Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Current time is 10:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC). —

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
AirshipJungleman29	RfA	Withdrawn by candidate	27 Sep 2024	34	21	4	62
Significa liberdade	RfA	Successful	21 Sep 2024	163	32	10	84
Asilvering	RfA	Successful	6 Sep 2024	245	1	0	>99
HouseBlaster	RfA	Successful	23 Jun 2024	153	27	8	85

percentage in tally

Why is Asilvering's tally showing ">99" instead of the precedent 99? —usernamekiran (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Looks like that's how Template:Recent RfX is coded. {{#ifexpr:{{#expr:100*{{{5|0}}}/({{{5|0}}}+{{{6|0}}}) round 0}} = 100 and {{{6}}} > 0 | >99 | {{#expr:100*{{{5|0}}}/({{{5|0}}}+{{{6|0}}}) round 0}} In layman's terms, I think that means "If support percentage rounds up to 100 but there is an oppose, display >99". I think this makes logical sense... it's not really a 100% RFA if there are opposes. So I think I'd be in favor of keeping it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

I find myself surprisingly opposed to this recent change (and by "recent" I mean "two months ago"); if we want decimal places we should code in decimal places, not put in an exception for a specific case where we want someone to feel better about receiving one or two protest opposes. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Primefac. Let it be what it is. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Just as a note, I read (after posting here) the relevant posts where this issue was first proposed; the intention was not to provide feel-good feelings as I cynically posted earlier (so I have struck that) but rather because the module used to round >99.5% to 100% which is not necessarily correct. I think simply adding a single decimal point will more than suffice. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

i kinda like it better as is – i don't i really want people parsing down to the decimals on tough RfAs. It's a minor thing, but I think it only accentuates the importance of the percentage. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with leeky. >99 is good for "rounds to 100, but not quite there", and for the most part, we really don't want to deal with decimals in a !vote. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts here align with TLC and SOV. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the [[>]] is particularly helpful, to be honest; it's too vague to be accurate. The status quo ante was sufficient and easy enough for anyone to understand: that if someone passes unopposed, that's 100%. Anything else will always be above and below something else. SerialNumber54129 18:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, say we have an RFA with 249 supports and one oppose. 249/250 = .996, which rounds up to 100% - which is incorrect. ">99" is a good way to indicate the lack of unanimity without mis-rounding the result or using fractions of a percent which, as I said before, are not terribly useful in a discussion that's not supposed to be a vote. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Precisely. So, anything other than unanimity = 99%. No mis-rounding, no fractions, no problem. SerialNumber54129 19:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, no, rounding 99.6 down to 99 while rounding 98.9 up to 99 is mis-rounding. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

That sounds more like we should be flooring (i.e. rounding down). Primefac (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a joke here about intrinsic whole number bias but I can't think of it. Levivich (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Bikeshed proposals #9487209 and #9487210

These are, of course, super important matters for the community's attention:

• Bikeshed Proposal #9487209: All RFA pages says Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. I always laughed at that, imagining somebody putting two questions into a single trenchcoat in order to disguise it as one question with the intention of evading the limit. Does anybody besides me think this is a weirdly-hostile way of saying "multi-part questions are not allowed"? Or do the multi-part questions truly have to be disguised in order to be not allowed? Are blatantly-obvious multi-part questions allowed?
• Bikeshed Proposal #9487210: The edit notice for this page says This is NOT the place to ask for advice on your chances at adminship; for that there really is a plethora of advice pages. If there really is a plethora, maybe we should link to some? Seems kind of like a jerk thing to say "this is NOT the right page! there are really lots of other pages! we're not going to specifically mention any though." This is particularly funny given the last bullet point in the edit notice is "Please remain calm and civil..." yeah, unlike this edit notice.

Anyway, as is typical, we will have a three-stage RFC process to answer these questions, followed by a confirmatory SecurePoll vote, at which point it'll be submitted to the Board of Trustees for approval. Levivich (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I've cut the Gordian Knot and added a link to WP:RFAADVICE, which links to other advice and WP:ORCP. I think the original point is that if you don't know what ORCP is, you are almost certainly not ready to go there. As for 9487209, I tried. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Good idea about making the two-part question text less aggresive & more concise. I've changed the text at Template:RfA/readyToSubmit to Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both! Levivich (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I've cleaned up WP:RFAADVICE, as it was surprisingly full of WP:ABF and offputting commentary. Might benefit from another read. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I've taken it to User:Houseblaster/Advice for RfA candidates, in the hopes it can be cleaned up. If others wish to help out, please do so. We did a similar thing to revamp Help:Your first article, and it was (in my very biased opinion) very successful. In a few moments of looking closely, it definitely seems like it was written piece by piece, with small parts being updated as the years go on. There is a lot of WP:BITE which can be transformed into gentle "this is probably not for you" wording. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

It was largely written by one editor, and so changes have hewed closely to that original viewpoint and writing style. But as that editor has stepped back from editing, there is more opportunity to incorporate other perspectives and alter the writing style. isaacl (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

You might want to just modify WP:RFAADVICE directly instead of forking. Advantages include preventing merge conflicts, not having to copy paste / WP:HISTMERGE later, and letting more people get involved in the process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that is when you do have lots of editors involved in editing an advice page, they may come in with different viewpoints and different messages that may conflict with one another. Pages like this really need to be userspace essays to begin with, I think. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Lots of people editing a page can be good though too. That's kind of how our normal iterative editing process works. Lots of editors can result in a page ending up at a good equilibrium that reflects consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't work as well on advice pages, because often for clarity it's more effective not to switch between multiple points of view on one page, and so the supporters of each side will prefer separate pages. That being said, for this specific case, I don't think Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates needs to be a userspace essay, as I think there is consensus for a sufficient amount of common advice. isaacl (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

>

Relevant discussion here, could have done with more eyes. It was an interesting proposal, although rather begs the question of when to use <  :) SerialNumber54129 13:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

I want to suggest a new site-wide rule: for the next 3 months, no new threads anywhere in project space on topics that are not one of the, say, 500 most important issues we face. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

No one's stopping you; although this is not, as you know, the place for such a proposal. SerialNumber54129 14:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Just noting this is already under discussion at #percentage in tally above. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Primefac, I hadn't noticed. SerialNumber54129 18:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
• The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator elections

Well, it certainly seems to be working to get potential candidates to participate. It's interesting that so far all candidates are self-noms. Valereee (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

that's true. But if the voting is confidential, and radio button clicks, then I'm afraid there would be lots of baseless oppose votes. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, that is one of the reasons why some people support this idea - it allows for opposition without retaliation. Primefac (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

It may indicate a couple of things. It could mean that the typical potential candidates contacted by the usual group of nominators aren't enticed by the election process, and that an election is less daunting to editors who aren't inclined to look for a nominator. Putting those together, the trial is pulling from a broader pool of candidates. isaacl (talk) 04:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I reckon the fact that all other elections across Wikimedia (ArbCom, steward, U4C, BoT) operate solely with self-noms probably has something to do with it as well. Giraffer (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This is absurd. We're up to 19 candidates now. Does anyone realistically think anyone has the time to review 19 candidates within 10 days to make a realistic determination whether all of these candidates are ready for adminship? I sure as hell don't. I'll be voting oppose on all of them that I don't have a chance to review. At a bare minimum, the number of candidates for an election should be limited to 5 per election, and no more. This is overwhelming. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

It is a secret ballot, so you are allowed to vote oppose for any reason whatsoever, even one that is absurd and unrelated to the candidate like "I haven't reviewed the candidate". The hope is that sufficiently many voters evaluate sufficiently many candidates to make the outcome meaningful. —Kusma (talk) 20:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the sideways comment. My opposes for the candidates I don't have the time to review is both an oppose to an unreviewed candidate and an opposition to this system in the first place. Nobody considered the implications of this system, including having potentially dozens of candidates running at once. Nobody has that kind of time. That means candidates will be getting through who aren't ready, who haven't been vetted. Opposing such candidates is a necessity, not unrelated to the candidate. Thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

This latest round of RFA reform does what previous reforms did not: it is throwing a lot of things at the wall and seeing what sticks. If your predictions turn out to be true (i.e. too many candidates, not enough time, and unqualified editors getting the mop as a result) then that will be born out in the feedback process at the end of it. If enough people feel as you do, then I suspect the number of successful candidates in this part of the overhaul will be low, and it will not happen again. Primefac (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Back when I became an admin, about two or three new RfAs were posted every day. Not every potential voter evaluated every candidate (there were only eighty-one voters total on mine) but candidates were still vetted (to the lower standards of the day). —Kusma (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Fortunately, you don't have to review all of them, as there is the option to abstain on those you couldn't review. Much fairer to the candidates. I think a limit (of like 12/15) would be good for any future elections, even though I suspect there will be fewer candidates in a second election. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

1) "Neutral" might be a better default vote than "oppose".

2) It's not too late to propose that each candidate have a certain minimum number of supports+opposes to ensure that they receive enough scrutiny. This would prevent a situation where a candidate at the bottom of the list had like 20 supports and 0 opposes and gets elected with a very low quorum. You could propose this on WT:AELECT and we could implement it before the end of the election, if there is a strong enough consensus.

3) Voter guides may be a tool to properly research a large number of candidates. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll be interested to see how this turns out. And I agree with Primefac, it's better to try something and see if it works than not try anything (the strategy for the past 15 years). If I were in charge, I'd have made a few changes, but this is worth an experiment. FYI, NL, voter guides are explicitly frowned on in the instructions. And I suspect (though I'm not sure) that it is too late to change the default to neutral. Question: is the order of the candidates going to be randomized each time someone votes? Floquenbeam (talk) 22:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

voter guides are explicitly frowned on in the instructions. It's under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#What should the page say on voting guides?. I happen to think there is no consensus to discourage voter guides, but I was reverted.

And I suspect (though I'm not sure) that it is too late to change the default to neutral. It sounds like the voting choices for each candidate will be support, abstain, and oppose. I have proposed that all choices default to abstain or blank, without objection so far. Further discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#Voting choices and defaults.

is the order of the candidates going to be randomized each time someone votes? I proposed that it be alphabetized at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#Should candidates be shuffled?. Folks on this page should feel free to join any of these discussions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:27, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

SecurePoll doesn't support randomizing the order of the candidates. I proposed that the third option be "Abstain" back in April, to accurately reflect the effect of that choice. SecurePoll setup will occur after the nominations are closed and the list of candidates is finalized. isaacl (talk) 01:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think SecurePoll does support randomizing the order. I see the option in Special:SecurePoll/create. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

My apologies; I misread another conversation on this topic (I should have thought about it some more, as my memory of previous discussions was that randomized order was supported). isaacl (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the order should be random, not alphabetical. There are ballot ordering bias effects, and I'd prefer they be neutralized as much as possible. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

And now we're up to 31. This is utterly impossible. <smdh> --Hammersoft (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I see this as an absolute win. We should want more candidates willing to consider RFA. No single voter needs to personally evaluate every single candidate, just enough voters to collectively evaluate them all. Regardless of how many people get elected this cycle, this process is doing exactly as promised. Soni (talk) 17:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Which is a disaster in the making. You're right. No single voters needs to personally evaluate all candidates. But, with 31 candidates no candidate is going to be properly vetted by enough. This is insane. Absolutely insane. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it crazy to assume that people will vet as many candidates as possible, then leave the rest of their ballot blank/neutral, therefore not allowing/blocking bad/good candidates? Considering the order will likely be randomized I doubt this will lead to issues like the last candidate getting 1 support and 0 opposes then becoming an admin. I do think there should be a limit on the no. of candidates going forward (perhaps 10?) but I doubt we will get this many again. I think it's silly to oppose and possibly tank someone who could be a good admin for no real reason, but I guess one of the proposed benefits of this system is that you can oppose for whatever reason without badgering lol. Regardless, as Primefac said, everyone recognizes RfA has issues, but nobody wants to Do Anything about them. Why not throw stuff at the wall and see what sticks? ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I was going to alphabetize them, but if enough folks want them randomized, I can switch to that. Please weigh in over at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#Should candidates be shuffled? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

(to allow insertion of table) I'm not going to vote to support someone whom I haven't vetted. I'm not going to vote neutral when the system is so obviously broken. Given the insane timeline and lack of controls over this, the default has to be oppose until a candidate can prove themselves. Let's compare this to ArbCom elections:

	ArbCom Elections	Admin Elections
Candidates	11[1]	35
Self nom period	10 days	7 days
Discussion period	6 days	3 days
Voting period	14 days	7 days

([1] average over the last three cycles for ArbCom)
As you can see, we have 3 TIMES as many candidates, with HALF the discussion stage, and HALF the voting stage. I.e., the work load is essentially six times the load for ArbCom elections. Worse, voter guides are not allowed, so you can't turn to someone else's analysis to help guide you in your review. So here, you've got half the time, thrice as many candidates, and no assistance allowed. And this, to put people in a position which arguably has more day to day power and impact on the project than a member of ArbCom. This utter steaming pile could have been avoided if somebody had thought...even for a moment...about the impact of this system and where the failure points might be. What an absolute clusterf***. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Coming in hot! If your goal is to vent, hopefully you feel better. if the goal is to persuade, then you might want to dial it down some. You're not coming off as persuasive. I believe this is not the first time you've used an "everyone is a moron except me" approach. Floquenbeam (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If your goal is to insult me, it's not working. If your goal is to persuade me to think otherwise about this failed system, it's not working. You're coming off as attacking me. Have a nice day. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

What, so they've managed to attack you without insulting you? This seems like an excellent skill—where can I learn it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You could also take a page from Floq here, and ask yourself "Is this comment productive, or am I simply getting a crack in?" Attempts to lower the temperature would be appreciated. Parabolist (talk) 21:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

A song from Billy Joel comes to mind. No, this isn't the sandbox, but expecting silence in response is unreasonable. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• By the way, while trying to wade through the last set of candidates, Xtools suddenly told me I was logged out and that it needed access to my accounts to allow me to view counts; is this ok? I've never seen this message before. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  If you try to access too many XTools pages over a short period of time, it asks you to sign in to make sure you're not a bot. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  It also asks this if you're looking at someone with a really high edit count. I think the bar is like 100,000 edits? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  150k; xtools:ec/enwiki/The Bushranger (149,950 edits) works but xtools:ec/enwiki/IronGargoyle (150,140 edits) doesn't. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  I was trying to assess Robert McClenon, so the problem could be over 100k edits? I assume it's not a security risk to allow it to access my accounts???? Espresso Addict (talk) 20:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Nope, no security risk. XTools just wants to see that you're logged in to Wikimedia, so that it only does expensive calculations for humans rather than bots. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:15, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I do think it's going to be difficult to have any kind of meaningful discussion about 33 candidates in three days. It would be unfair to change the process half way through, so we're kind of locked into that now, but maybe next time we can limit the number of candidates, stagger the elections more, and/or allow more time for discussion. – Joe (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. A limit of like 10 at a time seems like a good idea. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

yes, this is surely going to be #1 in the "lessons learned" debrief afterwards. Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it's crazy we'd get 30+ candidates when we couldn't get even one a month with a traditional RfA. I don't think anyone would have predicted that. Clearly if we want to encourage people to run, this is a way to do that. Valereee (talk) 20:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Would it be worth asking if anyone is willing to postpone their candidacy? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Postpone to what? There is, as I understand it, no agreement to doing this again and I can see that the crowded field may lead to opposition to doing it again. I suspect we'll just have to see how things work out. Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

That's actually a great idea. If we could do one per month for the next four months, maybe? Although maybe skip December because of ArbCom Elections...maybe one each Oct/Nov/Jan/Feb? If the scrutineers/Secure Poll aren't negatively affected. Valereee (talk) 22:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Where are you going to find time and consensus to change the format? Wehwalt (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If you are thinking long term, should the election process gain consensus support for ongoing use, sure, the various recent proposals (including the original one propsed in the 2024 reform discussions) are to have regularly scheduled elections. However running them regularly imposes a cost on the WMF support staff, as well as requiring scrutineers. The plans to make SecurePoll run on local wiki servers and be configurable by local admins would help alleviate the first issue, though there would still be a cost (and it's unclear when that might happen). Scrutineer resources could become a bottleneck (whether or not the role is filled by stewards as with the current trial, or by English Wikipedia editors). isaacl (talk) 22:12, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

If we could do one per month for the next four months, maybe? Getting WMF T&S to set up SecurePoll and the stewards to scrutineer it is an expensive process. I don't think we could convince those stakeholders to do this 4 times. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The process can be tweaked further if we want to have a more regular use of the SecurePoll. On zhwiki, they are pretty much mandated by the Foundation to use SecurePoll for voting on RfAs CheckUsers appointments, and after a RfC for the use of SecurePoll for RfAs (including interface admins and bureaucrats), and they do so regularly. But instead of just the stewards scruntinising, the local OSers can assist as well. Additionally, maybe tweak the duration of the discussion and/or voting further as well. If the concern is that there are too many applicants, extend the discussion to two weeks (also like that on zhwiki). – robertsky (talk) 22:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

modified above comment to clarify what was mandated. zhwiki links: talk page archive 8, RfC to use SecurePoll for admin elections. – robertsky (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps a more troubling aspect of this is that some of the voters are just going to vote mass neutral or even mass oppose for everyone they didn't get time to vet, and then some of those candidates are going to think "wait why do these 100 people think I'm not ready to be an admin", and we could be back to square one with shy candidates, because that outcome could well depress the volume of candidacies later. --Joy (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

So far as 'mass neutral' goes, neutral/abstain votes have no impact on the result. Mass opposes are certainly possible, but candidates could consider that some may be editors opposing the process, not them personally. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

</smdh>There are a few "obvious yes" and a few "obvious no" candidates I'm familiar with. That is, candidates for whom I am very confident I could predict the lopsided results of a traditional RFA. It will be interesting to see how much support an "obvious no" candidate gets (a reasonable stand-in for an overall lack of vetting), and how much opposition an "obvious yes" candidate gets (a reasonable stand-in for an overall default to no). --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not as worried about the practicality of evaluating the candidates, as some other editors are. Yes, there are significantly fewer days and significantly more candidates than what we have in ArbCom elections. But it's still 10 days from the end of nominations until the end of the time for voting (and 17 days from when at least some of the candidates came forward). And there are fewer than 33 candidates who need extensive research, given that some of them may be "obvious no"s. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I forgot about the SecurePoll setup period when I wrote that, so 10 days is actually 17 days, and 17 days is actually 24. With 30+ candidates, one could, if one wants, research an average of approximately two candidates per day, which isn't necessarily so daunting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm surprised you're very confident on some. My concern has been the ways that moving from open voting to secret voting has typically caused a decrease in support percentages as people who might not vote otherwise in a public process do so in a private one (for any number of reasons). This happened way back when with ArbCom and CUOS and more recently with Stewards who ran for the U4C. So I'm concerned some people who would have passed with 95%+ in an open process will struggle or fail after "paying" a 15-30% private voting decrease. I hope your optimism is right and my pessimism is wrong. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: I think you may have misunderstood. I’m not confident about the results of this election; I’m curious about them. I’m confident that I know one candidate who would definitely have passed a normal RFA by a large margin, and I’m confident that I know a few who would never have. I’m saying it will be interesting to see how different this election’s results are from the few I know something about.

surely you know me well enough to know I’m never optimistic… Floquenbeam (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as "failure points" go with this process, I don't think anybody could have anticipated that we would have a problem with the number of candidates being this high, especially given that elections were aimed at solving the opposite problem. 36 candidates is an insane number – the last *year* to have 36 candidates run (at RfA) was 2017, let alone all at once. Only 14 people have run at RfA this year, and only 19 the year before. To have this many people running at once is unprecedented, and I can't fault anyone for not preparing for it. Giraffer (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. It's like getting a flash flood in a drought zone (spoilers for the end of Holes!). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

From what I can see, the analyses/tables that would go into an Arbcom-style guide can be split up and placed in the discussion section for individual candidates (please!!). Since there's no quota/priority to be filled, the associated explicit declarations of voting intentions and consolidated structure is less useful. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:39, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Speaking as a candidate, i'm not particularly offended by some of the "Oh my goodness! How awful" comments, because if i serve or not, i'm still here; speaking as a member of the candidate group, i find it quite offensive that some of my colleagues are seemingly being attacked ~ "There're too many of you, go away" ~ after they've answered an open call to the community; speaking as a member of the community, this is great, we wanted to test if a change in process would lead to a change in result, apparently the answer is Yes. Perhaps a little less horror and a little more in the way of thoughtful responses (as some here definitely are) would be more appropriate. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 05:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Some folks seem determined to bring RFA culture to admin elections. Sorry about that, and thanks to all the candidates for having enough faith in the community to participate in this trial. Levivich (talk) 06:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It really is heartening to see that there's this much interest even if there might be better ways to handle this logistically going forward. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, @LindsayH and others, I didn't intend my own comment to communicate "Go away". I am very happy to see this level of interest. Valereee (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• With respect to the whole "oppose everyone I can't vet" thing: remember the law of large numbers still exists. Vet who you can, trust other editors to fill in the gaps. Almost certainly many more editors will vote in these elections than a typical RfA. So long as each voter vets who they can (even if it's only 5 candidates), including during the discussion period, and the voting order is randomised, I think the scrutiny received by each candidate will not be too dissimilar to an RfA.
  There is real opportunity for meaningful RfA reform in the form of these elections. Clearly the elections process needs changes in future iterations (if we continue it), but I hope we don't waste this iteration - and potentially the entire concept - by doing something like mass-voting oppose. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  We may have a problem with that as it isn't that obvious who is vetting which candidates. With the normal format it is easy to look at a three day old RFA and see how many people have opined on that candidate. That said this isn't the busiest RFA has ever been, we had 68 successful and 33 unsuccessful candidates in December 2005, so provided we find a way to spread RFA voters between candidates 31 should be doable. If we do wind up with a load of candidates rejected because a small number of voters oppose anyone they haven't had time to assess, then I hope those candidates consider a conventional RFA. Conversely if we have nearly 30 new admins and couple turn out to be insufficiently scrutinised, then I hope we find ways to batch this smaller in future. Though given the amount of time many of these candidates have been around, I suspect a repeat in 12 months will get rather fewer candidates. ϢereSpielChequers 12:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I am not incredibly familiar with this process, but I thought I understood it until now. Why is it necessary that the user above vets every candidate? As far as I understand, none of us have special status in terms of voting rights or veto power. Best, ForksForks (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think the idea is every voter should research a candidate before voting for them. – Joe (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  That is certainly appropriate, which is why they can skip all candidates they haven't researched as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  That might be the "idea", but the reality has always been that lazy voters like myself rely very largely on a sense that some other editors of competence have done the due diligence, picking that up as WSC says (relatively easy when noms were becoming rare). As I've said in a comment rather officiously moved off this page to somewhere more obscure (see just below), if I don't get that sense, I'm perfectly ready to oppose this batch en masse. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  Yes, I'm worried about that too. The only solution I can think of is voter guides, but those are apparently "discouraged". – Joe (talk) 18:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm more and more feeling that the sentiments among those discussing the elections are disengaged from those of other editors. I have been trying to move broader types of discussion here, but the attempt below was boldly relocated by a candidate. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Espresso Addict: I've reverted the move. The move was a trifle rude, being as it was in the middle of an ongoing and relevant discussion, I think. SerialNumber54129 19:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not sure if this was your intention, but this change has made it so that the section now appears both here and WT:AELECT#Notice not on watchlist, but with the version on RFA missing the large majority of responses, and with no link to the larger discussion. Bug Ghost🦗👻 19:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't have been moved in the first place: pure move banditry. SerialNumber54129 20:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Also, the majority of candidates at RfA in recent years have had one or more nominators, so one can rely on their diligence/judgement, while the great majority of election candidates are self noms. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• You know, Hammersoft and I are usually on opposite ends of just about any discussion. In this case, I agree with Hammersoft. This is untenable, unreasonable, and is going to have a net negative result. Frankly, I'd suggest that candidates who think they would stand a good chance of passing in a different RFA format should withdraw from this. They're running a serious risk of failing RFA because of systemic issues, but it will still count as a failed RFA on their "record". I can't support proceeding with this election process, given the number of individuals who have signed up as candidates. Risker (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Notice not on watchlist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The notice, and link to the page, has now come off my watchlist (while that for the zzzzArbcom commission remains). Given I think we all agree that proper scrutiny will be a big problem here, that should be fixed. Johnbod (talk) 21:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnbod for the election? It is currently the fallow period, there is no call to action because there is nothing for the community to do right now, the timeline has a much abbreviated discussion period and questions aren't able to be entered until then. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnbod, Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Detailed schedule says there will be watchlist notices for the call for candidates and discussion but not during the intermission. WT:AELECT is a better place to discuss this. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 21:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Could this perhaps be rethought? No-one can properly evaluate 37 candidates in a few days, and this is far more important than the usual watchlist material. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

• Please note: due to pedantry, this talk section is duplicated both here on RFA and at WT:AELECT#Notice not on watchlist, where it has considerably more discussion. Bug Ghost🦗👻 20:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  For pedantry, read 'meta policing/refactoring that should never have occured'... SerialNumber54129 21:06, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.