so is not allowed to vote. We only have to consider who belongs to the group being represented. And that, imho, is everybody that fulfills the conditions to vote, and is able to edit somewhere in the period that this boardmember is elected for. (Is that for one (Angelas left time) or two years btw?) Yours, Effeietsanders 07:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment, Effe! First I would like you to remark that my comment below belongs to me and only me. There are other people on our committee, and I am expecting new members soon join us. We will soon issue the conclusion by our consensus, considering all input from the community on this issue. My comments on the below is my personal thought and hence other Election Officials, either actual or possible, aren't bound with it.
You brought up an interesting point. I am aware of sensibility of this problem. This will be on a case-by-case basis only, since as you pointed out, you might be blocked only due to misunderstanding, miscommunication, etc. However, generally we may say that it is unlikely that editors are blocked on their home wiki whose language they speak fluently. I think I can say so from my experiences on cross-wiki activities. So after considering your opinion, Effeietsanders, my personal opinion isn't generally altered: if someone is blocked from editing indefinitely on a certain Wikimedia wiki, he or she cannot be considered the legitimate participant of global community decision-making process, like this Election. Such folks have to reconcile with the wiki they are in feud before joining the global decision-making. In my opinion it is the same case when we consider and treat a multiple account of being banned people. So my opinion as individual hasn't changed so much.
On the other hand, your point makes a sense on the diversity on our project and their custom. The Election Officials should be therefore more than careful when hear the revocation from local wikis in each case. Thank you for your reminding us, indeed. --Aphaia 09:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I especially meant that if a project has much more easy rules on blocking, you could get blocked easily. And you cant only get blocked on language-editions of languages you speak fluently :) It's even more likely that someone gets blocked for making mistakes in some weird language with little patrol, and they block for the easy indef. For instance, if I got blocked on kr.wikipedia (don't check, it's not active yet :) ) because of my lack of understanding of the language, but I am a very good user on the rest of the languages... what then? And wasn't there some international user blocked from his homelanguage, polish wikipedia? ;-) Maybe not indef, but that's possible. (On small wiki's I too blocked for indef where on "normal wiki's" I would've blocked for a few days.) As you already approved the guidelines, I urgently advice that if this is the case, the committee allows itself to give in such cases anyway permission to vote, maybe with conditions for application on that. (Less then xxx edits on the blocked indef language and over yyy before zzz on your (new) homelanguage?) Effeietsanders 06:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

How many we are voting for ?[edit]

The text of Special:Boardvote/vote has not been updated : it's the same as in 2005 : it says you are voting for two representatives. Election officials didn't let know how many we are voting for. Arno Lagrange  05:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I read in Special:Boardvote/vote : "We are voting for two people to represent the community of users on the various Wikimedia projects. "
and in Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, 2006/En : "additional positions may be added by the Board before the start of the election. The exact number of available seats will be announced before the start of the election by the Election Officials (Note: for further information on this part, see August's 14th announcement)." ...
and in August's 14th announcement : "the Election Officers announce hereby the upcoming September election will fill the board position of Angela Beesley."
Vhat does that mean ? Are we voting for one or two positions ? Please let it know clearly. Thanks AL  08:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
We are voting for one position only; I think the problem is that the corresponding "two people" MediaWiki message wasn't updated this year. — Timichal

Fixed by Kate. Thanks for the report. — Timichal 08:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok MediaWiki:Boardvote intro has changed but not Special:Boardvote/vote. Is there a cache problem? I already noticed by sitenotice change which didn't work immediatly. AL  10:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
To clarify, *One* position is being elected and the candidate with the highest number of votes will be the one appointed to the Board. --Alison Wheeler 13:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Where do we vote? Please tell me on my talk page! Thanks! en:User:Hamedog

Will do. — Timichal 10:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your note, and fixing. Here and there. Timichal and Alison are right. Yes, you are going to vote for one position. If you got a different message, it is a bad message. If the message you got is different from the notice, please fix it. Thank you! --Aphaia 08:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Votecount[edit]

Are the votes public? Can we see anywhere how voting progresses? --Dijxtra 10:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope, they are not public. Only the Election Officials will have access to information on what people voted. You can, however, see who has voted using Special:Boardvote/list, but not what they have voted. Jon Harald Søby 14:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
See statistics Arno Lagrange  10:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

How many times can we vote??[edit]

There are more than one projects where I would have "suffrage". I don't really intend to vote again, but is there a rule against this anyway? This page says users can't combine edits across projects in order to gain suffrage. This suggests to me that if you get suffrage on multiple wikis, you can go for it.

--pfctdayelise 12:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

You may only vote *once* but can choose which project you 'vote from', depending on where you are qualified. If someone votes more than once there may be repercussions on them. --Alison Wheeler 13:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if my recollection is correct, but I think that last year, you could change your vote as many times as you'd like within the voting perioud. Jon Harald Søby 13:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, you may amend your vote during the voting period, but you may not vote twice. --Alison Wheeler 13:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification of Voting Rights[edit]

You may only vote once in this election as an individual, no matter how many projects you are active on. You may amend your vote before the close of the period, but may not vote a second time using your identity from a different project.

You are voting to select one person. You may select as many of the candidates as you wish to support and that action counts as "one vote".

The following idents have been identified already as possibly having made multiple votes. You should remove all surplus votes above the permitted one immediately.

  • Borgx - voted using @idwiki and @idwikisource
  • Cyper - voted using @dewiki and @dewikinews
  • Gunnernett - voted using @nnwiki and @nowiki
  • Raymond de - voted using @commonswiki and @enwiki
    • That's right, I have voted as "Raymond" @dewiki and as Raymond_de @ commonswiki/enwiki. Please strike my votings on commonswiki&enwiki. Sorry for inconvenience. --Raymond de
  • Siebrand - voted using @commonswiki and @nlwiki

--Alison Wheeler 13:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

No link to Special:Boardvote[edit]

This might be a bit obvious, but on this page there is no link to Special:Boardvote, the only way i can get there is by clicking the link above every page. I think that many people will read this page first and then, when not discovering how to vote, will discard this page. A link to Special:Boardvote in the first line of this page would definitely be more user friendly. Husky 22:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, very few people are eligible to vote on meta, so a link to meta Special:Boardvote would not be very useful. And as the Election notice is read by many people from many languages and from many projects, it is not a good idea to add a link to, say English Wikipedia, because it would be much "English Wikipedia-centric". My twopence. guillom 07:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
And my two yen. According to statistics, only about 50 editors are eligible to vote on meta, and apparently all of them are eligible to vote on other wikis. A link to meta:special:Boardvote is therefore unhelpful, I presume. So how about a link to local project? It is hard to avoid being oriented to a particular language, or to a certain project. I know some editors who are not eligible to vote on their language Wikipedia but on other projects like Wikinews. A link to a particular local project might mislead those editors as if they weren't invited to vote, I'm afraid. Hence I think we have a good reason to have no link to Boardvote on this document here on meta. On the other hand, if you have a copy of this document on your local wiki, it makes a sense to put a link to Boardvote on your local wiki in my openion. --Aphaia 08:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The trouble is that many people arrive here (Meta) from the notice posted at their local Wikipedia, and there is no link back to the place for them to vote. Let me give you an example:

  • I saw the election notice at the top of the pages on en-Wikipedia and started reading up about the election, reading candidate statements, reading the Signpost interviews, and so on. I also looked at the vote page on en-Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Special:Boardvote, linked from the notice on en-Wikipedia), but didn't vote at that time as I was not ready.
  • Some time later, I again clicked on the other link posted at the notice on en-Wikipedia, which brough me here to the Meta election page (Meta:Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, 2006/En). While reading through it, I noticed that there was no link in the main text on where to vote. I came to the talk page (here) to mention this, and discovered that others were already mentioning this.
  • After reading this discussion, I realised that there is a link in the sitewide notice, but because we are on Meta, the link is to Meta:Special:Boardvote. Conceivably, some people could click this, be told that they can't vote, and not bother at all.
  • To summarise: (1) Editor on local Wikipedia clicks on election link on sitewide notice, and is brought to the election page at Meta. (2i) They fail to find the voting link at the top and give up. (2ii) They click the voting link on the Meta sitewide notice and are told they don't have enough edits and give up. (3) Editor may eventually discover that they can return to their local Wikipedia and click the vote link there, and successfully vote, but this is not ideal and not obvious.
  • Suggested solutions: (1) Add a section to the Meta election page explaining where to vote and how to get there. (2) Turn the "vote" link on Meta (and possibly on all Wikipedias) to take people to a page where they are asked to chose which Wikipedia they want to vote under (some may be eligible under more than one). (3) Make clearer that even if people are eligible under more than one project, they can still only vote once.

This information is currently scattered throughout the Election FAQ. A "where and how to vote" section needs to be added to the main page and the FAQ (scanning the FAQ doesn't throw up a "Where to vote?" or "How to vote?" - questions people are bound to ask). The major problem of no link taking people to the correct "voting booth" needs to be addressed urgently. Carcharoth 12:28, 3 September 2006

I don't think it is nice for both us Election Officials and voters to have over 400 links to Boardvote at local projects on the notice page on meta. Note that each notice is not intended to be read only by the editors who are active on those language projects. Voters can use "back" botton of their browser I expect, and I suppose it was only feasible and generally available way to assure them to access the place they can vote.
As for your suggestion, (1) cannot be made because of the above (2) cannot either. It only causes more troubles in my prediction. Among over 400 projects how can you find where you can vote? (3) Read foundation-l. We already issued the notice. And I would like to add on meta boardvote all voters are suggested already there could be another project they are eligible to vote. --Aphaia 06:07, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your response. I know the election officials must be busy, and I appreciate a response being posted before the election closes! :-) But I think you misunderstood my suggestions. I agree that my second suggestion (2) is unworkable - a list of 400 options would be overwhelming. You seem to think that my first suggestion (1) is saying the same thing, but it is not. All I am asking for under option (1) is a small, verbal explanation of how to find where to vote. Something like:
  • "To vote, please return to your local project and vote there."
This is simple and clear. Even your suggestion of "click the back button on your browser", while not ideal, would be better than the current status where it is still not made clear where to go and vote after reading these pages. Please note that I am not the only person to have raised this issue. See Talk:Election_FAQ_2006/En#I am confused, how do we actually vote?:
  • Flcelloguy said: "Go to the local project where you are eligible to vote and have suffrage [...] and proceed to Special:Boardvote on that project (you may also click the link in the sitenotice on that local project)."
  • An IP address responded: "This is terribly subtle. I should rather expect a large blinking notice on every project, reading "This way to the voting booth!" The lack of such a notice may affect the fairness of the election."
I can only agree. Relying on people to click on the "voting" link without also saying somewhere clearly that this is how to vote (ie. full written instructions on which page to go to and how to get there) is tantamount to raising the bar of voting to those who can figure it out. In real-world elections, this would warrant an appeal against the result of the election.
Two other comments you made: (a) "Read foundation-l" - are you suggesting that everyone who wants to vote in the election needs to read foundation-l? Surely not? (b) "on meta boardvote all voters are suggested already there could be another project they are eligible to vote" - this is just wrong. There is no such notice. I suggested this, but it seems the suggestion was never implemented.
I know all the election officials are volunteers, but it is frustrating when a passer-by (me) takes the time and effort to point out a few minor ways to improve things, and is met with rebuffs and delayed responses. Sometimes people seem to take delight in finding ways to argue the point, rather than go "ooh, thanks for that helpful comment". I realise it is too late this time round., but I hope all this is archived and notes are made to improve things next time. At the very least, there should be a standard instruction sheet to be passed between officials at different elections, including tips for improvements. Carcharoth 12:26, 20 September 2006
I agree with Carcharoth. I know I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, but I'm not completely hopeless. After spending 20 minutes reading candidates statements, I spent another 10 minutes browsing for a "vote here" link. In the end I had to read this discussion to find the answer. I'd be surprised if a majority of potential voters didn't give up without casting their vote. The top line of every page in en: has a line that says: Voting in the Board election will end in less than one day. Why not just add one more phrase: "click here to vote"? Or just like the one at the top of this page in meta:. It's all a bit too subtle and needs improving next time around. -- I@n 02:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Generally, improvement ideas are always welcome, but I am afraid currently we are thinking of quite different things in this discussion.
@I@n: it would be an improvement. Please go to English projects, or just IRC and ask their sysops. Personally I am for your idea.
@Carcharoth. I think (and thought then too), if someone registered tries to vote on meta but failed, then he or she gets this message. Here you would find our suggestion to try on another project. If it isn't the message you got, please let me know the message you'd gotten? Cheers, --Aphaia 05:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem is that people who are "not logged in" get a different message from those who have an account (ie. logged in to meta) but not enough edits. The two different messages are:
  • Special:Boardvote/vote = "You are not logged in. To vote here on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki, you must use an account with at least 400 contributions before 00:00, 1 August 2006, and with a first edit before 00:00, 3 May 2006." (you can test this by logging out).
  • MediaWiki:Boardvote_notqualified = "Sorry, you are not qualified to vote in this election here on Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. You need to have made $3 edits here before $2, you have made $1. Also, your first edit on this wiki was at $4, it needs to be before $5. You could vote from another Wikimedia project. Then please visit the project you are active and try again. Thank you! <a href="http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Complete_list_of_Wikimedia_projects" class="external">View "complete list of Wikimedia projects"</a>" this is exactly the sort of thing I was looking for (you can test this by creating an account).
My point is that many people will be arriving here by a link from their local project (where they are logged in). It is not immediately obvious that they have been directed away from their local project - it is this that will cause most of the confusion. Imagine a typical voter saying: "What? How did I get logged out? What's going on?". Again, the main thing I was asking for, and nothing you have said has addressed this, is a prominent line somewhere in the FAQ saying "to vote, go to your local project and vote there". The third question in the FAQ says: "Will voting take place on Meta, or will there be opportunities to vote on each of the Wikimedia projects?" - this wording presumes that people know what Meta is!! First, there should have been an explanation of what Meta is. And the clearest FAQ, one that many, many people will ask, is "Where do I vote?". That should be one of the first FAQs. When I'm scanning the FAQ for a "where to vote?" question, my eyes slip right past the long-winded: "Will voting take place on Meta, or will there be opportunities to vote on each of the Wikimedia projects?". Anyway, I'm off to read the candidate statements and vote! :-) Carcharoth 13:00, 21 September 2006

Hustings[edit]

Is there any facility where we can ask one question to all the candidates and view all their answers in the same place? AndrewRT

Sorry, nowhere. All decent candidates are expected to subscribe foundation-l, and you may ask them your questions there. You have to subscribe to post to it, for your information. --Aphaia 06:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Question about next year[edit]

I fell some 10-20% short of the minimum edits prior to August required to vote. As such, I'd like to note that I am interested in the election, and would like to be able participate next year. Will the requirements go up in '07, or are they fairly constant? 198.67.1.3 22:28, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the rules will change drastically next time (not next year). Besides, until then, you'll make plenty more edits :) --Filip (§) 22:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
It depedns on decision of the next year Election Officials, so no one cannot answer your question for now. Thank you for your interest, and I expect you make plenty of edits, agreed with Filip ;) --Aphaia 06:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

What are Wikimedia Projects?[edit]

"To be eligible to vote, users must have been a contributor to at least one Wikimedia project..." What is a Wikimedia Project? Banaticus 05:57, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

See our FAQ. Thank you! --Aphaia 06:01, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you. In English, that FAQ actually points to the 2005 FAQ which points to the 2004 FAQ. Although I noticed that the rules for voting have been changed from that FAQ, it still didn't tell me what a Wikimedia Project is. What is a Wikimedia Project? Banaticus 18:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I am afraid I don't understand your trouble. Your question is answered on Election FAQ 2006/En, General section, and this page is accessible from Election FAQ page. --Aphaia 05:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Error in date in Sitenotice[edit]

In the sitenotice the end date is Thursday, 20 September. However that must be Thursday, 21 September. JePe 17:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

That is! Please fix it wherever you found it. Thank you! --Aphaia 05:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Questionable votes[edit]

As the notice on September 1 said, registered users who are indefinitely blocked and / or banned from a given Wikimedia project, such users are not elibigle to vote in this election, 2006.

All Wikimedia users, especially local sysops and bureaucrats, are invited to inform election officials of such questionable vote(s). Please examine the list of votes and list questionable ones from the users who are blocked indefinitely on your project.

Also, questionable votes from the same IP addresses are welcomed informations. However please note that on some big ISPs either in a big country or small, people tend to be assigned same IP address, sharing the same IP address is therefore not necessarily the adequate proof those multiple accounts are taken by one same person.

Election Officials, 2006

Election statistics?[edit]

Will there be any statistics on the elections? I've made a start at:

I realise this is incomplete, and will need adjusting after the election is finished and after the Election Officials have finished removing duplicate/invalid votes. But what do people think? I find it interesting that most people voted on the first day (over 600), and that the votes tailed off to form plateau of around 60/day by day 8, and that the last two days are seeing a resurgence of interest. Also, this shows clearly the dominance of voting from enwiki. Also, the grand total (as of 14:07 on 21/09/2006) was 2555. How does this compare to the numbers voting in previous elections? Carcharoth 15:16, 21 September 2006

When will the election results be announced?[edit]

There is nothing here saying when the election results will be announced. This is one of the first questions people will start asking after the election closes. It might be an idea for the Election Officials to discuss this and make an official announcement. Thanks. Carcharoth 15:26, 21 September 2006

Results!!!!! 66.98.168.78 00:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Mr. IP, sir...Where are these results? - Also an IP
Well, we should remember that the Election Officials are volunteers, and are probably busy certifying the results. Still, disappointing that no-one checked this page and responded. Oh, and thanks to you two IP addresses for confirming my prediction of w:hordes of people requesting the results... :-) Carcharoth 00:37, 22 September 2006

Failing any response, I've taken the initiative and looked at the online version of the foundation-l mailing list, and discovered the following: the election results don't have to be reported before 1st October, but it is likely they will be reported before Monday (25th September). See the posts here (by Jon Harald Søby, one of the Election Officials) and here (giving the 1st October date in some resolution somewhere). It would be good if this sort of information was clearly and timely posted on-wiki, rather then leaving people who don't subscribe to the mailing lists with no information. Thanks. Carcharoth 18:34, 22 September 2006

Thanks for finding that out! 72.66.97.252 21:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Being gnomic as I am, I looked up the resolution mentioned above. It is Resolution:election_officials, made in July. Enjoy. JesseW 08:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please rest assured that the results will be released as soon as possible; the elections officials are in the process of ensuring that no illegitimate votes were counted and informing the appropriate people at this time. They are nearing completion of those tasks, and results will be coming soon. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

And what you've been waiting for... results!. The meta page should be updated shortly. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

special:boardvote[edit]

It sais: ' Voting is now closed, see the elections page for results soon.' and then points to the page with this talk attached to it. Maybe the link should be altered or the information should be published here? Effeietsanders