Talk:Stewards/Elections 2014

Latest comment: 10 years ago by MF-Warburg in topic Closed

CentralNotice banner for call for nominations edit

I wonder if a CentralNotice banner to call for nominations is necessary... stewardship seems like one of those things where if you don't know how the election process works, you probably aren't a great steward candidate. Just a thought. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps, but not all good candidates would remember when the elections are. Even though it is only shown to admins, your point is valid. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
The banner is only shown to admins? Is that new this year? --MZMcBride (talk) 08:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
No, we did that the past two years too iirc. Trijnsteltalk 23:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
You can view/modify the code that does this here. It's also in some MediaWiki: ns message, but I don't remember which. PiRSquared17 (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, that's pretty neat. I'm glad we're finding ways to limit CentralNotice usage. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)Reply
I'm glad too, in fact it was added as best practice to the guidelines over two years ago.[1] --Nemo 23:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Question for the Election Committee edit

This is just a nascent idea that I had, but has anyone ever thought of having the members of the Elections Committee and possibly the stewards as well abstain from voting on each other's vote pages, particularly for this upcoming election? This reduces the chance of the elections having any appearance of bias, which is important for the Elections Committee properly closing the steward elections in an unbiased way, and based on my observations that the best stewards commonly do not vote on other election or steward confirmation pages. Then they would really be under the scrutiny of the entire community, and it wouldn't be just a you-vote-for-me-I-vote-for-you kind of politics. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

This makes no sense for the steward confirmations, as these are no votes at all. The community just has a chance to comment on the current steward's work, at the end only the arguments brought up for removal are relevant for the decision. Vogone talk 14:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
They wouldn't "really be under the scrutiny of the entire community", because you'd exclude a part of that community from voicing their opinion. According to policy, stewards "are entitled to freely voice their opinions, state their view and be heard by the community, just as any other user may", and "They can vote in elections, but when executing the result of the election the steward has to act according to the result, even if they disagree with the outcome." Stewards voting in steward elections only becomes problematic if they don't close them properly afterwards. Mathonius (talk) 16:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Ah I see your point, thanks. It was only really a nascent idea that I had, and looking over the policy that seems a reasonable approach. Though I do note a clause in that policy page you quote that might prove problematic to the elections: "Stewards should use their judgment to avoid conflicts of interest, situations where they are not impartial to the decision. Such situations should be left to neutral stewards." I suppose in this case however the Elections Committee, if there is still a need for a separate committee, could act as the 'neutral stewards' in this case; but I'm quite satisfied with the response now that the Election Committee is responsible enough for an appropriate closure, even in controversial cases where stewards have an exact 80% support ratio. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Perhaps we could simply make an exception to that particular clause by explicitly stating it does not override the clause above that "Stewards...are entitled to freely voice their opinions, state their view and be heard by the community, just as any other user may." TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 23:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Vote discussion edit

Hi, folks! Where should I post my views on each candidate, or the criteria by which I think we should vote for each candidate? Do I do it here, or do I open Stewards/Elections 2014/DIscussion? --NaBUru38 (talk) 23:39, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Go to one of the vote pages, click the "Vote" button, and add your comment. See the article for this talk page and the guidelines for more info. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:42, 10 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

AccountEligibility edit

I was wondering why my "eligibility" status wasn't updated, when the status of most later votes was already checked. Turns out that the AccountEligibility tool returns an error for me on enwiki (admin, 100,000+ edits, no blocks, enough recent activity), and then gives the result "Fram is not eligible to vote in the 2014-02 steward elections.". I'm glad to note that this "result" hasn't been copied to my single vote, but I don't know whether people here are aware that their tool has errors (I don't know whether I'm eligible to vote or not, I think I am, but the result shouldn't be based on what that tool says). Fram (talk) 08:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Note that with "enwiki" chosen, I suddenly become eligible after all :-) [2]. Fram (talk) 09:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Hi. All voters ends up in this list Template:Stewards/Elections 2014/Voters/Check and is then checked. So if a user after you in a particular vote is checked and not you can mean that they also voted on another user and was added to the list before you. -- Tegel (Talk) 10:04, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
True, but most editors added after me were already checked. But I don't really care about that aspect, it doesn't matter if I am checked first or last, I just wanted to note here that the tool used for the checking can't be trusted (at least not in my case). Which may or may not explain the delay... Fram (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
I bet the reason for you being checked later is that the tool atm seems to run extremely longer when it checks someone on enwiki, though I don't know why that is. Therefore maybe people who checked loaded the tool on you, but didn't want to wait until it was finished, and so skipped you while still checking those users for which it was faster because the main account there wasn't enwiki. --MF-W 13:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I can not vote edit

"Die Stewardwahlen 2014 der Wikimedia Foundation haben begonnen. Stimm bitte ab." No, because you think i'm irrelevant. But this is an explanation for me, why i.e. since 2011 this no content is added, but there are edits.--OnnoS (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

There are five criteria to meet, and it is most likely related to either not enough total edits by the cutoff date, or not enough edits in the qualifying period. I did a check and you were short on the both of those criteria at their respective dates.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:07, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Closed edit

SE should be closed in one minute. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

The Election Committee is aware of the deadline. Snowolf How can I help? 17:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yep, just starting a section here. PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Yes, and the ElectCom will need some time to check everything before they approve the results. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Okay. When will that be done approximately? PiRSquared17 (talk) 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Depends on the Toolserver, my nerves and the issues we'll find. :-P —DerHexer (Talk) 18:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
You could look at how long it took in the past for inspiration. --MF-W 18:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
Return to "Stewards/Elections 2014" page.