To discuss individual races in the 2013 election, see: Board of Trustees election discussion | FDC election discussion | FDC Ombudsperson election discussion
You can suggest improvements for the next elections on the post-mortem page.

How should votes be counted? Edit

Percentage of support question Edit

This paragraph doesn't make sense to me. If only one person votes for a candidate and the vote is in support of the candidate, does the candidate get 100%?

The votes will be tallied and the candidates will be ranked by percentage of support, defined as the number of votes cast in support of the candidate divided by the total number of votes cast for the candidate ("neutral" preferences are not counted). The candidates with the highest percentage of support will be recommended to the Board of Trustees for appointment.

Leli Forte (talk) 16:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Leli Forte, thank you for your comment. You raise a good point. Would you like to suggest a minimum number of support votes that would be required before a recommendation to the Board of Trustees? For example, "Only candidates who have received a minimum of ___ support votes are eligible to be recommended to the Board of Trustees." What number would you suggest there? Risker (talk) 17:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Risker. My comment was really about the text not about the system. When trying to translate the text I couldn't make sense of it. I don't know anything about the tally sytem. Presumably it has been used before and it works. What is needed is a clear explanation of the system. Thanks and regards. Leli Forte (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's probably too late now to include in the text overleaf, but an example could be:

"For example, if a candidate receives 541 supports, 369 opposes, and 402 neutrals, their percentage of support will be 541 divided by (541 + 369); that is, 541/910, which is 56.45%. The 402 neutrals will be irrelevant to the tally". Tony (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey. So on this topic, I am curious why the election committee decided to do it this way? It seems to me like Leli Forte raises a very good question. The ratio measurement, as defined, would favor those who (for instance) get a lot of neutral votes and only a few support votes but zero or very low opposes, thus resulting in a high support precentage, even though they may have gotten far fewer support votes numerically than another candidate who also has a higher ratio of opposes. This seems it would not actually serve the aim of having the candidate with the highest support win. Should there be a cutoff of minimum support votes, or just a count of straight supports? Thanks. (And thanks to the committee for all your work!) -- phoebe | talk 04:32, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quick example to illustrate off the top of my head. If I understand this correctly:
  • Candidate A gets 5 support votes, 1 oppose vote, and 1250 neutral votes. Their support % is 83% (5/6)
  • Candidate B gets 1000 support votes, 250 oppose votes, and 6 neutral votes. Their support % is 80% (1000/1250).
  • So Candidate A would win in this scenario, despite being supported by 1/200th of the voters versus Candidate B.
So I'm curious if this is actually the desired outcome, in this scenario. -- phoebe | talk 04:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tony, how about this example: "For example, if a candidate receives 1 support, 0 opposes, and 402 neutrals, their percentage of support will be 1 divided by (1 + 0); that is, 1/1, which is 100% and we have a winner!" What Leli Forte was trying to say, I think, is that the quoted sentence makes no sense; he was not saying that it is hard to understand. I have to say that I agree. What happened to the good old count of supporters? The one who get the most support - wins. Too simplistic? Ofrahod (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree that it's a good question, and we had some early discussion about setting a minimum support floor. This *is* something that I think can safely be discussed at least for the next week or so to get a sense of community opinion - it needs to be resolved before nominations close, though. On several projects, there are minimum numbers of support and minimum ratios of support; however, the kinds of numbers we see on individual projects don't translate well to this mega-community. A few of us have talked about a minimum of 300 support votes or, alternately, support from 10% of the voters, in order to be considered for appointment to the Board; these numbers would have to be much smaller, though, for FDC/FDC ombud positions, because we can reasonably predict a much higher "neutral" vote for these positions. All thoughts are welcome on this topic. Ofrahod, one of the biggest complaints about the Schulze method (the system used for voting in past Board elections) was the fact that voters could not oppose candidates whom they felt would be very bad choices as Trustees; that is one of the reasons that we moved to the Support/Neutral/Oppose process. There have been several elections/votes/RFAs etc on various projects where there was a very high number of supports, but the support/oppose ratio was very low.
For me, the key is that we always, always have to keep in mind that the FDC positions are inherently different from the Board positions, and that we cannot expect candidates for those roles to receive the broad support that we would see for Board candidates. Risker (talk) 04:46, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A percentage-based cutoff for each election as a stand-alone race (minimum percent of total support votes? minimum percent of voters supporting?) seems like it would avoid the FDC/Board discrepancy. -- phoebe | talk 05:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Phoebe, that minimum percent of total supports (presuming you mean the S/(S+O) result) is what en.WP uses for its ArbCom elections. I find this fundamentally flawed, since it leaves open the risk that an election won't fill all of the vacant positions—and who wants that hassle? Through sheer luck, it hasn't yet happened in the en.WP ArbCom elections. Risker, every voting system has its distortions, but I believe the S/(S+O) system is really bad in this respect. Yes, people are right to point out that 1 support and 0 opposes gives 100% under this system, and again, on en.WP it's luck that someone hasn't got over the line by accident with minimal voting. I don't believe that providing the option for voters to "oppose candidates whom they felt would be very bad choices as Trustees" is a significant benefit. No real-world election provides this ternary positive–negative–neutral voting system (and neutral is a choice). It's a great shame the preferential system isn't being used; it allows voters much greater feedom to express their nuanced wishes. (Apology over my mistaken edit for -> about.) Tony (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. To be clear I don't have a problem with the idea of support/oppose/neutral voting (largely because I've sorted through all the complaints about how hard the previous system was to use). And I do think neutral can provide a social benefit in getting people to vote in an election like this where they may not have an opinion on lots of the candidates. I just have concerns about how it's planned to be counted. -- phoebe | talk 15:20, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree with many of the comments in this section, and have prodded my colleagues on the Election Committee to discuss this further. We should probably have some group thoughts for public discussion in a few days. Thanks very much for raising the issue. Risker (talk) 19:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, this seems like a valid concern worth addressing. Because percentages are being counted, not numbers, a candidate with fewer votes can get a bigger percentage share of the vote. eg A candidate with 30 votes in support and 5 opposes gets 85.71% of the vote (30/35), which is slightly higher than a candidate who has 300 votes and 55 opposes and gets 84.50% of the vote (300/355).
Because this is a percentage-based system, two candidates can also hypothetically end up with the same percentage share of votes, even though one has less votes than the other. Eg a candidate with 1000 votes in support and 500 opposes will get 66.66% of the vote (1000/1500) but so will a candidate with 300 votes and 150 opposes, and so will a candidate with 30 votes and 15 opposes. If they are ranked based on percentage, how would these three hypothetical candidates be ranked? Would it be worth adding a guideline that says in case of two or more candidates getting the same percentage, the one with numerically higher support votes would win the vote? Or...? Bishdatta (talk) 07:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Schulze voting and strategic voting Edit

    • Risker, the other issue with this option to oppose-vote, not just support-vote, is that some people learn to use it strategically to position their favoured candidates better in relation to all others. This is what I will do: no wasted neutrals. Any candidate I don't vote for gets an oppose. It's the obvious thing to do. But unless voters generally know to do this, it builds an arbitrariness into the system. Tony (talk) 09:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • You're quite correct, Tony. Some people figured out how to vote strategically using the Schulze system as well; there are ways to do it in almost every system. We had very little time as a committee, and no developer time, to consider, script and test voting methods that haven't already been written for SecurePoll. This is something that should be examined further and should definitely be brought up in the post mortem review. Risker (talk) 15:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Risker ... OK. SecurePoll really does need some developer work, anyway. Perhaps the engineering division could find time in the next six months ... or perhaps after these elections there could be an RfC from voters about the system from a technical perspective. The spin-off could be a much more flexible voting system for use throughout the movement. Tony (talk) 03:33, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • "Some people figured out how to vote strategically using the Schulze system as well" No, I'm pretty sure that's false. My understanding is that it's completely impossible to vote strategically using Schulze except in cases where there's a Condorcet cycle (which I suspect happens very rarely) that the voter is somehow able to predict in advance (how this could happen I can not imagine) with such a high level of certainty that they vote tactically even though, were they to be wrong about their guess, they would be putting an even less desired candidate into the position than were they to vote honestly. Contrast this with the Support/Neutral/Oppose (though really I should say the Support/Oppose system, as Neutral is never the right option, and the only effect its existence will have will be lowering the influence of those who aren't aware of this), where the vote's influence is pretty much dependent on where the voter places the Support/Oppose border. Voters who place it in the wrong place tend to lose all influence. --Yair rand (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • The mathematical premise of Schulze and other similar systems starts with the premise that all candidates have an equal chance of winning. That is not realistic; anyone who has ever voted in a "real" election knows that only a few candidates really have the potential to win. Strategic voting using a system like Schulze involves manipulation of one's ranking (or not ranking) of various candidates. Condorcet voting systems are based on mathematics without incorporating the reality of human behaviour. It is even easier to do when the software is designed to produce a single winner and then is used to produce multiple winners. Risker (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • "The mathematical premise of Schulze and other similar systems starts with the premise that all candidates have an equal chance of winning." No, I don't think that's correct. "Strategic voting using a system like Schulze involves manipulation of one's ranking (or not ranking) of various candidates." As opposed to what? Could you please give any example that contradicts what I said above, where a strategic vote changes the outcome to that of what the voter wants, without advanced prediction of a Condorcet cycle and betting the possibility of a worse outcome on the accuracy of the prediction? --Yair rand (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                • Yair, what's the most effective way of getting a candidate down-ranked? It's not ranking them as 10th in a field of 10, it is not ranking them at all. In other words, the "neutral" position of not ranking a candidate actively downranks candidates. Very few voters ever want to rank all candidates. The Schulze system artificially downranks candidates for which the voter has no opinion (i.e. does not rank the candidate), while artificially upranking candidates for which a voter has a strongly negative opinion (i.e., ranks the candidate as 100th place - or any other rank).

                  No one voter is going to skew any voting system, and large dedicated blocs of voters can skew any system, too, Condorcet cycles or no. Risker (talk) 20:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

                  • Where are you getting this from? I don't think it's correct. Not ranking a candidate is not the "neutral" position. Quoting an old SignPost article, "Voters can give candidates any ranking from "1" to "99" (or leave the field blank), with "1" being the most preferred candidate, higher numbers corresponding to candidates who are less preferred, and a blank space being the least preferred." Leaving a space blank means it's least preferred, and it's identical to ranking it 10th in a field of ten, assuming that no others were left blank or ranked ten. There should be no ambiguity about this. If there is confusion, then I suppose leaving something blank should not be an option. It doesn't add anything anyways. The system does not "artificially downrank candidates" at all; if X is given a greater number than Y, or left blank, it means Y is preferred over X, and it's added to the count of how many individual voters prefer Y over X. ("When a voter doesn't rank all candidates, then this is interpreted as if this voter ... strictly prefers all ranked to all unranked candidates", from Schulze's explanation of the 2009 elections.)
                  • At least, that's my understanding of the system. Where are you getting yours from? --Yair rand (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
                  • (And I'd appreciate it if you could give any example of where reasonable tactical voting could make any difference to the results, without the tactical votes being a really stupid move. --Yair rand (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2013 (UTC))Reply[reply]
                    • I'm getting my understanding from the reality of voting. Link to the "old" Signpost article please? The key point is that it is normal human behaviour not to rank a candidate if one has not formulated an opinion about that candidate, but the Schulze system penalizes candidates for not having a big enough following (positive) or opposition(negative) for people to care enough about them to rank them. It is counterintuitive (a blank vote should be considered neutral, not active opposition) and is diametrically opposed to the normal voting and vote-like situations within the Wikimedia community (where absence of a vote does not penalize the candidate). As to the comparative "stupidity" of any tactical voting, I hold no opinion. I shall point out that when voting systems were discussed amongst the Election Committee, nobody supported continued use of the Schulze system. Risker (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(undent)As the author of en:User:Homunq/WP_voting_systems and an active contributor to the electorama wiki and electorama election methods mailing list, I strongly encourage you to reach out to those communities before you run another vote. I'm not going to pretend there's any consensus there on what the best voting method is, but there's a lot of expertise on what pitfalls to avoid, and there are even enough people with programming experience and interest that you might be able to get help with the programming side of things. I am certain that if you had talked to the people there beforehand, you would have been fully aware of the strategic implications of any decisions you were making. The system you chose isn't a bad one, but it could and probably would be better. You can contact me using the email function on English wikipedia if you want to discuss this further. Homunq (talk) 13:49, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Central notice Edit

Can we have a link please to the place to translate the central notice "Self-nominations are now being accepted for the Board of Trustees and the Funds Dissemination Committee." I clicked on the translate link on the central notice and came to this page, which as far as I can see doesn't have the central notice on it. I haven't got the time to find it by searching. Lloffiwr (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! The translate link on the Central Notice should take you to Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013/Translation#Central Notice Banners, which has the link for translating the Central Notice and links for other pages that need to be translated. If you clicked on the "Click here to read more and volunteer." link, then that would have taken you to this page, but there's one just underneath it for helping with translations - does it show up for you? Thehelpfulone 13:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The text of the translate link appears, but unfortunately the link doesn't work. Lloffiwr (talk) 23:54, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Multiple candidacies are not permitted." Edit

I know this is the first time we've ever done this, so no one really knows the answer to this question! I'm curious if allowing multiple candidacies would be useful; I can easily see someone being interested in and qualified for both the Board & FDC, or in both FDC roles (many of our previous board candidates have expressed interest in program evaluation, which is a skill also needed for the FDC, for instance). There would have to be some kind of rollover mechanism if someone happened to win a seat for both, but otherwise I'm not sure I see the downside of allowing people to stand for either (other than potentially some poorly-thought-through candidacies). Thoughts? -- phoebe | talk 21:24, 24 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right, it's the first time we're doing this; from my own perspective as a member of the Election Committee, I hope it is the *only* time we do this. Unfortunately, given the relatively short time that we had to pull everything together, and the deadlines we were given for having all candidacies filled, the only way we could do this was a single election, unless we ran two elections immediately after each other, which is unfair to the community. (Yes, several of us identified that this was a problem almost immediately after our appointment.) This is one of the ways in which we simplified what is already a very complex process. We posted these criteria almost two weeks ago and had no comment on this issue until today; after candidacies open is probably too late to change things now. From my own perspective, I'm not sure it is reasonable for people to stand for multiple positions in a single election process, particularly when past history tells us that there are a lot of candidates for each of these positions. There are many roles that individuals can play in the community, even absent being appointed or elected to any of these positions. Speaking personally, I'll be recommending that the FDC election be held six months on either side of the board election the next time around, so that individuals who are unsuccessful in one can run in the other; however, that was not possible this year. In fact, it might be a thought for the board to reconsider holding FDC elections in the same year as the board elections. Risker (talk) 00:15, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That seems reasonable, though I think there was some thought that having all the elections at once would provide a streamlined election process (so we don't have to do do this over and over)? I guess time will tell. Anyway, despite my interest in the process, I hadn't gotten around to checking to see what was up with the election until just recently, so just noticed this bit -- sorry for the late comment. -- phoebe | talk 03:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I suspect too that somewhere along the line some folks thought it would be easier to manage a single election with (based on experience to date) up to 70 candidates across three position types. Maybe for people who are paid to manage elections - even getting to this point has been a huge time investment, and it could not have been done without fairly extensive staff support which is neither allocated for in the budget, nor addressed in anyone's job descriptions. (To this point, I'd estimate between 75-125 staff hours, and by the end of the election it will be well over 300 staff hours, from several departments.) I suspect that there was the expectation that we would just simply use what had been done before, forgetting that every message had to be rewritten to accommodate the new positions, that the structure of pages needed to be redesigned, that two of the three candidate pages had to be developed from scratch, that the new positions have mandatory questions that had to be developed and then built into the candidacy forms, and so on. I have no idea how the Board is going to be able to do all that due diligence, either; it's going to be awfully difficult to reasonably predict successful candidates for the two first-time elections. Well, we'll see how this all works out. I think the team has done a pretty good job of creating a workable election that will give a result that can be respected by the community as a whole. Mind you, we've not yet tested the ballots... Risker (talk) 04:26, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It does seem a pity. Some candidates for trusteeship might well have exactly the skill-base the FDC needs too. It's very simple to exclude them if they win a seat on the Board. Tony (talk) 15:01, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps. On the other hand, is it fair to the voters, or to the FDC positions? Multiple candidacy means that voters would have to read up to three separate presentations for a single candidate; and I don't think it benefits the FDC for it to be treated as a consolation prize for those who don't succeed at the Board of Trustees level. Risker (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013/ja Edit

Why is there not "Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013/ja" in "other languages"?--Bletilla (talk) 05:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A link should exist if you click on the word "Japanese", which links you to Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013/ja. Thehelpfulone 16:35, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions Edit

Hello over there!,
just a question: until which date we can publish public questions to the candidates at the question page? I'd suppose until June 18, but actually, as it's not written,.. Thanks & cheers, --Cornelius Kibelka (WMDE) (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think 23:59 UTC 15 June would be better as that's the deadline for voting. Thehelpfulone 16:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Early thanks to Risker and other organisers Edit

I've been griping above. So I just want to point out that at the same time I realise how challenging and labour-intensive this task has been and will continue to be for the organisers—especially a double-barrelled election for positions on two bodies. Well done Risker and her colleagues. Thank you. Tony (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1 -- phoebe | talk 22:32, 29 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you very much for your kind words, Tony: this will mean a lot to our team. Risker (talk) 23:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1. Election oversight is unsung and greatly important. I hope a standing committee is set up to handle these things every year with a full year's notice, as Risker suggested. SJ talk  07:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Minimal support level for successful candidacies Edit

In view of the comments above, the Election Committee has discussed establishing minimal support levels in order for candidacies to be successful. For this election, the minimal support level will be as follows:

  • For Board of Trustees candidates
    • Minimum support of 10% of all eligible votes (i.e., if there are 3000 people who vote on BoT candidates, only candidates with 300 or more supports will be ranked, the rest will not be eligible for a seat)
  • For FDC and FDC Ombud candidates
    • Minimum of 30 support votes from eligible voters

For the Election Committee, Risker (talk) 23:07, 5 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions to specific candidates Edit

Where can one ask a question to a single candidate? PiRSquared17 (talk) 02:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1, I'd also like to know if this is possible. Can someone from the committee weigh in on this? Theo10011 (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You need the committee to weigh in? In order to edit the wiki? I don't understand the issue. What's wrong with you two? :-) Also, there's surely years of precedent here. Can't you just look at how it was handled previously? --MZMcBride (talk) 02:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's usually not allowed from what I remember, but the committee can always make an exception and set a new trend - that's why I brought it up. Also, ihu. Theo10011 (talk) 02:41, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm going to get other Election Committee members to weigh in here as well, but MZMcBride's suggestion of looking at prior elections is a good one, and we'd probably follow precedent on that. Risker (talk) 02:44, 18 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

character limits & spaces Edit

There is a discussion going on about character limits here; this is applicable to all three elections. -- phoebe | talk 16:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Election Committee decisions following close of candidacy period Edit

The Election Committee has reviewed and made some decisions relating to candidacies after the close of the candidacy period. These decisions are posted here for transparency.

Late candidate submissions Edit

Three candidates (Liam Witty and John Vandenberg for Board of Trustees, Aegis Maelstrom for FDC) posted their candidacies within a few minutes after the established deadline for candidacies. After much consideration, the Election Committee has decided to assume good faith in these self-nominations, and will accept them.

Incumbency exemptions for FDC and FDC ombud candidates Edit

In view of the longtime exemptions for Board of Trustee incumbents to meet edit count requirements for future candidacies, the Election Committee has decided to extend the same exemption to FDC and FDC ombud candidates. It is noted that this is the first election for these two positions, and the criteria for them was largely drawn from those developed for appointed candidates in 2012, when incumbency was not a consideration. The effect of this decision is that Lusitana's candidacy as FDC ombud will proceed; Lusitana did not meet the requirement for 20 edits between 15 December 2012 and 15 April 2013, but was active in her role as the incumbent ombud during that period.

Identification to the WMF Edit

Several candidates for Board of Trustees and FDC had not identified to the WMF at the close of the candidacy period. On careful review of the prerequisites for candidacy, it was noted that the Election Committee had given unclear direction on this point, by both advising candidates to identify by the end of the candidacy period, and by stating that instructions for doing so would come from the Election Committee. The Committee, however, did not send those instructions to candidates but instead posted them within the instructions to candidates on-wiki. All candidates who had not already identified to the WMF were thus offered a 48-hour grace period (to 23:59 UTC on 19 May) to complete the identification process. As of this writing, all but two candidates have completed the identification process.

These points will also be posted on the post mortem page to assist future election committees in identifying opportunities for improvement. For the Election Committee, Risker (talk) 03:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Too many questions Edit

The process seems to be going well, but I see someone schiste posted 5 questions for the candidates. I think this is over the line and unfair to everyone else to monopolize the limited time candidates have. Someone should take a look. Theo10011 (talk) 08:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bulleted list in /Voter e-mail Edit

I think this should better use a definition list (with wiki lines starting by ";" and ":" i.e. HTML elements dl/dt/dd) so that each of the 3 items will form a single list.

But if you prefer bullets (to avoid dt elements to be shown in bold characters), make sure that the description below each bullet is indented and logically starts by "*:", or use a "br" element between the bullet title and its description.

See Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013/Voter e-mail. For now the bullets make non sense, please use correct semantic structures. verdy_p (talk) 03:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure. It doesn't really matter for the sake of translation, since the formatting is outside of the translation items, so it can be changed without affecting the translations – how it looks on the wiki page doesn't really correlate to how it will look in the e-mail. But I'll change it to ;s and :s for now. :-) Jon Harald Søby (talk) 04:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links for voting are not all that clear Edit

I'm writing the Signpost election special part 2. We'd love to give a plain, simple link for people to vote; but I'm a bit confused by the "How to vote" section overleaf. Any ideas? Some examples for English WP, German WP, English Wikivoyage, Commons, would be great. Tony (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No one's at home in the election committee. Could you tell me whether en.WP account users will see a banner with a direct link to SecurePoll, and if so, whether it will be there for the entire two-week voting period? We publish soon. And do I understand correctly from the thread above that every user will be emailed with voter information? And is everything set to go in technical terms, or is there still work to do? Tony (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Tony - not ignoring you, I just wasn't online through the night my time, and didn't wake up early enough to respond before going to work. There are going to be two separate links for users to vote at: one for Board candidates and the other for FDC/FDC Ombud candidates. The polls have not yet been uploaded so I can't provide you with the links yet. They will also be included in all of the central notices as well. We're working on this today so that we can start the election on time. Risker (talk) 14:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, still got 6–12 hours before publication, I think. So we'll let people know at the start that these links will be provided on banners, I'm presuming (will they be on all WMF sites?). Thanks Risker. Tony (talk) 15:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, they should be. Thanks for keeping the elections front and centre, Tony. Risker (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Important announcement: Election delayed by one week Edit

The Election Committee regrets to advise that it is necessary to delay the start of voting in the WMF Elections 2013 for one week. This delay is being implemented for three reasons:

  • We have been unable to verify that the list of eligible voters is complete and that all voters meet the published criteria
  • We have been unable to verify that the SecurePoll setups for the election are properly functioning
  • The voter interfaces have not been translated and are not currently available in any language other than English, thus disadvantaging Wikimedians who do not read English.

The following changes are now made to the Election timeline:

  • 8-22 June 2013: elections
  • 23-25 June 2013: vote-checking
  • 25-28 June: publication of results.

For the Election Committee, Risker (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there anything the community at large can do to help? -- phoebe | talk 00:38, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Phoebe: there is one thing that folks can help me with over the next few hours. I'd like to get a few other eyes to help write the "introduction" for each ballot, to provide voters with a bit more information than just the basic "please indicate below which candidates you support or oppose." Those who would like to help do this wordsmithing can join me at User:Risker/Vote-info. I'll limit this to the next 3 hours, though, so that we can get the pages marked for translation.

The other really valuable thing would be to persuade our colleagues who are fluent in languages other than English to help out with translations. Risker (talk) 02:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Update status? As everybody knew the election was starting today, it seems like it would be a good idea to update the status template. I tried but failed. Cheers. 01:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update timeline too Could somebody also update the timeline at Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2013#Time line? That page is protected so I can't edit it. Thanks in advance. 01:21, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The timeline is   Done, and James is looking into the other (maybe). PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not mark the new version for translation, however. Should I invalidate the old ones? I'd rather wait until a bot can handle this. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:36, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much, πr2. Thanks also to James and Thehelpfulone. I appreciate your support. 02:01, 1 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you should mark it for translation and invalidate the old translations because all of the translation pages are outdated. Non-English speaking people need to know about the election date changes too.   The Anonymouse (talk) 04:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, done. But we could theoretically use a bot to correct these (at least for languages using Arabic numerals). Unfortunately, we don't have one. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an interesting idea — I wonder if any such bot has been developed in any of the multilingual projects. There aren't any that I'm aware of, at least on Wikidata, where I am involved with translation. The Anonymouse (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sometimes Thehelpfulone does this - [1]. Of course, another way would be to use <tvar> around the date (ISO format?) or {{date}}, so we can easily change it later. Or we could have things more organized in advance so such things don't happen again. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:30, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just noticed that this would only work if the Gregorian calendar is used... PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It also probably wouldn't work for ordinal number dates: 1st, 4th, etc. The Anonymouse (talk) 04:44, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your updates (even catching "8e" / huitième!). Are you going to do this for all languages, or just a few? Really, there must be some better way of doing this. PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There must be a better way, but for now I just decided to update some of the most widely-used languages. The Anonymouse (talk) 05:09, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Translating Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2013/Questions and its subpages Edit

Hi. I've not been very active this week (and won't be for the next few weeks) but did I miss the discussion with regards to marking these pages for translation? I think that the original plan of using Google Translate to translate these questions and answers is actually better because now we're creating a considerable extra burden on translators as all of these translations have been added to the "Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013" Aggregate Group.

This means that if you click the translate link on Board elections/2013/Status (which is transcluded at the top of every page) then these translations are also included in the list of text for translators to to translate. This could cause problems with translators feeling overburdened with the extra translations, to take Spanish as an example as it was close to complete translation previously, there are now over 200 new items to translate. This isn't fair for translators in my opinion as these translations won't be recycled next year, and it will also mean that there could be considerably fewer translations for more important things (such as the voting interface itself) as, to the best of my knowledge, you can't prioritise items in that list to be translated. Thehelpfulone 21:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, ive marked it because i was asked in irc :P What is definitely bad its googletranslation since machine translation is very difficulty readable and sometimes its impossible to understand clearly what the sentence is about. I'll give more thoughts and learn this issue better tomorrow, now its quite late for me. --Base (talk) 22:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can understand your point very well, but I don't think it will harm anybody if we give translators the ability to make better comprehensible translations than gtranslate provides. No translator is forced to do these translations and I believe they are also clever enough to define priorities for themselves. I understand translating via the extension as an additional option for volunteers. Furthermore, Base is absolutely right with his statement about gtranslate's translation quality. So again, in my opinion it doesn't harm to have the option to translate via the extension and there is nobody who forces you to chose this option. Regarding to my actions on this topic, I was helping DerHexer and Cornelius Kibelka with preparing the pages for translation. Probably, this was an initiative by WMDE, but I suppose Cornelius Kibelka could tell you more about this. Kind regards, Vogone talk 22:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks for the hint, Thehelpfulone. Our – as in WMDE's – intention to translate the whole Q&A is to increase participation in this election among non-english speaking communities. For us, it is of the utmost importance that our local communities have the chance to get involved and find out about the candidates in their mother tongue – translated by a human and not a machine. On top of that, even if the new translations cannot be re-used for the next election itself, the opinions and statements from the candidates can be of importance in futures discussions or project ideas and I find them quite sustainable.
Of course, we have been in touch with the Election Committee to ask for their opinion and they encouraged us to do this translation, and to do it here on Meta and not on our local Wikimedia wikis. Is there probably a technical solution in translatewiki for the translators not feeling overburdend? --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Nicole for your prompt response, I understand your reasoning and have come up with a potential solution to reduce the burden for translators. We could allow the translation through the translate extension, but remove the questions pages from the aggregate groups so those pages are only translated if you click on the "Translate this page" link directly from each page, rather than the "Help with translations" link on the status banner at the top of every election page. Whilst reducing the burden to voters this could mean that some of the lesser used languages wouldn't have as many translations as German as an example. I suggested this to the Election Committee yesterday so we'll see what they think. Thehelpfulone 00:17, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks to you again, for your constructive response. :) Sounds like a plan, look forward to hearing from the EC. Best, --Nicole Ebber (WMDE) 08:07, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion, this isn't a good solution as it rather hides possible translations to the election pages than motivates volunteers to translate them. I'd like to repeat myself. Nobody is forced to do any translation. Wikipedia has also many topics about which you can write articles, but this still does not mean you write about all of them. Anyway, it is up to the EC to decide on this matter. Vogone talk 11:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, as a regular translator here, I think it is sensible to group things reflecting priority. Voting interface is more important in that even mistranslating a word may result in a large number of unintended votes. I would like to be allowed to quickly translate and review it, when I have no time to cover everything. --whym (talk) 22:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks all for your thoughts here. From the Election Committee perspective, we do indeed encourage translation of as much of the information as possible into as many languages as possible. I confess that I am not terribly familiar with the process by which translation requests are addressed by our many outstanding volunteers; however, if I was to suggest a priority ranking, I'd probably suggest:

  • Voter interfaces (for each SecurePoll)
  • Voter information
  • Candidate statements
  • Candidate questions
  • Any other pages that people have time to work on.

Is this helpful? Risker (talk) 17:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • "it is sensible to group things reflecting priority"—I couldn't agree more; and this might be applied more widely on Meta. Incidentally, I've asked Sørby why this frightful, disruptive translation template is sometimes being strewn around text at a fine-grained level—for example, for individual bullets, numbered paragraphs. So translators of election-related text, please consider littering at the section level and no more fine-grained that that. I've also asked how you work around it when using the numbering hash-sign. As yet, there are no helpful instructions packaged and available for copy-editors of the English text. Tony (talk) 02:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting should have opened Edit

The postponement of one week was until today. It's now 26 past midnight UTC, yet still "Voting has not begun. Votes will not be accepted."

What's happening, and will the close of voting be extended too? Tony (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting has opened. We have not yet changed the banners. There are a few projects with challenges right now, including Meta, but that is being worked on as I write. Risker (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All projects should be working now, I'll put up the CN banners as soon as we've done a couple more tests. Jalexander (talk) 02:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you indeed, Jalexander. Tony (talk) 03:29, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a matter of urgency, I wonder whether information on how to access the voter link—regrettably complicated—could be made more prominent (for example, at the top). I'd be almost inclined to insert a list of ready-made piped links to the SecurePoll special page on the 10 biggest Wikipedias, with clear instructions directly under this list on going to one's home wiki, if not one of those listed.

At the moment you have to hunt for it. I fear we might lose 30% of voters that way. Tony (talk) 04:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC) PS I've received a complaint that the banner text has not been translated much at all. Tony (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I went with as many translations as we had and will be keeping an eye out for more so that we can merge them in. The CN banner currently has 30 different languages translated and I think that's a reasonable level to have considered ok to start. I agree on the finding the vote info easier. I'm setting up a little info box to try and have near the top of the page with the info which I hope will help. Jalexander (talk) 04:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These seem outdated Edit

The dates on Wikimedia Foundation elections/FDC Ombudsperson elections/2013, Wikimedia Foundation elections/FDC elections/2013 seem outdated. Update and I'll mark for translation. Or are they correct currently? PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, I'm sure someone at the WMF / ElectCom can update and mark this for translation (if needed). PiRSquared17 (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done Jalexander (talk) 05:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Frame too wide Edit

The frame "If you are eligible to vote:" is too wide, left part cannot be seen.--SGlad (talk) 15:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now OK. Thanks to Nnemo --SGlad (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Um, now it shows up on the right side of the TOC for me. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Software in the Public Interest? Edit

Since 2007, the election pages for the board have indicated that the voting system would be handled by an outside group, Software in the Public Interest. I see no such notice this time, and the voting seems to be taking place on, rather than the SPI site. Is SPI not handling the voting this time? --Emufarmers (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nope, not this year. While we appreciate SPI for their help in the past, logistically it was sometimes extremely difficult to work with them, and the committee made the decision to do it in house this year. The biggest value that we got from SPI was in having someone external hold the key, which we are doing by having an outside attorney (and former DA and prosecutor) hold it for us. Jalexander (talk) 04:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need admin to update dates, please Edit

  Resolved. Thanks to James 17:43, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The voting and result dates in the lede sections at the top of Wikimedia Foundation elections/FDC Ombudsperson elections/2013 and the top of Wikimedia Foundation elections/FDC elections/2013 are the old dates. These are protected pasges, so could a kindly admin please update the dates. Thanks much. 05:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unable to vote yet meet requirements Edit

Username as per signature, voting was attempted at's version of the vote extension. BaSH PR0MPT (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, you are not eligible, since you did not have 300 edits before April 15. --Rschen7754 23:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

voting here is too complicated Edit

I am just a regular editor. I think this statement is really nonsensible: Go to the wiki page "Special:SecurePoll" on one wiki you qualify to vote from. For example, if you are most active on the wiki, go to I cut and pasted Special:SecurePoll in the search box. It took me to what looked like the right place to vote. So I tried to vote. It said I was disqualified. After looking around for an hour and trying different things I realized I was going to a meta page. So I backed out to the main page and pasted it there. Then it took me to a place I could vote. You all REALLY need to rethink how this voting process works. I'll bet there are lots of editors who give up in frustration. GroveGuy (talk) 07:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I must admit that I too was surprised there is not a direct link from each wiki to the voting page, but instead requires you to go to meta and copy/paste s pagename back on your own wiki.
Relatedly - will there be an email out to all eligible voters at some point informing them that voting is open? I don't believe there's been any formal email announcements (or on the mailing lists), though I might be wrong. Perhaps if the email system is able to identify only people who are eligible then it can give them a direct link? I don't mean to be critical, but I do agree with GroveGuy that it does seem quite complex at the moment. Wittylama (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There will be an email. It won't give a direct link. The link will be where it is now. That's so that voters actually have an opportunity to read about the candidates before they vote. While those who are heavily and regularly involved in Wikimedia administrative matters are probably familiar with many of the names on the ballot, many users may recognize only a few names, and often still won't be familiar with the positions of the candidates. The system isn't perfect; however, in keeping with longstanding practice the links are made so that voters at least have the opportunity to inform themselves before voting. This is a point that could be raised on the post-mortem. Risker (talk) 02:30, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've updated the help page instructions at Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013/Vote Questions and also added some common links. Perhaps this will help. If you have any specific suggestions, I would be happy to implement them. Best. 03:09, 11 June 2013 (UTC) Nevermind. 03:12, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Perhaps changing the wording to "In the Search bar on one wiki you qualify to vote from, enter "Special:SecurePoll"" might be okay. This will mean some re-translations. Thoughts? Risker (talk) 03:16, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That sounds good to me. And I agree with the assement above that a direct link to the vote is probably not a good idea. It would bypass all the information contained in the candidate statements and voter questions. These are very important things the voters should get a chance to read before they vote. We'd be doing them a disservice if we sent them straight to the polls without having a chance to review the candidates. 04:24, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I completely understand your reasoning Risker, thanks for the thorough answer. Not perfect, like you say, but sensible. Good to hear there'll be an email out. :-) Wittylama (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can't vote Edit

Folks, I can't login to It says that "There is no user by the name "NaBUru38"!!! --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:03, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't need to log in to the voting wiki. When you go to vote, it should automatically recognise your account. -Mh7kJ (talk) 18:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I Can't vote Edit

I can't vote. Why? I'm not a bot, I made over 300 edist in fi-wiki before 15 April 2013, I'm not blocked any project and I made over 20 edits in fi-wiki between 15 December 2012 and 30 April 2013. Samoasambia (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You seem qualified to vote from what I can see. Please try this link fi:Special:SecurePoll. If that doesn't work, try this link fi:Special:SecurePoll/vote/330. If both of those fail, we might need expert help. 04:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Voting still does't work. We need expert help. Samoasambia (talk) 08:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you sure that you made 300 edits before April 15, 2013? --Rschen7754 08:37, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure. You can check it (huhtikuuta means April) Samoasambia (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've asked for an expert to provide some input. 06:04, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Following up here, we're looking into this. Is there any chance that there was a username change? I see some user page moves around the time that the voter list was run, and I do not know if this may have an effect. Risker (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I haven't yet figured out why you were missed on the list creation (I haven't seen that happen yet) however given that you currently seem to be eligible I've added you to the fiWIki list. You should be able to vote there now. Jalexander (talk) 02:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I can vote now. Thanks! Samoasambia (talk) 08:57, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links from the ballot Edit

Hi. When I go to <>, it has almost no links on it. And the few links it does have are misleading or broken. My notes are below. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

From <>:

Thanks for the notes MZ, couple responses below (in rough order of your comments though combining some):

  • I will try to adjust the mediawiki messages to add more links to here. I don't think we have many other options except for that.
  • I'm not sure what you mean by the other elections ... we obviously should try to link to this election but it's the only one going (since it contains the board and FDC combined)...
  • About Wikipedia is the WM default, I'll remove that as I'm cleaning up mediawiki messages.
  • Sadly I don't think I can add links to the SecurePoll interface for the candidates. I've tried to do so before while trying to figure out SecurePoll and was unable too. If someone knows how then I am happy to try if the EC is ok with me doing it at this late stage.
  • I agree, I'd hide the log in and search box (and full side bar) if I could as well. However the site wide css/js is turned off for security reasons.
  • I'll add a link to this talk page in the footer or side bar perhaps.
  • You should only get to voteWiki if you're eligible (the checking happens on your local wiki). The message there is that you aren't on the required voter list, they would probably have to follow the banner back here or come back to where they started. The only real way I know to change that is going to be a MW message change across the cluster. Jalexander (talk) 08:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually I just made sure the main page and the voter help page are linked on the side bar (I also cleaned up the footer). I didn't want to adjust the securepoll mediawiki pages much given that they are translated. Jalexander (talk) 09:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've hidden the login button with a similar hack to the mediawiki message. Jalexander (talk) 02:34, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(vaguely related) Email notification might have been sent to users on the "nomail" list Edit

Can someone who was involved in sending the email comment? PiRSquared17 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This was addressed at the above page; it was an alternate account of the user that received the email. Risker (talk) 02:24, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote count low? Edit

There were 3495 votes in the last election. Looking at the list for this election, there are just over 800 votes so far and the election is half over. Does this seem low to anybody? 07:32, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is lower than I would have expected, as well. It may be that the active community of 2013 is not as interested in the "meta" aspects of the Wikimedia movement as in the past, as we have mostly followed the same processes as existed over the past several elections. Or it could be something entirely different. It's generally much harder to figure out why people *don't* do things than why they do them. Risker (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Millosh Edit

Why do I see answers to questions from Millosh, but no candidate statement?--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Millosh withdrew from Wikimedia before the elections started, including from the elections, from stewardship, and from LangCom. --Rschen7754 02:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rschen is correct. Millosh withdrew just hours before the (rescheduled) elections were about to start. We did not remove his answers because of the possibility that other candidates had referred to some of his comments, although I recognize this could be somewhat confusing. I don't know that there was a good solution for this situation; looking at past experience, it's rare that candidates withdraw. Risker (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why are some socks invited to vote and not others? Edit

Why has User:Bishzilla received an e-mail invitation from the election committee, and not me? I have surely fulfilled the conditions of having at least 300 edits before 15 April 2013 and at least 20 edits between 15 December 2012 and 30 April 2013, same as she has. What is this injustice? Bishzilla is all puffed up. See her boasting on her enwiki talk. Darwinbish (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Only eligible users can vote. The Election Committee made a list of eligible users, and sent the email to all the eligible users, excluding Wikimedia nomail list. BTW, which one is your main account? You see to have quite a few socks alternate accounts. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you verify that your other accounts are eligible by going to en:Special:SecurePoll/vote/330? That way you can see if you're on the eligible voters list. Obviously, only vote once. PiRSquared17 (talk) 22:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the point is, how am I different from Bishzilla? OK I'm a sock, but so's she. I know neither of us is eligible to actually vote... I suppose. But I do have enough edits, count 'em. Main account... hmm... well, I just added full disclosure on my Wikimedia page, sort of. [Reluctantly.] Ultimately, I suppose we're all User:Bishonen's socks. Yeah. [Hastily.] I mean, alternative accounts! Darwinbish (talk) 22:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]
  • Darwinbish is an acknowledged sock of Bishonen, one that is accepted by the community, as is w:en:User:Bishzilla. Bishzilla meets the editor voting requirements, having more than 300 edits total, more than 20 edits between December 15 and April 15, and not being blocked at the time the voter list was created. I don't believe any of Bishonen's other socks meet all of those criteria: that is what is different about Bishzilla. Nonetheless, the "one editor, one vote, no matter how many accounts you have" rule applies to votes by Bishonen and her cavalcade of socks. As she has already voted with her primary account, Bishzilla is not eligible to vote. Risker (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment enwp culture may not transfer over here, so for clarity sake... Risker and others know that Bishonen is a highly-trusted user and the different accounts are different aspects of her personality depending on the siutation (i.e. it's for amusement). The point Bish is raising is that alternate accounts should have either not been invited to vote or should be checked for during the scrutineering period. It's a valid concern that we should be aware of. 02:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    to clarify that while it is very difficult to sort out acknowledged alternate accounts (or unblocked socks) who are otherwise eligible for voting emails or voter lists we do sort through these things during the scrutineering process through a variety of means. Jalexander (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes, but the e-mails? Risker, I have 386 edits before April 2013 and 30 edits between 1 January 2013 and 30 April 2013.[2] That's without even counting the season's greetings between 15 December and 31 December, which X!'s edit counter can't specify so well. So while Bishzilla may be the ancient of days and practically Larry Sanger, I also fulfill the criteria! It's not fair. Anyway, you're lucky I'm not trying to vote for the Funds Dissemination Committee and Funds Dissemination Committee Ombud, cause Bishonen only voted for the Board of Trustees! darwinbish BITE
    [That does it. Bishonen sends the bad sock to bed without supper.] No voting! She has a sort of point about the e-mails, though. Even though not one that matters. Sorry, everybody. Bishonen (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Well, we only sent "reminder" emails to people who hadn't already voted, and only one per email address. Do all the socks have the same email? Risker (talk) 06:54, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aïeee…! The mailbot knows my e-mail! [Yes, there's a family e-mail. Darinbish feels busted, outed, shamed. She tries to bite the mailbot in a tender part, but it doesn't have one. Bites Risker instead.] Next time you just send the one e-mail to Dear Darwinbish, you hear? darwinbish BITE 10:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@Darwinbish, you can add the other Bish's to Wikimedia nomail list to keep them from getting election emails. 20:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And then I'll be the one getting them? Hehehehehehe. Outstanding. Done. darwinbish BITE 06:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Doesn't meet requirements? Edit

SecurePoll is telling me my account isn't approved for this election. I cleared 300 edits a few days before 15 April. Please advise. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hmmm, I'm not sure, could you do me a favor and try again? I'm seeing you on the list for either meta or enWiki. Jalexander (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For next time: where to find voting systems experts Edit

I added a comment at the end of the #Schulze_voting_and_strategic_voting section above. Homunq (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might want to add it to the post mortem page as well. PiRSquared17 (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting difficulty Edit

An editor at the Signpost News and notes talk: Too hard to work out how to vote. Tony (talk) 16:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

out order of Edit

I went down the "Candidates' Presentations" pages, copied their names to a text file, and put my intended vote after each name, e.g.,

  • Jane Q. Public (citizen6) +
  • Willem Vandervecken (InFlight) 0
  • ...

Then I started on the vote pages and discovered that the lists of names were in a totally different order. What's more, the real name and the wiki username were in reversed order, and sometimes only one was present. Here are the lists for FDC:

Candidates' Presentations

  • Smallbones [real name not listed]
  • Cristian Consonni [username not listed]
  • Delphine Ménard (notafish)
  • Ben (ImperfectlyInformed)
  • Abbas Mahmood (Abbasjnr)
  • Mile Kiš (MikyM)
  • Michał Buczyński (Aegis Maelstrom)


  • MikyM (Mile Kiš)
  • notafish (Delphine Ménard)
  • Aegis Maelstrom (Michał Buczyński)
  • Smallbones [real name not listed]
  • Abbasjnr (Abbas Mahmood)
  • CristianCantoro (Cristian Consonni)
  • ImperfectlyInformed (Ben)

This made it very difficult to read my intended votes off my list from the presentations and apply them to the lines on the ballot. I hope I didn't make any mistakes in the process. I hope no others did either, but I doubt it.

And by the way, since "real names" (complete or not, as in "Ben") and usernames are both occasionally missing from one list or the other, aren't we lucky that no candidates happened to appear with just the real name on one and just the username on the other? I can see next year's election now:


  • Benjamin Franklin
  • Marseillaise
  • Mohandas Gandhi


  • Quiet
  • Key Tester
  • Jeanne d'Arc

Gee, who's who?

--Thnidu (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, the reordering of the candidates is very much on purpose and a hard one to get rid of though I know it can be confusing at times. The issue is that there are well known issues where people favor the names at the top of a list over the bottom and so randomizing makes that issue far less of a problem. It's possible that if we keep the same system we can program it to keep it stable for 1 'person' and just randomize between people. The name thing is one that I've heard a couple times. The logic behind the committee's decision was, I believe (they can answer for sure), that the FDC elections did not require a real name (and some didn't give it or a full one) and the Board Election did. The FDC election therefore had the 'main' name being the username and the board had the 'main' name being the real name. I think the logic made sense but it's something to think about for the post mortem. Jalexander (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note about Stats on the Results Edit

Just a note since I imagine someone will ask for it. I expect to roll out stats from the election as I can over the course of the week. It's a rough week for me time wise so I can't promise any particular days but my goal is to spread them out. If anyone has specific numbers or info they are looking for please let me know. I also hope to put out a full dump of votes but because of the care that obviously needs to go through anonymizing them and making sure that they are double checked for that anonymization by legal etc. I don't want to promise that before late next week or possibly the week after. I will however try to get them faster then that if I can (I will slowly beocome more free starting July 1st) Jalexander (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Report to the Board of Trustees and to the community is posted Edit

I have written a personal report to the Board and to the community about the election, with a few recommendations. It is found at Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013/Post mortem/Report from Risker. Please feel free to comment on the talk page. Risker (talk) 03:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Additional, more detailed statistical analysis will be available in the coming days and weeks" Edit

Did someone see anything? --Nemo 19:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, this was my fault, I had requests out to approve anonymization etc and then increased workload elsewhere ended up with me completely forgetting about this. I will see what I can do to get the raw data and some more information out as soon as I can. Jalexander--WMF 19:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Return to "Wikimedia Foundation elections 2013" page.