Please remember to:
Protect vote pages until startEdit
Would it be worthwhile protecting the specific vote pages until the commencement, or just prior? Having to delete or undo votes just seems a little weird, compared to protect until time. billinghurst sDrewth 06:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
- We could, but there is a notice up there in all vote pages. I think most of them will understand that. Although to some, it does not seem understandable yet. But I would like to avoid protecting for now. — 07:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Timeline for questions, request for changing a sentenceEdit
I'd like to propose to change a sentence at Stewards/Elections 2012/Introduction now (today) before the elections begin:
- “Questions to the candidates can be submitted until 6 February 2012, 23:59 (UTC).”
This sentence means that most of the voters may not ask the candidates anything at all. I didn't get any central notice up to now that there will be stewards elections tomorrow and that's the case for most of the voters – all that aren't admins anywhere. So, when the voters will get this notice this night and follow the links, read the rules, they might wonder that they shall vote for anyone but don't have the right anymore to ask these candidates any question. Most of the candidates are quite unknown in other communities, it might be very useful to ask them anything while the elections take place. Why is there such a sentence? Shall the voters not be able to ask anyone a question before voting or shall the voters get discouraged by that and go away again? Please let the voters ask questions until the elections close, that is of big importance for participating at all! Please change the sentence before any central notice says: “Go to Meta and vote!” Otherwise, it would be better to let nobody ask any questions at all. --Geitost diskusjon 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
In addition, that's quite confusing. This night the elections begin, and there are persons who get to the page Stewards/Elections 2012/Questions where everyone is told to put questions. No sentence at all, that no questions may be asked there, that the time for asking is already over. Isn't that much too confusing to understand for voters? I can only speak for myself: For me, this is very confusing, and I don't understand it at all. --Geitost diskusjon 17:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- As a comment, I am comfortable to clarify and take specific questions on my talk page though the hypothetical scenario-based questions probably don't fill well due to it being *talk* page. Do note that life continues and answers may not be immediate. billinghurst sDrewth 21:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- That's nice. :-)
- But I think, that this question has to be clarified generally. As I'm seeing that nobody wants to close the question page and nobody knows(?) or tells, what this sentence is about and also because of a little talk on my own talk page in German about the problems with this in previous elections, I will now change this sentence, so that everybody will and shall be able to ask questions until the closing of the elections. If anyone has any problem with that, then please put it here and tell me why. For now, I just like to see what will happen and take the German rule de:Wikipedia:Sei mutig! as leading rule for this (en:Wikipedia:Be bold). --Geitost diskusjon 21:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think the purpose of such a construction may be not to underprivilege people, who don't speak fluent English. Currently, they can have their questions translated with proper advance time. Of course, this is just a guess. Naturally, I don't mind answering your questions on my talk page at all :) Pundit 21:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
- Now I've changed that for all languages which use latin ciphers. Surely, it's good to have a little time for translations of questions and of answers. I don't speak English very fluently either. But I think it's much more disadvantage for many more users, if they may not ask any questions at all (neither in English or in German or whatever language) on that question page, because they just get the invitation for the elections after closing of the question page. Then it's much better that everyone can ask in English or another language. And we will just see, if there will be translations of faqs. Most of the questions are likely to come forward at the beginning of any kind of elections (when people get aware that there is taking place an election), so there will be enough time for translations, I think. And surely, the questions of the phase before the elections can also be translated now.
- I think there has been a central notice for admins to get candidate, so as it has been up to now, it's just been a big disadvantage for all not-admins who don't get to Meta regularly and weren't aware of the up-coming elections (and the question page). Within the last weeks, the translations of the candidate and rule pages were taking place, so it's better, if anyone can ask questions at the time they can read these pages in other languages. So it's much better for non-English-speaking persons (and people who understand other languages much better), if they can ask now (in whatever language) after having read the candidate pages. --Geitost diskusjon 22:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
What's this all about 'really' ?Edit
Hi, I thought I'd have a quick look at this as the banner appeared at the top of the page, apparently I am actually eligible to vote, but nothing on this page - or amongst the candidate statements gives me any clue what criteria I should be assessing the candidates. What difference does it make to me as a non admin or dare I say 'standard' user? Is this basically self selecting? I wouldn't mind anyone who wants the role and reaches all the criteria just being "auto accepted". I think those questions probably apply generally to all the 'wiki elections'.
I don't understand really what this election wants from your average user when they come here following the banner link, it might be better to either a) explain things better, or b) to only put the banner message at the top of pages for people who are admins (or want to be admins) - perhaps an opt in user box ? Hmm that doesn't seem to be a workable solution that won't exclude someone who does actually know what's going on.
So I guess more prose explaining what is going on is needed. At present the only criteria I can use to vote from the candidate personal statements is to try and combat bias, by voting for non native english speakers but that seems odd if the role requires diplomatic skills in a second language. As such I'm just going back to wikipedia editing for now. :) EdwardLane (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Edward. In a nutshell stewards are your delegates to undertake the global tasks where local wikis request action; fuller explanation at Stewards. Some examples: when a wiki appoints new bureaucrats or checkusers such requests are fulfilled by the stewards; stewards also have a universal ability to lock out problematic accounts (vandals & spammers); wikis where there are no checkusers and/or oversights and/or bureaucrats in place, stewards temporarily undertake that role on behalf of each wiki as required.
The stewards are to assist with smooth running, and then depending on the situation to apply their delegated rights as rules and protocols allow, (someone has to have the keys to turn things on and off). So your part in the process is completely up to you, the community needs to determine whether they think whether we need further/replacement stewards, and if so, who they wish to support for the role, or whether they feel whether candidates should not undertake the role. I will presume those stewards running this years elections will note your comments for future action. billinghurst sDrewth 11:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Billinghurst, I could see that stewards are needed to turn things on and off, that was not in question. The need to vote was more what I was wondering about - unless any of the candidates is 'flawed' by having done something 'unreasonable' I'd be in favour of any admin who wants to take up the role to be automatically accepted (after their track record had been scrutinised). If there are only limited spaces then first come first served would do well enough, perhaps rotate the longest standing (5 or so?) stewards out of the equation each year and take the next applicants to replace them. Then you don't need votes. EdwardLane (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ctrl-F5, or however you refresh your cache. Staff have been playing with the MediaWiki files trying to address bugzilla:34450 from what I have seen around the traps. billinghurst sDrewth 07:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Seems to be some js issues. Some of my scripts are loaded and some are not (after clearing cache)... I'll wait for a while then ... Bencmq (talk) 07:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
On the eligibility page, after the toolserv test run is completed, I am told I am eligible to vote in the "2012-03 steward elections".
- Fixed. It now correctly says '2012-02' (for February 2012). —Pathoschild 06:30:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Vote since the beginning of time measurement
Please, fix the "global notice"Edit
When text line is long enough, it goes under links at right and the voting link becomes un-clickable. Don't know if I posted this in the right place; if needed, forward it to the right address, please. Thanks. -- Codicorumus « msg 16:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Steward appointments 2012Edit
- Billinghurst (talk · contribs)
- Elfix (talk · contribs)
- Luckas Blade (talk · contribs)
- MBisanz (talk · contribs)
- Pundit (talk · contribs)
- Snowolf (talk · contribs)
- Tegel (talk · contribs)
- Teles (talk · contribs)
The Election Commitee wishes to thank the candidates for their time and interest; and the voters for the time spent reviewing the candidates and taking part of this global process.
The results of the 2012 stewards confirmation will be released in the upcoming days.