Each candidates' voting entry should be saparated, or they could not vote for other candidates, thus breach the rights granted by the local policy.

For example, if A and B were in the same ballot, A could not vote for or against B (since they could also vote for themselves in the ballot), though they should lawfully be allowed to.

在T318147#8257084中，@jrbs写道：

I will get this initially set up on Monday.

In T318147#8248534, @Ericliu1912 wrote:

Each candidates' voting entry should be saparated, or they could not vote for other candidates, thus breach the rights granted by the local policy.

For example, if A and B were in the same ballot, A could not vote for or against B (since they could also vote for themselves in the ballot), though they should lawfully be allowed to.

I am not sure how this could be enforced, since the votes are secret, so it will not be possible to know if A voted for B.

Is it possible to create separate polls for each candidate?

I am just asking if it is possible to create four options at poll - Support, Neutral, Oppose, Candidate?

In T318147#8257215, @1233thehongkonger wrote:

I am just asking if it is possible to create four options at poll - Support, Neutral, Oppose, Candidate?

That would not have worked since we couldn't prevent certain candidate being faithless and not vote for the "candidate" option.

In T318147#8257084, @jrbs wrote:

I will get this initially set up on Monday.

In T318147#8248534, @Ericliu1912 wrote:

Each candidates' voting entry should be saparated, or they could not vote for other candidates, thus breach the rights granted by the local policy.

For example, if A and B were in the same ballot, A could not vote for or against B (since they could also vote for themselves in the ballot), though they should lawfully be allowed to.

I am not sure how this could be enforced, since the votes are secret, so it will not be possible to know if A voted for B.

It's not the matter of A voting for or against B, it's that A should be allow to vote for other candidates, while not vote for themselves.

There is a solution: If one as a candidate votes, then manually deduct one vote from them.

In T318147#8258103, @Ericliu1912 wrote:

It's not the matter of A voting for or against B, it's that A should be allow to vote for other candidates, while not vote for themselves.

There is a solution: If one as a candidate votes, then manually deduct one vote from them.

I don't think this solution works since it assumes that the candidate has voted for themselves (which may not be the case).

In T318147#8257091, @Yining_Chen wrote:

Is it possible to create separate polls for each candidate?

It is a bit extra work but if the rule is set in stone, we can do this. It is probably the simplest way to make sure (just check after the election ends that the candidates used the correct poll).

Questions I have:

• Is this rule something that has consensus on the project (and cannot be re-evaluated?)
• --How many candidates are there?-- Ah, I see there are "at least 3"

Questions I have:

• Is this rule something that has consensus on the project (and cannot be re-evaluated?)
• --How many candidates are there?-- Ah, I see there are "at least 3"

• It is still under discussion about the proper way to let candidates to vote for other candidates;
• 10.

Change 835291 had a related patch set uploaded (by Stang; author: Stang):

[operations/mediawiki-config@master] votewiki: Change wgLanguageCode to zh for Sep 2022 admins election

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/835291

In T318147#8262855, @Stang wrote:

• It is still under discussion about the proper way to let candidates to vote for other candidates;
• 10.

Excellent, thank you. I think 10 separate polls would be cumbersome but we would be able to make it work (making one poll for each candidate so that we can easily strike votes of candidates who vote in their own polls).

Of course it would be much easier if this wasn't a rule :) but it would not increase the difficulty, only the complexity.

Great enough! Glad to see that SecurePoll has the capability of handling large collective elections.

In T318147#8263303, @Ericliu1912 wrote:

Great enough! Glad to see that SecurePoll has the capability of handling large collective elections.

Does this mean you would like to run ten separate votes?

In T318147#8265513, @jrbs wrote:

In T318147#8263303, @Ericliu1912 wrote:

Great enough! Glad to see that SecurePoll has the capability of handling large collective elections.

Does this mean you would like to run ten separate votes?

The community are discussing about the issue. Will reach consesus in a few days.

In T318147#8270424, @Ericliu1912 wrote:

In T318147#8265513, @jrbs wrote:

In T318147#8263303, @Ericliu1912 wrote:

Great enough! Glad to see that SecurePoll has the capability of handling large collective elections.

Does this mean you would like to run ten separate votes?

The community are discussing the issue. Will reach consesus in a few days.

fantastic :) I am happy to wait.

Change 835291 merged by jenkins-bot:

[operations/mediawiki-config@master] votewiki: Change wgLanguageCode to zh for Sep 2022 admins election

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/835291

Mentioned in SAL (#wikimedia-operations) [2022-09-29T13:10:51Z] <lucaswerkmeister-wmde@deploy1002> Synchronized wmf-config/InitialiseSettings.php: Config: [[gerrit:835291|votewiki: Change wgLanguageCode to zh for Sep 2022 admins election (T318147)]] (duration: 03m 40s)

Community seemingly tends to have separate polls for each candidate according to the below linked discussion.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:%E4%BA%92%E5%8A%A9%E5%AE%A2%E6%A0%88/%E5%85%B6%E4%BB%96&oldid=73907997#%E6%8A%95%E7%A5%A8%E6%96%B9%E6%A1%88

While it is first time for zh.wiki community to have 10 candidates at the same time and the workload is imaginably high,
I'd like to suggest that it takes 2 to 3 turns to complete the whole process. Start a turn each week.

Well note that the schedule seems quite tight as mentioned in T302443#8257087
@jrbs Highly appreciate that if you can feedback on the feasibility and any preference on number of turns if it is feasible. Thank you.

In T318147#8278147, @Wong128hk wrote:

Community seemingly tends to have separate polls for each candidate according to the below linked discussion.

https://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:%E4%BA%92%E5%8A%A9%E5%AE%A2%E6%A0%88/%E5%85%B6%E4%BB%96&oldid=73907997#%E6%8A%95%E7%A5%A8%E6%96%B9%E6%A1%88

While it is first time for zh.wiki community to have 10 candidates at the same time and the workload is imaginably high,
I'd like to suggest that it takes 2 to 3 turns to complete the whole process. Start a turn each week.

Well note that the schedule seems quite tight as mentioned in T302443#8257087
@jrbs Highly appreciate that if you can feedback on the feasibility and any preference on number of turns if it is feasible. Thank you.

I think this would be OK. My biggest concern would be if it clashes with the fawiki elections, which don't yet have a date. I wrote a new task for those elections at T319354.

I understand based on your proposal:

• Voting period 1: October 10 – October 23
• Voting period 2: October 17 – October 30
• Voting period 3: October 24 – November 6

Then maybe a week for scrutinising and tallying, so all finished by November 11 or so (or November 4 if you only have two voting periods). This might be tough with other demands on SecurePoll especially since those will require the interface in other languages as well, but it should probably be doable. I can't tell for sure since I don't have timelines for fawiki yet.

The following would be the configuration of these votes:

• Candidate list:

• Voter list: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:申请成为管理员/2022年9月#投票權人名單
• Interface text:
  • zh-hans: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:申请成为管理员/2022年9月/zh-hans.json
  • zh-hant: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:申请成为管理员/2022年9月/zh-hant.json
  • Please replace the "placeholder" and "placeholder2" field with the value provided above.

Please enable comment for these votes.

Voter list is different for each candidate, see links in the task description.

Jrbs: Thanks for your replies. Knowing that schedule is tight; above timetable is suggested for the community.

We could actually start a little bit earlier than Oct 10 to leave more space for fawiki election. Also, it seems there's already an election on votewiki started (since Oct 4), is it possible for us to delete that vote?

In T318147#8288422, @Stang wrote:

Also, it seems there's already an election on votewiki started (since Oct 4), is it possible for us to delete that vote?

I can't delete it but I can rename it and use it for one of those we've listed above

That's cool, please go ahead, thanks! I thought a started vote could not be edited anymore... Anyway, I suggest to mark it as invalid, as I could see someone already voted there.

In T318147#8288979, @Stang wrote:

That's cool, please go ahead, thanks! I thought a started vote could not be edited anymore... Anyway, I suggest to mark it as invalid, as I could see someone already voted there.

It has to be done through the database once the poll is open, but it is possible :)

I'm setting these up now with a start date of 10/17 October. We can change it later (easily except for the first one which already opened; we'd need to do that on the db again but should just be that one poll)

I have created the polls here: https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:%E5%AE%89%E5%85%A8%E6%8A%95%E7%A5%A8

The election admins can also import the translations on the "Translate" / "翻译" page for each poll. Otherwise I will get those tomorrow.

A small note, personally I think it would be better to rename elections like "2022年9月中文维基百科管理员选举-Stang" to be "2022年9月中文维基百科管理员选举（Stang）".

@jrbs Apologize for the typo in "intro" section, please update it per changes at zh-hans and zh-hant message.

In T318147#8294135, @Stang wrote:

@jrbs Apologize for the typo in "intro" section, please update it per changes at zh-hans and zh-hant message.

I believe this is sorted now and we should be more or less good to go :)

In T318147#8296442, @jrbs wrote:

I believe this is sorted now and we should be more or less good to go :)

Most of the page looks fine, except a few issues:

• https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/SecurePoll:1372/msg/zh-hans, this page is not needed, I suggest to delete it
• https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/SecurePoll:1384/msg/zh-hant, the intro of this page should be "zh-hant" instead of "zh-hans" (current)

In T318147#8296446, @Stang wrote:

Most of the page looks fine, except a few issues:

• https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/SecurePoll:1372/msg/zh-hans, this page is not needed, I suggest to delete it

Unfortunately I don't think it's possible to delete it. It contains the same content as the /zh version of the same page which those using zh-hans will see by default. This will also allow those using some other version of zh to see the zh-hans version as a fallback. (I realised my mistake after doing this first one, so the other 9 candidates just have zh and zh-hant)

• https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/SecurePoll:1384/msg/zh-hant, the intro of this page should be "zh-hant" instead of "zh-hans" (current)

I think this is fixed now

In T318147#8301451, @jrbs wrote:

It contains the same content as the /zh version of the same page which those using zh-hans will see by default.

In fact there's an error in the first sentence of the "intro" of zh-hans: It should be

欢迎来到2022年9月中文维基百科管理员选举的投票页面。这是候选人'''Stang'''的投票页，相对应的选举页面[[:w:zh:Wikipedia:申请成为管理员/Stang/第2次|'''请参见此处''']]。

Instead of

欢迎来到2022年9月中文维基百科管理员选举的投票页面。这是候选人'''Stang'''的投票页，相对应的选举页面[[:w:zh:Wikipedia:申请成为管理员/Stang|'''请参见此处''']]。

@jrbs Sorry to disturb again: there's an extra comma in the "zh-hant" version's intro text, would you mind to remove it like what we did in this diff? Thanks.

In T318147#8303938, @Stang wrote:

@jrbs Sorry to disturb again: there's an extra comma in the "zh-hant" version's intro text, would you mind to remove it like what we did in this diff? Thanks.

Done. Just for the record, when there is a small change like this it is probably not worth changing since it means changing it on 10 different elections :)

I assume there are no problems with voting?

Thanks! In the future we will try to make those contents zero-error when posting at here.
The voting is fine, at least no problem received from voters.

Please mark me and @jimmyxu as Scrutineers for the vote. Thank you.

In T318147#8318349, @Wong128hk wrote:

Please mark me and @jimmyxu as Scrutineers for the vote. Thank you.

This should be done :)

I am checking in here. Is everything OK so far?

Yea everything's fine so far. Our plan is to release all 10 tallies together so we're holding onto the first five until Oct 31.

We have posted the tally on-wiki: https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jimmy_Xu?limit=10&offset=20221031005220

I've given the sysop flag to User:Ericliu1912 and User:Koala0090.