Talk:Stewards/Elections 2015

I don't think it's necessary to create this page already now... --MF-W 14:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Special:Securepoll

Can we use this Special page whenever SE2015 will start... --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 07:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

This is a perennial discussion that comes up every year. The problem with using SecurePoll is that there would be at least a 10% drop in supports across the board for all candidates, as evidenced by the first time this was used for electing en.wikipedia's CU and OS holder. With only one CU and no oversighters being elected, this was the last time that this was used for CU and OS elections on enwiki. With an absolute 80% minimum support required, we would either have to amend the policy, or not get enough stewards to perform the duties of a steward. Secondly, voters cannot see the comments left by other voters, which may influence their own decision. --Rschen7754 08:36, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I delivered the prove of my identity in time

It was declared that I am disqualified because I did not deliver my identity. This is not acceptable. I formally protest here against this disqualification because I did send the documents for the prove of my identity in time on 28th January 2015 by e-mail to the Wikimedia foundation! Also I am working always under my real identity which is publically well known. DidiWeidmann (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You sent it to infowikimedia.org not secure-infowikimedia.org. PiRSquared17 (talk) 16:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Even if this with the wrong e-mail address hapened: Wikimedia received my information in time as the address infowikimedia.org is the main e-mail address of the foundation. It is not fair not to answer in this case and redirect the message internally to the right person. In my special case also my identity is well known publically. Also it would be just fair to ask a candidate for which the prove of identity is missing to send it. An organization like Wikipedia should in such a case not hide behind a too bureaucratic and formalistic behaviour. For this reason I appeal to the fairness of the board to accept my candidature! DidiWeidmann (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

infowikimedia.org is a volunteer OTRS queue, not the main email address of WMF. --Glaisher (talk) 16:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I have just seen that my identification now has been entered to the list and that the election board did now revert the disqualification and I thank you very much. Just a suggestion for the next time's election: As for different reasons it may happen that documents duly sent do not arrive or are not registered in time in the list, it would make sense that a day after closing the candidature list every candidate whose identity prove is still missing on the list, will automatically get a short e-mail reminder with a functioning link to the right response address to send his/her identity prove. DidiWeidmann (talk) 07:46, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"Very important" elections

I've no idea what this is about, but try using stewardswikimedia.org (to reach all stewards) or file a request for comment next time. Trijnstel_talk 18:56, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

All very puzzling

There are NO instructions for voters! How many votes do I have? How do I vote? Do I have to do that strange template thing? No wonder not many people vote. I tried to but was put off. I might look in again and see if there are clear instructions prominently placed on the page. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You're right, the guide doesn't spell it out very well. You can vote once on any and all of the candidates, assuming you are eligible. You are free to change your vote after ofc, but if you do you should cross out the previous one. To vote, go to an individual candidate's voting page and press the "vote!" button above the support section. It will give you a pop-up in which you can indicate your support/opposition/neutrality to the candidate and provide a reason. Does that make sense? If so, I'll add it to the guide as well. Ajraddatz (talk) 03:42, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Please add this information, Ajraddatz, perhaps under a section titled "How to vote". I agree that this page seems to have been badly organized. Was it organized by the candidates themselves?Monopoly31121993 (talk) 08:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, please add. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Apologies for the delay with adding it, I've been rather busy. I will make sure that this information is included in the guidelines page for future years before the election starts. Ajraddatz (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

This is rather ridiculous. Everyone else found out how to vote by themselves. --MF-W 23:24, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I see no harm whatsoever in clearly laying it out for people. I've participated in many elections on wikis, and most have different rules - some only allow a certain number of votes, some have a limit of candidates being elected. All these can change how a person votes. I don't understand the problem with extending the common courtesy of explaining the vote, and I really don't understand your critique of that action. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

How do I decide who to vote for?

I would like to vote but know nothing about any of these candidates so have nothing to base a decision on. Is there a place I can read about each candidate and their platform before voting? I've looked over this page and others for the past 15 minutes but I haven't found this. I did see a questions page which had a list of questions for all candidates and also individual candidates but not all candidates provided answers there and it was extremely difficult to keep track of which candidate said what by reading through the questions for everyone section. Thanks for the helpMonopoly31121993 (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Monopoly31121993, the statement page and question page are there to give a general feel of who the candidate is and for interaction with the candidates. Also the voting pages give the voter a chance to express their support or concern in words for other voters to read. For the rest it is expected that a voter makes up their own mind by reviewing the edits of the candidates. This can be done by going to Special:CentralAuth and entering the candidates name. The list you get are the candidates edits on the different Wikimedia projects. If you click any of the numbers you can see the contributions themselves. I hope this helps. All the best, Taketa (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Verification pending

To whom it may concern, I voted two days ago for Linedwell@frwiki (talk) but my verification is still "pending". Please compare 210. Maurice Carbonaro (Verification pending) • seems ok to me — Maurice Carbonaro. I understand that the votes are handled by Alch Bot operated by Alchimista (Discussão). Besides it seems like I am the ONLY one with such a message. Could someone please be so kind to explain me what's happening? Are these elections reserved only for sysops? Thanks.   M aurice   Carbonaro  11:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

It's because you didn't vote through the "vote!" button seen on every candidate's page. Thus your name was not listed at Template:Stewards/Elections 2015/Voters/Check. @Jianhui67: (or someone else) could you check? --Stryn (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Stryn (talk), I have checked and you were right: I didn't vote using the "vote!" button on the upper center of every candidate's page. And yes, my name it's not listed at Template:Stewards/Elections 2015/Voters/Check. However, now I did click the button and is still not working... I will try to delete the code that I have manually added hoping that I am not going to mess up something else. Besides it seems like there must be something wrong also with my signature timestamp. Thanks for showing me the existence of the {{Ping}} template in your MediaWiki reply and generally for your help! Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'm glad if I helped. It seems that the checking page is updated every 2 hours (or so) by a bot (history), and your name will be added to the list when is the next updating time. --Stryn (talk) 11:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)