Talk:Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Candidates

The following Wikimedia Foundation staff monitor this page:

In order to notify them, please link their username when posting a message.
This note was updated on 11/2022

Empty candidate statements


There are now four candidates with more or less empty candidate descriptions. Should they be deleted?Yger (talk) 06:39, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Yger: [Major disclosure, do not consider in any consensus: candidate] - one of these got filled in a couple of days ago. Even if the non-INVOLVED individuals think they should be removed at some stage I think they should be pinged and given, say, a week first? Nosebagbear (talk) 09:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yesterday @KVaidla (WMF): mentioned in a Telegram channel that the candidates with no statements etc were being contacted directly to remind them to fill in the statements. So probably worth leaving them - some may be planning to return to their statements before the deadline,which is still some weeks away. (Same disclosure as Nosebagbear ;) ) Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
I think not. It's time to sign up. The rules do not specify deletion during a draft time. Our rule is that they can sign up. If time runs out, so the the candidacy will be rejected. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 10:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
I am glad to hear they are being contacted. But when nominating closes I do hope we will see none with empty descriptions, it gives a very unserious impression of the whole process.Yger (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you so much for raising the topic @Yger: and @The Land: for sharing the discussion from Telegram chat. I am confirming the scenario that has already been stated here on the talk page by other users - 1) the nomination period has opened and people can add their candidacy, 2) we do not expect that everyone will fill their template right away, as there needs to be some thought put to the statement, 3) as a result, we are not deleting incomplete nominations immediately, yet are in contact with the nominees to ensure that they eventually do fill their templates, 4) if by the end of the nomination period the nominations are not completed, we will remove the incomplete applications as to reduce noise and ensure that there is sufficient information available regarding the candidates for the selection process. I hope this description of our process is helpful and I am happy to answer any questions or specifications. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for answer that is just what I hoped for. Good luck to you all candidates.Yger (talk) 06:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)Reply



To confirm, candidates are supposed to verify who they are (and their age) at this point via an email of a relevant document correct? I just did so, but the mechanism seems (just sending an email with the picture of a document) seems remarkably less sophisticated than I'd expect. Hobit (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • And while I'm at it, should I expect to get some kind of verification that my email was received and met the needs of this candidacy? I don't believe I have anything yet. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
    I've not received anything either Hobit - I don't know if they're only planning on verifying post-election, but a confirmation of "received, looks like it meets requirements" would be helpful :) Nosebagbear (talk) 16:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm sitting here wondering if I need to send this stuff in again, because I've done it so many times it's not funny. I'd like to get a definitive response to that. Unless I know exactly who is looking at it, and what they intend to do with it (are they retaining it? for how long? under what security measures?), I'm kind of hesitant to submit. I mean...for someone they don't know, it's child's play to "borrow" someone else's information. That's why that requirement was dropped from the NDA process. For someone they *do* know, they already know full well that the qualifications are being met. (I suspect the entire WMF team knows full well that I haven't been under 18 since before most of them were born.) Risker (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I hadn't seen anything about verification - am I being thick? Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Here. No explanation of why - there is no fiduciary duty here, and no privacy concern, either of which could trigger such a request. I genuinely don't understand why this is a prerequisite, and I know that the WMF itself stopped requesting such information years ago because it was (a) meaningless being so easy to fake and (b) inherently insecure. Sending these kinds of personal documents in plaintext via email to an unknown person is incredibly risky. Risker (talk) 16:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, if they'd attached a reason like "we want to be able to share X, Y, Z with members" or whatever, but nothing along those lines.
If it's just "we think it might cut down on a rogue member"...if someone has been with the Community long and productively enough to get selected then their "rogue" is unlikely to be too bad. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:42, 8 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Initial response

Thank you for bringing this up and also for pinging me!

Unfortunately, I don't have the full insight into this verification process. What we are doing with the Movement Strategy team is verifying that the nominations are made by logged in users proposing their own candidacy and verifying eligibility of candidates with Trust & Safety team. Identity check is a parallel process. I will clarify the reasoning for the verification and steps of the process, so I can get back to you with more clarity.

In the meantime, I would not recommend sending over the documentation and would suggest waiting the clarity to be created. There is still plenty of time until the elections and we should be able to manage the process of verification during that time if this is a necessary criteria at this point of setting up the Drafting Committee. Thank you for your kind patience! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Follow-up response

I am sorry for the delay in getting back regarding this matter. Preparations for elections took over and this item was buried in the task list. I was prompted to this question during the office hours today and am following up on this thread.

The identification is not needed from all the candidates, but it is needed from the people who are going to serve in the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. The reason for this is two-fold:

  • There might be occasions when the Drafting Committee members might need to sign a non-disclosure agreement when materials are made available to them in order to ensure informed curation of the Charter and decision-making in the group. For example, this might include the legal expertise support that is foreseen for the group and also movement organizations potentially disclosing their internal documents for the use of the committee.
  • The second aspect is related to the right of Drafting Committee members to a cost offset. It is a standard procedure for funds allocation to verify the identity of the recipient of the funds.

I hope this is helpful! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

request for the candidates


Dear candidates, I am missing a lot of information that I need to decide who to vote for. Could you please update your statement to say what your priorities are and what you would do if you are elected? Like a en:Party platform, outline the principles that guide your decision-making, your most important goals, and what strategy or strategies you intend to use to accomplish those goals. Thank you, Vexations (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

It is necessary to have a photo, or just publish it when they choose me?


It is necessary to have a photo, or just publish it when they choose me? ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 08:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Image is an optional part of the template - it is completely fine to create a nomination without it. Other parts of the template are necessary. Thank you for clarifying this point! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:04, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@KVaidla (WMF): in this vein, could I ask why the "name" part is not optional - it being Wikipedia, leading with username, with an optional RL name, would seem to have been the more logical route to take. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:48, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Dear Nosebagbear, thank you for making this point. When initially setting up the nomination process, it felt highly relevant to have the connection of people both to real life and project names, as the Movement Charter will be related to both organizational and project community side of the movement. I think it is fair to say that perhaps having also the "name" as optional or having it presented as "preferred name" could have been a better fitting approach. We are not making any changes now, yet we will also not remove the participants who have not presented their real name in the application. We will need to think what is the appropriate approach for future elections or selections in the movement, which scope goes beyond the online projects (e.g. Global Council). --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 19:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Can we edit text after 2020-09-14 AoT? Or when?


Can we edit text after 2020-09-14 AoT, or text is as ice now? ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 15:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I would suggesting just editing now. In Wikimedia elections, statements are usually only 'final' when people start to translate them. Before long, that will start to happen - so edit now before that starts. (Not the official answer!) Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 16:28, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Dušan Kreheľ: I suppose you mean 2021 :)
Please go ahead and edit. The practical limitation for editing is translation, which will happen soon but has no fixed start date. I'll try to post a warning here before translations start to let you the know the page will get locked. You'll also know, more or less, when the page gets marked for translation --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 16:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC).Reply



I find the map problematic. If I see Canada, already larger than Africa (because of the projection) displayed in bright red, that suggests that there is something alarming about it. But when I note that the sequence of the is 1:yellow, 2:red, 4:blue, 5:purple and 6:black, that is not a gradient that corresponds to a natural sequence. Using "rainbow colours" is discouraged, but out-of-sequence rainbow colours are an abomination. Please delete this. Vexations (talk) 19:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

The colours was been changed . If You don't like the colours, so I can send You the source code, if You want. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's not just that. The maps presents India in the top the the ranking. If you consider that India has 11 candidates and some 1,352,642,280 inhabitants, and Belgium has 1 candidate for 11,492,641 inhabitants, you'd see that Belgium has 10 times a much "representation" as India. 0.87 candidates per 10 million for Belgium, but only 0.08 for India. So, India is "underrepresented" by an order of magnitude. Of course you could question if we should use inhabitants or number of editors or some other parameter. Vexations (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
It's pretty clear that the parameter the map creator has used is number of candidates for this committee, not national population nor number of editors from the countries from which the candidates come. This is a self-nomination process. No self-selected candidate came forward from more than half of the countries in the world. There are a lot of excellent candidates here, and we are lucky enough to have candidates from all continents (save Antarctica), and from many major regions within each continent. The colours on the map aren't really all that important. Risker (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
If it's just to show that we have candidates from many different places, then there should not be a gradient at all. Vexations (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

How documents have study the candidate to and know?


How documents have study the candidate to and know? Or how themes? That would be good for the candidate. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 06:49, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Dušan Kreheľ: I'm afraid I didn't understand the question. Could you explain more what do you mean? Is it perhaps about how voters can get to know the candidate and choose who to vote for? --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2021 (UTC).Reply
@Abbad (WMF): What should a person who will be a good member of the Momevent Charter know? What pages should he look at and know the content for. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 15:06, 16 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Dušan Kreheľ: The Movement Charter is still a document in the planning, so I would say that the best preparation is to be well-aware of the planning that already took place. I believe you can find the most comprehensive list of links for this in the page: Movement Charter/Content, which contains most of what we "know" so far about the future document. I hope that was helpful and I'm happy to provide more --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 12:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC).Reply



مرحبًا هل يمكن التأخر عن التسجيل لمدة ساعتين أو أكثر بحجة التوقيت والسفر، رغم أن باب الترشح مفتوح لأكثر من شهر ونصف، كذلك ألا يُؤثر ذلك على مصداقية العملية تحياتي --Nehaoua (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Dear Nehaoua, thank you for bringing this up!
We have looked into the nomination that was presented 1 hour and 59 minutes after the communicated deadline. Taking all the following aspects into account it seems sensible to accept the nomination:
  • It is a serious application with well thought through content.
  • There does not seem to be bad faith in submitting the application with the delay.
  • The candidate does not gain anything from submitting late.
  • The delay did not impede any processes moving forward (e.g. translation and election preparation).
  • In addition, the mindset for setting up the Movement Charter Drafting Committee needs to be rather collaborative than competitive.
We are happy to discuss, if there is a significant perception of unfairness related to accepting this nomination, even after consideration. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
KVaidla (WMF): مرحبًا، ليس لي أي إعتراض على الإطلاق، لكن الأمر بدى لي غريبًا، لأن مثل هذه الأعذار يمكنها أن تؤثر في سيرورة العمل مستقبلُا، فبالنسبة لي، يجب أن نكون نوعًا ما صارمين فيما يخص المواعيد، تحياتي
Hello, I have no objection at all, but it seemed strange to me, because such excuses can affect the process of work in the future, as for me, we must be kind of strict about appointments, cordially Nehaoua (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Nehaoua, thank you for further explanation. You have a fair point there. We will need to ensure that everyone who will be elected would understand the responsibility and the need to meet the appointments.
As for this particular candidacy, voters and selectors can make their own conclusion and choose accordingly. Thank you again! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 19:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
I will note here that in a different forum, I shared the same concern as Nehaoua. I do believe the constant changes and variations in applications of the rules of this election process have raised some serious questions about the validity of the process. Expanding the self-nomination period has resulted in an unmanageable number of candidates. Changes to permit late candidacies well past the closing make one wonder what other rules will change capriciously. The attempt to address the huge number of candidacies has resulted in a weird format of question-answering that was not even on the radar when people put forward their self-nominations. These changes are unhelpful to the candidates and the community, not to mention the MCDC itself. I seriously considered withdrawing my candidacy, but after today's email asking candidates who have any kind of sanction to withdraw, I don't want to have anyone thinking I've done so because of that. Risker (talk) 20:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for this open feedback, Risker, and for voicing the concerns! While every change has had its rationale, I understand how it might influence overall perception which can indeed be unhelpful for the whole process.
If you have insights on how it would have been better to manage the fallout of the postponement of Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees elections in relation to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee set up and also how supporting voters in navigating the statements of high number of candidates could be done better, please share them, as they can be informative for future action. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 20:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
KVaidla (WMF), having been in the role of having to address unexpected changes as someone managing an election, I do have sympathy. I think changing the voting date was unavoidable, given the board election issue. None of the other changes was necessary, though; closing candidacies as scheduled could easily have been done. No matter what, there was going to be a large candidate pool for this election, large enough that the community would have benefited from having an extended period to review the candidates. One thing that nobody seems to be mentioning here is that the candidates are actually being reviewed in three forums at once: the community, the affiliates selectors (whose identity is not known), and the WMF selectors (whose identity is not known). The additional two weeks for candidates to present themselves (instead of seeing the number of candidates go through the roof) would have been most valuable. As a rule of thumb, in the work I have done on various elections (either as a coordinator or an advisor), I have always believed that only absolutely necessary changes should be made, and that anything that doesn't need to change should remain constant. In other words, the election date had to change, but nothing else did. Risker (talk) 20:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Risker, I know that you have experience and that's why I asked. Thank you for taking the time for further elaboration - it is very helpful. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 20:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Notification for candidates about locking the page


This page will be marked for translation in a few hours, thus making it effectively locked for editing (unless it's very minor and doesn't affect translations). If you'd like to make any edits, please do that as soon as possible --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 13:14, 20 September 2021 (UTC).Reply

@Abbad (WMF): Why names are not displayed alphabetically but randomly? ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Dušan Kreheľ: It is generally the case (but especially more so with the extraordinary 73 candidates) that people tend to start reading at the top. Regardless of the fact that many of them will likely give up at some point before the end, thus providing little chances to those at the bottom, there's also what's called the primacy and recency effects, which mean, more or less, that voters can have an unconscious bias for the candidates they've seen first or last. To fairly distribute the effect of such biases, therefore, it seems best to randomize the order --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC).Reply

special characters in tvar name names


@User:Dušan Kreheľ "tvar name" is used by the translation extension, which does not allow special characters such as plus ("+") or space (" ") in the name. You have reinserted them, which won't work for the translation extension. Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 08:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

@User:Ad Huikeshoven: I wanted to return the version without grants. I did not correct the other incorrect changes. I was aware that if there were any, others would fix them. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 10:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Abbad has already corrected in partially. To see what you did, look at: Ad Huikeshoven (talk) 18:41, 22 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, my change (as primary without grands) was bad. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 12:34, 26 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hidden statements?


@Abbad (WMF): Why are the candidate statements hidden/collapsed? Aren't they basically the most important part of the page? (Disclaimer: I am a candidate, and I'm further biased by the fact that my presentation looks kind of silly with the statement cut off.) --Yair rand (talk) 06:41, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think it's this change to the Movement_Charter_candidate template. Vexations (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
[Disclaimer: also a candidate] - would support de-collapsing the statements. If you want to shrink space, the statement is not a good place to save it, imo Nosebagbear (talk) 12:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
Also a candidate and agree. Just weird. Hobit (talk) 00:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Yair rand, Vexations, Nosebagbear, and Hobit: Thank you for this feedback. As the edit summary indicates, this was a "test" that I thought of as a possible way to reduce the noise on this page and make it a little easier to navigate through. In fact, I was asking around about the results, and I hear you loud and clear: It's obviously not the way for us to go, so we won't (I've just marked user:Vexations' last edit for translation, which means that the "collapse" function will disappear once the cash is refreshed). Alternatively, if you think of any other ways to make the page easier to load or navigate, please share them before the elections start! --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 15:00, 26 September 2021 (UTC).Reply

The progress and planes that page to the translate.


Online is the "The translate of Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Candidates". This will update one time per day. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 11:22, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Small change in the selection of Wikimedia Foundation staff


Hi everyone,

According to the Movement Charter Drafting Committee creation process we proposed (see also initial proposal, the Wikimedia Foundation presents two staff members as candidates and also appoints two members of the committee. The idea was that these staff members would join the election & selection process with the rest of the candidates even if in a way or another their access to the committee was guaranteed. In the context we had on July, this idea made sense.

However, we have received feedback from volunteers saying that, in practice, this puts our staff members in direct competition with volunteers in the election. With more than 70 candidates running (a scenario nobody could imagine a few months ago), we understand this concern. For this reason, we propose that the two Foundation candidates, Runa Bhattacharjee and Jorge Vargas will not be part of the election and selection, and they will be directly appointed by the Foundation making use of our two slots.

If we receive no complaints about this proposal, we will proceed accordingly as we open the election on October 11. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • The rules, as written, do not in any way say that the WMF selectors would choose the two WMF staff members. Specifically, there is nothing in any version of the set up process that guaranteed the WMF staff two seats at the table - an extremely disproportionate level of representation. Stop changing the rules, please. You've now worsened the odds considerably for volunteers. This is NOT a small change. You made an assumption that the WMF selectors would choose WMF staff. Maybe that's what the internal WMF discussion was, but that certainly isn't what the rules say. Risker (talk) 14:47, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
WMF could choose anyone from the pool of candidates but not particularly their staff who joined the self-nomination. I agree with Risker that this is not what the selection process intends. --Filipinayzd (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • I'm going to explain this issue further. When there are 72 candidates competing for 15 seats, each candidate has a baseline 20.8% chance of being selected. With 70 candidates competing for 13 seats, the baseline goes down to 18.6%. This is a better than 10% decrease in the baseline.

    There is a group of candidates (myself included) who have a fair amount of history within the movement. This group will be elected (or not elected) based on a combination of name recognition and positions. But with each change that has been made, it has become harder for less well known candidates, many of which are from the global south, to be able to carve out their niche, to show themselves in a positive way that will encourage voters to select them. Historically, the WMF has used seats that they "select" to fill in gaps in representation. They've been used in the past to improve gender representation and regional representation. Now this proposal takes away even this option as a way of improving representation from global south communities. Nobody needs to cry for me here; there's little that the election managers can do to increase or decrease my chances of winning a seat. But all of these changes, particularly the change in closing nominations that resulted in too many candidates for the community to fairly assess, and now this change, reduces the opportunity for lesser-known candidates (especially those from the global south) with valuable or useful skills or personal experience to be selected. I just feel like they're being increasingly marginalized. Risker (talk) 17:09, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Risker - I don't really follow. The number of seats to be filled by election has not in fact changed; 7 from the community and 6 by affiliates, so the baseline you mention has not changed. Surely by appointing Jorge (from Columbia) and Runa (from India) the WMF contributes to the regional diversity of the committee? And by removing them from the election, there is probably more chance that other candidates from South America and South Asia get elected, as people who want to distribute their votes between candidates from different regions will not give votes to them. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Dear Risker and Filipinayzd, thank you for your feedback regarding this matter and for surfacing some of the concerns, especially related to the groups that are already underrepresented in the movement. I agree with the need to break the existing patterns in the participation levels in global conversations, which has been inclined towards amplified engagement levels from European and North American entities and individuals. This is probably not a helpful dynamic for the Movement Charter, as we are writing it for the future opportunities of Wikimedia, rather than for the past struggles. We have made efforts to increase awareness and participation in communities that have not been well represented in the global discussions before, which, for example shows, in the higher number of candidates from Sub-Saharan Africa. We hope that we can build on this momentum as conversations evolve, yet I agree that having an actual member in the committee from these regions will go a long way not only building the engagement of these communities in the discussions, but would also ensure that their input is better accounted for, as there will be someone with rich context in the curating committee.
Now the question is how such representation could be well achieved. As you rightfully state, as there have been disconnection with the underrepresented communities, there is not historic track record in the movement for many of these candidates, which makes it much more difficult for them to be elected with the public voting mechanism. I agree with the diagnosis that the sheer number of candidates makes it nearly impossible for the voters to do a thorough assessment of each nomination and so there is high probability that the familiar names from previous discussions on the movement level will have a higher chance being elected. This leaves us with the affiliate selection process and Wikimedia Foundation appointment as measures to ensure the necessary diversity of perspectives and contexts to be represented in the committee.
We have gone with a regional approach for setting up the selector group with a hope that people from the regions know who are the key people from their context to be able to thrive in the setting of the Drafting Committee. We are on track to have representation from most of the regions and it seems that this selection process could work out. In some regions the selecting process for the regional selector have also sparked the discussion of the profiles that need to be represented in the Drafting Committee, which is exactly the type of conversation that needs to be held prior to making the decision. We believe that this selector process is a right step in the direction to mitigate the concern that you have raised in relation to representation of "increasingly marginalized" groups.
Now to the key point, regarding the representation of Wikimedia Foundation in connection to the representation of underrepresented. The argument is two-fold, consisting of 1) the need to have Wikimedia Foundation at the table when movement roles and responsibilities are being discussed and 2) the request from the groups themselves that have been underrepresented not to have Wikimedia Foundation candidates running in the election and selection process as they actually feel their participation would reduce the chances of the community members being elected or selected.
1) For the Movement Charter process to function, it needs to have the key stakeholders actively participating in the process. While we are committed to ensure that the process will be transparent and participatory, it also seems that delivering of a coherent document will benefit from a curating committee (Drafting Committee). It seems fair to say that for this Drafting Committee to function, the key representatives would also need to be present in it. We have set up the election process for the online contributors to have their vote, the selection process for affiliates to bring in their perspective, and Wikimedia Foundation appointment process to have theirs. There have been disputes regarding the number of seats that need to be appointed by each process, but there has been a rather general agreement that all these stakeholders need to be present. These conversations have included the number of people to include from Wikimedia Foundation to represent the perspective and expertise of the organization in the curating process and as a summary of the discussion it felt that 2 people would be the right way to go. The conclusion has been documented here. It seemed important for the transparency of the process for two Wikimedia Foundation candidates to be presented in the same pool with all the others. The intent including them to take part in the election and selection process. If they would have been elected or selected, the Wikimedia Foundation would have used its appointment privilege to find 2 best fitting candidates to complement the elected and selected group based on the diversity and expertise matrix. If the Wikimedia Foundation candidates would not have been elected or selected, this privilege would have been used to ensure representation of the Wikimedia Foundation in the committee. This is in full accordance with the publicly described process set up.
2) What was not truly accounted for is that such set up would be perceived as unnecessary competition especially from the groups that we want to represent better. Namely, we have heard concerns from the Latin American and South Asian groups and individuals that Wikimedia Foundation candidates might reduce the chances of community representation of these regions coming from the elections and selection. This is in conflict with the intent of the set up - we have carefully chosen the people to run from Wikimedia Foundation to bring in rich contextual knowledge, to amplify the representation of these regions, but not to compete with the community representatives. We hear the concerns that these communities validly raise and hence have proposed the suggested change to reduce the unnecessary competition. I truly believe that when working on the representation of the presently underrepresented groups, we have to take into account the feedback that we receive from these communities rather than to imply and suggest from a privileged position what might work for them.
Overall, it is disappointing that working on the Movement Charter has become a competition for many, while it is essentially not. While the suggested election process helps to ensure some legitimacy of the process, especially in the online project communities, it has its downside, as elections and voting is generally perceived as competition. We are making an effort to support the voters to have the information available to make informed decisions and we will be working with the affiliates to provide support to the group of selectors to make the right choices there. In addition, whatever will be the actual composition of the Drafting Committee, we hope to continue to work with the people who have set up their candidacy, as they are evidently interested in Movement Governance matters. I hope that we can overcome the competitive aspect and I look forward to a constructive and collaborative conversation in the movement regarding this important step for the future.
I apologize for the long response, yet I felt there were many aspects that needed to be clarified. Thank you again for your thoughtful insights! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 08:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • The proposed "solution" for the problem, i.e. a transformation of those two seats into directly appointed positions, seems unnecessarily radical and disruptive. A far easier way to accomplish (most of) the stated goal is to have the "election" over those two seats happen on another day, or have the two seats belong in a separate ballot/voting "district" within the same election. Let's not make things more complicated than is needed. Nemo 14:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
They were already directly appointed positions. Kaarel's current proposal is the simplest way to move forward: just appoint the people the WMF was going to appoint anyway. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure how much longer we're supposed to wait for this drafting committee. It was already a mistake to implement a selection process that takes six months to come up with a result, and adding new barriers/requirements will make even more people lose patience and interest. Let's just get this thing going before no one cares anymore. Braveheart (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Questions & Answers on Movement Charter Drafting Committee


as you know the Election for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee will start on Monday. We will offer two time slots for Questions & Answer around it; the second one is actually Maggie's conversation time, where those questions fit as well :)

Please write a short message to answers if you want to participate in one of these.

Best regards, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMF) (talk to me) 14:13, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Substitution of one Movement Charter Drafting Committee candidate


Érica Azzellini is substituting Chico Venancio in the list of candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee (MCDC). An unexpected situation has led the Movement Strategy and Governance team (organizers of the MCDC set up process), the two candidates, and Wiki Movimento Brasil (WMB) to make this substitution less than two days before the election starts. Because this is an extraordinary change, we’d like to explain why it is happening.

The reason for the change is that Chico Venancio has an active sanction on Wikipedia in Portuguese. MCDC members cannot have any sanctions. During the call for candidates, Chico contacted us to confirm his eligibility. With support from the Trust and Safety team, we checked all candidates for Foundation and community sanctions. Our check on Chico missed his local community sanction because it is not registered in the SUL log. Because we found nothing in the log, we told him that he was eligible. Later, we received a report pointing out that this sanction exists and is enforced through other means. Realizing that our process would not reveal all project sanctions, we asked all candidates to examine their eligibility. Then we reached out to Chico to communicate his ineligibility.

We met yesterday, October 8 with Chico and WMB. We had learned that they had run a democratic process to select who would become a candidate for the MCDC. By the time we discovered that Chico was not eligible after all, the call for candidates had closed. It was too late for the affiliate to find an alternative. Understandably, Chico and WMB were upset and frustrated. Because of the late identification of our error, the affiliate could not reorganize to suggest another person apply. For that reason, we agreed on an exceptional candidacy substitution and have accepted Érica Azzellini as a candidate.

Where we could not agree was with WMB’s request to postpone the election for two weeks. Their reasoning was that this would provide all candidates with equal opportunities. We believe that the MCDC creation process has become too complex to afford this flexibility. Also, other community processes are waiting for the completion of the MCDC election.

This has been a very difficult situation for Érica, Chico, and Wiki Movimento Brasil, and we are deeply sorry that our review system led us to this mistake. We appreciate their willingness and efforts to find a compromise. In the future, we will:

  • Document the candidates' eligibility criteria and checks in detail, leaving no room for ambiguity.
  • Document who will resolve unexpected situations in community selection processes and how.

My apologies for the lengthy message, which is already a short summary of all the details and nuances discussed in the past few days. The MCDC election and selection are starting on Monday after months of preparations. We wish good fortune to all candidates! Qgil-WMF (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

A comment not related to the merits of any of the individuals above: It would seem that a good takeaway from this situation would be to adopt a new best practice for the future: put the onus on the candidate to declare any/all compliance with the guidelines of the election. That is, have the person answer in the affirmative to all the things in the checklist as part of their qualification: Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee#Role_Requirements. It may not solve all the problems, but it would certainly be a good step. - Fuzheado (talk) 18:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
The specific reason a community sanction was imposed on me was opposing a candidate for checkuser in ptwiki due to hate speech they espoused. I'm very saddened WMF is choosing to place the rules they created for this election above the Universal Code of Conduct, but this comment seems to implicate it was my fault for standing as a candidate, Fuzheado.
We tried to ask for clarifications several times about the rules, the only response we got was a comment on Telegram by Kaarel, stating they would "handle the question discreetly." We sent the email, and instead of specific process for candidates who sent emails, WMF applied to us the same checks that were used for all candidates and responded I am eligible. Only 3 similar emails were sent.
So I see a few better steps that could be taken:
  1. Apply the Universal Code of Conduct, at least in WMF actions;
  2. As mentioned by Tgr, "if we use community sanctions as criteria for barring people from participating in (for the lack of a better term) democratic processes, there should be a way to contest those sanctions outside the bounds of a given community";
  3. If a process is mentioned by WMF, it should actually exist. Chico Venancio (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Can we open edit on some hours for a few hours?


Hi. Can we open edit on some hours for a few hours? Because:

  • I wanna update the my information's.
  • For fix the syntax error (bad link, bad formatting)

None language translate is not on 100% completed [1], so that would be none problem to change. I don't want more hard life for translators, but I wanna right actual information (in start time of vote) and i wanna a good representation of this document for another readers. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 16:41, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Dušan Kreheľ: Sorry if this is a little late, but honestly it was already too late to edit the page. Although not all languages are 100% translated, many are already complete and the translators are already under extreme pressure to update many others pages and templates regarding the elections. Since there were warnings beforehand regarding the page getting locked, it wouldn't be appropriate to make any changes at this point beyond grammatical fixes and similar minor edits --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 14 October 2021 (UTC).Reply

Another representation of candidates (develop version)


Hello everybody. I wanna share my actual free time project. It is, i calling it as "More like representation of candidates". That is the develop version to look, comment or give a draf. For right testing You use the landscape orientation of your device. The link on project

Want You use this tool as official another way to study of candidates? Now or later in this vote? ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

How does voting occur?


Based on the time-stamp for the election (2021-10-10 10:00:00 UTC), we should be almost 12 hours into the voting period. But I can't find any actual information about voting. Guettarda (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Guettarda:, I think you can go here: Shame there's been no proper announcement, and that the election compass doesn't seem to be available yet. Risker (talk) 22:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Hmmm. Above, it was indicated that the ballot would recommend selecting 7 candidates + 2 alternatives = 9 candidates. It does not say that. It also says to indicate preference from 1 to 19, although there are 71 candidates. This looks like it needs fixing. Pinging Kaarel and Qgil. Risker (talk) 22:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Risker! Guettarda (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
The voting page seems to now accomodate 71 preferences. I imagine it's all still being worked on. Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Guettarda: In this moment:
The notification header banner (more) will be soon on all wiki. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC) & ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 00:08, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks Dušan Kreheľ. Guettarda (talk) 23:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Kaarel indicated above that the WMF has decided to appoint its two staff members so they wouldn't be competing with community members in either the election or the affiliate selection process; however, when I look at the list of candidates on the ballot, I see JVargas (WMF) but *not* Runab_ (WMF). So...are they already appointed (in which case JVargas' name should come off), or are they continuing to be in the election/selection process (in which case Runab_'s name should be on the list)? It is confusing to look at the list of candidates on this page, and not see the same list of candidates on the ballot. (As an aside, I see that Erica's name is on both the candidate's page here and on the ballot, so that change seems to have been made consistently.) Risker (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
We are working on fixing the issues on SecurePoll. Public communication launch is on hold until everything is fixed.
  • Yes, we need to restart the system. We might be able to pull the data of existing votes and reload them after the restart. To be sure we have retrieved the usernames of 7 votes that have been cast and will be in contact with these users once the restart is done, if their vote cannot be reloaded.
  • For the time being we have postponed the start time of the elections in SecurePoll for tomorrow to stop casting the votes at the moment. We will see whether we can get to a faster relaunch or not in upcoming hours.
  • We have stopped the CentralNotice banner and will relaunch once everything is fixed.
  • Language / number mistake is noted. I hope it does not fall between the cracks with more urgent changes.
  • We will get back to this thread and initiate wide communications once SecurePoll is ready again.
Thank you again for flagging this and for your kind patience! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 13:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Update regarding SecurePoll
  • The list of candidates is now fixed with 70 candidates.
  • SecurePoll will restart October 12, 10:00 UTC
  • We have created a landing page to provide better framing for the elections. We are working on translations.
  • We have updated the CentralNotice/Request/Movement_Charter_Drafting_Committee_Election and it will resume when the elections restart.
  • During the discussions we touched upon the notice about the number of preferences. The number "19" is kept from the board elections intentionally to keep people from going too far beyond mapping their preferences, as the mathematical impact is not matching the effort that would go into that. As we have outlined also in the landing page, it is important to provide at least 7 preferences, but it is not too meaningful to go beyond 15. This text will be as is.

I am available for any questions or specifications regarding this matter. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Second update regarding SecurePoll
  • Elections have relaunched October 12, 10:00 UTC. Everything seems to be functioning well.
  • A decision was made to struck the votes cast before the fix, so unfortunately 8 people who had managed to vote prior to pausing the election would need to recast the vote. We have reached out to them personally. --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 10:48, 12 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Addressing this situation and sharing information


I hope that those responsible for this election will be able to address the above-noted issues before 2400 UTC on 2021-10-11:

  • Clarify whether the two WMF staff members are election/selection candidates, or if they have already been appointed by the WMF.
    • Either way, ensure that the ballot includes all of the election/selection candidates and *only* those candidates. This may require shutting down and restarting the election. It would be appropriate to notify anyone who has voted up to that time that there has been a change and they can/should revote.
  • Make the election compasses easily available.
  • Post the names of the appointed scrutineers for the election. (If not already selected, you could ask stewards to do this; many are familiar with the process.)
  • Post the names and affiliations of the selectors for the affiliate selection roles.
  • Post the names of the WMF selectors.

Above, Kaarel posted a link to a phab task for another election that will take place immediately following this one. That post has a pretty good list of general steps for an election that may be helpful to you. Risker (talk) 06:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • The rules doesn't require this:
    • "Make the election compasses easily available."
    • "Post the names of the appointed scrutineers for the election. (If not already selected, you could ask stewards to do this; many are familiar with the process.)"
    • "Post the names and affiliations of the selectors for the affiliate selection roles.
    • "Post the names of the WMF selectors."
  • Another, the rules doesn't define, who is a organizer of this votes. ;) ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 10:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Risker: Are you a journalist? ;) You read this and study this. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Risker and Dušan Kreheľ: Thank you for the feedback. I've added a new section that should answer to most of your points and make the composition clearer to those who are landing here for the first time. The link to the elections compass will be posted shortly (once it's finalized, and if you've any ideas about how to make it visible, please let me know) --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 12:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC).Reply
This is my answer: Template:Elections. If u want someone change on that template, so write me. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 15:03, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Maybe to use a Infobox - short, simple, fast to read, all information's on one place. Why doeent try to use the compas? Maybe only one the reason - I dont know to exist about the compas or I overlooked? Maybe a short video or a few print screens. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Candidates in table view


FYI, some folks may find this single table view of all the candidates useful where you can sort each column.

- Fuzheado (talk) 03:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Having access to this tool makes it very easy to see who just registered their wiki accounts only recently. I am comfortable with new editors in the drafting committee but I also want to be aware of people's experience, and sortable wiki tables are our standard presentation format. Thanks Fuzheado. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:19, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Candidates Compass: One statement, all answers


Hi. You can have the all answer of candidates with good view on one place:

✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 18:11, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

This is amazing and this kind of data visualization should always be paired with these election compass statements. This tool makes understanding the responses so much easier. This is fantastic, 100x better with this tool!
@Dušan Kreheľ: Did you make this? When did you set this up? I am surprised to see this so quickly and so well made. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:18, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
This is great, especially the ability to see the detailed responses by clicking on people's names. Thank you Dušan Kreheľ! Guettarda (talk) 02:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Bluerasberry: I develeped this tool on -10-12 (import data, copyright, custom parsing of wiki syntax table, select question with update color of users in grid) and on -10-13 with to show answers of users and with the user text in the page bottom. The code of tool is based of another tool code (to study of candidates from the one grid), that was developing with the one day job leave on -10-08, and next day on -10-09). (Timezone CEST). ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Dušan Kreheľ: Are you able to share the code repository? Thanks a lot in any case. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Dušan Kreheľ: This is truly amazing!! Thank you so much for taking the time to create it. I see someone has already shared it on Telegram. I would also second Bluerasberry's suggestion to make the code open (if you'd like) so that, hopefully, it can be replicated for future elections --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 15:46, 14 October 2021 (UTC).Reply
@Bluerasberry and Abbad (WMF): The code will been open source. ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 11:04, 15 October 2021 (UTC) & ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 19:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

I don't see Runab_WMF in the dropdown list


I don't see Runab_WMF in the dropdown list and so can't vote for her. Alaexis (talk) 15:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Runab has already been selected with one of the WMF selections - Movement_Charter/Drafting_Committee/Candidates#Wikimedia_Foundation-chosen_members - Fuzheado (talk) 15:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! Alaexis (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The departmental studies of candidates and some of their statistics


@Bluerasberry and Abbad (WMF): The code is public.

✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 08:20, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Dušan Kreheľ: Thank you, I see it now. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Dušan Kreheľ: Thank you so much. I'll save this in the documentation for future elections --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2021 (UTC).Reply
@Bluerasberry, @Abbad (WMF): The new version, as a JS library, is created on a green field. It is available at (online demo). Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 16:49, 10 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The final MCDC

For fun: The table would be as "non-VTA" votes. (Based on source data.)
Rank Name Count
#1 Richard Knipel (Pharos) 229
#2 Anne Clin (Risker) 218
#3 Alice Wiegand (Lyzzy) 209
#4 Aliyu (Aliyu shaba) 209
#5 Chris Keating (The Land) 181
#6 Daria Cybulska (Daria Cybulska (WMUK)) 160
#7 Ciell (Ciell) 149
#8 Richard (Nosebagbear) 148
#9 Michał Buczyński (Aegis Maelstrom) 137
#10 Tito Dutta (Titodutta) 133
#11 James Hare (Harej) 128
#12 Anass Sedrati (Anass Sedrati) 127
#13 Ad Huikeshoven (Ad Huikeshoven) 124
#14 Gergő Tisza (Tgr) 120
#15 Yair Rand (Yair rand) 115
#16 Érica Azzellini (EricaAzzellini) 115
#17 Ravan J Al-Taie (Ravan) 112
#18 Christophe Henner (Schiste) 106
#19 Reda Kerbouche (Reda Kerbouche) 105
#20 Alek Tarkowski (Tarkowski) 104
#21 Robert McClenon (Robert McClenon) 101
#22 Jamie Li-Yun Lin (Li-Yun Lin) 99
#23 Manavpreet Kaur (Manavpreet Kaur) 99
#24 Ian Ramjohn (Guettarda) 77
#25 Josh Lim (Sky Harbor) 76
#26 Gnangarra (Gnangarra) 75
#27 Sofia Matias (Girassolei) 75
#28 Galder Gonzalez (Theklan) 73
#29 Pepe Flores (Padaguan) 73
#30 Sadik Shahadu (Shahadusadik) 72
#31 Zhong Juechen (三猎) 67
#32 Dennis Raylin Chen (Supaplex) 65
#33 Oleksandr Havryk (Олександр Гаврик) 63
#34 Yang Shih-Ching (Imacat) 63
#35 Adel Nehaoua (Nehaoua) 62
#36 Abdul-Rasheed Yussif (Din-nani1) 55
#37 Georges Fodouop (Geugeor) 55
#38 Galahad (Galahad) 54
#39 Anupam Dutta (Anupamdutta73) 53
#40 Marie-Louise Aembe (WINEUR) 53
#41 Ellif d.a (Ellif) 51
#42 Abel L Mbula (BamLifa) 48
#43 Hobit (Hobit) 48
#44 Osama Eid (Osps7) 48
#45 Michael Baker (Tango Mike Bravo) 42
#46 Kishore Kumar Rai Sheni (Kishorekumarrai) 40
#47 Alvonte (Alvonte) 39
#48 Basheer (Uncle Bash007) 39
#49 Iniquity (Iniquity) 38
#50 Irvin Sto. Tomas (Filipinayzd) 38
#51 Kanhai Prasad Chourasiya (कन्हाई प्रसाद चौरसिया) 37
#52 Dušan Kreheľ (Dušan Kreheľ) 35
#53 Nethi Sai Kiran (Nskjnv) 35
#54 Jaseem Ali (J ansari) 32
#55 Ashioma Medi (SuperSwift) 31
#56 Ndahiro Derrick (Ndahiro derrick) 31
#57 Valentin Nasibu (VALENTIN NVJ) 31
#58 Abdulrahman (Itzedubaba) 28
#59 Yao Kouamé Didier (Didierwiki) 28
#60 Sameera Lakshitha (Sameera94) 27
#61 Ybsen M. Lucero (Ybsen lucero) 27
#62 Adi Purnama (Rtnf) 26
#63 Félix Guébo (Ivcom) 25
#64 Dosso Djibril (Djibril016) 24
#65 Gilbert Ndihokubwayo (Gilbert Ndihokubwayo) 24
#66 V M (Vis M) 23
#67 Handgod Abraham (Kitanago) 15
#68 Jastin Boniventure Msechu (Justine Msechu) 15
#69 Kahou (Kahoutoure) 10
#70 Rafael Laynes (RaftaLayns123) 9

✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 09:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC) to ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think you have the candidates in the wrong order. This is not the result I have seen elsewhere. Risker (talk) 21:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, the non-elected are listed in order of elimination, instead of the reverse. It's also missing the one candidate that was neither elected nor "eliminated", in the last round. --Yair rand (talk) 21:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Yair rand: I changed on the right order of the elimination.
Another, the output is from input file with program generate. Hm, in result items of input data missed Tito Dutta (Titodutta). ✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

The regions of candidates

Region To vote Voted Count of all average [%] Sume Count
to know
Count to know
of all average [%]
Central and Eastern Europe & Central Asia 6,5 1 53% 1 1 44%
East, Southeast Asia and the Pacific 9,5 1 53% 1 1 44%
Latin America & Caribbean 7 2,5 133% 0,5+1+1 3 133%
Middle East and North Africa 4 1,5 80% 0,5+1 2 89%
South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation 10 2 107% 1+1 2 89%
Sub-Saharan Africa 16,5 0,5 27% 0,5 1 44%
United States and Canada 8 2,5 133% 1+0,5+1 3 133%
Western & Northern Europe 10,5 4 213% 1+0,5+1+0,5+1 5 222%
Count of all 15 1,875
per region
18 2,25
per region

Source: Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Candidates/Table & Result of Candidates of Drafting Committee Movement Charter by Dušan Kreheľ 1.0.1, number 20212410173927

✍️ Dušan Kreheľ (talk) 20:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply



You are welcome to share your feedback about the elections (and/or selection) process --Abbad (WMF) (talk) 11:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC).Reply

Return to "Movement Charter/Drafting Committee/Candidates" page.