Thanks for filing this and apologies for a delay in my response. Questions from me...

• Would the first of these be in October 2023? I ask because the U4C Charter vote will be running from October 2–13. That means we will not have a tally until probably October 27 or later. It could still be possible though might be easier if we push it back a week
• Would the community expect to use encryption in these elections? If not it might actually be possible to run the election directly on zhwiki rather than on votewiki

• The community has no special need of a GPG encryption, our previously hosted election use no encryption. It would be really nice if election could be run at zhwiki locally, but I'm not sure if its possible technically - is there any update of T301180?
• If election is hosted on zhwiki, do we still need to stagger the time slot with U4C vote? If not, I will ask the community for another time

In T342774#9104730, @Stang wrote:

• The community has no special need of a GPG encryption, our previously hosted election use no encryption. It would be really nice if election could be run at zhwiki locally, but I'm not sure if its possible technically - is there any update of T301180?

My understanding is that the local elections are only stuck on encryption: T209892

Since this wouldn't be encrypted I don't think there would be a barrier to running it locally. I will say though that we haven't really run an election locally for a very long time so the community would have to be OK with that (e.g. something might go wrong in the process).

I can also perhaps run some test elections beforehand to make sure all is OK, assuming this would not be controversial.

• If election is hosted on zhwiki, do we still need to stagger the time slot with U4C vote? If not, I will ask the community for another time

I think these could run at the same time since there would be no need to use votewiki, but the uncertainty mentioned above still applies. :)

I can also perhaps run some test elections beforehand to make sure all is OK, assuming this would not be controversial.

It would be great for a trial run prior to the estimated election time, personally I think September would be OK. Is there any thing that the community needs to do for this?

Hi @jrbs, kindly asking is there any update of this task?

In T342774#9112011, @Stang wrote:

I can also perhaps run some test elections beforehand to make sure all is OK, assuming this would not be controversial.

It would be great for a trial run prior to the estimated election time, personally I think September would be OK. Is there any thing that the community needs to do for this?

Sorry to miss this. I was researching a bit recently around local elections (and wrote this update, then got somewhat distracted trying to find answers)

I was under the impression from T335201: Investigation: What needs to change to allow local wikis to run their own elections? that there was nothing preventing local, unencrypted elections, but I actually believe there is — zhwiki, and indeed all wikis, do not have the electionadmin user right, so it is actually impossible to create a SecurePoll election locally there. I think this would probably be an easy config change, but it exposes some security risks (since electionadmin would be grantable by 'crats and is a right that allows access to IP information).

For that reason I think we actually do need to run this on votewiki if we want to run it at all. That is probably fine if we can get everything ready soon (voter lists, candidates etc.)

I would quite like to avoid last year's issue requiring us to set up 10 different elections if at all possible... Do you know if you will still want to prevent people from voting for themselves?

Thanks for your reply! I have left my comment at T335201.

So this election is still on votewiki, right? Per T342774#9100803, is it means the vote will not start until October 14?

I would quite like to avoid last year's issue requiring us to set up 10 different elections if at all possible... Do you know if you will still want to prevent people from voting for themselves?

This concern has been forwarded to the community. On the bright side there won't be so much candidates in this election :)

In T342774#9215388, @Stang wrote:

So this election is still on votewiki, right? Per T342774#9100803, is it means the vote will not start until October 14?

Thanks for flagging that comment, it is out of date because the U4C vote is now scheduled for Nov 8 – 22.

This means that, ideally, the zhwiki elections would be completed by November 8 if possible. I would perhaps suggest a week earlier than the timeline in the task here:

• Oct 8 - Oct 20: Election setup
• Oct 21 - Nov 3: Voting period
• Nov 3-8 : Tallying period

I would also like to ask that we do not change the language of votewiki to zh. The ballot / question / options can all be in zh, but since we will be setting up the U4C election at the same time it would be much simpler if votewiki is in en. Is that acceptable?

I would quite like to avoid last year's issue requiring us to set up 10 different elections if at all possible... Do you know if you will still want to prevent people from voting for themselves?

This concern has been forwarded to the community. On the bright side there won't be so much candidates in this election :)

Excellent :D Thank you!

@jrbs Some updates, if there's anything not clear in my json file, please let me know.

Thanks, I will set this up. One problem I see though:

There should be 4 options for each candidates, "support", "oppose", "neutral" and "withdrawn". The default selection is "withdrawn".

I am not sure I understand this request. Can someone vote for a withdrawn candidate? Each of these will be a number in the back end (we can still have four options I think, we haven't done it before but I don't see a problem since the tally will give the number of votes with each option)

Edit: I see the option for this is "弃权", which I think means "abstain" or "no vote". Is that right?

Yeah, it is actually "abstain", apologize for my inaccurate word.

In T342774#9256201, @Stang wrote:

Yeah, it is actually "abstain", apologize for my inaccurate word.

No worries, I just wanted to be sure :)

I just need the list of voters now. Who is putting that together?

@jrbs Voter list generated.
Something forgot to mention: We would like to hide the voter list (set voter-privacy to 1) per community consensus

In T342774#9264578, @Stang wrote:

@jrbs Voter list generated.
Something forgot to mention: We would like to hide the voter list (set voter-privacy to 1) per community consensus

Thank you! This list has been imported, and the requested change has been made.

@jrbs, the vote duration of "2023年10月中文维基百科管理人员选举-其他管理人员" is incorrect, please fix it.

In T342774#9266518, @Stang wrote:

@jrbs, the vote duration of "2023年10月中文维基百科管理人员选举-其他管理人员" is incorrect, please fix it.

Good catch, changed it.

Just like the previous one (T318147): Please mark me and @jimmyxu as Scrutineers for the vote. Thank you.

In T342774#9272043, @Wong128hk wrote:

Just like the previous one (T318147): Please mark me and @jimmyxu as Scrutineers for the vote. Thank you.

You should both already have access.

In T342774#9273760, @jrbs wrote:

In T342774#9272043, @Wong128hk wrote:

Just like the previous one (T318147): Please mark me and @jimmyxu as Scrutineers for the vote. Thank you.

You should both already have access.

thank you. vote 1 completed.

Re: vote 2
according local OS policy, 80% of support vote is needed to grant the access.
75 to 79% of support vote, traditionally, will be counted as borderline case.
Extension of voting period is considered to be one of legitimate solution.
After discussion with Jimmyxu, @jrbs could you please extend the voting period of vote 2 for 1 week.
Thank you.

@Wong128hk A secure poll could not be edited once it has started, so I don't think a prolong is possible technically. The only way seems to be re-run an election.

Well that's a terrible system for RfAs...

Though is it possible to just hold a shorter election that could act as an extension for the current election? 14+7 could still be 21.

Though is it possible to just hold a shorter election that could act as an extension for the current election? 14+7 could still be 21.

You can't know if there's some people who has voted in the previous election votes again in this new "shorter election", so I'm afraid no

In T342774#9307956, @Stang wrote:

@Wong128hk A secure poll could not be edited once it has started, so I don't think a prolong is possible technically. The only way seems to be re-run an election.

It is possible, but only through the database.

In T342774#9307138, @Wong128hk wrote:

In T342774#9273760, @jrbs wrote:

In T342774#9272043, @Wong128hk wrote:

Just like the previous one (T318147): Please mark me and @jimmyxu as Scrutineers for the vote. Thank you.

You should both already have access.

thank you. vote 1 completed.

Re: vote 2
according local OS policy, 80% of support vote is needed to grant the access.
75 to 79% of support vote, traditionally, will be counted as borderline case.
Extension of voting period is considered to be one of legitimate solution.
After discussion with Jimmyxu, @jrbs could you please extend the voting period of vote 2 for 1 week.
Thank you.

I have done this as requested. It may result in some strangeness if the election was already tallied (I haven't tried tallying an election twice in this kind of scenario), so proceed with caution.

If necessary it should be pretty easy to simply create a new election.

In T342774#9309331, @jrbs wrote:

In T342774#9307956, @Stang wrote:

@Wong128hk A secure poll could not be edited once it has started, so I don't think a prolong is possible technically. The only way seems to be re-run an election.

It is possible, but only through the database.

In T342774#9307138, @Wong128hk wrote:

In T342774#9273760, @jrbs wrote:

In T342774#9272043, @Wong128hk wrote:

Just like the previous one (T318147): Please mark me and @jimmyxu as Scrutineers for the vote. Thank you.

You should both already have access.

thank you. vote 1 completed.

Re: vote 2
according local OS policy, 80% of support vote is needed to grant the access.
75 to 79% of support vote, traditionally, will be counted as borderline case.
Extension of voting period is considered to be one of legitimate solution.
After discussion with Jimmyxu, @jrbs could you please extend the voting period of vote 2 for 1 week.
Thank you.

I have done this as requested. It may result in some strangeness if the election was already tallied (I haven't tried tallying an election twice in this kind of scenario), so proceed with caution.

If necessary it should be pretty easy to simply create a new election.

User from zhwiki cannot vote.
I think better create a new election.
@jrbs please help create a new election. Thanks.

Just for note. The reason of cannot vote is that only the poll on the votewiki was extended, but the local one did not extended. Therefore, users cannot follow Special:SecurePoll link on the local wiki to vote. Thanks.

In T342774#9315132, @SCP-2000 wrote:

Just for note. The reason of cannot vote is that only the poll on the votewiki was extended, but the local one did not extended. Therefore, users cannot follow Special:SecurePoll link on the local wiki to vote. Thanks.

You are absolutely right. I have made this change and it should now work as expected.

If this is not acceptable, or you require additional time on the vote, please let me know @Wong128hk / @jimmyxu

In T342774#9315133, @jrbs wrote:

In T342774#9315132, @SCP-2000 wrote:

Just for note. The reason of cannot vote is that only the poll on the votewiki was extended, but the local one did not extended. Therefore, users cannot follow Special:SecurePoll link on the local wiki to vote. Thanks.

You are absolutely right. I have made this change and it should now work as expected.

If this is not acceptable, or you require additional time on the vote, please let me know @Wong128hk / @jimmyxu

The vote should be ended at 15 Nov 23:59 (UTC) since the vote cannot be accessed from local site and not enough notification. Thank you.

I can confirm that votes now can be casted as normal.

In T342774#9319163, @Wong128hk wrote:

The vote should be ended at 15 Nov 23:59 (UTC) since the vote cannot be accessed from local site and not enough notification. Thank you.

I have made this change.

The election has ended now. @jimmyxu / @Wong128hk - feel free to run your scrutiny of the new votes. We will see if the creation of a new tally works as expected once you are ready.

Tally ran without issues afaics. Results posted on wiki with @Wong128hk concurring and vote 2 should be complete.