Talk:Stewards/Elections 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago by MarcoAurelio in topic SecurePoll

Translate extension edit

Could we start using the Translate extension to handle the candidates' statements this year? - Xbspiro (talk) 01:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello @Xbspiro, as a member of the Election Committee, I would prefer this being discussed (and decided on) significantly earlier (we will start accepting first candidates in less than 10 days).
However, we can discuss that idea in 2022 and leave note for future year election organizers to be considered. Personally, I'm wondering what would be the (dis)advantages of such a move.
On one hand, involving the extension would mean that either candidates need to be familiar with translation marks, or that their statements will have to be marked by someone else. It will also mean that any changes to the statement will require a TA to be translatable. On the other hand, I don't see much benefits (beyond the extension being the standard way of how translations are handled at meta wiki). Martin Urbanec (talk) 22:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Martin Urbanec; thanks for the reply. I have tried to raise this earlier, probably at the wrong place. Not much I can add to this case, please read the archive. If push comes to shove, I can volunteer to mark things up for translation (next year?) - I have no experience in TA work though. - Xbspiro (talk) 00:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do think Translate is a superior way to translate, but I guess we need to find out how to squeeze it into existing infrastructure. {{Sr-elections 2022}} has autotranslate-like functionality. I guess if it can be modified to support either way, then it is possible to use translate, but indeed there is the concern that candidates are not necessarily familiar with Translate and it should be easy for them to edit their own statements. --Base (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The way that template works is a bit counter-intuitive for me - it does not let me to choose which language I want to read (despite using the label 'Language select' and offering a drop-down menu): the language I can access is the same as my interface language (and English as a fallback language). From the point of the users, if they actually want to choose a language, some changes would be needed.
From the point of translators, it sure would be easier to translate in the extension. And to receive notifications, if something needs an update. I haven't seen many translations in recent years, maybe because the translator community is not aware of the possibility of making them. (That is just a guess though.) However, after the election is concluded, I think the translation tasks should be removed (while keeping the already made translations themselves) - there is no need to translate statements into an obscure language months or years after an election.
Additional work would be generated for TAs, sure, but very little for the candidates. If they have ever ran into translated pages, they should have a basic grasp of the markup. - Xbspiro (talk) 08:55, 7 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How many questions can we ask? edit

I was warned (with a failed appeal) last year for misinterpreting the requirements. Are we allowed to ask only two questions in total for each candidate, or two questions globally and up to two local questions for each candidate? In other words, if p is the number of questions in the "for all candidates" section and q is the number of questions for each candidate, is   or   and  ? Leaderboard (talk) 18:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To be fair, if the number of candidates is x, "2 relevant questions per candidate" could even be interpreted as "p+q≤2x", or as "px+q≤2x". ToBeFree (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes column edit

Can we have an added "vote" column on the index table that lists all the vote subpages for each candidate similar to what we do for the questions subsections? The name of the column can be however is deemed necessary. I'd be interested in following the votes/remarks/comments for each candidate as the process goes through these days (and in future elections), same as I was with questions. - Klein Muçi (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think the statements and the questions should be formed in one page, as the voting interface, from the next (2023) election. Thingofme (talk) 11:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thingofme, that also can be done. I just would like to have a way to quickly jump through different voting pages fast. Also showing the general statistics near each name would be even better. And voting pages being created as subpages of non-existent pages is strange. I mostly deal with these details in my everyday wiki work and it annoys me. :P
It's the second year I talk about this problem actually, please have the nerves to take a look here. - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SecurePoll edit

In the future will this election run by SecurePoll? I doubt in the future it may happening but it's hard. Thingofme (talk) 10:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thingofme, I wouldn't expect so; this is more "consensus-building" than just a numeric "vote" and so the specific reasons for support/oppose are as important as the votes themselves. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, some thing we need to be (ArbCom is based by votes, and something can be called as en:WP:IVOTE, about voting) Thingofme (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Steward elections are votes so SecurePoll could be used. The idea was discussed here and there in the past but it didn't reach any consensus. SecurePoll is also pretty high maintenance in the sense that it requires lots of pre- and post-election manual work from someone at the WMF, from election setup and configuration, to decryption and tallying. This doesn't mean that it's impossible to use it (of course it is) but I'd prefer if we kept the elections in the current format, as we can pretty much do all the pre- and post-election work by ourselves. Thanks, —MarcoAurelio (talk) 11:35, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No voting guide, correct? edit

Is it correct that no one has published a voting guide? Bluerasberry (talk) 19:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Bluerasberry Indeed. In fact, I don't recall seeing voting guide in any of the past steward elections. Sincerely, Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bluerasberry and Martin Urbanec: There was this guide for the 2021 elections... --Ferien (talk) 12:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks I was wrong then @Ferien  . More research shows also User:Vermont/SE/2019 (and User:Trijnstel/What I look for in new stewards and User:-revi/SEV, though those are general guides). Martin Urbanec (talk) 12:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ferien It's been updated for this year: User:Nick/SE/2022 AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 14:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Very useful, I know how to vote now. Stryn (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, it seems that you identified what exists. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Return to "Stewards/Elections 2022" page.