Talk:Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015

The election ended 31 May 2015. No more votes will be accepted. The results were announced on 5 June 2015. Please consider submitting any feedback regarding the 2015 election on the election's post mortem page.

voters/candidates

Could someone please rename the second "Infromation for voters" into information for candidates"? Alice Wiegand (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Thank you for catching that. :) --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 03:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Double text

Hi, on Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/Call for candidates, in the FDC text, "content contributors" is mentioned twice: "(e.g. content contributors, program leaders, user group leaders, functionaries, content contributors, chapter board members)". I agree it should be in there twice ;). All the best, Taketa (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for pointing it out. Removed. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Today I learned...

...that apparently India is not a part of Asia. Red Slash (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

@Red Slash:I assume you're talking about the part of the board letter where they say they are especially looking for candidates that "[c]ome from Africa, India, Asia, or the Middle East"? While I certainly didn't write it (the board did) and so can't 100% speak for their reasonings I can think of two very good reasons to do that. One, India has an enormous population that is not only very underrepresented in our community and leadership but in a great position to grow it's internet population in the near future (and easier for us to engage in then, say, China). Calling out the country specifically as a 'special' place we would want to find leaders makes a lot of sense. Not only do we want leaders from all of Asia but we want them from India especially. We had Bishakha who was a great addition to the board but unfortunately she decided to step down and focus on her local non-profits. 2. There is, for better or worse, a distinction in too many people's minds (honestly, especially too many of my fellow americans and some other English speaking countries) who have a distinction in their mind between 'Asian' and 'Indian'. The Board wanted to reach out and call for nominations for who would be good, they wanted them to think specifically about Indian candidates and if someone would see 'asian' and not think of the Indian community members they know then that wouldn't be good. Jalexander--WMF 06:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Red Slash, the Indian subcontinent and the Middle East are both part of the continent of Asia. So they probably mean East and Southeast Asia and not the continent of Asia. -- All the best, Taketa (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Id verification

Hi, I am a candidate for the FDC election 2015. I want to know how do I have my identification verified? The FDC elections page states that a candidate will be privately contacted by election committee member for the ID verification process once s/he lists himself/herself as candidate. But I have not been contacted yet. Tanweer (talk) 07:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Please, send you verification papers to secure-info@wikimedia.org or by other means specified at the page. The clause about private contact is for cases when there are problems with provided ID. Ruslik (talk) 11:13, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Cannot select language on votewiki

See phabricator:T97922, phabricator:T97923. Cc Violetova, Tanweer Morshed, Chsh, Itzike, Flixtey, Wittylama, Laurentius, Aegis Maelstrom (en-N candidates removed because I don't remember ping limits). --Nemo 07:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Responded on phabricator:T97923 and merged the other ticket in (same root cause). It isn't perfect (at all) and I'm certainly open to thoughts but I don't have a good answer. Jalexander--WMF 07:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Timeout at vote.wikimedia.org?

When I attempted to submit my votes, I got the message that I am no longer logged in. Apparently there was some timeout involved as my SUL login was still operational and as vote.wikimedia.org does not appear to be connected to the SUL accounts. I would appreciate some significantly longer timeout as it takes time to research the individual candidates. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I know this has been an issue in the past for some in the past and I've never found a good way to increase the time out. I will look into what options are available again though poking a couple developers. Jalexander--WMF 07:16, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Millions of funds

Hi. I don't believe the wording used in this banner. Are there millions of funds? If not, could the sentence be fixed? Killiondude (talk) 05:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The overall funds available for movement entities through the FDC process in 2014-2015 is $6,000,000, and $3,817,956 has already been allocated. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 07:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you read the sentence. Do you have over 1,000,000 different funds? Otherwise maybe you meant millions of dollars in funds. Killiondude (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

"Millions of funds" =/= "Millions of dollars", after all.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 16:27, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Either works grammatically, "WMF funds" is similar to "public funds". This also matches the wording which WMF uses (the above was copy and pasted from the FDC report). The definition of the word allows for either usage. I suspect WMF uses it for translation purposes, although I could be wrong. Also "millions of dollars in funds" would also be incorrect as the FDC oversees only one "fund" in the definition you are basing it on. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 20:04, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Using it in this way is clumsy and awkward. It's hard to believe you're saying that "millions of dollars in funds" is incorrect. Does the WMF control millions of dollars? Does it have multiple funds? (Hint: funds can be financial resources like money, investments, etc.). I'm not disputing that you can have funds. I'm disputing that the usage you've defended allows for millions of funds. I agree that it was likely used for translating. It's just lazy. :-) Killiondude (talk) 20:39, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback - I'll pass it along. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 21:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

At the very least, a currency should be specified! (also, it's not WMF money, it's movement money...) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Banner not WCAG compliant

From RFH

@Varnent: Also the colors (white on 24C54F background) for [Help with translations!] is also not en:WCAG compliant. Please consider fixing that as well. --Glaisher (talk) 09:39, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

@Glaisher: do you know of any resources to (hopefully relatively easily) check on or learn about compliance? I think that would be useful for much more then just the election committee. Jalexander--WMF 19:48, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

That would be great! I am not sure there is time to adjust this set of banners - sadly - as they will be coming down soon. But a helpful note for the next set. Thank you Glaisher! --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 20:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

[1] might be of help in this case. --Glaisher (talk) 08:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Banner appearing for people not eligible to vote

I don't mind not voting, but I don't like being presented with a banner asking me to vote, the link from which takes me to a page with the message "We apologize, but you do not appear to be on the eligible voter list". Alixos (talk) 02:02, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, those ineligible shouldn't be made to waste their time reading and following the banner. Backfiah (talk) 05:29, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the CentralNotice system does not allow us to target just the voter list. Perhaps something that Echo could do when the user interface to send notifications is developed. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 10:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Voting method

Why isn't the voting method listed on the FAQ page? Is it the Schulze or S/O/N system (I presume the latter)? What is the minimum amount of support votes required to be elected? Ed ^{[talk] [en]} 02:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed it should have been stated way earlier, at a minimum before the nomination period (so that candidates know the effect of standing as a candidate) and ideally some months before (so that it could be discussed). --Nemo 20:26, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

It is the S/O/N system which is used. No minimum number of votes is required, but formally the voting is just preparing a recommendation to the Board who then decides. So if extremly low number of supooirtvotes would be a signal to the Board to question the legitimacy of the candidate. Yes and of course it should have been stated in the FAQ page. The reality was though that the Election Committe this time hade about six days to constitute itslef and resolve around 20 issues (among these which voting system to use) before geting operational. The operational part involved getting around 30 pages and banners in place, all without a proper workspace available for the preparation. Anders Wennersten (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Wennersten: That's sub-optimal. Has the Elections Committee discussed how to change this in the future?

"... formally the voting is just preparing a recommendation to the Board who then decides." Where in the world is this stated? I've never heard it before. Ed ^{[talk] [en]} 05:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

You should be more careful in your homework. :) wmf:Bylaws#Section 3. Selection., Wikimedia Foundation Board Handbook#Community selected Board members. --Nemo 11:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I meant in the election pages, as it's pretty pertinent information. Thank you nonetheless for the links. Ed ^{[talk] [en]} 22:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

The information is on the main election page (and has been) under Process. We have also added it to the FAQ page for clarification. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 20:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes very subotimal and really frustrating for us that became members in the committe. We have had short discussion re this unprofessional set-up of the committee and will discuss it further in our post-mortem. Most likely we will recommend the set up of a standing committe (at least part of it being kept betwwen the elections) that can be given reasonable time to prepare. Also the need to have a proper documentions of the process in place, which could be pepared by a separate taskforce or a possible standing committee.Anders Wennersten (talk) 12:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Very good. Thanks, Anders. I'll be interested in reading the post-mortem (which I presume will be public?) Best, Ed ^{[talk] [en]} 22:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Both the post-mortem by the committee and the one which everyone can contribute to are public. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 10:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Highest votes in opposition

Without prejudice to right of voters, I take this liberty to point out tendency of ignoring woman. This is open manifestation for overcoming the gender gap. A very remarkable point is that “Violetova - Snezhana Shtrkovska” the only woman out of ten candidates gets 220 votes, which were cast in her opposition. She secured highest resisting votes in a competition, therefore I am compelled to observe that gender balancing campaign is still in incubator. In such a condition normal rules are replaced with special rules for a fixed time period. Nannadeem (talk) 20:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

That would be a bad faith, rather than ignoring, I am sure each of the voters have their own reasoning on why they vote that way. And it's a securepoll so you can't pick one by one of the voter for their reasoning.--AldNonymous^Bicara? 20:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Nannadeem, you are clearly misreading the results: supporting or opposing is the opposite of ignoring. The most "ignored" candidate was a man, Smallbones, with 742 neutral "votes"; to the contrary, Violetova was the third most voted candidate, with only 629 neutral "votes". This probably means that voters paid attention to the candidate, e.g. to her answers in the questions.

As for affirmative action, true, we don't have a women quota. I'm personally in favour of quotas for women pretty much anywhere (with others, I even managed to get quotas in the bylaws of my university) but I'm not sure they'd work for this body, it's something to study. Had we had a quota, perhaps more women would have had the courage to stand as a candidate, knowing they'd only compete with other women; and voters would have had more options to get female membership among the elected people. Sic stantibus rebus, with a shortage of candidates it's not fair to blame the voters only. --Nemo 22:14, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Eligibility errors

Ettorre reports that he got «We apologize, but you do not appear to be on the eligible voter list» during FDC elections. By my counts and toollabs:meta/accounteligibility/36/Ettorre, he's vastly eligible. What's going on? --Nemo 08:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

There were 500 people or so accidentally left off the list at the start of the FDC election that were added in mid way through after someone brought it to our attention and Tim found the error in the script that generates the voter list. This individual was able to vote, and the board election is using the correct list. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 09:52, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I knew of the bug, but when I got these reports, the list had been fixed for several days already. I've asked the reporters to check again, but Zetazeti and Uranatmi were not able to vote. --Nemo 11:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I can look into it, but I am not sure why they would not have been able to vote. Can you ask them to contact us directly? It can be difficult working through a middle person. :) --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 11:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I already pointed them to this section. Is the eligibility check using some cache? Are you logging the eligibility errors to check them manually? --Nemo 11:13, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure what eligibility check uses, but it should be accurate. I do not think SecurePoll logs the errors, but will verify. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 12:14, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

SecurePoll does not log those errors. I have reopened the ticket to check on the voters you mentioned. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 13:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Both @Zetazeti: and @Uranatmi: are on the voter list (both before and after the additional 500 names were added) and should not be receiving the ineligible to vote message. Can anyone verify that this is indeed the error they are receiving? --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 16:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I hope the problem will be solved, not for me, but for everyone, in the community

I suggest:

to go public:

the list of voters eligible to vote

the list of voters

the list of non-voters

the list of votes: respective, for candidate, votes cast numerically, in favor, against, abstentions

non-voters, cast numerically.

Thanks --Ettorre (talk) 15:33, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I get the message still "We apologize, but you do not appear to be on the eligible voter list. Please visit the voter help page for more information on voter eligibility and information on how to be added to the voter list if you are eligible. " sorry maybe I'm missing something ...??? !!! if is so, what? I want to heal :-)--Ettorre (talk) 15:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The following message appears after clicking the vote now banner:

We apologize, but you do not appear to be on the eligible voter list. Please visit the [[m:Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/Vote Questions|voter help page]] for more information on voter eligibility and information on how to be added to the voter list if you are eligible.

Notice: The non-functioning link to [2] out of en.wikipedia.org. I have 500+ edits but am not eligible? --Miraclexix (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Still, today, it does not work. I can not still vote.--Ettorre (talk) 15:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Tim is working on a fix, and it may already be up. Please let us know if you are still having problems. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 16:17, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Now for me it's ok. Thanks! Now it works! :-)--Ettorre (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Excellent! I apologize for the error and inconvenience. @Zetazeti:, @Uranatmi:, @Everyking:, and @Ariel: please let us know if you are still experiencing any problems. Thank you! --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 15:37, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I have just above 300 edits if adding results across Wikis etc, but get the We apologize message @Varnent: : [3] Morten7an (talk) 11:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Morten7an: You are also required to have made 20 edits between 15 October 2014 and 15 April 2015. It appears that you only made 6 edits during that time, so are not eligible to vote. Sorry. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 17:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, @Varnent:. Evidently I did not notice the type of boolean.. Morten7an (talk) 23:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Security token mismatch, cannot log in

I got several reports of this error. The "votes questions" page should address the issue. --Nemo 08:22, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. Basically there seems to be an odd problem with following the interwiki links, and is related to winding up on http instead of https. We are updating the FAQ to address this, but basically if people click on a direct link, it should work, and we are switching some of the interwiki links to external links. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 09:55, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the answer but I'm not sure this is a plausible cause. The reports I got were from it.wiki users who were almost certainly logged on on it.wiki, hence forced to HTTPS, hence landing on HTTPS https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll even when following a protocol-relative interwiki link.

Besides, rather than changing links manually it may be more practical to change the "m" and "meta" interwiki link in the interwiki map so that it's forced to https. --Nemo 11:11, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

I am open to other ideas, but that is the explanation I have received from the tech folks thus far. We are, overall, looking into the https issue on VoteWiki. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 12:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

What is the fix for this? I'm also getting "Security token mismatch, cannot log in." Using Chrome I followed the banner from enwiki to Special:SecurePoll/vote/339, then clicked the "Go to the voting server" button. When I arrive, it's an https URL but I'm greeted with the above error. I've tried, per above, switching it to http, but it restores https and switches to a different error, "Error interpreting the authorization response from the server." Just for kicks I also tried with Firefox and tried logging out and logging back in. I am not [quoting from the FAQ] a "developer, WMF staff member, Advisory Board member or a Funds Dissemination Committee member". Ideas? --Rhododendrites (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

We are looking into this, it is not consistently causing problems for people, and we are having problems replicated it. I would suggest trying again in a few hours, as unhelpful as that sounds, but in general, it has been an issue with properly going through Meta-Wiki to get to the ballot on VoteWiki. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 20:11, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

FYI I tried two more times, a couple hours apart. The most recent try worked. No changes on my end. --Rhododendrites (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I have still the same issue "Security token mismatch, cannot log in." since days. I have tried at different times, with different browsers (in different countries as well!). I had this problem also with the precedent election and I could not vote.--Vespiacic (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

After posting a message on ukwiki village pump we received repports of security token mismatch by two Ukrainian users, sulutil:Jphwra and sulutil:Volodymyr D-k. Both have good enough editcount and activity, but cannot vote. I have asked them to follow the guide at Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/Vote Questions but that did not help. Could you please suggest the following actions? Thanks — NickK (talk) 12:35, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I got a mail this morning telling me that I am eligible to vote, with links to the candidate pages et to the polling wiki. When I use the link to vote I get the 'Security token mismatch, cannot log in. ' Help ! William Ellison (talk) 07:16, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I have the same problem, and I even cannot log on, because this set of wiki-pages does not recognize me as a registered user. However, I have been one for several years with the German Wikipedia. I have enough edits, and I also followed all instructions on the FAQ page, still no success. --Mr Südsee (talk) 07:51, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

HI, I have the same problem- even when following the instructions at the FAQ page. I have enough edits, and got an email notifying me of my eligibility to vote --אמא של גולן (talk) 19:31, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Fix links in voting interface needed

Hello. Sky Harbor's links in the votewiki ain't well formated (those who link to talk, questions). Maybe you want to fix them. Best regards. -- MarcoAurelio 21:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

It is normal now. Ruslik (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Why

Why can't I vote? It looks like I meet all the qualifications. Everyking (talk) 06:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

What message do you see? Ruslik (talk) 09:42, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

@Everyking: It would definitely be useful to know what error you are getting, I can confirm you are on the voter list and should be able to vote. If you want to try again you can go to SecurePoll here and try. Jalexander--WMF 12:14, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"We apologize, but you do not appear to be on the eligible voter list." Everyking (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

And to verify, you are logged in on Meta when you click on the vote link? --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 20:09, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Everyking (talk) 03:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you still having this problem? Ruslik (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Everyking (talk) 11:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Disenfranchised

although I'm logged in here and elsewhere as soon as I click on the secure poll link, the system logs me out, attempting to log in again I get the error message

Login error There is no user by the name "KTo288". Check your spelling

This is strange as I was able to vote in the previous election.--KTo288 (talk) 15:13, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Essentially the same issue for me; I'm logged in on meta.wikimedia.org. When the vote page opens (with the candidates and my UserID in the greeting) I'm not logged in. Any attempt to manually login results in an error message:

Login error
There is no user by the name "SBaker43".
Check your spelling.

Thanks, SBaker43 (talk) 16:20, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You do not need to login to vote wiki to vote. If you are able to see the ballot, it knows who you are. For security reasons, there are only a handful of accounts on vote wiki. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 17:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay I see, thanks for taking the time to answer.--KTo288 (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Gender forgotten

Looks like all translation made by WMF professional translators ommitted the fact that we have female candidates. In fact, at least in some languages female users introduced themselves using male language. Several examples:

• Russian
  • Phoebe: помогал в организации конференций «Викимания» means "I am a man who helped to organise Wikimania", should be помогала в организации конференций «Викимания»
  • María:
    • где я основал ЛГБТ-википроект means "I was a man who founded LGBT wikiproject", should be где я основала ЛГБТ-википроект
    • участвовал в комитетах AffCom и IEG means "I was a male member of AffCom and IEG", should be участвовала в комитетах AffCom и IEG
• French
  • Phoebe: Je suis éditeur means "I am a male editor", should be Je suis éditrice
  • María:
    • j’ai lancé en.wp il y a dix ans et suis actuellement actif sur es.wp means "I founded (sic!) English Wikipedia ten years ago and I am currently a male active editor on Spanish Wikipedia". That's a hit: María is a founder of English Wikipedia and a male user! Should be j’ai commencé sur en.wp il y a dix ans et suis actuellement active sur es.wp
    • Je suis membre fondateur de Wikimedia España et d’Iberocoop means "I am a male founding member of Wikimedia Spain and Iberocoop", should be Je suis membre fondatrice de Wikimedia España et d’Iberocoop
    • Je suis fermement décidé à élargir les canaux de participation de la communauté à la gouvernance de WMF means "I am a man deeply committed to broadening channels for community participation in WMF governance", should be Je suis fermement décidée à élargir les canaux de participation de la communauté à la gouvernance de WMF
• German
  • Phoebe:
    • Ich bin seit 2003 Herausgeber means "I am a male publisher (sic) since 2003" (means publisher as a private publishing house), should be "Ich bin seit 2003 Benutzerin"
    • Mitverfasser von „How Wikipedia Works” means "male co-author of How Wikipedia Works", should be Mitverfasserin von „How Wikipedia Works”
    • 'Ich bin Bibliothekar means "I am a male librarian", should be Ich bin Bibliothekarin
  • María: Ich bin seit langem freiwilliger Mitarbeiter means "I am a long-time male volunteer", should be Ich bin seit langem freiwillige Mitarbeiterin

I could not check other languages as I don't understand them well enough, but this seems to be a systematic mistake. It's just a shame to forget that we have female candidates, especially after three months of Inspire gender gap campaign.

Please fix these mistakes and try to find volunteers to review other translations, as it looks like all translations consider female candidates as male. Thanks — NickK (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I just saw this; hope it was fixed. Thanks, NickK -- phoebe | talk 20:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, I am more concerned with the apparent assumption that Orwellian Newspeak like "diverse and emerging voices" will still make any kind of sense once you translate it into 20 other languages. I know you are in the USA, and that this is the jargon you have to use now if you want to signal you are "progressive" (I despair of Wikimedia already because it is apparently willing to toss the neutrality principle for Orwellian games), but "diverse and emerging" is code for "not WASP males", which only makes sense in the USA. How did you assume this code will still make any sense if you translate it into any other language? I can only imagine what "a diverse and emerging voice" will mean after you translate this into Swahili, probably some kind of ghostly modulating demon's howling emerging from the underworld? Perhaps if you want to signal "please do not elect white males", you should say so? Or if you don't want to say that, do not say it even in code? Because, what kind of sense will it make to translate "please no white males" into Chinese? It is extemely unlikely that the people reading the Chinese or Swahili version of the text will be white males to begin with. How does it make sense to impose US parochial bigotry on an international project? Or is the correct Chinese translation of "diverse and emerging" really "non-Han"? And, horribile dictu the correct Swahili translation of "diverse and emerging" by extension would be "non-black"? --Dbachmann (talk) 06:36, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Translation

Hi,

please fix the nl translation of my candidacy. My nomination text now says "Wikimedians" which in Dutch should be "Wikimedianen". Also "De komende jaren" should be "de komende jaren" without the capital letter, like it is in my English text. "bovendien" should be "bovenal" (bovendien has a completely different meaning). There needs to be a dot behind the sentence "Ik geloof in minder bureaucratie".

Also, on all translations, please fix my name and signature. My text was "Sincerely, Taketa (talk)". This was changed into "Taketa] (talk:Taketa talk)". Please restore the "sincerely" and correct my name.

Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 17:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the detailed comments, I would like to point out that you can edit the translations yourself as well. --denny (talk) 18:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Dear Denny, I am not a regular meta translator. I only translate sporadically on meta, when provided with a direct link. As such, I have no extensive knowledge of the translation process and do not know where the text is at. I would welcome a link to it. I have looked and found the several number versions like Translations:Wikimedia Foundation elections/Board elections/2015/Candidates/93/en, which do not have an nl version. I have created the correct translations. Now to see if anything happens. All the best, Taketa (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I also used the translate extension for the first time recently, and it sure works... different. :) Cheers, --denny (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@Denny: the signature has now been fixed on vote-wiki thanks to Trijnstel. See User talk:Jalexander-WMF#Translations on board elections. I have asked Trijnstel to also fix the nl-translation. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 02:52, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Voting duration

The Funds Dissemination Committee elections were held from 3 to 10 May. Just eight days! Who on earth decided to give Wikimedia members so little time to vote? Not everyone logs in every day. --NaBUru38 (talk) 01:42, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The 2015 elections committee, composed of volunteers, determined the timeline based on the mandate provided to us by the Board of Trustees. We agree that more time would have been better, but the requested end date for the elections and time we were given to organize the election did not provide us with the ability to do so. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 06:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Eligibility

I have tens of thousand edits, but I've been editing logged out to reduce stress for a while. I know it's a bit of a long shot, but could I be added to the eligible list on this basis?--Gilderien (talk) 02:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, but we are not providing exceptions. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 06:44, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Elegibility again

Hello, is there any way of finding out which pre-condition made me ineligible? I was unblocked from en.wikipedia after more than 5 years on 16 April 2015, maybe that is what is doing it. If so, will I be eligible to vote next year (on the assumption that I am not re-blocked?) Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

According to the AccountEligibility tool, you did not make any edits 15 October 2014 and 15 April 2015. Making at least 20 edits in the 6 months leading up to the elections is a prerequisite to being eligible to vote. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 14:50, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Voting banner

Hi everyone,

I've noticed that the voting banner has some unnecessary capital letters. The text reads: "Voting Has Begun in Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Election! Votings Ends at (...). "has begun" and "ends" do not have to be capitalised of course. Thanks. --Soetermans (talk) 14:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

This was done exactly to attract attention. Ruslik (talk) 20:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

That's arbitrary, just to "attract attention"? It's a banner to begin with! The English Wikikpedia has a guideline precisely about this. Maybe Wikimedia has different guidelines. --Soetermans (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Let's then introduce some typos, grammar mistakes and other things which scream "EDIT ME" to any Wikimedia user to attract attention. --Nemo 19:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I encourage you to post any feedback on the Post Mortem page. We are obviously not changing the banners at this point. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 19:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Eligibility - Instructions for non-savvy users

This page is not very inclusive to new/casual wikipedians learning about Wikipedia and its internal politics. Can instructions for how to check how many posts you have be included somewhere; either a link or just instructions. I wouldn't normally ask for this additional level of newbie help, but this is a very very visible page; Specifically, help text surrounding how to keep track of how many posts you've made within a certain period of time would be useful. This will allow users both now (to determine current eligibility) and in the future (if they want to try to track their eligibility for a future election). It would also be helpful to include, somewhere on this page a link (or text surrounding) how, when, and where these rules are established for anyone who does want to learn more about the process. The talk page would probably be fine for the latter. --Kitty4777 (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Information on how these are determined is explained in process sections of existing pages. In short, the elections committee makes the determinations. The account eligibility tool is the best way to track current eligibility. There are dozens of tools for tracking edits, we can link to a couple to help folks keep track. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 16:51, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm getting a runaround

I am an administrator on enwiki and an active contributor there. So I assume I should be eligible to vote. But I can't get to the ballot. I am getting the runaround, with conflicting instructions: one page instructs me to log in, but the next page tells me I don't need to be logged in to vote!

Here's my experience: I read the candidates' statements and went to vote. When I clicked "Go to the voting server" it said "You must log in to vote in this election". [4] So I clicked "Log in" and was told "This wiki is maintained only to host elections. There should be no need to edit it, and you do not need to be logged in to vote. Only a limited number of accounts exist on this wiki." However, it didn't offer me any way to get to the voting area. So I tried to log in at that page (using my enwiki login information) and was told "Login error. There is no user by the name "MelanieN". Only a limited number of users exist on this wiki. You are not required to be logged into this wiki to vote."

After checking the FAQ, I started over. I tried "Go to the voting server" again. This time I got the message "Security token mismatch, cannot log in."[5]

On this message board, I am shown as logged in to Meta. So what is the deal? Why can't I get to the ballot? --MelanieN (talk) 17:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

If you are logged into Meta, you should be able to vote. You cannot log into the vote wiki. The security token error is one we are investigating, but it goes away just as randomly as it appears. If you try again in a couple hours or in a day, it should work. If not, let us know, but so far folks have been able to get around it. The best assessment I have heard so far is that it has something to do with the secure servers, but haven't been able to get confirmation from developers on the actual source of the problem. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 18:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

aye, generally if you try to vote again (perhaps with a new browser or a private browsing window? Though that doesn't seem to be necessary) using this link it should work if you're logged in here. The mis match issue doesn't hit a ton of people and tracking it down or finding an easy way to replicate it has been tough since it goes in and out. Jalexander--WMF 18:56, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll keep trying. --MelanieN (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have continually been getting the security token error for days despite trying several times throughout the day even with different browsers (Firefox and Safari); it is still happening this morning. If I try using the link suggested by Jalexander-WMF above instead, it responds with a 512 error. On previous occasions I have also received the other errors mentioned by MelanieN above. Sagaciousphil (talk) 10:31, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Try the above link provided again, I fixed the 512 error. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 14:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Using that link doesn't give me a 512 error any more but it does, however, still return a "Security token mismatch, cannot log in." message. Sagaciousphil (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@Sagaciousphil:Have you tried clearing your cache/cookies or trying a 'private' browser session? Jalexander--WMF 16:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I have and I've just tried a few times again just now and it's still returning the same error message. Sagaciousphil (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

In fact, I just tried it on another computer - a PC that has Internet Explorer - that is never normally used to access the internet at all and got exactly the same error message. Sagaciousphil (talk) 16:20, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Update: I have been trying to vote for several days now, using two separate browsers - Chrome and Safari. I have tried shutting down and reopening the browser entirely. Always the same "security token" message. It kind of rubbed salt in the wound today when I got a mass emailing from WMF, reminding me that I am eligible to vote in this election! I wonder if they sent that because turnout is unusually low - because a lot of people can't vote because of this glitch? --MelanieN (talk) 14:07, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Whoa - I just tried again, without changing anything, and got a ballot! I voted quickly, before it changed its mind! Actually I had changed one thing - I had logged out of this Wikipedia account to try my alternate account. (It wasn't eligible.) But when I logged back into this account, it found me acceptable after all. Maybe people who are having trouble should try that? --MelanieN (talk) 14:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, perhaps logging out and then back in is the trick? Hmm... --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 20:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a note to say that I also (eventually) managed to reach the voting page late on yesterday (UK). I have no idea what triggered it finally letting me access it; I hadn't logged out/logged in so it wasn't that in my case. Sagaciousphil (talk) 15:15, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Strongly object to the design of the voting page for Wikimedia Foundation board members

I find the design of the voting page here to be exceptionally poorly conceived.

The problem is very simple: It is too easy to lose track of which column is for voting for a candidate and which column is for voting against the candidate.

Once a Wikipedian has scrolled down the page, the column headings at the top of all three columns become invisible. It is no problem to remember that the middle column is "neutral".

But it would be so easy to design the page so that no matter how far down one has scrolled, the columns are still clearly distinguished as Support or Oppose.

I hate to think of how many thousands of votes will be tallied as exactly the opposite of the voters' intentions. Did nobody think about this design before it was made final?Daqu (talk) 07:05, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Currently the SecurePoll extension does not allow us to label each instance of a radio button. However, the elections committee will be considering that idea as a recommendation to the developers. Thank you for the feedback. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 07:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Is not it possible to change the color of radio buttons using css nth-child selector? Ruslik (talk) 20:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

We have been asked to avoid using Common.css and Common.js on Vote-Wiki - so no, under our current process, using CSS to do it would not be doable. Also, at this point, any changes would be made for the next election anyway, so a coded solution would be preferred. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 20:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I thought it only applies to js not to css. Ruslik (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I was told it applied to both - but I certainly could be wrong. :) --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 20:59, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Bots are eligible to vote?

Two emails waiting in my inbox this morning:

Wikimedia Foundation Elections 2015

Wikimedia Foundation Election Committee

To RMCD bot (Today at 2:24 AM)

Dear RMCD bot,

You are eligible to vote in the 2015 elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates projects such as Wikipedia. The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 17 to 23:59 UTC May 31. To vote, go to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/339. More information on this election can be found at <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/Board_elections/2015>. To remove yourself from future notification, please add your user name at <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_nomail_list>.

Wikimedia Foundation Election Committee

To Merge bot (Today at 3:01 AM)

Dear Merge bot,

You are eligible to vote in the 2015 elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, which operates projects such as Wikipedia. The Board of Trustees is the decision-making body that is ultimately responsible for the long term sustainability of the Foundation, so we value wide input into its selection.

The voting phase lasts from 00:00 UTC May 17 to 23:59 UTC May 31. To vote, go to https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/339. More information on this election can be found at <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/Board_elections/2015>. To remove yourself from future notification, please add your user name at <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_nomail_list>.

Hmmm. I haven't logged into my en:User:RMCD bot or en:User:Merge bot accounts in a while, although Windows (my operating system) logs into the former four times an hour, and the latter once a day. They are very active editors. Wbm1058 (talk) 10:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

• I just don't understand why real people are having trouble voting. Looks like I'm even eligible to vote my bot account! -- RMCD bot (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees Elections 2015

< SecurePoll

Welcome RMCD bot!

The default vote for all candidates is "neutral". Please indicate below which candidates you support or oppose. You do not have to enter a vote for all candidates.

You can return to change your votes any time while voting is open. All of your votes will be reset to "neutral" and you will have to re-enter any support or oppose votes.

As specified in the rules, bots are not allowed to vote. Most are filtered out by Meta-Wiki when someone goes to vote. The emails going to bots was an error that was caught midway through emails going out. Vote verification is an ongoing task of the committee as the elections are taking place, but we do spend a couple of days once everything is done striking any votes from banned users, bots, sock puppets, or other votes which could not be screened out when the voter list script was run. However, these are a small minority of votes, and no striking was necessary with the FDC election for example. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 20:26, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I still unable to vote.

see my accounteligibility--Syedalinaqinaqvi (talk) 20:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Are you getting a specific error? --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 20:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

when I log in at the link, I receive the message.

We apologize, but you do not appear to be on the eligible voter list. Please visit the voter help page for more information on voter eligibility and information on how to be added to the voter list if you are eligible: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/Vote_Questions.--Syedalinaqinaqvi (talk) 20:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Syedalinaqinaqvi: Could you check again and give me the error you see? (I have deleted the custom error so you should see a more specific error). Jalexander--WMF 21:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jalexander-WMF: Ireceive the massage now

Sorry, you are not in the predetermined list of users authorized to vote in this election.--Syedalinaqinaqvi (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)--Syedalinaqinaqvi (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Upon further review into the source of the error, it appears that your qualifying edits were on April 15th and not prior to April 15th as the requirements state. We apologize that the AccountEligibility script gave incorrect information, but unfortunately you do not appear to be eligible to vote in this election. Sorry. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 05:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Varnent and Varnent: @Jalexander-WMF:I have 20 edits (October 15th 2014 to April 15th 2015)!?

On ur.wikipedia.org:

• not blocked...

• no bot flag...

• does not have 300 edits before 15 April 2015 (has 187); edits can be combined across wikis.

• has 149 edits between 15 October 2014 and 15 April 2015 (has 149)...
and
Result

Syedalinaqinaqvi is eligible to vote in the Wikimedia Foundation elections in 2015.

--Syedalinaqinaqvi (talk) 14:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I apologize, but it appears that AccountEligibility is pulling data from April 15th and not April 14th. Per the rules, when April 15th started (UTC), you had 285 edits, which is 15 edits short of the 300 edits requirement. I recognize that is very close, and it is unfortunate the AccountEligibility script (which is not the script used to actually create the voter list) was incorrect, we are working to make sure that is resolved before the next election. However, we are not providing exceptions. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 19:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

The requirement is:

see the link

Requirements

Editors

You may vote from any one registered account you own on a Wikimedia wiki. You may only vote once, regardless of how many accounts you own. To qualify, this one account must:
not be blocked on more than one project;
and not be a bot;
and have made at least 300 edits before 15 April 2015 across Wikimedia wikis (edits on several wikis can be combined if your accounts are unified into a global account);
and have made at least 20 edits between 15 October 2014 and 15 April 2015.
The AccountEligibility tool can be used to quickly verify basic editor voting eligibility.--Syedalinaqinaqvi (talk) 20:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Correct - you do not meet this one: have made at least 300 edits before 15 April 2015 - as I said - your edit account appears to have been 285 edits before April 15th. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 21:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

OK thank you.--Syedalinaqinaqvi (talk) 22:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Why?

Why do I receive an e-mail

Dear Tonton Bernardo,
You are eligible to vote in the 2015 elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation

and when I log in at the link, I receive the message:

 We apologize, but you do not appear to be on the eligible voter list. Please visit the voter help page ......

?? lol - somebody's joking with me ? Haha, that was a good one - remembers me primary school, we were making jokes like that all the time - and even laught about them !

Regards User:Tonton Bernardo Tonton Bernardo (talk) 12:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

@Tonton Bernardo: I'm sorry for the trouble, I promise we are not intending to make it a joke. Unfortunately the check for users with multiple blocks is only done when you attempt to edit (since it could change over the course of the election) and you are not eligible because of the 2 you have. Jalexander--WMF 21:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Jalexander-WMF:

Good explication, Alexander. But now I find on that voting page the reason mentioned, though in German: Sorry, you cannot vote in this election as you are blocked on at least 2 wikis.'

This is true - but if the person who edited that page (especially for me, seems so) would understand the reasons for the bans: 'both were made after own request !. It's indicated just next to it. And exactly for the same reason as I am writing this: There is somewhere a dark force here at wikipedia that edits some pages like that SecurePoll / voting page, without having a signature and a edit history on that page.

May I ask: who and what is this dark force - is it an extraterrestian being, an NSA or K0B agent ? Or maybe a Goddess ?? Or a Smurf (maybe even Gargamel in person?

May I somewhere, somehow contest his /its decisions? I bet I don't - may I so kindly ask this Goddess to block all my accounts on all wikis, please ! I am fed with you, darf force, you don't even have the courage to show your face ! Bye - Tonton Bernardo (talk) 07:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

You may appeal bans from the communities which banned you. The messages you are being provided with are written into the code of the SecurePoll extension. The messages are not written for any one specific user. There was, for much of the election, a more generic message telling people where to go for help. In the final hours, that is already well established so it was changed to allow for the default errors messages to be displayed. There is no dark force, sorry to disappoint. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 08:36, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Varnent#Conflict of Interest (COI) Disclosure|COI Well establishged by whom??? By _dark force, NSA committee, Gargamels fan club or the Smurfs? Who and what are you to retain my civil rights? This is not even done in democracies for criminals.

This is a joke. What is wikipedia?K A smalml group of whatever autoproclameted adminstrators dictatorship. PLEASE BAN ME FOR ALL WIOKIPEDIA IF someone here has sompe nhut-s (I doubt even in this) I am no lopnger willeds to cooperate with any of you - in any project. Tonton Bernardo (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I meant it was well established that you should go to the Vote FAQ page for help. I honestly have no idea what you are even talking about at this point. However, it seems unlikely this conversation goes anywhere, so I will now disengage from this exchange. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 19:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

"Security token mismatch" possible work-around

We recognize that time is running out to find a solution to the "security token mismatch" error problem that some voters are experiencing. We apologize for these problems and the inconvenience. We do have developers working on it, but have not yet found a solution. However, we are attempting a work-around that we believe may allow you to vote in time. While a solution to the error will hopefully be found soon, we cannot guarantee it will be before the voting concludes. If you are experiencing this error, please read the updated section for this error on the Voter FAQ page for information on this work-around. Thank you. --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 00:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Vespiacic:, @Jphwra:, @Volodymyr D-k:, @William Ellison:, @Mr Südsee:, @אמא של גולן:, @Everyking: please see above.

links?

how about somebody (who knows their way around this wiki better than i do), putting links to the candidate's pages into their names in the results table?

Lx 121 (talk) 09:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no results yet. Ruslik (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@Lx 121: good idea, unfortunately the page is blocked for standard users like me & you(?). The links are: FDC:

1. User:Laurentius
2. User:Aegis Maelstrom
3. User:Wittylama
4. User:Mike Peel
5. User:Itzike
6. User:Tanweer Morshed
7. User:Ad Huikeshoven
8. User:Smallbones
9. User:Flixtey
10. User:Violetova
11. User:Chsh

FDC Ombudsman:

1. User:Kirill Lokshin
2. User:NickK

@Ruslik0: yes, the published FDC+Ombudsman results are what Lx is asking for afaiguess. --Trofobi (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

These have been added in the update with the board results by the way. :) --Varnent (talk)^(COI) 23:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

ty, muchly! :) & sry it took me so long to get back here, to appreciate the work. xD Lx 121 (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Greetings

• Greetings to the Election committee for its committed conduct of election process. Congratulations to the successful candidates in FDC & Board elections. Special greetings to all contestants... lets work for the glory of Wiki movement. Ahmed Nisar (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

How do we tell who was elected?

How do we tell who was elected? The results say who received the most support, but they don't state who was elected. Please clarify. Softlavender (talk) 09:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it will be mentioned in a press release, but I could be wrong here. Tropicalkitty (talk) 09:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to know why some candidates' names are bolded -- does that mean they have been elected to the respective posts? Softlavender (talk) 10:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

From a superformal point of view the new members of the Board will be appointed by the Board at their Wikimania meeting. It gives the Board a second chance to make enquiers into the background of the top candidates (not being terrorists etc). So the three top candidates whos names are given in bold are set to become appointed, if nothing extra-extraordinary turns up (which never happend earlier times).Anders Wennersten (talk) 10:26, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for committee to set up page to discuss vacancy

If I understand correctly, the 2015 elections committee could have some oversight in the process for selecting a replacement for the December 2015 vacancy on the WMF board.

@Ajraddatz, Anders Wennersten, Daniel, and KTC: @Mardetanha, Ruslik0, Savh, and Trijnstel:

Can any of you confirm whether you plan to have oversight into this new December process, despite the election and many of the anticipated committee duties having been over in June 2015?

Based on Special:PrefixIndex/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_2015/, it seems that all pages associated with this election are subpages of this main page. So far as I know, there is no place anywhere on-wiki which is dedicated to talking about the board vacancy. I propose that one be made at Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/December 2015 vacancy. Can any of you comment on whether you know of a better place to document the vacancy and next steps, or whether any of you would say this seems like a good place to start? Thanks.

If it happens that this committee does not want to take any role in responding to the vacancy then it would be useful to learn that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The committee is being involved in the process, yes. We will be able to make a more explicit public statement once our internal conversations have been completed. Ajraddatz (talk) 19:54, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I would like also to confirm what Ajraddatz said here Mardetanha ^talk 20:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, unless I've missed something, there has not been an election call. It would be inappropriate for anyone, let alone the Election Committee, to set up pages for an election that has not been called. That decision will be up to the Board of Trustees; if they decide to fill the seat with another community selection process, then the Election Committee will probably manage that and discuss it with the community.

If you want somewhere to document the removal of a member of the Board of Trustees, I'd suggest that you create a subpage of some other page that is specific to the Board of Trustees. Removal of a trustee really does not relate directly to the community selection process, as trustees can be removed regardless of the route by which they were recommended to the Board. Risker (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Risker There has not been an election call.

I think that it is confirmed above that this election committee will give some kind of input into the matter of the board vacancy. I have no idea what that input will be, but it seems that there will be some input. I think the idea is that if anyone uses the results of the last election to give guidance on the board vacancy, then this committee will have oversight into those past election results.

It might be that there is nothing significant to say about how this committee participates in the board vacancy issue. If that is the case, then there will be noting to say about the issue. I do think there is Wikimedia community interest in identifying the decision makers in this process. I have no idea how much influence this committee has in the process, but because they were the community overseers who presented an interpretation of the election results to the board, then if the board further considers those past election results, I would expect this committee to again interpret the results. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

2015 Foundation Elections Committee thoughts on how to fill the vacancy in the Board after the removal of James Heilman

The document below was forwarded to the Board on January 6 20.00 UTC

The Board has approached the Election Committee in order to collect our thoughts on on how to fill the vacancy created after the removal of James Heilman. Between December 29 and January 6, we have discussed the issue on our mailing list and in two meetings, on January 2 and 4. Also participating were Patricio Lorente (Chair) and Alice Wiegand (Vice Chair) from the WMF Board as well as with Stephen LaPorte (Legal Counsel) and James Alexander (Manager, Trust & Safety) from the WMF staff.

While we did not come up with a common and clear recommendation, several options were raised (and several of them rejected) and a number of pros and cons for the main options were considered. This document presents our key findings. As it was a complex issue and we were running short on time, to meet the timing requirements of the board, it is possible we could have come up with a more substantial recommendation if more time had been allowed.

Options considered

• Appoint the next candidate from May 2015 election. Everybody saw this as a viable option. It would in practice mean to appoint the person that came in fourth place (Maria Sefidari) if she is still interested.
• Run an election to fill the seat. Everybody saw this as a viable option. One member mentioned, as an option, running the election after the selection of the affiliates seats.
• Leave the position vacant until next ordinary election (Mid-2017). A few members saw this as a viable option and the majority spoke against it. This option was also explicitly rejected as unacceptable by the Board members.
• Give the community a way to choose between two options by a week long RFC on meta. A few members saw this as a viable option (either between “appoint” and “election” but also possible between “appoint” and “vacant”). The majority spoke against this option, questioning the value (validity) of the result and also worrying that it will drag out the process unnecessarily.
• Call another Board meeting with the express purpose of rescinding the resolution to remove JH. One member forwarded this option.

Pro and Cons for the main two options

As there was too little time to validate the support from the individual members, these points should only be seen as a collection of comments and as not aggregated comments from the whole group. They are divided into comments that apply "in general" to the issue of a vacant seat and to this specific case.

Appoint the next eligible candidate

Pros:

• General: The community has expressed its order of preference in May. An election this recently can still be seen as a valid reference to the will of the community.
• General: Saves time and money by allowing the board selection process to be over as fast as it takes for the board to ask Maria, her to say yes (assuming she does) and the board to vote instead of the time it takes to do an election.
• Specific case: The #4 (Maria) had the most support votes of any candidates and so is well supported by the community as well as bringing extra diversity to the board.

Cons:

• General: Concern that it would not be seen as a community selection and so, therefore, not valid. In fact, the community members currently discussing the issue appear to assume that there will be a new election.
• General: Historically (and granted it is pre-2010), resignations resulted in new elections in almost all cases. While there is a difference between resignation and removal, that’s what has set up the community expectation.
• Specific case: If Maria turn down this option (EC believes that the current situation puts her in a awkward situation) then there would be no option left other than to hold an election.
• Specific case: Maria had the most oppose votes of the top 5 candidates (almost 200 more opposes than the next-most opposed candidate) supporting the view that she had been rejected by the community.

New election for the seat

Many expressed that if this would become the decision, much of the old infrastructure could be reused and that the basic framework for how it will be run should be the same.

Pros:

• General: Follows the past precedents when vacancies among community selected members arose.
• General: Allows the community the most control over the selection of the replacement.
• Specific case: It may be unavoidable if Maria turn the offer down. So, it is best to just conduct an election.

Cons:

• General: Very expensive both in terms of volunteer and staff time (and money).
• General: Drags on the issue(s) over the course of possibly several months prolonging the vacancy in the Board (and pain within the community).
• Specific case: There is a risk that the participation in this election will be significantly lower than in the May election thus making the result less representative of the will of the community.
• Specific case: Will conflict with the affiliates-selected process unless done at a very accelerated pace (i.e. result within 6 weeks from the call for candidates).

(document uploaded by Anders Wennersten (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC))

Comments

It's worth noting that both Maria, and Phoebe (who is next down the list), have both served on the WMF board before, which likely means that they would get back up to speed quite quickly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

That's a good argument for an interim appointment (until the completion of the elections) but not much for a full term. Nemo 20:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

(Moved from the "Appoint the next eligible candidate" section above) This proposal is plainly impossible, with the support/oppose/neutral system which had been adopted, which inter alia forces tactical voting. If there are 3 seats, I ideally support 3 persons and oppose all the others; if there were 4, I would vote differently. The "next" candidate doesn't exist, because there is no rank of candidates: the system doesn't produce an ordered set. Things would be different with a proper electoral method, of course. And obviously, it may be fine to appoint someone for a few months. Nemo 20:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It is better we should first obtain opinion of the "Appoint the next eligible candidate" before proceeding further. Nannadeem (talk) 22:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request

{{editprotected|Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/Committee/Post mortem}}

Can someone add Wikimedia Foundation elections 2015/Committee/Post mortem to Category:Post mortems? Thanks. PiRSquared17 (talk) 01:16, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 6 June 2023

Please remove {{board-elec-pm}} from the substituted header page, as it has been deprecated by the addition of {{Wikimedia movement elections post-mortem}} below. Thanks, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC) RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)