Talk:Board elections/2007/FAQ

When will candidates be named? "Candidate acceptance has not begun yet." Amgine 05:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

Thanks, fixed. --Aphaia 06:40, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

Will it be possible to see a list of voters? This might be useful for rooting out users voting with sockpuppet accounts. Warofdreams 19:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

Possibly no. We have no idea to create such ... however you may see who will have voted in a given moment. --Aphaia 19:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

Approximately how much time is required to carry out the duties of a board member? Presumably these aren't supposed to be full-time volunteer positions, so it would be nice to have some indication as to how many hours a board member typically spends on board-related activities per day/week/month. —Psychonaut 16:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

Currently board activity requires around 8-16 hours a week. But my prediction is that this will fall to around 8-12 hours in the coming months. (Jan-Bart)

Board members are not paid a fee but are their expenses reimbursed? (I think they should be, especially for intercontinental air travel). --A. B. ^(talk) 18:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

Yes: from the FAQ: However, expenses related to Board activities, such as travel, may be compensated. (For example, a board member who needs to attend a Board meeting in Florida may be reimbursed for airfare and hotel, but may not be paid simply for attending.) - Philippe 19:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

Board_elections/2007/FAQ/en#Will all the current board members be standing for election? Do they have to? states "Kat Walsh and Oscar van Dillen come to the end of their terms and their successors will be elected" and "Also please note the appointed members won't be elected by vote.". Kat and Oscar were appointed, so this currently contradicts itself. -- Jeandré, 2007年06月11日t18:37z

Yes you know the fact correctly: they were appointed, and now being replaced by vote, and thus seems to be contradicted. I understand it as a sort of transitional p henomenon in Board expansion. When they were appointed, it was determined their successor would be elected, so be it. But basically appointed member (at least three) won't be elected by vote of the community. --Aphaia

Here I have some questions about the technical counting of user edits.

• Yesterday I checked my user contributions and I had 400 before 1 June 2007, but today I have 399 since one of them was done in a page that has been removed. Do deleted edits count? Do I still keep the right to vote?
• I have an account in a Wikimedia project with more than 400 contributions but I am blocked in that project for 1 month. Will I be able to vote even though I still will be blocked during the voting? If the answer is affirmative, what about an infinite block?
• I have the right to vote in more than one project and, in spite of being forbidden, I will vote from all of them. What will you do to avoid this?

Thank you. --SMP (talk page) 18:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for your questions and sorry for late reply.

• Deletion

  Sorry no, edits were count at the very moment you try to vote.

• Blocking

  You won't able to vote in both cases. If you are blocked, either temporally or indefinitely, at the moment you try to vote, you cannot vote.

--Aphaia 04:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

When do the newly-elected board members take office? - jredmond 22:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

What is the Foundation's attorneys opinions on this question: under U.S. and Florida law, can board members be held personally financially responsible in lawsuits against the foundation (especially copyright and libel actions)? Some organizations provide their members with "directors and officers liability insurance" against such an action -- does the Foundation do this? (If unpaid board members have a liability exposure as a result of their service, then I think they should be provided with such insurance.) --A. B. ^(talk) 18:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

I think that would be a question best asked of the office directly - you're unlikely to get a response on the election pages, which are strictly about the election. Philippe 18:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

@A. B.: do you want people to be able to coit crimes and then saved from punishment, by Wikimedia money? Tobias Conradi 10:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Reply

I've been reading through the Wikipedia article on approval voting and I got to think about what process the election committee is going to use in the off chance that a tie for 3rd place happens (as there are three seats open this time around). The time to worry about this is now, before the election, rather than after the polls have closed.

There are a few different methodologies that are proposed in governmental elections to deal with this, such as flipping a coin or playing out a hand of poker (law in New Mexico and actually used in 2004 in one state-wide race). Other non-random tie breakers could be earliest date of account registration, date of filing as candidate, or something else along these lines although this seems to give certain biases that are not necessarily appropriate either.

While this is a remote chance given the number of people who are likely to be voting in this election, it isn't something to completely ignore either. And it becomes a huge issue when the election results do come in and there is a tie vote and no policy or mechanism to deal with the situation. Hopefully, if this does happen, the two candidates can come up with a compromise that would resolve the situation in the first place. --Roberth 14:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for your interest, Roberth

We determind as the below at Board elections/2007:

In the event of a tie, a run-off election will be announced.

Later the community will think one of ways you proposed is better than run-off, but for this election, I personally think, we have no reason to change the rule. --Aphaia 15:47, 24 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

The only problem with a run-off election in this situation is that it would require a whole new effort to get people to vote. And could result in a futher tie (in theory). But this is a solution. Thanks for considering the possibility at least. --Roberth 15:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

Can votes be changed at any time during the voting window? In other words, should we wait until the last day if we're not sure about a candidate's position? — Omegatron 04:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

Good question, yes. You can change your vote in any time during the voting opens. --Aphaia 04:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

And via what medium? Mailing lists or wiki somewhere? -- Tawker 06:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

Once the election results are certified, which we expect will be around a week after election close, the results will be released through several media (mailing lists, on-wiki, etc). Don't worry, you won't miss it. Philippe 16:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

I am a regular contributor to Wikiversity. I checked my history, and I appear to have over 400 edits since the inception of my account, which was before March 1, 2007. But it won't allow me to vote. First it said I didn't have an account, and then I created an account on http://wikimedia.spi-inc.org with the same username as my wikiversity account (Jacob Walker, my real name), and yet I still couldn't vote. Can someone help me? --Jacob Walker 13:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

Hi, sorry to hear you are in trouble. Could you please give a link to your user page on Wikiversity with which we can examine your case closely? --Aphaia 13:54, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

The voting system works for me via en-Wikipedia or Meta, but it does not work from en-Wikiversity, the wiki where I have most of my edits. --JWSurf 17:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

Problem reported. It should be fixed shortly. Sorry for the inconvenience. AmiDaniel 17:25, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

Should now be fixed. AmiDaniel 17:46, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

It is now working from both http://en.wikiversity.org and http://beta.wikiversity.org --JWSurf 17:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

I have a question too. I have 24,000+ edits on Wikipedia. I do not have edits on Wikimedia. Does this mean I can not vote? The response above ("When you are signed in to Wikipedia and go to Special:Boardvote, what message does it give you?") does not help as I see no Special:Boardvote. WhoNose 10:06, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Reply

There are over 200 Wikipedias. You have those edits on one Wikipedia or in a sum? To vote, you need to have 400+ edits on a single project, sign it on and then crick the link to "vote" at the top. I have no idea which project do you call here "Wikimedia" (this website?). --11:41, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have more than the 400 required edits and meet the voting requirements, you should be able to vote. My question above ("what message does it give you") is intended as a troubleshooting step. I stand by it. If you go to the search field and type in "Special:BoardVote", what happens? What message does it give you? Philippe 05:49, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Reply

Following the links to vote in the board election takes me to Wikimedia meta-wiki. I created an account on Wikimedia but it says I am not eligible to vote. I have been active on Wikipedia and commons for long enough and with enough edits to qualify. How do I connect that information so that I can vote in the board election. My accounts at each location have the same username that I have here. Cheers! --KenWalker 16:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

Try Commons:Special:Boardvote instead. Thanks. --Aphaia 23:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

I have 400 edits on Wikipedia, but when I go to Wikimedia it says I am not eligible. I think this is because I have the same user-name on both accounts. My Wikipedia account has the needed requirements, but not my Wikimedia account. How do I vote under my Wikipedia account? -- User:In Defense of the Artist

Moved from content page. --.anaconda 17:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

When you are signed in to Wikipedia and go to Special:Boardvote, what message does it give you? Philippe 00:01, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Reply

I use Firefox and have the same problem, and I get the message:

I can't determine your Wikimedia user ID. Please log in to the wiki where you are qualified, and go to Special:Boardvote. You must use an account with at least 400 contributions before 00:00, 1 June 2007, and with a first edit before 00:00, 1 March 2007.Note that you must have your browser configured to accept cookies from our external voting server: wikimedia.spi-inc.org.

But when I use IE Tab, it works. So apparently it's a Firefox problem. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 20:45, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Reply

Can you both please confirm that you have Firefox configured to accept cookies from wikimedia.spi-inc.org? Note that this is not a Wikimedia subdomain. I can confirm that both User:Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme and User:In Defense of the Artist at en.wikipedia.org are qualified, your usernames are in the voter list. There's no problem with your edit count. -- Tim Starling 22:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Reply

How is the software supposed to find if the same person is voting from different projects? I saw that going to Special:Boardvote from en.wikibooks and clicking on "vote" in the external server page gives all the options although I had already voted from en.wikipedia. Of course, I didn't vote again from en.wikibooks. -- Paddu 17:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC) Reply

There are manual checks very regularly - those votes won't make it through to the end. :-) Philippe 00:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Reply

Manual checks of what? What if the user has different names on each? — Omegatron 23:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Reply

In the interests of not compromising the election security, I'd prefer not too give too many details at this time, but please understand that we regularly request the help of persons with checkuser privileges, and have a number of tools built into the boardvote system that are at our disposal. I'd prefer not to tell folks what we do and don't check for. :-) Philippe 05:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Reply

In Finland wikipedia supervisor called AdaL makes personnel terrorising to my documents please could you remove his rights and make him a normal user.

This question is not election related and will not be answered on these pages. Please address issues about your wiki through appropriate channels (probably beginning within your own wiki). You may also wish to contact a steward on meta, though I think they would probably ask that you go through dispute resolution steps on your own wiki. Philippe 17:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Reply

Could you alter the link on the top of the en:wikipedia so that people can vote whilst logged into the secure server? Currently you get an error message instead. (I've voted but had to log in to the non-secure srever which I wasn't very happy about) 90.192.184.31 15:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC) Reply

It is actually a secure server - the server certificate is signed by Software in the Public Interest, which is hosting the server. Philippe 05:41, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Reply

The first question asks: "What does it mean by project?". There is no context provided. Where is the wording this question refers to?

In this context, I am wondering if any steps towards countering systemic bias have been taken. Since en.wikipedia is the biggest project, I'm concerned that people who did good work in other projects will get much fewer votes. SebastianHelm 03:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Reply

There have been discussions along those lines, and they will likely continue into previous elections. I strongly encourage you to join them - a good start would be to post suggestions to the foundation mailing list. Philippe 05:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Reply

I have strong objections regarding three admins/editors that I saw on the content page User:Newyorkbrad, User:Tim Starling, User:Aphaia. IIRC they all supported supression of editors and/or surpression of revealing true, Wikimedia related facts. They should resign. My question: How come that these people are in the Board elections/2007/Committee/en? Tobias Conradi 10:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Reply