Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Call for candidates opens in 23 hours

The call for candidates phase opens in 23 hours. Feel free to make any last minute adjustments to the following relevant subpages:

Thanks! –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

What if no one signs up?

Here's a question, what do we do if no one has signed up by the end of the call for candidates period? fanfanboy (block) 13:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I think we'll get some folks. I've heard some folks offwiki talking about it. In the event that we didn't, I'd make a post in the Phabricator ticket telling WMF T&S that they can skip our election, and a post on meta:SRG telling the stewards that they can skip our election, saving them both some work. It'd also make sense to not post any watchlist notices for the discussion phase and voting phase. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:07, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
m:SN works best for contacting the stewards about this sort of thing :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I made a typo. I meant to say meta:SRM, since that is where we already have the thread about this. In the future, do you prefer SRM or SN for discussion of admin elections? –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Ah! Sorry to be pedantic then, just trying to make sure everything ended up where it should. No issues with SRM or SN, SRM tends to be for more discrete / immediately actionable requests but both are monitored pretty well :-) -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
My fears have been proven false in under 24 hours :) fanfanboy (block) 16:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Watchlist message wording

The watchlist message says Editors are invited to nominate themselves or others for adminship, which makes it sound like anyone is encouraged to spontaneously nominate anyone else. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Maybe better: "Editors are invited to declare their candidacy, with nominators or as a self-nomination"? -- asilvering (talk) 04:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I think this wording change or similar would be fine. Want to modify Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Watchlist messages/Call for candidates so we can see what it'd look like? Then I'll probably go make the change. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Come to think of it, looking at the Call for candidates page, it does really look like... you just throw your hat in the ring. It's not like it outright discourages having nominators, but it doesn't really make it sound like they're generally expected or even recommended. -- asilvering (talk) 04:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae edited. Broke the nomination bit into a different sentence, which I think is clearer. @Thebiguglyalien, better? -- asilvering (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I tried a different change that keeps it in one sentence.
Regarding whether or not a nomination is expected: it's part of the candidate form. Leaving it blank would be forgoing an excellent opportunity to explain why you should be selected. isaacl (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I like yours better than mine! -- asilvering (talk) 04:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
That works for me :) isaacl (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
This is getting a bit long for a watchlist message. I took a stab at shortening it. That look OK? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
To make it even shorter, , which is undergoing a one-time trial run can be removed. I like short; I just hadn't wanted to take out anything that someone might feel strongly about. isaacl (talk) 05:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
One time trial run seems like useful info. Will keep it in for now unless others want it out. I've updated MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages with what we have so far. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Actually I thought about it more and I think I like your idea better. I removed one time trial run. Thanks for the idea. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Getting ready for "Call for Candidates"

Hello friends. The call for candidates is about a week away, on Tuesday 10/8. So let's review all the the call for candidates subpages. Feel free to make small edits, or bring big issues to the attention of the group on this talk page.

Also, the call for candidates is open for a week, so I'm not too concerned about opening it at exactly 00:00 UTC. I just plan to open it around that time. Ditto for closing, although I'll make sure not to close it before 00:00 UTC. If it's open for a few extra hours I don't think that'd be a problem.

Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:29, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Help needed creating subpages

Hello talk page watchers. Thank you to everyone who helped with creating the MMS messages and watchlist notices. That really helps a lot. Looks like we still have 3 more subpages to create over at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Subpages to create (note the 3 red links). If anyone would like to take a stab at creating those, it'd be much appreciated. They don't have to be perfect. We can iterate and debate after we have drafts of everything. Thank you very much for any help! –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Just to confirm, the discussion phase is the same as RfA, just without the Support/Oppose/Neutral sections, right? fanfanboy (block) 21:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
It's not set in stone yet, but I think that'd be a good plan for creating the draft. I envision folks adding their name during the call for candidates, then we create RFA-like subpages, for their noms to put their statements and for the candidates to answer the 3 standard questions. Then when the discussion phase opens, folks add questions and general discussion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Alright I just created a discussion template with a cutdown version of {{RfA/readyToSubmit}}. In my sandbox I also made an edited version of the {{RfA}} template to use the cutdown version (which is also in my sandbox) instead fanfanboy (block) 16:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I've done some iteration on the Call for Candidate subpage. The subpage now recommends that the candidates create their own subpages, and add themselves to a list. Let me know if the changes work :) Sohom (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Getting fancy! –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:28, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
Alright, I created Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase, although I'm not 100% sure what it's supposed to look like, so it's pretty bare-bones for now. Cremastra (talk) 16:02, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 October 2024

Please add the the following Editor to the list, User:Ijzali Ijzali (talk) 00:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

"Does he know?" type of situation. fanfanboy (block) 00:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
 Not done: User has been blocked and does not meet the requirements anyways. cyberdog958Talk 00:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Nominations

@Fanfanboy: Please bring your edit summary here for discussion—I think it's an excellent point that should be implemented. SerialNumber54129 14:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the edit summary is DreamRimmer has been adding them, when noms should be adding themselves. Italicizing to hopefully make this more clear. (We should find a way to automate this). I think people forgetting to add themselves to the list then people like DreamRimmer adding them is an OK workflow. Probably no change needed here, but happy to hear other thoughts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I think what he's interested in talking about is the We should find a way to automate this part. Which I'll be honest, I wouldn't even know where to start. fanfanboy (block) 15:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I am okay with manually adding nominations if candidates forget to list them. But if everyone is interested in automating this process, I'd be happy to help out with my bot. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Probably not worth the time investment. If people like you don't do it faster than me, when the call for candidates phase closes I'll also do a check and add any who haven't been added yet. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
We really won't need automation just for this trail. But if admin elections is implemented, then it would probably be a good idea long term. fanfanboy (block) 15:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I think people might still be working on it, possible waiting for a nom statement, so would be good to allow them to add it themselves or ask first? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
A request for administrative privileges is only initiated when it has been transcluded to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, so the drafting and submission of the request is on the applicant's own schedule. In a similar manner, I think it would be good for potential candidates to draft their candidate page and link to it on the Call for candidates page to indicate that they want to proceed. Thus I agree with Femke: I suggest contacting anyone who has created a page that seems ready to go and asking them what they want to do, rather than just linking it on their behalf without checking. isaacl (talk) 17:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, agree. I'd be pretty horrified if I had set up a page for myself, intentionally not listed it, and then come back to find someone else had done so. I don't know if that's happened yet (they may have only unintentionally not listed themselves), but the risk is there. -- asilvering (talk) 17:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
<pedantry>please use <em> tags to emphasize something instead of italics; these have the same visual output but the latter does some stuff for screen readers.</pedantry> Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 16:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
You learn something new everyday :). fanfanboy (block) 14:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Seems like some folks don't want a link to the subpage before the person is ready. Would a good compromise be to list only their usernames until the discussion phase? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
A good compromise is not to link their subpage unless the person is ready. And then give them a clear heads up/instruction that they (or their nominator) should add their subpage link before a certain date to be considered (probably simply end of candidate nom process).
You do not list RFAs on WP:RFA before the nominee is ready, and there's always the chance someone in AELECT changes their mind. It just seems proper to just not list people and handle all "unlisted created pages" at once at the end Soni (talk) 18:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think so. Just ask them what they want to do. There's ample buffer time between the end of nominations and the start of discussion to confirm who wants to participate in the election. isaacl (talk) 18:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
The buffer time is to set up SecurePoll for the elections, so this should be handled ideally before (or very quickly after) the nomination deadline. Agree that asking questions is the best way forward. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the point is that the buffer time is there so the data required to be configured on the SecurePoll server can be determined and then put in place. There's no need to rush names onto the list before a potential candidate is able to add the name themselves, or respond that they are indeed interested in running. isaacl (talk) 19:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
OK, so what change does everyone want here? Is it being proposed to delete the list of candidates that were not self-added from Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates? –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Let's ask all the candidates if they wanted to be listed. And as long as it's some set of clear instructions, it's not a big deal. (Say "Do you want to be listed yet? To be safe, in 24h, we'll remove all non-self-listed ones. And whenever you're ready, you can re-add before deadline." (Or any other similar clear instruction. Say if it's opt out. As long as candidates know what to expect or tell us).
And for future noms, we continue to give a "Here's all the things you do to be officially in elections" (Aka just listing, I think?) Maybe a mild encouragement to have nominators? I am slightly concerned the elections process was not clear enough that you can be nominated by others. Soni (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Messaging a bunch of people and then keeping track of their responses doesn't seem very efficient. Instead I've decided to remove them and ping them in the edit summary to re-add themselves when ready, and change the rules that you can only add yourself. Diff 1. Diff 2. I hope this resolves the concerns in this talk page section. If not let's discuss further. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. This is a better solution. I am happy with this Soni (talk) 07:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment § Clarification request: Desysoppings

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment § Clarification request: Desysoppings. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Phab ticket

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T371454

As requested by WMF Trust & Safety, I've created phab:T371454 to discuss the technical details of setting up the admin election in SecurePoll. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Ways to help

If you're interested in helping, it'd be really nice if some of the following pages could mysteriously appear mostly written, and then everyone can go through and make adjustments:

Main pages

MMS

MMS lists

Watchlist messages

Miscellaneous

I think some of these details might end up needing discussion or adjusting. But I think the quickest way to get these discussions going is to create drafts and then tweak from there. Any help is appreciated. Please feel free to WP:BEBOLD and create some of these pages :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

How do we want to structure the candidate end of things? We could take the ACE route and have the nomination at (hypothetically!) WP:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/Giraffer and discussion at WP:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion/Giraffer, or we could go RfA-style and keep it all on the former -- I would prefer to keep it together as much as possible. I like the idea of transcluding all candidate pages (with or without discussion) onto another page, but I'm not sure if I would call it /Discussion phase. Maybe /Candidates/All? It's probably worth working these out before the candidate instructions are created. Giraffer (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
My first thought is that people supporting the RFC for elections would have had the ACE elections in mind as their comparison, so unless the discussion specifically and clearly mentioned some kind of divergence from how ACE is run, this trial of "EFA" should probably take "the ACE route" wherever possible. -- asilvering (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
No objections from me. Want to adjust Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Subpages to create to match your idea? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Nice try! But since I know very very little about ACE I shall leave that to the older and wiser. -- asilvering (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
You see? All the wiser people have showed up now. -- asilvering (talk) 19:45, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I have the opposite view—I think most people would have had the current RfA process in mind and so would expect that everything except the voting would run much like RfA. isaacl (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I completely see where you're coming from, but I don't think one process should be presumed to be the main blueprint over the other. ACE should be the model for the proper election bits (timeline, voting, notifications, suffrage, etc.) but for other things I think we can choose, and in this instance, given the novelty of admin elections, it might be less stressful for candidates to work with the RfA page format they've seen used repeatedly before. Giraffer (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Keeping the names of the individual RfA pages the same may furthermore help with scripts analysing historical RfAs? As it shouldn't matter which election somebody becomes an admin in, the ACE naming makes less sense. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Hmm. It's a toss up since we don't have any precedent on what is preferred. The perks of trailblazing . In my super professional opinion, given this, even if not approved, is still a pretty historical thing for enwiki, the simpler we can make it, the better.
I'd say have 1 sub-page to describe how it works (both for candidates and voters) and then another that contains every candidate's templates and full discussion. Having a sub-page for each candidate would be theoretically neater, but we also don't know how many people plan to run, and being able to direct everyone to a single page to participate, when the entire idea of a whole new process to select admins may be inherently overwhelming to the front-facing folks, may be more appealing and garner more participation. To spitball, something like Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/Discussion instructions and then Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/Discussion phase, and then each candidate gets a level 2 heading, kind of like how the RFA2024 P2 proposals worked. —Sirdog (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
With the current RfA process, each candidate request is on a separate page, and they are all transcluded onto the RfA page. I think the simplest approach is to do the same. It keeps the discussion history for each candidate separate and reduces some potential for edit conflicts. Since there will be a fixed number of candidates, there won't be any churn in transclusions when the discussion period starts. isaacl (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Didn't think about the edit conflict issue, good point. Fully agree with your proposed approach. —Sirdog (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
These messages and pages should explain clearer that this is like a regular RFA so being nominated by someone is fine (or expected) even. A lot of the watchlist notices for candidates etc say "nominate yourself" which isn't quite right Soni (talk) 01:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
You just answered the exact question I was thinking of asking. fanfanboy block 01:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
If you're willing, feel free to adjust the messages by just editing them. These changes sound fine. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Regardless of how we want to format discussion, would it not make the most sense to have the candidate nomination pages at /Candidates/XYZ rather than /Discussion phase/XYZ? Added bonus that /Candidates follows the ACE format, for those preferring we stick closely to that. Giraffer (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Or perhaps they can be in the same place as now: a subpage of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page. isaacl (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
@Novem Linguae What's the point of Talk page messages and how are they different from the MMS versions? It feels like we can just copy the latter everywhere we need to manually, right? Soni (talk) 12:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
You're right. In my mind I thought they needed to be different, but now that you point it out they are redundant. I have deleted the redundant talk page message redlinks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I pretended I know what I'm doing and created Results, based off ArbCom results tables with some AELECT info. Should that be worded exclusively as a past-tense official election results, or are we incorporating some element of tying back to the policy proposal outcome based on its results (after the elections, the community did xyz based on the outcome of the trial?) Perfect4th (talk) 02:04, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Looks good to me! At the proper time, I might throw some noinclude tags in there and transclude it onto the WP:AELECT page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Generating the eligible voter list

Hey @Cyberpower678. How are you? I hope you're doing well. I think we're ready to start working on the administrator elections eligible voter list. The criteria are laid out at Wikipedia:Administrator elections#Who can vote and appear to be identical to WP:ACE.

Question. How many days out do you typically generate this list for ACE? Do you try to wait until the last minute to include more voters, or do you generate it like a month out? If a month out, then I think we can begin. And if last minute, then let's pick a date that is right around when T&S needs the list to configure the poll.

Thanks a lot. Looking forward to your feedback. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Happy to serve. I can generate lists whenever. I can do it right now, but I would always recommend a list minute generation which accounts for vanished users and renamed users, and avoids having to whitelist legitimate during the process. I can reach out to Joe to get the list loaded. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@Cyberpower678. Alright buddy, it's your time to shine! Think you can run your eligible voter script soon and drop a link to it here or in the Phab ticket? If not right away, got an ETA on it? Thank you very much for your help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
 Done –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Rationale section

Regarding this edit: as this page describes the process of administrator elections, I think the rationale is better placed at the end of the page. Putting it at the top gets in the way of learning about the process, and makes the page feel more like a proposal page than a process documentation page. Notifications for the initial trial can include a link to the rationale section, so anyone interested in the reasons for the trial can jump straight to them.

Regarding the wording, I dislike using the word "toxicity", as it has been used by people to cover a wide variety of issues, and is a loaded word. I prefer the wording I previously wrote, "reduce the amount of contentious discussion amongst voters, thus making the process less antagonistic and increasing the number of candidates willing to volunteer to be administrators." isaacl (talk) 16:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Replaced toxicity with lighter wording similar to what you said. However I don't want to be the one to move the section as you suggested. fanfanboy (block) 16:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
The whole section seems out of place to me. Assertions that RfA "standards have been creeping higher over time"* or that it is "toxic" are unsubstantiated and debatable. The actual rationale for trying this will vary from participant to participant in the RfC. In any case, I cannot off the top of my head think of a similar process page that attempts to self-justify in this way. We should just remove it.
* Incidentally, I've tried several times to test this claim quantitively, and by every way I can think to measure at it—pass percentage, edit count, length of tenure, edit count over length of tenure, featured content counts—standards have not significantly increased since around 2010. I really should write that up some time. – Joe (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I agree with this - the section seems unnecessary. The full and varied rationale can be found at the RFCs that are linked at the bottom of the page, if anyone is actually looking for it. We also don't know if admin elections will actually reduce toxicity/contention yet, seems odd to claim it as fact before even running a trial. BugGhost🦗👻 14:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
In any case, I cannot off the top of my head think of a similar process page that attempts to self-justify in this way. Maybe more new processes and policies should explain themselves, their motivations, how they came about, etc. My inability to find this info succinctly stated factored into my decisions to oppose both the meta:ucoc and meta:movement charter. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I find the difference between "There should be info about upcoming decision-making" and "There should be rationale for already-agreed on decisions" to be sufficiently large. I feel like the latter gives more room for bickering based on precise wording, and attempts to overturn consensus.
In either case, I agree that even if kept, rationale is better suited at the end, so I have moved it to a more reasonable ordering. Soni (talk) 11:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure whether there's more or less room for bickering about a rationale section on a process page, but I do think the purpose is different on a proposal page versus a process page. On a process page, the rationale is written by the proposer and is selling the proposal to gain support. On a process page, it's summarizing the reasoning of the established consensus viewpoint. Thus while on a proposal page it's reasonable to talk a bit speculatively about other potential problems with the open-viewpoint RfA process, on the admin election process page, it's a bit of a digression to discuss other possible reasons why fewer admins are being selected. Having a secret ballot allows editors to vote without having to discuss their vote, thus reducing opportunity for contentious discussion, as editors do not receive individual replies regarding their votes. The intended goal is to encourage greater participation (both from potential candidates and voters) as a result. isaacl (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

I propose removing the second sentence of the "Rationale" section, to avoid the digression. Alternatively, the clause including that the standards have been creeping higher over time and that we are recruiting or retaining fewer editors than we used to, could be removed from the second sentence. isaacl (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Regarding this edit: I deliberately used the word "participation" to include candidates and other participants. I feel that reducing contention is intended to encourage participation from everyone, including voters with the election process. isaacl (talk) 01:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it hurts to emphasize candidates here, since the main problem with RFA isn't a lack of voters, but rather a lack of candidates. I won't revert you if you change it back though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
In my view, one relates to the other: getting more participants involved in commenting with less confrontation makes the whole process more effective, which makes it more attractive to potential candidates. isaacl (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Redirecting RfA subpages to AELECT candidate pages?

Should we do this (ie. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Foo → Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/Foo)? I mainly ask for the purposes of WP:MoreMenu, which automatically detects RfAs (but not AELECTs), and if someone runs for AELECT and later RfAed, it would be misleading for the RfA to not have "2nd nomination" IMO. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 08:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'd support this. Should probably get another opinion or two though. Other thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
You said exactly what I was thinking; I was just about to ask the same thing. – DreamRimmer (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for you two's comments; I'll go and do it (except for MarcGarver, who had an RfA under an old username and will be a (2nd nomination).) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 09:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Honestly I'd say no. People can always link to the past admin election pages (and I strongly doubt that a past nomination here would ever not come up at RfA) but one of the features of this process is not needing to end up with the social shame of a failed RfA. I think the redirect subtly contributes to that. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 20:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
What about the social shame of a failed administration election? I don't see how a redirect will add anything to that. And if a redirect keeps tools and scripts happy, then that seems like a good reason to do it — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
In my experience, there tends to be less shame associated with large securepoll elections like this one compared to single-candidate evaluations with recorded/reasoned votes. I would prefer if the scripts/tools could be updated, though I guess if a redirect is the easiest way it wouldn't be a terrible thing. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
"shame" is the wrong metric to go by here. What not having redirects would do is instead try to hide the fact that someone was here in the first place. On a truly open system like Wikipedia that never works. Support having redirects. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Support: It makes sense. While this is not a traditional RfA run, it's still a relevant RfA run that should be detected and linked from the MoreMenu where appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Support. I agree completely with Hey man im josh and Pppery. Being a candidate here is a request for adminiship, even if it isn't a Request for Adminship, so it makes sense to document it in the same place. If someone is successful in the election, it needs to be easy to find how they became an administrator. If someone is unsuccessful and subsequently requests (via any method) adminship or any other advanced rights (e.g. arbcom) then it needs to be easy to find why they weren't successful previously. If someone is unsuccessful and their behaviour and/or actions are discussed anywhere then the comments on their admin candidacy need to be easy to find (so people can judge whether they are relevant or not). Thryduulf (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Support, per josh, Thryduulf, Pppery and Charlotte - particularly Thryduulf's point that standing in an admin election is still a request for adminship (despite not being technically a traditional WP:RfA) and should be easily discoverable. BugGhost🦗👻 11:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
It sounds like most of the above is about ensuring that future RfAs are clear that the person was up for an admin election in the past. I presume there's some mechanism to indicate the reverse? i.e. indicating whether a candidate for admin elections has a past RfA? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't know, but there should be. If there isn't someone can ask it as a question for every candidate and/or put a comment in the discussion section. Thryduulf (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
The WP:RFA/Name 1, WP:RFA/Name 2, etc. type subpages should indicate this as long as the candidate doesn't overwrite a redirect when making their RFA. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Right, but what about the election nomination page? I don't see any indication as to whether a candidate has a past RfA. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Although this option isn't directly on the election nomination pages, it is easy to find. If you use the MoreMenu gadget, you can go to the candidate's user page and click on the user dropdown menu in the p-cactions portlet. If that candidate has any past nominations or reports, you'll see an option called Rfxs. Clicking on it will show any SPI, CCI, or RfA related to that candidate. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
To make it easier to find previous RfAs, we could add a direct option in the toolbar on nomination pages. Something like {{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/{{{1|{{{User|{{{user|Example}}}}}}}}}|[[Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/{{{1|{{{User|{{{user|Example}}}}}}}}}|previous RfAs]]|no prior RfA}} could be included in the {{usercheck-short}} template, but I think consensus would be needed to implement this change. Since the RfA subpages for all the candidates redirect to the AELECT nomination pages, it would display "previous RfAs" option for every candidate. – DreamRimmer (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
3 of the candidates have had past RFAs. 2 of the 3 had past RFAs under different names, so I am not sure that a wikicode solution would display those RFAs. This would be excellent information to include in a voter guide in a "Previous RFAs" column. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
It's standard practice to redirect RfAs from current name to past name (cf. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Just Step Sideways), so as long as the redirect's there, there shouldn't be issues. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 21:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and redirected the remaining RfA subpages to the AELECT candidacy pages. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Now that the pages are redirected, should we be including the "Previous RfAs""RfAs for this user" code that's included on regular RfA pages?
<div class="other-rfas" style="width:50%; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #f8f9fa; color: black; margin: 0.5em 0 0.5em 1em; padding: 0.2em; float: right; clear: right; font-size: 88%; min-width:20em; max-width: 100%">RfAs for this user:
{{Special:Prefixindex/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/{{SUBPAGENAME}}}}
</div>
--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
My first thought was yes, the redirects will be detected by the template and could give a false impression that every candidate has had one greater previous RFA than they do. If this can be resolved (ideally treating a redirect to the AELECT candidacy page the same as the candidacy page, if that that is possible) then yes we should do it (imo). If it can't then adding the manual equivalent to each is probably the best we can do for this election. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
@Thryduulf Not sure how this is different from a regular RfA, as this box will always show the current RfA. In this case, because it is a redirect, the current RfA page should show up in italics. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
It's different because on a normal RFA the current one is shown in bold and unlinked, clearly distinguishing it as referring to the current page. Italics in that template in a normal RFA almost always refers to a previous RFA under a different username or occasionally a previous run named differently for some reason, essentially never the current page. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
 Done –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report

Cyberpower678's user thing is really cool, is/will there be something similar for Diesen Prozess? SerialNumber54129 13:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

We will not see support/opposes until the last day, so I doubt something like that will be useful? Sohom (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Maybe not one that lists support percentages, but I could see something like the List of Candidates on the Call for candidates page being a useful substitute in some cases. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 20:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
{{Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates}} should work for that now :) Sohom (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Edited for pay statement

See Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/rsjaffe and a couple other candidate talk pages. Looks like @ToBeFree is reminding candidates to declare whether or not they have edited for pay. If there's a consensus that this is required for administrator elections, can someone please add it to Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidate subpage template? Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Has it worked at RfA? The first editor to give that required denial was praised for her excellent response.[1] But she turned out to be running a sockpuppet account after her first (also admin) account was site-banned due to allegations of paid editing.[2] And after coming out, people realized she was still editing in the same COI areas.[3] Rjjiii (talk) 20:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
It's not part of the RFA boilerplate either, so the consistency may be fine, and a lack of the required disclosure might be a sign that the candidate hasn't completely read the WP:Administrators policy. At least that's my personal interpretation of why this isn't yet mentioned in the template or an editnotice, but relatively well-hidden in the instructions for self-nomination only... I'd make it more prominent for both processes or abolish the requirement in case it turned out to be ineffective. It shouldn't be a trap. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Are those instructions even correct? If you follow the instructions, when you get to the line that says Re-edit the page again, and make sure to delete the acceptance line. Remember to keep the text about disclosing paid editing., all that you should actually be seeing on the acceptance line is | acceptance =. If you do actually remove that line and save the page again then there will be text about paid editing, but if you just leave that parameter blank it will not show up. Actually come to think of it, step 5 of the self-nomination instructions mean that a self nomination will see the boilerplate, but someone nominated by someone else never will. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
It's a requirement to be an administrator that was agreed upon by consensus, and all the same requirements have been inherited by the elections process, so it's a requirement for election candidates. isaacl (talk) 21:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Could someone point to the discussion that established this consensus? Also, we should probably add this to the standard RFA template as well, I do not remember it being present there. (Probably discuss this further in WT:RFA though, I completely agree with the template change if the consensus is already established) Soni (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Administrators/Archive 17 § RfC about paid use of administrator tools (found a pointer to it using using Wikiblame; I remembered the discussion took place but not where). isaacl (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Modifying the RfA template was discussed at the time (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 249 § Standard question from RfC at WT:Admin). Adding another standard question did not receive consensus support, and so a note was left in the RfA instructions. isaacl (talk) 07:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I do not think a single line on WP:CANDIDATE is enough, it's too hidden and easy to miss. If we treat it as established consensus that every candidate needs to follow, I believe it should be added somewhere accessible in candidates templates (say around the line Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here in Template:RfA).
Either way, we're talking WT:RFAs than AELECT now, so we're probably best discussing it there. Soni (talk) 07:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm just pointing you to discussions as you requested. For better or worse, a consensus wasn't reached to modify the RfA template. isaacl (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I've updated the candidate subpage template with an instruction to disclose. isaacl (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
 Fixed by someone adding it to the template that is subst'd onto each candidate page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Timeline?

I'm confused about the timeline. Candidates sign up until the 14th, and discussion starts on the 22nd. What happens during the week in between? RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

At the top of the talk page, there is a detailed schedule that explains everything. But it's to have plenty of time to set up for the discussion phase and secure poll. fanfanboy (block) 15:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Voting will be conducted through SecurePoll, so in the meantime, SecurePoll will be set up for this election. I think this will include entering candidate information, configuring voting requirements, and other preparations. – DreamRimmer (talk) 15:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I've added the intermission to the schedule, with a hatnote. RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Kind of a shame we can't start discussing while SecurePoll is being set up. With so many candidates, 3 days seems quite short for this period — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I understand that three days discussion was set in the RfC (though I also think it's too short) and that giving plenty of time to set up SecurePoll is wise on the first run, but why can't these run in parallel? E.g.:
  • October 8–14 – Candidate sign-up
  • October 15-18 – Discussion phase
  • October 15–21 – SecurePoll setup phase
  • October 22–28 – SecurePoll voting phase
IMO it makes more sense to have the "pause" after the discussion, not before, to give time for voters to digest what was said. – Joe (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Joe Roe, it looks like you meant to write 28 October instead of 38. – DreamRimmer (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
...or did I? – Joe (talk) 11:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
This extra week should give some time for someone to do a deep dive on all the candidates. Plus it can be used by said candidates to prepare to address any potential problems that they think might raise some concerns. fanfanboy (block) 12:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure we want to encourage people spending a week investigating candidates? And the candidates have as much time as they like to prepare – before they nominate themselves. – Joe (talk) 12:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I 100% agree with your first point. As for your second point, I also agree but I find it unlikely someone would prepare for a new process that they potentially only just now heard of (though this would only be true for this trail). fanfanboy (block) 13:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I also agree that three days is too short. I haven't been following the RfC in detail, but if three days is what came out of the RfC, then certainly that's what we should do here. After this trial run is over, we should consider making it longer. RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I think the idea behind the 3 days was to lower stress/scrutiny/time investment for the candidates, making the process easier and more pleasant for the candidates.
At this point I don't anticipate changing the schedule for this election (barring extraordinary circumstances such as a very strong talk page consensus, WMF T&S making us change election dates, etc.)
Can definitely re-evaluate both of these details post-election if another election is approved. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

So, voting is anonomyous?

Is voting in this anonomyous to everyone except bureaucrats? Steel1943 (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

The list of who voted will be public, but no one will be able to tell who you voted for (including bureaucrats). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Interesting... I like this. Steel1943 (talk) 14:51, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
One exception, in any unopposed RFAs the list of who voted will be a list of supporters. In the past this has been a non trivial proportion of RFAs. The same would apply in an unsupported RFA. I'm pretty sure we have never previously had an unsupported RFA that ran the full 7 days, but given the ballot is secret it would now be possible. ϢereSpielChequers 20:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Only if they also had no abstains (i.e. their number of supports == the number of all voters). Same for the other categories (100% of all voters oppose or abstain on a candidate). — xaosflux Talk 01:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Interesting point, I had been assuming there wasn't an option to abstain because of other comments about the percentage being support over Support plus oppose. But yes if secure poll gives that option as well and includes abstainers in the list of voters, then such RFAs will be rarer, but we've had unanimous RFAs under the normal system. ϢereSpielChequers 07:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Yup, that's why they have to keep saying S/(S+O), not %S, because abstain is there. This same unlikely scenario applies to other common elections like ACE and boardvote. — xaosflux Talk 11:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Voting choices and defaults

I think it will be set up as every candidate having 3 radio buttons: support, neutral, and oppose. All defaulting to neutral.
I imagine with this volume of candidates, we'll definitely get some voters that vote neutral for almost everyone, and cast a vote for a few of their friends or the ones they feel most strongly about. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:26, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree about the 3 radio buttons, but there was discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections/Archive 1#Voting options, that the default button should be "abstain", rather than "neutral". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Sure, sounds good, we can do support/abstain/oppose. I wonder if there's a way to have no radio button selected by default? Maybe that would be better than having abstain selected by default. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I prefer the abstain option be present, both for clarity and so someone can recover from an accidental click, or if they change their mind. isaacl (talk) 01:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I wonder if there's a way to have no radio button selected by default? They're telling me in the Phab ticket that this isn't possible, so abstain will indeed be the default. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I think there may have been a miscommunication in the phab ticket - jrbs has commented this morning to clarify: This is actually untrue, you can just leave no value as the default and it will force users to select an option for each candidate. Personally though I prefer having "abstain" being a pre-selected default, as it means those who only want to vote on particular candidates aren't encouraged to vote on candidates they don't have strong feelings on. BugGhost🦗👻 12:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
@Bugghost I'm not sure where you intended to link, but I don't think a comment by DreamRimmer 4 days ago is it? Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Whoops - must have accidentally clicked a timestamp. Correct link to phabricator ticket comment. BugGhost🦗👻 20:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Thinking about it more, even if all blank is available, I think having all abstain by default would be a good choice for this election with 30+ candidates. Then a voter that only wants to vote for one candidate and leave the rest abstain has a lot less clicking to do. I will have abstain be the default unless there are objections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree, especially with so many candidates. Also, if anyone makes a mistake or changes their mind they can always fill out a replacement ballot. — xaosflux Talk 23:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Bureaucrat flipping the bits

I'm assuming that at the end of the process when we have a list of candidates who have achieved 70%, we crats are expected to simply flip the bits for those successful candidates. This raises two issues for me. Are we still expected to stay detached from RFAs that we have voted in? And while it is unlikely, what happens if we have a successful candidate who no crat will flip the bits for? The last scenario is still a bit unlikely, but our crat numbers have now fallen to fifteen. I'm sure we won't have a crat shortage for this election, but if these elections continue and the RFB drought also continues, then there could come a time when we have an elected admin where all the active crats voted in their RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 09:50, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Obviously such lofty considerations are way above my !pay grade, but FWIW, I would have thought that if success is defined in purely objective, binary terms only (did the candidate get 70% or more, yes or no?) without room for discretion, then mop-issuing becomes wholly nonelective, and it therefore shouldn't matter whether the crat handing out the mops has voted for the successful candidates or not. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
IMO: since there's not really any crat discretion in this process, to the point where a closing bot could flip the bits, it's basically impossible to be WP:INVOLVED and I'd say it falls into the "straightforward cases" clause of that policy. The only reason I can think of that a candidate attaining 70%+ shouldn't be given the bit is due to election onomolies (like socking of voters, but that falls in the realm of the scrutineers and crats have no visibility on this), or socking of the admin candidate (but that falls into the realm of CU and ArbCom, and crats have no visibility into this either). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I think that ideally a non-participating 'crat should do this, but isn't strictly necessary. — xaosflux Talk 11:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Maybe if we run out of crats, a steward could do it? RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 12:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Technically possible, but would need a discussion. Ideally, when the election is done the election coordinator should just post a request at WP:BN asking to promote the winners. If a situation arose where all of the active 'crats actively recused then a steward would likely process the request. Assuming I'm available in the windows - I do plan on voting in this election - and also would not actively recuse (I'd passively recuse for a short time hoping that another 'crat came along). — xaosflux Talk 12:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Voting in a SecurePoll election then receiving the results of it and being asked to flip bits seems like it could be a reasonable exception to WP:INVOLVED. Even if a bureaucrat is very biased towards or against certain candidates, there's no opportunity for this bias to present itself if they simply receive election results and then flip bits, right? There's no discretionary range and bureaucrat chat, there's no reading a 75.2% support RFA and deciding whether it should go to bureaucrat chat or be instantly promoted, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Discretionary, not really - but could the community come together and contest the election, such that a consensus formed that the election was defective - I suppose. — xaosflux Talk 16:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
(ec) We've had a candidate in the past, long before I became a crat, where disqualifying info came out immediately after the RFA and they were hounded into a resignation. One of the downsides of this election system is that the questions are supposed to all come in the first three days, and there are a lot of people running simultaneously so the scrutiny of candidates is likely to be spread out. This increases the risk that anything serious might not emerge until late in the day, possibly even between close of poll and confirmation of results. So while there is no discretion for the crats to promote someone who fails to get 70%, there is the possibility of a candidate ending with over 70% but no crat being willing to flip the bit for them. ϢereSpielChequers 16:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
there is the possibility of a candidate ending with over 70% but no crat being willing to flip the bit for them. Maybe that's a reasonable safeguard to have. If a candidate is blocked for being an Icewhiz sock during the scrutineering phase, then of course I think we'd all want the bureaucrats to use discretion and not grant them sysop, even if they achieved >70% in the SecurePoll results. Seems like a good check and balance. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that we should be relying on bureaucrats to permanently refuse to grant such a candidate administrative privileges (either for the open-viewpoint RfA process or the arbitration election process). An arbitration case request should be filed. The community has not given bureaucrats discretion to override its consensus agreement. isaacl (talk) 00:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
That would be WP:Requests for adminship/FlyingToaster 2, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_15#Flying_Toaster_RfA. I have no idea why I know that despite it being seven years before my time, but I somehow do. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that was quite the shocker at the time, I filed my first RFA just before I became aware that the previous candidate was retiring under a cloud. It kinda killed my mood. I'm so old. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 22:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
The same issue can arise with the open-viewpoint RfA process, so I feel it's something the bureaucrats should incorporate into their working procedures. That being said, with the election process, the bureaucrat role is strictly ministerial, implementing the decision made by the community. So there's no concern about which bureaucrat assigns administrative privileges, as they aren't making a decision about whether or not to do so. isaacl (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
If the candidate is blocked during scrutineering as an Icewhiz sock, then does it make any difference whether the sysop flag is flipped? Are they then a blocked administrator who is still blocked, or can they unblock themselves? If a reason is found, such as being an Icewhiz sock, why they should be blocked, will they be globally locked by stewards? I agree that no bureaucrat should flip the bit in that case, but does it matter? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
As Icewiz is GLOCKed and WMF Banned, any new accounts controlled by that person can be summarily globally locked for lock evasion and no one would give them any permission flags of any sort. — xaosflux Talk 15:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_elections/Archive_2&oldid=1252526044"