Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections: Difference between revisions

 

Line 213: Line 213:

Hello friends. FYI I do not plan to do a test SecurePoll election like last time, because that’d be a decent amount of work, and I’m confident that if we follow the work instruction exactly, the test will be unnecessary. I will likely create the actual SecurePoll during the housekeeping phase. Thanks. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style=”color:blue”>”’Novem Linguae”'</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 05:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello friends. FYI I do not plan to do a test SecurePoll election like last time, because that’d be a decent amount of work, and I’m confident that if we follow the work instruction exactly, the test will be unnecessary. I will likely create the actual SecurePoll during the housekeeping phase. Thanks. –[[User:Novem Linguae|<span style=”color:blue”>”’Novem Linguae”'</span>]] <small>([[User talk:Novem Linguae|talk]])</small> 05:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

:Hi @[[User:Novem Linguae|Novem Linguae]]. If you’re confident then it is not necessary to do test, in my opinion. Thank You! [[User:Fade258|Fade258]] ([[User talk:Fade258|talk]]) 12:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: Thanks for implementing the recent RFCs, but I wanted to ask about this edit. Since the relevant RFC occurred post-election, I think adding that language retroactively is not correct. If I’m off here (as I probably am), please let me know. Always glad to see your name pop up on my watchlist and I hope life is treating you well. Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’re right, but we don’t currently have a generalized AELECT procedure page – the main page just links to the most recent election’s procedure, so that’s where I added it. I’m not sure what the best way to resolve this discrepancy is. —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well, without the general page, I think this is a more than fine landing point for the time being so that we can use it as a copy-and-paste in future elections. Thanks for the quick reply–let me know if you need any help around this area! ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:38, 15 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that I don’t think the procedure for past elections should be changed. Either a general procedure description can be reinstated, or the updated procedure can be placed on a placeholder page for the next election. isaacl (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I went and made some edits before I saw this talk page section. Basically I reverted the edit to the AELECT2 rules (which I feel should be a snapshot of AELECT2 and not AELECT3), then added an RFC section to the bottom of AELECT1 and AELECT2 with bullets of the closes of all the major RFCs from the RFC phases of those elections. Then I removed that info from the main AELECT page. I feel like everything is organized pretty well now, but feel free to double check my work. When we make the AELECT3 page, we can look at the AELECT2 RFC section for a list of things we need to update on the AELECT3 page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that works fine, though I also think it’s worth having the most recent version of the procedure / eligibility rules transcluded on the main AELECT page as well, and not just linked. —Ganesha811 (talk) 10:17, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not a fan of a structure that seems to presume there’ll be a request for comment discussion after every admin election. I think I prefer having the current procedure documented directly on the main admin election page, or on a general procedure subpage, similar to the arbitration committee election rules page. isaacl (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. It had not occurred to me that an RFC phase after every election would be controversial. I think WP:ACE does something similar, except their RFC phase is before each election instead of after? –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine we might go to one RfC a year once the process is more established. Editor time is precious. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:42, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, there are still enough disagreements over the still-newish process that it can be reasonable to have frequent reexaminations. But I expect that, as we gain more experience, there will be less need for frequent RfCs. —Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I echo the thoughts of isaacl, Femke, and Tryptofish. fanfanboy (block_talk) 02:06, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the RfCs have concluded, I have transcluded the December 2025 eligibility and procedure subsections onto the main page, and this can be updated as needed every 5 months. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:59, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we’re going to be asking this question in future RfCs, I think we need to revise to specifically include higher pass percentages. The question we just closed was worded:

• Option A – 70.00% (current)
• Option B – 66.67%
• Option C – 65.00%
• Option D – 60.00%
• Option E – Other (specify)

This introduces a bias, the name of which I am blanking on, but the theory is that providing specific choices only in a single direction biases respondents in that direction.

If we’re going to ask this question again, we need to frame it as an open set of options rather than as a closed set. I know not many people would vote to increase the pass percentage requirement, but we shouldn’t word the question as if that’s the only valid direction for change. We’re implying that we do need to lower these percentages and the only question is by how much. Valereee (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, RFC’s are discussions – anyone is free to add more “options”. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What xaosflux said and also I don’t think we should include this question anymore as it had the same result twice. It would fine to include this question every few elections if it ever comes up again though. fanfanboy (block_talk) 16:17, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with fanfanboy. It’s starting to give the impression of wanting to keep asking the question until the community gets the “right” answer (i.e. the one that corresponds with the preference of the asker). Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The accusations I had to endure during the last RFC because this question was included were pretty outrageous and made me lose a lot of respect for someone I previously respected. I am certainly soured on asking this question of the community at least in the short term. It will certainly not be me that adds this question in the next round of RFCs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Novem Linguae Yeah those accusations you received didn’t sit right with me. I was also disappointed with the jumping to conclusions other editors were doing with people who had minor disagreement. fanfanboy (block_talk) 03:10, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apolgies, I did not mean to ping. I was using my phone instead of my computer and it chooses to ping editors by default in the Wikipedia app. fanfanboy (block_talk) 03:12, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No worries 🙂 –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sincere question, so I hope it doesn’t sound like I just want to shut down discussion: what does “if it ever comes up again” mean? What I’m getting at is does it mean someone brings it up? Does it mean someone brings it up and it gets some discussion? Does it need multiple people expressing concern? I kind of just feel like we’ve discussed it multiple times. Obviously there are community members who think 70% is too high, and they probably aren’t going to change their minds about that, but when do we decide we no longer can assume we can rely on past consensus? Valereee (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if more people than before are complaining that it’s too low after at least 4-5 more elections. I don’t know exactly what I meant by that either.

I am also someone who wants the requirement lowered (and probably still will in the future), but I do know when enough is enough. fanfanboy (block_talk) 21:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There’s an RFC workshop phase before the RFC phase where this kind of thing (the exact question and exact options) can be worked out. You may wish to put Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/RFC workshop on your watchlist. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:26, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, NL, I’ve done that! I also am on the notifications list, but I was out of the country when the RfC started and missed the notification. Valereee (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the name is the anchoring effect. As for the actual discussion, I agree that we probably don’t need to RFC this next election. QuicoleJR (talk) 17:21, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that during these initial elections, there’s a desire to re-evaluate and adjust the process. I hope, though, that at some point the community will allow a few cycles to run before discussing changes. This will allow for more data to be collected and thus help avoid overreacting to the most recent election, as well as provide stability for the vast majority of editors who aren’t following every discussion on admin elections. isaacl (talk) 22:43, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this. Questions such as election timing should also be raised with caution. The existing five-month cycle allows editors to plan, if the question is open for every election (there is already a planned December workshop?) then it undermines the purpose of a fixed schedule. CMD (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure what questions will be raised at this next workshop, but I’m sure it’ll be less than before. I also assume if no questions are raised then there is no RfC phase? fanfanboy (block_talk) 15:47, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Also, some folks on this talk page opined that we’re having RFCs too often, so I will probably ask on this page and get consensus before starting an AELECT3 RFC workshop. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following up here with two things to take into account if this comes up again.

1. 

   In the July 2025 election, all but one of those with a nominator succeeded. Of the nine who didn’t have a nominator, only two passed, and one of those barely. In the October 2024 election, 100% of those with a nominator passed. 80% of those who self-nom’d failed.

2. According to this post, an analysis of the date shows 70% is being used as the de facto cutoff point by crats in their closures of cases that fall between 65% and 75% support.

Valereee (talk) 16:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all. I might me little bit too early for this. How and when do we select election officials? Is there any rules or procedures for it? Cheers! Fade258 (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I usually just post on this talk page asking for volunteers. I guess we can start now. If you’re interested in volunteering to be an election official, please post in one of the subheadings below. I may give priority to folks from the last election since they are now experienced. If we have too many qualified volunteers, alternates are welcome. cc @ThadeusOfNazereth, Risker, Robertsky, RoySmith, Zzuuzz, Dreamy Jazz, and Barkeep49:. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:09, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a column to Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025#Election officials called “Requirements” because I suspected some roles would need to be an administrator or CheckUser and I wanted to document that clearly. After thinking about it, I think all three roles (election clerk, scrutineer, and monitor) will need administrator or CheckUser permissions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:19, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested to become an Election official but yet I didn’t meet those requirements for any of subheadings below. So, If I got any of those rights in future I will be there If Election happens. For now, I will just monitor the pages only. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Thanks for your interest! –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Novem Linguae. I hope you’re doing good. Well, I’m not trying to pressure you, but since we have about a month before the admin election. Still we haven’t been able to fill the vacant spot of scrutineer and monitor positions for AELECT3. Fade258 (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. Sounds like we still need one scrutineer and one monitor. Any other takers want to add their name to the lists below? Let’s give these comments a couple days, and if that doesn’t work, then I’ll do a talk page post to WT:CHECKUSER and WT:ADMIN. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think we’d need a post for CUs, since we have two “backup” signups already. Toadspike [Talk] 20:24, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting. Fixed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder that monitors are subject to some restrictions, please see Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025#Election officials. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:12, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note the 2025 arbitration committee election also requires volunteer election clerks. I’ve started Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2025 § Call for election clerk volunteers to solicit interest in serving. isaacl (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For those looking to nominate someone, or encourage someone to run, this query might be of interest. The query looks at recent activity over a whole lot of admin-related areas (AfD, AfC, RfPP, AIV, DYK etc), as well as content areas. If you see someone on the list who demonstrates good judgment and a solid understanding of policies and guidelines, please do reach out to them! —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:37, 18 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting this. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Until now, I hadn’t known that Wikipedia had adopted (last autumn) adminstrators elections. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this was a part of the 2024 RfA review. fanfanboy (block_talk) 17:37, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They have been mentioned multiple times in multiple prominent places, including the Wikipedia:Administrators’ newsletter. Thryduulf (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends. If anyone would like to help out, there’s around 10 pages at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Subpages that are redlinked. Would be great if these could be filled in with the contents of those subpages from AELECT2. You can use an edit summary such as Copied content from XYZ page, please see that page’s history for attribution. Thanks in advance for any help 🙂 –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I’ve created the following pages.

I would like to note that there is something about a cookie on the watchlist message pages (inlcuding the call for candidates one) which I don’t know about, so someone else would have to take a look at that.

The following pages still need to be created.

fanfanboy (block_talk) 03:04, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve also updated Template:Administrator elections status/data to include AELECT3. The only thing missing is the poll ID which needs to be added when the poll is created. fanfanboy (block_talk) 03:24, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work so far. For those last two, you can just copy paste the text as is, and I’ll do the updates. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Novem Linguae @Fanfanboy.  Done As suggested. Fade258 (talk) 08:17, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include {{Rfx report}} and/or {{Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recent}} somewhere on the main WP:AELECT page? fanfanboy (block_talk) 14:54, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only if we include {{Administrator elections/Latest/Header}} on WP:RFA. —Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:46, 1 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think adding Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recent here makes sense, since that template covers both RfAs and AELECTs. However, the other two are unnecessary in my view. Toadspike [Talk] 13:31, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning no. AELECT pages are snapshots of each election. That’s a bit different than WP:RFA, which is more dynamic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:43, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m only talking about the main WP:AELECT page, which is also dynamic like WP:RFA as it updates every election. fanfanboy (block_talk) 13:14, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I might be little bit early for this. If everything is fine then, Can we add the message about call for candidates in watchlist and notify users through mass message? Fade258 (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell, it will automatically be added when the call for candidates starts. @Novem Linguae can you confirm this? I don’t know exactly how the watchlist works and there is still the cookie parameter being left unfilled in the watchlist messages.

fanfanboy (block_talk) 13:27, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fanfanboy, Oops, How I missed that? Thank You for it. Fade258 (talk) 13:34, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each watchlist notice has to be added to MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages by an administrator or interface admin for it to display. (The arbitration committee election has a template-based notice that is kept on the page for the entire period, with the text changing based on the current stage of the process.) Non-admin/interface admin editors can post a request at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-messages. Conventionally, though, watchlist notices are only made visible immediately before the corresponding event, so it’s still early to make a request. isaacl (talk) 19:43, 13 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do a watchlist notice only when the call for candidates starts.

For previous elections, we did an MMS 1–2 weeks before with the schedule, then an MMS at the beginning of the call for candidates. However I am thinking about skipping the 1–2 weeks MMS this time (less work, less spam, folks still get a week of notification before the deadline).

Thoughts on skipping the early MMS notification? Is that OK, or do folks like the early reminder? –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:26, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with just one mass message calling for candidates. There can be postings on the miscellaneous pump page and perhaps the administrators noticeboard ahead of time, to remind anyone interested. isaacl (talk) 06:31, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with isaacl about just one message + AN. I suspect those signed up for the MMS are aware enough of the process by now to not need two messages, and anyone not yet so informed can click the links in the watchlist notice if they wish to read further. Perfect4th (talk) 06:38, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pre call for candidates, notifying only WP:AN only sounds good to me. Will update the work instruction. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:03, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think it would be desirable to also post a notice at the miscellaneous village pump, to cast a broader net than just those who follow the administrators’ noticeboard. isaacl (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we do one mass message, I think it’s better to do the one 1-2 weeks before the call goes out. That way, we’re giving people more time to decide on running. The watchlist notice is already quite visible, so a mass message at the same time might not do that much. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree 1-2 weeks is probably the best time, will give folks to think about running! Sohom (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Confusing. I personally feel that the call for candidates MMS is the more important one since it’s more actionable. Getting a “no consensus” vibe from this discussion now. Will revert back to doing a 1) pre-MMS and 2) a call for candidates MMS, and will add WP:VPM to the MMS delivery list. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends. Can a kind soul please help me with some of the following todo items?

• Y Please create a test candidacy from start to finish by visiting Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Candidates and following the candidate directions. This is to test that all the templates are working, and that we didn’t forget to update any dates or text. This will not be an actual candidacy and we’ll delete it when you’re done.

   Doing… Tazerdadog (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Partly done Probably made a hash out of it, it doesn’t seem to be linking properly from the main candidates page. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:41, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn’t exactly set you up for success, since I forgot to un-hide the inputbox and instructions on the /Candidates page. Whoops. Lol. Anyway, I tried it myself and most of the process worked fine, but I made several tweaks to wording and templates. Should be slightly improved now and ready for candidates. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:52, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• [ ] Please modify Wikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Candidates to use {{Show by date}}, so that we don’t have to keep updating this manually every time. You’ll want to wrap any text that changes depending whether the phase is not started, started, or finished in this template. You may need to wrap something twice to cover all 3 states. You can take a look at the code of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/December_2025/Discussion_phase&action=edit for an example. Actually I think someone changed that one to use {{Hide after}} and {{Hide until}}. Whatever works. Also please add and </nowiki>{{Bots|deny=AnomieBOT}} somewhere on the page, to keep AnomieBOT from subst-ing these, which makes them easier to reuse next time.

Thanks! –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:42, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello friends. FYI I do not plan to do a test SecurePoll election like last time, because that’d be a decent amount of work, and I’m confident that if we follow the work instruction exactly, the test will be unnecessary. I will likely create the actual SecurePoll during the housekeeping phase. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:43, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Novem Linguae. If you’re confident then it is not necessary to do test, in my opinion. Thank You! Fade258 (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]