In T361415#9674264, @Reedy wrote:

What are they planning on doing with the extension on the beta cluster?

Confirming here @Lhuyghe's comment, I think the steps sound very reasonable.

In T289388#9640251, @jrbs wrote:

I brought this up internally to work out our stance on this. I think the ideal solution here would be having a no-JS backup option (that users can be automatically driven to, or click a button to get, whichever is most feasible).

Hey @Skizzerz, thanks for submitting a patch. This task was listed in our contractors' work package and I was just wondering what the status of the CR is?

Ah! I tested this myself and it does already seem possible even if the options are "0" and "1", as long as the option to require votes is selected. So I think indeed this task is already resolved.

In T329922#9645557, @Driedmueller wrote:

Ok, cool!
So then, we would implement a "most active wiki" input field on the vote page and populate it with the wikis where the user has more than X% of their edits.
I would suggest introducing a config variable to define X, e.g. with value of 10 for the wikis with more than 10% edits from the user.
The users choice is not stored, for now.
We can get the necessary data from CentralAuthUser::queryAttached method. [...]

Scripts now running, should be done by EoW.

In T326412#9643631, @jrbs wrote:

I do wonder how those "blank" votes work out in the tally. The system does not seem to warn me when I submit a totally blank vote and I wonder if that vote even counts at all?

In T326412#9641675, @Miriamin wrote:

[...]
I understand that the goal of this ticket has already been achieved, but if I have misunderstood something, I would be grateful if I could get some more information so that I can solve the problem.

I created a poll with no default value and this is how the ballot looks like if I want to vote:

Thanks to @jsn.sherman for CR back in August, much appreciated!

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you here @Driedmueller.

Sorry for my delay as I investigated these questions @Osnard.

In T359211#9602928, @bd808 wrote:

@Bugreporter There is no similar comment in the log for blocking done directly in Phabricator, so I guess I'm wondering what you think people will write as a reason other than "spamming".

@phuedx Would you be able to help shed some light on the above? In particular, is the revert due to any code issues or just a case of product ownership changes (i.e. could we just re-merge that patch again)?

In T288784#9570365, @Krinkle wrote:

In T288784#7513397, @gerritbot wrote:

Change 724456 merged by jenkins-bot:

[mediawiki/extensions/SecurePoll@master] Remove DB writes to securepoll_voters on HTTP GET

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/724456

For the record, this commit was reverted on the same day that it was merged (18 Nov 2021)

https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/SecurePoll/+/739642
Change by @phuedx:
Revert "Remove DB writes to securepoll_voters on HTTP GET"

Reason for revert: T288784#7482853

This was performed successfully. Thank you!

Vote is complete! Thanks all.

I believe this is intentionally public yes. It's difficult to find (which may be a problem itself) but it's not intended to be secret

Done, sent 44,677 emails

In T348597#9471529, @Superpes15 wrote:

Hi @jrbs, I just noticed that we scrutineers have not yet been added as admins for this vote, thanks :)

In T355594#9479474, @Huji wrote:

Where in the code are these tables created? I don't recall the core code needing to create separate tables for elections. I know WMF has occasionally created tables (see ./cli/wm-scripts) but those are not for every single election either. And at least the present code (same link) only relates to 2022 and later.

I spoke with Legal and it doesn't seem that they would have a problem with deleting these old tables.

In T74449#9431902, @Aklapper wrote:

In T74449#8791700, @jrbs wrote:

Revisiting this very old task - I am not really sure what the ask is here - do you mean the history of edits to the SecurePoll election, or something else?

If nobody can clarify what's requested here, best to close this ticket as invalid?

In T310909#9367709, @Ammarpad wrote:

On the translate subpage, if $wgSecurePollTranslationImportSourceUrl is set, there's currently a message that presumably claims anyone can 'import translations'

You can import translations from http://localhost, translate manually or edit existing translations.

...but it's misleading, because you can't if you're not an election admin.

I'd suggest to show this message only if the user can actually do the action (along with the button)

Small update on this -- I can't find the task which changed this behaviour, but one is now able to update the election admins at any point. I believe this is possible even if the start date is in the past, but I will confirm this with the English Wikipedia elections which begin in about five hours.

No response so boldly closing this task given the successful implementation of T271276: Log when admins access voter data in SecurePoll.

Fantastic. Thank you!

I think that's fine if it wouldn't be locally controversial (I doubt that, since the rankings are already published)

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.

Hi everyone, is everything completed here? @Darafsh could you confirm the tally is OK?

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.

@Reedy Can I please confirm that your change here doesn't impact how this process works? https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/mediawiki/extensions/SecurePoll/+/892945

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.

Ah, you can see it correctly if you use ?uselang=fa: https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/tally/1421?uselang=fa

In T348448#9311883, @Superpes15 wrote:

The check was finally completed. I and @Urbanecm tried to do the tally via wiki interface, but @jrbs should take a look at the results, as we aren't able to interpret them completely (in particular "Candidate 1"). Thanks!

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.

In T342774#9272043, @Wong128hk wrote:

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

In T348448#9270116, @Jeeputer wrote:

The current list is wrong.
For example users Sunfyre and محک are not in the votewiki list, but their name is present in the original list.
List of eligible voters on votewiki should be update from the new JSON file that I have created. This file excludes those who are blocked or locked. Actually there are 470 local accounts plus 4 accounts on votewiki (Darafsh, Huji, Mahdy Saffar and Mardetanha). Thank you.

In T348448#9267060, @Superpes15 wrote:

Seems that all the users near the red cells are blocked on fawiki or locked (I have the “markblocked” script enabled and noticed this). They likely shouldn’t vote, according with the warning in that page “Users are allowed to vote only on the condition that their access to Persian Wikipedia is not interrupted at the time of voting”, but let’s wait for a confirmation by @Darafsh or @Jeeputer. Thanks :)

In T349233#9263932, @Frostly wrote:

https://www.spi-inc.org/ is up?

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.

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

I have added everyone in that list for now. I think based on what I see there that 524 people should be eligible, and 524 people are in the list, so all works out.

In T348448#9263824, @Jeeputer wrote:

In T348448#9262887, @jrbs wrote:

OK I think more or less everything is good to go other than getting the list of voters. This was typically done locally and the list provided to me / imported directly by Huji. Is there a plan to do this?

The list of eligible voters is available here in wikitable format. If you need it in any other format, i can help.

In T348597#9251205, @Superpes15 wrote:

@jrbs Just FTR (sorry if I write here, but I see that votewiki's technical timeline is tight in this period, so I try to anticipate you) I'm free in that period and can be a scrutineer, and coming from the recent fawiki election I'd probably already be ready to carry out the role but, if someone else, for example who has never done it, would like to do it, I'd have no problem backing out.
@Mykola7 has expressed their interest and availability in this, so I ping them here. I think in the end this election will require other scrutineers as the previous one, we still have @Urbanecm, and other available stews can certainly be found if required! Thanks :)

Revisiting this, I think this would still be desirable but would probably require some tweaks to how the ballot is displayed. For context, in the backend, "Support" is just a text label for "+1" that lives in a JSON file on votewiki. This allows it to be translated but as far as I know there's no way to put an image in there (or wikitext that may be parsed as an image). This was done in the past with board elections using templates, I think, so it should in theory be possible.

This was completed successfully. Thank you all!

OK I think more or less everything is good to go other than getting the list of voters. This was typically done locally and the list provided to me / imported directly by Huji. Is there a plan to do this?

In T342774#9256201, @Stang wrote:

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

In T348448#9255496, @Arian_Ar wrote:

Wouldn't it be better to clarify what the problem is? Something like

شما واجد شرایط رای‌دهی نیستید.

which translates to "You are not eligible to vote"?

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

OK, I am setting this up now. Please let me know if you require changes to the text (I am copying it from the 2021 election). I'm sorry but I don't know how to make the blocks RTL on Phabricator.

In T348448#9252459, @Sunfyre wrote:

Can vote.wikimedia.org use Meek STV?

In T348448#9241090, @Jeeputer wrote:

Thank you. I will notify the community about this. I guess it would be ok to run the elections using English interface, but is it going to be English when the zhwiki elections is taking place?