Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024 Special Election

Anywhere on Earth

Thank you for organising this. I probably should have asked this during the regular election, but why are there competing timing standards in a single timeline (end of the day, anywhere on earth, and UTC)? Sdrqaz (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That's a good question, we copypasted the table from the previuos election and did not notice that. But I think that it makes sense to leave a more user friendly time indication that is clear to everyone without the need for time zone calculations for the candidatures, on the other hand securepoll needs a precise moment to be closed. --Civvì (talk) 06:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024 Special Election/Candidates Barkeep49 (talk) 14:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC) Can we please, please either stop using this time designation, or add in brackets afterward the equivalent UTC time, which is UTC-12? The international standard for time is UTC, and it would sure be nice to use that as our standard, too. I'm not sure why there is this idea that setting a deadline of 2359 hours on the Howland Islands is an improvement over a deadline of 2359 UTC, but it is still an actual single point in time. Risker (talk) 07:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

That's easily fixed, that would be July 20, 2024 12 UTC instead of July 19, 2024, End of Day, Anywhere on Earth, is that right? (I love AoE because I'm not that good in timezones math...:-D) --Civvì (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Regional Seats and Home Wiki limitations

In the U4C main elections earlier this year, the Regional seats could be taken by any candidate but any Community at large seats were restricted such that candidates with the same home wiki as two other elected candidates could not win. Is that still in effect for the special elections/how exactly is the "no more than two members from the same wiki" enforced?

Adjacently, could you tell us how exactly the allocation is done? Last time all the regional seats were filled first (in order of vote counts) followed by Community at large. Is that the same this time? Soni (talk) 07:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

The home wiki rule is set by the Charter. We have published the limitation that some regional seats are already taken and that the home wiki rule limits candidacies. Ineligible candidates will probably be sorted out by the Elections Committee and WMF, as before. The home wiki is defined by the candidates themselves. The allocation is not changed and will be done by the Election Committee again. The background is that the two-year-seats are filled first, the one-year-seats afterwards. This can be changed in the next election after this special election, as all seats will then have a two year term. --Ghilt (talk) 09:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

So to clarify, because the U4C already has 2 candidates from English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, and Italian Wikipedia already seated, candidates from those wikis cannot apply even if the candidate is applying for a "regional" seat? Soni (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm very sad to say that this is correct. But only if you define your home wiki as en.wp, de.wp or it.wp in this election. -- Ghilt (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

In that case, I would request the "home wiki" lists being clearly added to U4C page as well as a list of already seated members to the special elections page.

If I understand correctly, this also means that if at least one candidate from the Arabic Wikipedia is selected for a "regional seat", nobody from that wiki can be elected to Community at Large, correct? Soni (talk) 10:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the proposals: the home wikis of current members, the home wiki rule and the list of current members were added. If only one from a home wiki was elected, a second can run for a seat in the special election. And depending on which of the seats was already taken, the other will be either regional or community-at-large. Ghilt (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

It's probably not important for this specific case, as the user has been marked as ineligible [1], but just in case there are similar cases in the future: Are candidates allowed to change their home wiki in order to escape the two candidate per home wiki limit?
The user in question has made 90% of their global edits at enwiki [2] and was a U4C candidate running as an enwiki member at the last election [3] yet they decided to run as a metawiki candidate for this special election three months later [4]. --Johannnes89 (talk) 18:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

As far as I know there isn't a precise definition of "home wiki" (perhaps we should think about establishing criteria), I think we should consider the wiki where a user has more userrights and/or more edits so personally I do not think that changing homewiki to circumvent this limit should be allowed. Imho (but I know this is probably too stringent) I would also not allow Meta as home wiki being a coordination project and not a content or technical project. Civvì (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Translation subpages

Currently, the translation subpages of Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024 Special Election/Candidates with the language codes following the title are shown together with the candidate subpages. Is there any way to hide them? –MrBenjo (talk) 16:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps using <noinclude> in the translated pages? (or includeonly in the candidates pages?) --Civvì (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed it with translate-hidetranslations=1. –MrBenjo (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

submit your candidate page does not work

https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Universal+Code+of+Conduct%2FCoordinating+Committee%2FElection%2FCandidates%2FPreload&editintro=Universal+Code+of+Conduct%2FCoordinating+Committee%2FElection%2FCandidates%2FEditintro&title=Universal+Code+of+Conduct%2FCoordinating+Committee%2FElection%2F2024+Special+Election%2FCandidates%2F%5Busername%5D&create=Click+here+to+submit+your+candidacy returns an error message - contains invalid characters: "[". Yger (talk) 18:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Yger you want to remove the [ from the box. So you'd want to fill in Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024 Special Election/Candidates/Yger into that box not ...Candidates/[Yger]. Hope that helps. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

no, does not help Yger (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Yger you need to write your username instead of [username] in the field on top of the button. The text in that field should be Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024 Special Election/Candidates/Yger --Civvì (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

OK Yger (talk) 00:44, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Will there be a "General Discussion" section?

I believe that a discussion section is one of the best ways for a community to learn about the candidates. Other community members can discuss the candidates, instead of everyone having to go through all info on their own. It's already there in non Securepoll elections (as you can discuss while you !vote) but here would also be a good idea. Is that something we might have this Special Elections.

Alternatively, I think a "list of guides" being prominent somewhere would also do a similar thing. Community members who are well informed can put their opinions on individual "guides" and others can follow them and make their own opinions on candidates. Soni (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

We already thought about both and are working on adding a comments section to the questions page and on the creation of a voting guide, we would be glad to link voting guides done by other users. We also worked on a way to transclude each individual comments and question section in the candidates page (and so far it seems to work). :-) Civvì (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Looks good, thanks for making this change! Perhaps there could be a (lightly moderated) section linking to candidate guides at the top of the questions page? I say lightly moderated to give the U4C the discretion to remove particularly egregious ones if they happen. – Ajraddatz (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's a first guide and we are currently discussing from which page(s) to link to it. Ghilt (talk) 14:39, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Time involvement & requirements

Hi there, I hope you are doing well! I was reviewing the current article since the date of debut is July 10, and I was curious about some of the specifics implication relative to time involvement each week. I've read almost the entire publication, however, I was not able to find additional details vis-a-vis time/hrs commitment-week/month and maybe we could use a time indicator or something similar.

I have to say it, I'm overfeed with Wikipedia and to me, I consider this as an amazing project to work on and learn about quite interesting subjects. Requirements to apply as board member or representant for North America, Canada, USA, is limited to a certain minimal value of 500 edits and a period of activity that is > 365 days. While reading further, I understood that flexibility and inclusivity is also or was part of the study that took place prior to or during initial revision and was later include, if I read correctly, in 2023.

From there my question about time/hrs commitment, as I am already contributing and I have a vast amount of data to gather for my future research, It could be a good idea for me and to represent my country Canada and our brother's from the south, the USA.

If you ask about my past experience or current, I am currently a Steward in a web3 DAO since more than 2 years, experimenting with proposal, governance, policies and strategic operations. I am also member of MetaGov, which is an open initiative, and I encourage you to connect with us if you have any interest in political science, socio economics, decentralized network's (similar as here ♥) or simply want to coordinate.

PS: If you look my edit, in my debut as a contributor, my English was, not as good as is it now. My first language is French and I pretty much went to the next level during the last 2-3 years.

Wish you a wonderful evening,

Best regards 01:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC) SirlupinwatsonIII (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi SirlupinwatsonIII, we cannot say yet how much time is needed, because the U4C (this is not the board election) is being set up for the first time. Currently, we are preparing the pages for the special election and filling our U4C wiki, but the time currently invested is not representative for the next phase. The candidates' requirements are listed here, including a recommendation what it typically needs to get elected. --Ghilt (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hey there! Thanks for the reply, really appreciate it! I see about the time commitment, I will wait to see if there are update or more details. Would you mind to let me know any advice on acceptance rate vs accountability*edit made? Is there any theorem or weight function with metrics other than the contributions you do as updating an article, or removing speculation/opinion that add to your account as a references for this process? I've seen the data analytics page where I can view my contributions, but it does not give me insights whereas I could potentially get better access or deppen my contributions. I think it could be a great indication of involvment and might add reach value torward my goals.

Have a wonderful day! SirlupinwatsonIII (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Here are two out of several tools on your user statistics ([5], [6]). On the front page, it is recommended: "Please note that all volunteers who meet the minimum requirements are eligible to run. Successful candidates so far have had more than 5000 edits (across all projects) and hold adminship (or other advanced permissions) on a project." So one question is about when a user is eligible to run as a candidate and the other question is what the community expect of a candidate. Ghilt (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Earlier election result

Moved from Talk:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024 Special Election/Candidates guide --Civvì (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Would it be unfair stating the result in earlier elections (with percentage)? I find at least three that were up in last election, with for me revealing result. Yger (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi Yger, the short answer is yes. Each election is its own story. On top, the results of last time were probably systematically biased against the election per se, as even the best results were unusually low. Presenting the previous biased results may cause a bias in voters. So, to avoid a confounding error in voters and framing by us, we will not state the results of the previous election. --Ghilt (talk) 14:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This might be a good thing to note in an individual user guide, as opposed to the "official" candidate's guide. – Ajraddatz (talk) 14:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I've added this to mine. I get why it might not be well suited to put in an official guide, but it's relevant information nonetheless. Courtesy link: User:Giraffer/2024 U4C special election guide. Giraffer (talk) 03:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Your guide has been added to the candidates page. --Ghilt (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot these are extremely helpful (looking at the three together) Yger (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Regional seat based guide

I wondered about the candidates for every regional seat and made some guide: User:Der-Wir-Ing/2024 U4C special election - Regional seat based guide

It somewhat complements the existing guides by a different perspective. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 10:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

And it has been added to the candidates page. --Ghilt (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

• To add a different different perspective, I wrote something up as a more subjective analysis - User:Soni/U4C 2024 Special Elections guide. I found the exact by-the-numbers guides to be a bit lacking in nuance so was doing my own analysis anyway on all candidates. Soni (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Candidate information needs to be easily accessible

I attempted to vote in the previous election, but I found it extremely difficult to locate the page where all the candidates presented themselves. In the end I closed the vote page without voting, because I did not have time to search for the information I needed to make an informed vote.

When the communications for this election are set up, it is critical that information about the candidates (their presentation and answers to questions) can be easily found. Ideally all candidates' introductions of themselves would be compiled onto one long page, which is clearly and obviously linked from (a) the page that you reach by clicking the voting CentralNotice, and (b) the vote page itself on vote.wikimedia.org.

Another problem is that the navigation links along the top of this page (Policy, Enforcement Guidelines, ...) are a general set of UCoC navigation links, not specific to this election - nor even to the U4C. Super confusing for a first time visitor. This, that and the other (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The U4C had been working on our own template different from the UCoC one. It has just gone live on pages. Another U4C member is currently experimenting with a single page for candidates. It gets to be very long and so it may not be as useful. I am wondering if some other navigational button might help? Barkeep49 (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

While we're here, can I suggest removing the gigantic bloated Template:Universal Code of Conduct/Navbox at the bottom of every U4C page? It no longer serves a purpose now that U4C exists, and you might be much better off making a Universal Code of Conduct/History page or similar to better summarise everything that happened with the U4C in the last few years. The entire template on every connected page is an information overload while also not being helpful information because there's not much context for what each subpart of the process (Enforcement guidelines, say) was. Soni (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

The content of the navbox was transferred to the History page and the navbox was removed from the election pages. --Ghilt (talk) 16:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Wr have created this single page with all the info about the candidates, eliminating the first part (questions to all candidates) does not add much in terms of dimensions and readability of the page but we could do it if needed. --Civvì (talk) 05:46, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

@Civvì May I suggest you keep the section with the questions to all candidates which contains also the answers of the candidates ?

In some Election guide for the community made by an user (Soni), there is an evaluation of the candidates and the first metric for guiding the choice is :

" Answering questions. I will Oppose all candidates who answer no "Open" questions by July 27 (when voting begins). I expect U4C members to be accountable to the community."

@Soni do you update your table ?

This may be extremely penalizing. Waltercolor (talk) 11:32, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi, thank you for checking in. I am updating my table every day or two, sometimes I take a little while before updating so I can do multiple edits at once. At least until voting begins, I will keep the page updated as more answers come in. Soni (talk) 14:00, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Now that voting has begun, I have finished updating my guide and also voted. I do not expect any more changes. Soni (talk) 05:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, @Civvì: Thank you very much for taking my suggestions seriously! I hope it helps to improve the participation levels in this election. Best wishes. This, that and the other (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Tooltip rendering on this page

FYI, the "why?" tooltip at the end of the final bullet point regarding qualifications does not show me the intended text (I had to edit the page to see) on my Android in Chrome. This may be the case for all tooltips on mobile devices, as you can't "hover" with a touch screen. But I just wanted to let someone know, in case an improvement may be in order. Al Begamut (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect link on SecurePoll interface voting page

The SecurePoll voting page (https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/1618) still links to the original 2024 election candidates page instead of the one for this election. This, that and the other (talk) 01:37, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 06:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrong region for one of the candidate

Dear electioneering committee, kindly look into the candidacy of @Taoheedah,She represented SSA (Sub-Saharan Africa) in her candidacy page https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024_Special_Election/Candidates/Taoheedah, however in the list of candidacy compiled. She was forwarded to South Asia. (Tesleemah (talk) 03:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks you! --Civvì (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@Civvì If I am not wrong, SecurePoll is still showing Taoheedah as a candidate from South Asia instead of Sub-Saharan Africa. -- Aishik Rehman (talk) 04:03, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

yes, the securePoll still needs to be fixed too Tesleemah (talk) 04:05, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

This is something we can't fix since we do not have access to securepoll but we can ask @RamzyM to check this :) --Civvì (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

@RamzyM there is also a mistake in the SecurePoll form with C.Suthorn who is running for both a regional + CAL seat. Johannnes89 (talk) 04:43, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Updated this as well, thanks for the flag. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I've fixed this, apologies. I was working from the Candidates page when setting things up. Joe Sutherland (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 06:08, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Regional seats

According Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Charter#2. Elections and Terms each candidate must „Self-identify their home wiki(s) and the region they are from publicly“ and „one representative from each region will be elected by regional distribution“. I cannot come to a different understanding other than regional seats can only be assigned to candidates from that specific region.

Therefore I don't understand the non-decision by EC & U4C regarding @C.Suthorn [7]. Saying „It will be for the voters to decide whether they feel a candidate is suitable to represent a particular region“ doesn't work @KTC, because the question is not if they are „suitable“ but if he's allowed to run for a regional seat if he's not from that region.

I want to vote for the candidate for a community seat (they are running for both regional + CAL), but by doing so he might be elected for a regional seat which I don't think is in line with the U4C charter. If you had decided that he needs to change the region to NWE (and is therefore only allowed to run for a CAL seat) or that he's allowed to run for CEE, I could vote for him, but now I'm presented with the option to oppose someone I want to support (for CAL) or support someone for a regional seat even though I believe this violates the U4C charter.

I'm aware that both EC & U4C are doing a lot of work (which I'm really thankful for), but I would have liked a definite decision on this question. @Barkeep49 fyi. --Johannnes89 (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

An option for future elections could be to split the voting into every Region and at-large.

Another thing is, that in many cases it is not clear to which region a candidate belongs. Someone born in East Europe, but with Arabic parents who speak Arabic at home, are they not allowed to go for MENA region? If that person then moves to the US and lives there are they then allowed to go for NA seat? Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 19:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

@Johannnes89 the U4C feels that based on the charter this was a decision for the EC. Speaking only for myself, from my reading, it wasn't a non-decision from the EC on C.Suthorn, it was a decision that the voters not the EC would decide the matter. In other words it was a decision that what happened was OK. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

How can voters properly decide if it’s not possible to support/oppose a user for just one of the seats (CAL / regional)? Currently voting for/against candidates running for both seats always means supporting/opposing both?

If the EC decided that it’s ok to choose any region I would like them to clearly state this, that’s something I would accept, but that’s not what they wrote… Johannnes89 (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

We made a decicion about this one specific case. I wouldn't go so far as to say one could choose just any region. I personally see this similar to the home wiki rule: The chosen wiki has to be plausible, but it does not have to be the one with your most edits.

In a future case, EC might get the impression, candidates might abuse the possibility to "freely" choose a region and intervene. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 18:54, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Another possibility is the charter might be amended in some way on this topic. Barkeep49 (talk) 22:20, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Code in the translation tool

Hey @RamzyM (WMF), could you please check the line 42? There is a code which appear in the translation tool: <span id="voting-info"></span>. Thanks! — Pacha Tchernof (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

@Pacha Tchernof: hi, thanks for the ping. I've removed the code from the translatable line. Cheers, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

So Central Asia is still unrepresented

good job. RZuo (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect AccountElegibility link

The voter criteria page links to Event 74, but I believe it is meant to link to Event 77 like the main election page does. Quadrantal (talk) 05:39, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

fixed [8] --Johannnes89 (talk) 06:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Not eligible, but only pacem the actual voting site

Summary: I have tested if I could vote here. One tool (the Account Eligibility check) says I can, while the other (the actual Voting Server) says that I cannot.

Steps to reproduce:

1. User reads the candidates profiles and performs the RTFM at Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024#Voting.
2. User manually checks user's account eligibility criteria at Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Voter eligibility criteria - pass.
3. User checks the same criteria with the Account Eligibility tool (yes, at Event #77, see the "Incorrect AccountElegibility link [fixed]" comment above) - pass, to wit (as of now):
   1. On at least one wiki: " • not currently blocked... • is not a bot... • has at least 300 edits as of 19 July 2024 at 23:59 UTC (has 5495 so far). • has at least 20 edits between 20 July 2023 and 19 July 2024 at 23:59 UTC (has 33 so far)."
   2. Not (blocked > 1)
   3. Not (bot > 0)
4. When still logged in on the reffing page, user clicks the `VOTE HERE` Secure Poll button (href: Special:SecurePoll/vote/399)
5. When still logged in, user clicks the `GO TO VOTING SERVER` button (href: https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/login/1618?site=wikipedia&lang=meta, the element tagged as `##.oo-ui-buttonElement-button.oo-ui-inputWidget-input`)
6. User is being transferred to that new site https://vote.wikimedia.org, and is being logged out, with the GUI claiming that: "
   • Sorry, you are not in the predetermined list of users authorized to vote in this election.
   • 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 " - so fail.
7. User tries to (re)log in there (at https://vote.wikimedia.org), just in case - user clicks the `Login in` button, which has the hint: "You are encouraged to log in here ..."
8. The new, somehow conflicting, GUI message says "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"
9. User tries to log in nonetheless, with the error result "Incorrect username or password entered. Please try again." - fail.
10. User goes back to Point 4, twice, to recheck (at two new tabs, using the same session and same browser) - fail.

A standard, very popular browser, its newest version, running on a somewhat popular OS, JS is on, the second-party cookies are on, the third party cookies are blocked. User has no problems with user's home wiki (and with WikiData or at Meta here) with logging in or out, editing, nor had any when user was testing similar Secure Poll voting procedures - that is before year 2023, when these worked as expected.

Is it a bug or a feature? Zezen (talk) 16:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Zezen, are you using a mobile phone with the desktop version of the website? If yes, then it's a feature of Securepoll - I've had that problem. Ghilt (talk) 20:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that steps 7-9 are a different issue. votewiki is not a global SUL wiki, therefore you login doesn't work. Only a limited amount of accounts exist on votewiki [9] (usually accounts of WMF staff, EC members and stewards (for scrutineering elections) and most of those accounts get blocked once they are no longer needed. You always need to access the SecurePoll link via metawiki. Johannnes89 (talk) 20:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Re: "Hi Zezen, are you using a mobile phone with the desktop version of the website?" - Nope, a (popular) desktop browser and "desktop" OS. Similar to the one I have been using since about 2010 to edit Wikipedia without such glitches. (I am not providing these specs publicly, though, as I had had some impersonators here.)

Re @Johannnes89: " ... votewiki is not a global SUL wiki, therefore you login doesn't work". Yes, I know, that is why I said that it was Plan B: " ... User tries to (re)log in there (at https://vote.wikimedia.org), just in case ...", that is from the naive user's perspective.

The default route (Plan A), does not work either today:

.... (when logged in) Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee Special Election page

->

User clicks the `GO TO VOTING SERVER` button (href: https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/login/1618?site=wikipedia&lang=meta, the element tagged as `##.oo-ui-buttonElement-button.oo-ui-inputWidget-input`)

=>

• Sorry, you are not in the predetermined list of users authorized to vote in this election.
• 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. that is - fail.

Zezen (talk) 14:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@NahidSultan (WMF) as you're an expert on this, maybe you can help? --Ghilt (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm only speculating, but I cannot finde tasks like phab:T360159 and phab:T358067 for the special election – is it possible that SecurePoll uses the same list of voters for the special election as it did for the last election (Zezen wasn't eligible in March [10])?

@Zezen per Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024 Special Election/Voter eligibility criteria#Notes I recommend writing to board-elections@lists.wikimedia.org to be manually added to the list of eligible voters. Given that WMF staff is probably busy with Wikimania, I'm not sure if people can respond in time.

@JSutherland (WMF) or @RamzyM (WMF) fyi. Johannnes89 (talk) 15:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I can confirm that this election is using the same voter list from the previous one as the criteria has not changed and looks like Zezen is not in on it. I do not think we actually created a phabricator task for this one. Zezen, I would also recommend writing to the above address if you meet additional criteria. Thanks. – NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@NahidSultan (WMF) the criteria did change. Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024 Special Election/Voter eligibility criteria was published two days before voting started [11], replacing the initial redirect to the previous Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Voter eligibility criteria.

The general criteria for this special election are „have made at least 300 edits before 20 July 2024 across Wikimedia wikis; and have made at least 20 edits between 20 July 2023 and 20 July 2024“ instead of „have made at least 300 edits before 17 March 2024 across Wikimedia wikis; and have made at least 20 edits between 17 March 2023 and 17 March 2024.“ Johannnes89 (talk) 07:00, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. In that case, let me raise this to the team working on this because I can see the voter list is the same. Thanks for flagging this. – NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 07:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, Looks like by the time it was decided to use a different criteria there was not enough time to generate new voter list so the decision was to go with the same list and add people on an ad hoc basis. Apologies for my lack of awareness. – NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 07:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Still cannot vote after 48 hours, 24 hours remain, so wrote to the email address advised above, from anonymous account, with the URL hereto, plus:

'Do note that this procedure is missing from:

https://vote.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/login/1618?site=wikipedia&lang=meta which has a yet another wrong href to: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024#Voting (old one), which also is missing this manual procedure. ' Zezen (talk) 05:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Update: works now somehow: "Welcome ...!

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..." etc.

Thanks to the brownies that have made it work.

Zezen (talk) 13:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Voting closed

The poll says the voting is closed despite the timeframe written on this page is not over. GPSLeo (talk) 06:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

it seems to work. at least for me on the phone it remembers that i already voted and lets me vote again. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 20:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@GPSLeo Works for me too. Maybe one of these links will work for you: [12] [13]. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, now it seems to be fixed. GPSLeo (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Concerns about Candidates

Dear Election Committee members,

Thank you for your time and effort in organizing this election and ensuring it was conducted according to the established rules of eligibility. However, I am concerned about the recent decisions made during this process. Specifically, I am puzzled by the ineligibility of @Obedmakolo: and @Sleyece:, while NANöR was eligible despite having violated Rule No. 3 which concerns: "Have not been blocked on any Wikimedia project nor have an active event ban in the past one year. "as she was banned recently from her home wiki "Arabic Wikipedia" ( Mentioned in her candidacy page)

Also, I would appreciate it if the committee could clarify the following points:

1. Procedure for Disqualification and Appeals : The standard procedure should automatically disqualify all candidates who were blocked within the last year, followed by an opportunity to appeal. While this was applied to Candidates Obedmakolo and Sleyece, it appears it was not for NANöR. Could you please explain why this was the case?
2. Disqualification Criteria: Why were Obedmakolo and Sleyece disqualified due to the block issue, while NANöR was not? What were the reasons behind this decision?
3. Timing of NANöR's Appeal: This point concerns the timing of NANöR's appeal. There are significant questions about whether she submitted it before or after the voting process began. How was she allowed to participate in the election without meeting the third requirement or submitting an appeal in advance?
4. Reasons for Accepting NANöR’s Appeal: The committee’s response to NANöR’s appeal here was brief and lacked detail. Could you provide a more comprehensive explanation of why her appeal was accepted?
5. Safety and integrity of the community: It is concerning that a candidate who has breached the rules was still allowed to participate. This raises significant questions about the safety and integrity of the Wiki community. How can we ensure that the community remains secure if we allow individuals who disregard our rules to be part of it?

I hope you can provide clarity on this matter, as it is essential for maintaining trust within our community. --Sandra HANBO (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an EC member, but regarding Nr. 2: I think the other users didn't appeal for an exception while NANöR did? And regarding Nr. 1/3: I guess that's because the EC only became aware of the block (and the appeal) when the voting already started and they didn't want to interfere with the voting already in progress (disqualifying her later would do less harm than automatically disqualifying her while voting is underway just to probably accept the appeal a few days later). Johannnes89 (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your intervention, @Johannnes89:.

It is really concerning that the Election Committee (EC) did not review the recent block logs of all users before starting the nomination process. Isn't it their main duty to assess the eligibility of candidates before opening the voting? If they did review the logs, then the question is: why were candidates: Obedmakolo and Sleyece rejected, while NANöR was accepted? This discrepancy suggests a clear bias in the treatment of candidacies.

Additionally, it's important to clarify whether NANöR submitted her appeal after the voting period had started. If she did so, how was she allowed to enter the election despite not meeting the third requirement and not submitting an appeal? Given this, it’s evident that NANöR is in the same position as the two ineligible candidates (both of whom failed to send an appeal and thus did not meet the third requirement). So, why was NANöR's candidacy accepted while the others were rejected?--Sandra HANBO (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Marhaban ساندر,

So first of all, the U4C elections are new, there are no established practices for orientation. The first U4C election was mostly organized by ElectCom, especially by me, whereas the second one, the Special Election, was mostly organized by the U4C itself. For some questions EC is explicitly responsible, among them the case someone wants to participate in the election (as a voter or candidate).

In the first election I checked every candidate somewhat superficially for eligibility. Esp. minimum editcount and active blocks are easy to check, but no longer active blocks within the last year are difficult to see. You need to check every single project's block log for every single candidate. I did not have enough time for that, esp. considering that I also have to prepare the Board Elections in parallel and have other tasks to do. There were also many open question concerning the U4C elections, for example in what order to fill the seats, to prolong the candidate phase, wheter an empty candidate page is enough etc.

Obedmakolo was blocked at the time U4C member User:Civvì checked [14], and was declared ineligible. He did not appeal.

Sleyece was blocked after he wrote the candidate page. I saw the block and declared him ineligible [15] He did not appeal.

NANöR was eligible during the first U4C election, so I did not check properly in the Special Election. (Who would expect a one day block in between the elections?). Nanör appealed only some hours after Ameer pointed out the block. [16] That was about one day after voting started on July 28, 00:00 UTC.

ElectCom had a discussion on the email-list with different opinions. Some were against eligibility, some for, others stayed neutral. In the end the majority was for eligibilty. As we have several discussions in parallel, also related to the Board Elections, we discussed this matter somewhat superficial without reaching a real concensus. We have especially no concensus on wheter to grant special exemptions only if we deem the block erreonous (for example the blocking admin abused his power or accidentially blocked the wrong person) or if we want to be more generous. Future decisions with different persons on ElectCom might be different.

-----------------

I can't speak for ElectCom, but I can explain why I voted for granting the exemption:

A one day block is an indication against a true vandal or troll (who are blocked forever), but rather a usually constructive editor who has a bad day. Nanör is also admin on ar-wikisource, another indication that she is usually a respected author rather then a troll or vandal. Also, the block was lifted by the blocking admin, and according to my (rather superficial) investigation on ar wiki about the block, even within ar wiki the block was somewhat disputed. Also, it was Nanör's first block. There are some users who are blocked for rude behavior again and again and again for many years, but that was not the case with Nanör. During my time as an de-wp admin, I disliked rude behavior in discussions and blocked several persons for being too rude, but as ElectCom member my job was only to decide if this block was grave enough to exclude Nanör from the election and I don't think it was that bad. Instead I decided to let the voters decide if they want to support or oppose Nanör. That's why we have elections after all.

I see that you, Sandra, and Nanör, you both edited a certain page briefly before the block [17] So I assume you two are on different sides of that conflict, but google translate can help me only so far. Without proper knowledge of the Arabic language and culture, it is difficult to decide who's right and who's wrong. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 14:57, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Vielen Dank @Der-Wir-Ing:,

I agree that the election is new, but fairness must be maintained regardless of whether the election is new or old. I understand your busy schedule and time constraints, but with 11 members on the committee, including consultants, it is essential to ensure that every candidate meets the eligibility criteria. Checking the block log should be manageable since each candidate is involved in no more than 10 projects.

You mentioned, "Who would expect a block between the elections?" It is the committee’s responsibility to anticipate all scenarios to ensure fairness. Your statement that Nanör submitted her appeal during the voting period indicates a clear inconsistency, as Nanör participated without meeting the third condition or submitting an appeal. Does this not suggest a mistake by the committee and unequal treatment of candidates?

I am not focusing on the details of the block on Arabic Wikipedia. Nanör was blocked for a full 24 hours, and the block was fully enforced. To participate in the election as a candidate, eligibility criteria must be met. Nanör did not meet these criteria, yet her candidacy was approved. This seems to be a clear violation by the committee.

Although we were editing the same page, it was unrelated to the block; it was simply a routine discussion.

In conclusion, the committee disqualified two candidates for having a previous block and not submitting an appeal. Nanör should be disqualified for the same reasons, as she also had a previous block and did not submit an appeal before voting began. Allowing her to participate is a clear violation and mistake. The committee must fulfil its duties to ensure fairness among all candidates. --Sandra HANBO (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I should have seen the block but I didn't.

Yes, Nanör should have immediately appealed but didn't. She did as soon as she was made aware of the circumctances. That's when I and ElectCom became aware of the situation.

I cannot turn back the time, so I tried my best to fix the situation. One could argue it was unfair that Nanör was told so late, while the other candidates were informed much earlier. Still, Nanör appealed and the others didn't. Maybe all of them would have gotten an exemption? ElectCom never discussed the other candidates as they did not appeal. In the first election, there was another candidate, where I would have granted an exemption, but he never appealed so I don't know what the rest of ElectCom thinks about that candidate. Der-Wir-Ing ("DWI") talk 18:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Vielen Dank für Ihre Antwort!

The rules are made to be respected; If the EC was not aware, then it does not mean the rules do not apply. According to this, and as we can’t go back in time, It is expected to disqualify all candidates who did not appeal before voting started to ensure the rules are applied fairly, to ensure everyone has equal chances.--Sandra HANBO (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm not following what you're saying, and the EC will need you to be specific with your intentions. Are you suggesting that the Special Election is defunct based on an inequitable application of rules? -- Sleyece (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Sleyece Your phrasing implies you are speaking on behalf of the Election Commission here. I recommend consulting @Der-Wir-Ing or another EC member before saying things that could be interpreted as "official". Soni (talk) 01:27, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The EC needs clarification because as soon as the U4C has a quorum and establishes a venue for bringing them cases, I'm bringing them a case of systemic failure. You can just scroll slightly further down the page and ascertain my intentions. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The rules are made to be respected; If the EC was not aware, then it does not mean the rules do not apply.

@Sandra Hanbo The rules say that candidates can appeal to EC, who may grant an exception. Nanor applied for this, and EC granted it. EC is very much following the rules here. Any expectations you have for "before the election started" is your own interpretation and not strictly defined by the Charter. So EC should always have the discretion to decide edge-cases like this.

It seems that the EC made a valid decision completely within the letter and spirit of the rules. You may disagree. Most seated candidates in U4C have promised to review the charter. I encourage you to recommend changes when that happens, so cases like these are more clear cut. Soni (talk) 01:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The rules are clear, and there is evident discrimination in the treatment of candidates. The rules explicitly state, "Candidates who have been blocked can submit an appeal to the Election Committee, which may grant an exception." This exception allows participation in the election. So, how did Nanör participate without submitting an appeal?

Additionally, if @أمين: (Ameen) did not mention it, it suggests that NANöR did not send an appeal. How can there be an attempt to cover up the rule violations by both the EC and the candidate? who cover her blocking case and not mentioning it in advance.

We are supposed to be upholding for the Universal Code of Conduct and holding candidacy to preserve it. Best regards. --Sandra HANBO (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello, I have the same concerns as Sandra. The main point of this discussion is how Nanör was allowed to participate in the election without submitting an appeal and without meeting the third condition. This is the key issue of the discussion. The committee cannot simply say "Yes, we made a mistake" and leave it at that. There must be consequences for this. The committee should disqualify any candidate who does not meet the requirements and did not submit an appeal before the voting began. One last point, the responsibility also lies with the candidate Nanör. Since she read the eligibility criteria and knew she was blocked, why didn't she submit an appeal? Why did she wait until my comments and only then submitted the appeal during the voting process? If I hadn't mentioned the block, what would have happened then? أمين (talk) 16:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

For the record on this matter; I made it clear on my user talk page that I would not be appealing the block to ELECTCOM during the special election. I intend to approach the U4C when it has a quorum because my block was part of a broader systemic failure the committee should look into. I appreciate being included in community concerns about why some users were given an appeal and others were not. However, I have a different end goal, so I tanked the block for my own reasons. -- Sleyece (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi All, and many thanks for the input. I am a member of Arabic Wikipedia for more than 18 years and I follow the discussions in the Village pump from time to time. However, I read the replies in the policy section on July 16th 2024, without being part of the discussion. To be honest, I was surprised when I figured out, that my colleague NANöR was banned. Based on my extensive experience being as a former local administrator in AR WP, the ban she was subjected to was incorrect, as it was a subjective hasty decision that did not fulfill completely the requirements stipulated in the Arabic Wikipedia banning policy. The given reason for the ban was for a potential repeated disruptive behavior. The debate was heated, but it had not exceeded any red lines or violated any policy. Nevertheless, she was only warned once, and the time between the single warning and the ban performed by the administrator (أحمد ناجي) did not exceed twenty minutes. This was noticed by another administrator (Nehaoua), who lifted the ban on the same day, but the former administrator insisted on banning her again. That was a controversial non-typical approach for banning, as it is customary in the AR WP for an administrator to issue three warnings, as long as the offense does not amount to severe vandalism, but rather a difference of opinions within the discussion in the village pump.

Hence, I hope that the election committee will take all the circumstances that led to this unjustified ban into consideration. As there is no impediment to the eligibility of NANöR's candidacy for Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee in the 2024 special election. Thanks and regards --Sami Lab (talk) 22:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning for admin @أحمد ناجي: to clarify the mentioned point of Sami Lab.--Sandra HANBO (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I feel it's important to mention that I have no idea why this statement is a reply to what I said. -- Sleyece (talk) 22:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone and thanks Sandra for mention. First of all, I'm surprised that my dear colleague Sami Lab has come here to prove that NANöR's block was wrong and subjective because ,according to his extensive experience, he knows that such a local matter in ArWiki can only be discussed and proven in specific pages for that like administrators' noticeboard or Administrators/problems but not here on meta.

Anyway. To keep all users in line concerning NANÖR's block, I gonna mention these points:

1. The reason for block was "continuously hampering discussions and not adhering to previous warnings".
2. My colleague ,who unblocked her, thought that the reason for block was "sharp behaviour in discussion" and this is not the true reason.
3. I reblocked NANÖR and wrote that "As long as the block was conducted for specific reasons, it will not be removed unless these reasons are first refuted".
4. I wrote in NANÖR's talk page on that day after reblocking here: "If any admin has an objection on the reason that I give, he can unlock NANöR and discuss his POV" and no one did that even my colleague who unblocked her before.
5. After the block had ended, NANÖR didn't object on the block in any specific page for these issues.
6. NANÖR was warned before for her disruptive behavior. On the day I blocked her, She deserved the block according to our policies, but I prefered to give her a new chance so I warned her. She didn't respect this chance and replied on my warning: "the warning is unaccepted and misplaced", So I blocked her according to our policy that mentions in purposes of block: "Deter continued disruptive behavior".

Finally, I want to confirm that noone has conducted a discussion about the block, so no one can say it is a wrong action. I hope my comment is very clear and my best wishes to all contributers principally to my dear colleague Sami whom I am happy to see on meta especially this is his first edit here in the 2020s! My regards. Ahmed Naji ^Talk 00:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

My dear colleague @أحمد ناجي:, this to highlight that my comment above does not have the intent to judge your competence of administrative rights in AR WP. You are one of the compotent admins in AR WP; However, by considering the blocking as a single event, it is clear, in my POV in others (e.g. Nehaoua) that the block was not justified without absolute consensus; even the explanation that you provided above for the re-blocking of NANöR was ambigious "As long as the block was conducted for specific reasons, it will not be removed unless these reasons are first refuted". As the reason for the blocking was disputable and not crystal clear initially.

At the end, we do not want to discuss blocking policy cases of AR WP here; but to refute any claim that this block might have any impact on the eligibility of NANöR for the candidacy in this elections. Best regards. --Sami Lab (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

My view is that this election was run ecellent (as the frst was not). I also fully support the handlng and decison related to Nanor. In My home wiki we have a blocking culture that even experienced users (incl admins) can be blocked for short persiods (max 24 hours more often 2 hours) for ccooling off. The classical one was an awful row between two of our most seniors at 3 am a night, when both clearly were unalert. I believe it should be pointed out in the writen guidleines that a short block for ccoling off could be accepted, but an excemption procedure should, even in these cases, be in place (as it was in this case).Yger (talk) 09:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

@Yger In a brief commentary, I want to clarify that cooling-off isn't a reason or an purpose for block in ArWiki. The action of block itself isn't the topic of discussion, so I prefer not to let this long discussion get off track. My regards. Ahmed Naji ^Talk 19:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

مرحبا بالجميع، تكلم الكثير عن الأمر، كنت لا اريد ان اعلق، لكن مادام اسمي ذكر عدة مرات، فوجب علي التوضيح، لحد الساعة انا غير مقتنع بالحظر، لأنه ليس لدينا تعريف واضح للعمل المزعج وما هي إلا تقدير من الاداري (والدليل انه فقط بعد الحظر طُرحت سياسة لتعريف ذلك) كما أنه توجد حالات أخرى أشد من ذلك ولم يُمنع اصحابها، أما التبرير بأنه كتب في نقاش الزميلة بأنه كان يمكن رفع الحظر ومناقشة الأمر فأعتقد انه كان العكس، كما ان مثل هذه الأمور توجه لصاحبها في صفحته (صفحتي) لأنني من رفع الحظر ، اخيرا تمنيت أن لا تصل الأمور إلى هذا الحد فشخصيا لم اتابع الأمر لرفع الحظر لأنني توقعت ان ٢٤ ساعة هي مدة صغيرة كحظر واستراحة للمستخدم لكن ان تستعمل لمنع المستخدم من الترشح فاجده قسوة على مستخدم معروف بنشاطه في عدة مشاريع

اسف للكتابة بالعربية فهي اللغة التي اتقنها تحياتي

[en auto translation] "Hello everyone, many users have spoken about this matter. I did not want to comment, but since my name has been mentioned several times, I feel obliged to clarify. Up until now, I am not convinced of the ban because we do not have a clear definition of what constitutes disruptive behavior, and it remains at the discretion of the administrator (the proof being that only after the ban was a policy proposed to define this). Additionally, there are other, more severe cases where the individuals involved were not banned. As for the justification that it was mentioned in the colleague's discussion that the ban could be lifted and the matter discussed, I believe it was the opposite. Such matters should be addressed to the person responsible on their own page (my page) since I was the one who imposed the ban. Finally, I wished things hadn't escalated to this point. Personally, I didn't follow up on the matter to lift the ban because I thought 24 hours was a short enough period for a ban and a break for the user. However, using it to prevent the user from running for election seems harsh, especially for a user known for their activity in several projects.

Apologies for writing in Arabic as it is the language I am most proficient in. Best regards."-- Nehaoua (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not see my comment to be off the track. Disruptive behaviour + 24 hour ban is min my perspective the same as cooling offblock, which is also the last comment above support. And a cooling off block or short block for disruptive behavior should in my opinion not be a reason to exclude participation in U4C. Yger (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Sami and Nehaoua, for your intervention and comments. And Yger, for your interpretation, though it does not align with the procedures in Arabic Wikipedia.

I am not here to judge the blocking or its processes; rather, I am highlighting the discrimination in treatment, as I have articulated above. Therefore, since I and others from the Arabic Wikipedia share concerns about a candidate from our community, we would like to take the appropriate action regarding this matter.--Sandra HANBO (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems to me ElectCom made the right call here, even if the timing wasn't ideal. Restrictions on candidates should be about removing unserious candidates, for their own benefit (to prevent rejection) and for the benefit of the community (to restrict the field to serious candidates to consider). The candidate in question strikes me as a serious candidate, meaning it should rightfully be put to the voters to decide to approve or reject them, rather than the process to do so on the voter's behalf. For future elections I'm sure more careful checks will be done to identify candidates with recent blocks before voting starts. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Special Elections Result

It’s the 31st of August and the result of the special elections haven’t been announced yet (the timeline says it’d be announced this month). Should we still look forward to it being announced this month or not?😅 Dera xoxo (talk) 05:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dera xoxo, from what I've heard, results will be published until Monday, --Ghilt (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, thank you Ghilt! Dera xoxo (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This sounds a bit like you are not sure about it? Who is actually involved in creating the results? To be honest, I consider it a bit disrespectful against the voters and candidates that it takes more than weeks to get the results. Are there technical or organisational reason, or anything else? Krd 13:18, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Krd: from what I was told on Discord, the results are ready, scrutinised and all but "not sure whose responsibility it is to publish them" (quoting from a WMF T&S member two days back). Leaderboard (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

In the first U4C election and this special election, the U4C did not have the necessary number of members to make an official decision as U4C. From now on, we do: the results have been published, and we would like to warmly thank the Elections Committee, especially since they are also occupied with board elections in parallel to the U4C special election: Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024 Special Election/Results. --Ghilt (talk) 14:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

This all feels like some kind of joke, including the curve. Leaderboard (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

My personal view: i voted support for many candidates including you, of which sadly only one got elected. --Ghilt (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Even the best candidate has 91 opposes, so either the whole candidate group has been only marginally suitable, or there is major opposition against the U4C in general, and the election criteria allow seats to be unoccupied. I look forward to hearing from the current members what they think about it and how they plan to proceed. Krd 15:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Krd More of the number of neutrals - same issue happened last time as well. It's not like you see such a thing in steward elections, for instance. Leaderboard (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

or in admin or arbcom elections. Ghilt (talk) 15:50, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself: I think the anonymous voting leads to more opposes than processes where someone has to publicly stand by their opposes. I think we've seen with some clarity what kind of candidate can get 60% support across these two elections. Whether that is a good thing or not is something that the u4c has been discussing and I expect to be a major focus of the annual review. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

and I would like to add what I wrote after the last election: since the best results were relatively low for elections in wikis, i suppose there is a fundamental opposition to the UCoC and how it was installed. Ghilt (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

The results are certainly difficult to interpret. The high number of neutrals suggests to me that people are voting on who they know and ignoring the others. The high number of opposes isn't particularly surprising, I think it has been well established at this point that people are more likely to oppose on a securepoll election where they are hidden and don't need to give a reason. Does this mean that a lot of people oppose the U4C in general? Or that they were unhappy with this candidate pool? I think it could be worth doing some post-election surveys to try and capture why the voting happened the way it did. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Now that the U4C can finally get to work, future elections might look differently, if the U4C does a good job and that convinces some people who currently opposing all candidates because they don't think the U4C is a good idea. Johannnes89 (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I notice that all that got above 50% got support from me, but only 3 of the 10 that got below 50%. This for me states that the result is relevant, but that this time the criteria of 60% was too tough. Congratulations to the now operational committee and to Ajraddatz who got more than anyone in the first election. Yger (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

@Ajraddatz @Johannnes89 this process is beyond wasteful in terms of resources. Future elections must be more simple and should allow for votes to be given only to the people who are active in the wikies where candidate is also active, otherwise one will keep repeating situation where naysayers from EN control other languages and regions. -- Zblace (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

So, the results are in, but is someone planning on announcing them to the global community? There was no massmessage sent to local wikis; on meta homepage there's still a link to the SecurePoll. Even on the main page of the special election there's no section informing about the results, like in the first election. If I haven't noticed that a link in a navigation box below turned blue, then I wouldn't know about results as well. tufor (talk) 13:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Tufor: hi, thanks for your question. I've just sent the announcement through MassMessage. Best, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 14:08, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@RamzyM (WMF):: thanks! tufor (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Ultimately

Rather a pointless bloody exercise wasn't, wouldn't you say... and what happened to W. Europe  :) ——SerialNumber54129 13:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

It has been a valid, useful (and quite predictable) exercise: out of the "47,905,328 Wikipedia accounts, of which 114,522 have made at least one edit during the last month", it was 612 eligible voters who took part (or 613?), thus making up a minuscule proportion of those who care, while the majority of those who do so care said effective "no": either to the candidates or to the very idea. Zezen (talk) 15:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

That take could apply to any vote we ever do here. Even the board elections, with the highest voter turnout, only get a few thousand votes. Most Wikimedians aren't active in the back-end governance of the projects and that's fine. There are some quite valid criticisms of the process - I think we all agree that the result wasn't ideal. Voter turnout doesn't seem to be the most pressing issue. – Ajraddatz (talk) 16:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The most pressing problem is the UCoC and the fact that it is being pushed from Foundation „per fas et nefas.“ I voted against all the candidates in the second round, but it was nothing personal, it was an expression of protest against the UCoC and its enforcement… F.ponizil (talk) 17:12, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

P. S. per fas et nefas = by legal and illegal means F.ponizil (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

@Zezen: The low turnout can also be attributed to poor timing. Almost half of the voting period coincides with Wikimania (including travel period). Those who attend Wikimania arguably are the ones who are most involved/vocal about the movement, yet putting this election in the lead-up of Wikimania also ensures that those who cared the most had their completely divided attention elsewhere. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 22:36, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself: I think it was rather the opposite of pointless. The U4C now has quorum. Whether the U4C will be a good thing or not we still don't know. But now we can find out. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

hear,hear! Yger (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)