Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship | 2024 review | Phase II Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:44, 7 January 2025 editPbsouthwood (talk | contribs)Administrators150,623 edits →Q15 Survey← Previous edit Revision as of 12:45, 7 January 2025 edit undoCryptic (talk | contribs)Administrators41,692 edits →Q6: Voter guides (main election page linking to unofficial guides): we have never failed to fill an arbitrator slotNext edit →
Line 132: Line 132:
* A. Unlike arbitrator elections, the candidates aren't running against each other, there's no set amount of seats to fill, and voting for or against a particular candidate doesn't hurt or help the others. There is '''no legitimate reason''' to make voters' scrutiny more difficult by directing them to pages besides the main discussion page, and no reason at all except to game the discussion limits, or perhaps self-aggrandizement on the parts of guide writers. Put your discussion on the candidacy pages where it belongs. —] 10:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC) * A. Unlike arbitrator elections, the candidates aren't running against each other, there's no set amount of seats to fill, and voting for or against a particular candidate doesn't hurt or help the others. There is '''no legitimate reason''' to make voters' scrutiny more difficult by directing them to pages besides the main discussion page, and no reason at all except to game the discussion limits, or perhaps self-aggrandizement on the parts of guide writers. Put your discussion on the candidacy pages where it belongs. —] 10:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*:ACE is actually a 2-prong decision, the first being "is THIS candidate" acceptable for this position at all (just like RFA) -- the secondary component is to fill the limited committee slots with those that have been found to be the most acceptable to others. — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC) *:ACE is actually a 2-prong decision, the first being "is THIS candidate" acceptable for this position at all (just like RFA) -- the secondary component is to fill the limited committee slots with those that have been found to be the most acceptable to others. — ] <sup>]</sup> 12:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*::I'd buy that if we had ever, even once, not filled an arbitrator slot. —] 12:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''Option B'''. As a voter, getting input on candidates in a neat summary is very helpful. Direct questions/comments/concerns should be on candidate discussion pages, but last time this led to folks dumping all sorts of statistics onto the discussion pages (like AfD stats and declined CSDs), which cluttered things. I don't understand the obsession with suppressing voter guides expressed in previous discussions. ] </span>]] 11:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC) *'''Option B'''. As a voter, getting input on candidates in a neat summary is very helpful. Direct questions/comments/concerns should be on candidate discussion pages, but last time this led to folks dumping all sorts of statistics onto the discussion pages (like AfD stats and declined CSDs), which cluttered things. I don't understand the obsession with suppressing voter guides expressed in previous discussions. ] </span>]] 11:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
*'''B''' - let the community post nice tabulated information for each other and make it easy to find. This also reduces the amount of work duplication I'd have to do to vote intelligently. ] (]) 11:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC) *'''B''' - let the community post nice tabulated information for each other and make it easy to find. This also reduces the amount of work duplication I'd have to do to vote intelligently. ] (]) 11:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:45, 7 January 2025

Welcome back! The October 2024 trial of the administrator elections process has concluded, electing 11 out of 35 candidates. Administrator elections are an alternative path to the requests for adminship process in which candidates are voted on privately via SecurePoll. The process began on October 8 with a week-long nomination period, followed by a quiet period while the SecurePoll software was set up. Then a three-day discussion period began on October 22, followed by a week-long voting phase from October 25 to October 31. The election was approved as a trial run in a discussion at phase I of RFA2024. Some discussion of the process is available at Misplaced Pages talk:Administrator elections, and feedback from candidates and voters was collected on the debrief page. Following that, we now return to vote on a series of proposals to refine the process, decided at the AELECT workshop.

This RfC will not discuss reauthorization of administrator elections; that will be decided on in a follow up RFC after the RFCs on this page are all closed. The idea is to improve the process as much as possible first, then later have a straight up and down vote about renewal.

This is a lot of questions. Some questions will snow close fairly quickly, so feel free to wait until then if you would like less questions to evaluate.

Consider responding to each survey one at a time, to avoid edit conflicts.

RFC tag

Please consider joining the feedback request service.
An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Please opine on the below questions related to the English Misplaced Pages administrator elections process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q1: Pass percentage

What should the required percentage be to pass an administrator election?

  • Option A – 75.00%
  • Option B – 70.00% (current)
  • Option C – 65.00%
  • Option D – 60.00%
  • Option E – Other (specify)

Q1 Survey

  • Option C - I supported most of the candidates in the 65–70% range of the previous administrator election. These were really solid candidates and I think Misplaced Pages would have been better off had they succeeded. Additionally, having the pass threshold be identical between WP:RFA (65–75%) and WP:AELECT (70%) is questionable, because in secret elections such as WP:ACE and AELECT, voters tend to vote oppose more often. The top candidates in ACE and AELECT only tend to get around 80% instead of 100%. This suggests that the pass threshold for AELECT should be lower than for RFA. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option C If people can elect a national leader on about 33% support, we can elect an admin for double that. Ritchie333 10:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • At least option A, if not higher. That's the threshold to pass RFA, and the proposal to lower the RFA threshold in the rfc that enabled the trial election failed. It is not appropriate for there to be a laxer numerical threshold in a process with demonstrably less scrutiny. —Cryptic 10:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option B (or A). Partly this is for the reason I gave in phase I: the elections process is a great way to streamline the process for uncontroversial candidates, but serious opposing arguments deserve to be hashed out through the consensus process. (I think the trial bore this out.) Partly it's because the percentages we saw in the trial are basically the low-water mark; as the process becomes more familiar and fewer people blanket-oppose, reaching 70% will become easier all on its own, whereas lowering it even further could have more drastic consequences than anticipated. And partly it's just because I think 70% worked well in the trial. This question is the big one, and I'd encourage people who are excited about AELECT to err on the side of caution here: if the threshold goes down, I think it'd lead to a lot more opposes in the re-authorization RfC, including mine. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option C, or perhaps even D. I oppose raising this higher than the current level. I believe the "lack of scrutiny" challenge will go away when we have more frequent elections and a better procedure in future – the trial election showed that deserving candidates didn't pass, not that undeserving candidates did. Toadspike 10:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option C > D > B. I believe 65% was sufficient, and the opposes on every candidate clearly showed having a secret voting does cause a significant percentage drop for candidates. Soni (talk) 11:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B. As it seems to have worked okay. I also think there's a link between the number of candidates and the pass percentage threshold. If there are less candidates, then there is more opportunity for scrutiny which means that potentially the pass threshold can be raised. E.g., 20 candidates / 70%, 10 candidates / 75%, five candidates / 80% MarcGarver (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • D>C>B. The support percentages in the election were significantly lower than the support percentages I'd expect at RFA, and we should compensate by about 10%. Right now we're turning away good admins, while even 10% lower we will b e able to screen out candidates who don't have the community's trust with comfortable margins. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option (> D < C). Is it anyhow going to replace the standard RFA? --C1K98V 11:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option B > C > A > D. The current threshold worked well. Thryduulf (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option B. I think the current threshold worked well, and Writ's argument is also compelling. Giraffer (talk) 12:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Between B and C. I felt 70% was too high a pass percentage, and some people I thought should pass didn't. However, 65% may be too low. I'd personally set it at 67%. We can always lower it further later, but it would be good to see what happens with a more moderate change in a smaller next election. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option B There nothing I can see in the previous election that shows that this needs to change. RFAs pass with such low levels of opposes because no-one wants to oppose an obviously passing candidate. In secret ballots that pressure is absent. So any comparison to normal RFAs isn't a valid comparison, and doesn't show any need to make any change. Looking at the data from the last election abstains tracked downward as support votes increased, the same isn't true with opposes. With opposes high levels of support could also be seen with high levels of oppose votes. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q1 Discussion

Q2: Maximum # of candidates in each election (numerical limit)

Should there be a maximum number of candidates in each administrator election? What should it be?

  • Option A - No limit (current)
  • Option B - 8
  • Option C - 10
  • Option D - 15
  • Option E - 20

Q2 Survey

  • Option A. I might end up in the minority on this one, but I think having a high number of candidates is one of the many ways that administrator elections reduced scrutiny and stress for candidates. I would argue that these ways of reducing scrutiny and stress for candidates is the "secret sauce" that makes AELECT work so well, making it a much less stressful/toxic process than RFA. If we start making changes that shine more of a spotlight on candidates, we'll be moving the slider back in the direction of RFA and messing with the "secret sauce". Voters that don't have time to research candidates can always abstain on just those candidates. In the last election, the lowest number of support+oppose votes that any individual candidate received was 318, demonstrating that even if there are a lot of candidates, there are still plenty of voters willing to do research on the candidate and vote support or oppose. Finally, it is likely that future elections will have less candidates, so this may not be an issue for much longer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak support for Option D. I'm not confident that future elections will have as many candidates as the first one did, especially if we get to hold them regularly, so I don't know if a limit is necessary. However, I oppose any limit lower than 15 as too restrictive. Toadspike 10:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A or if we really want a limit something like 50. — xaosflux 10:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • E. As some limit is needed to make the process manageable. For me there's a link between the number of candidates and the pass percentage threshold. If there are less candidates, then there is more opportunity for scrutiny which means that potentially the pass threshold can be raised. E.g., 20 candidates / 70%, 10 candidates / 75%, five candidates / 80%. MarcGarver (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A Per NL. I believe there are a significant number of RFA candidates who have enough imposter syndrome to be convinced to stand for elections. A process that reduces the number of "available slots" will almost certainly be not used by them; candidates will become way more hesitant to self-nom for fear of "wasting a seat". I think the right choice for ##Q16:_Discussion_phase_length_(length_in_days) can make the elections more rigorous than any tweaks with number of candidates. Soni (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A per NL, who said it well. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • E. There does need to be some limit to make the process workable, however that limit should not be set too low and about 20 feels a good upper limit that combines this with minimising the "wasted seat" thinking mentioned by Soni. Thryduulf (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A per NL. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A My guess is that this is a self-correcting issue, and that by the 3rd election, we'll get a steady 10-15 candidates. I'm not opposed to option E; the disadvantage I see there is that we have to make some arbitrary choices about who gets to be in the election. I imagine that a formal limit of 20 means a lower de facto limit, given that people withdraw before the voting starts. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A Although the first election was barely manageable that was likely (hopefully) due to pent up demand. Hopefully once this has passed their will be less abstain votes in the election. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q2 Discussion

  • I agree with Novem's comments in the survey section, but don't want to vote since I was neither a voter (as such) nor one of the organisers, so the large number of candidates didn't pose any problems for me as a candidate, therefore I don't feel I'm in a position to comment.
I will mention a concern I brought up earlier, that the larger the number of candidates, the more influential voter guides become, which could concentrate power in the hands of those few who bother to compile a guide. But as NL says, if these elections become a regular feature, then candidate numbers in any given election are likely to stay relatively low, although cumulatively there could still be 'voter fatigue' which could emphasise the role of voter guides. Although whether that's a good thing or bad, I'm not sure. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q3: Maximum # of candidates in each election (selection criteria)

If there's a maximum number determined in Q2, which candidates can stand in the elections?

  • Option A - The first candidates who sign up chronologically (oldest first)
  • Option B - Those who have never requested adminship before in sign-up order (oldest first), followed by time since most recent adminship request (longest ago first)
  • Option C - By number of previous requests for adminship (fewest first), then by sign-up order (oldest first)
  • Option D - Any candidates who applied but weren't selected to run in the previous election (randomly) then all other candidates (randomly)
  • Option E - By number of co-nominators (greatest first)

Q3 Survey

  • Option A - Simple. Fair. Close the call for candidates phase as soon as the numerical limit is reached. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B is fairer, the additional complexity is manageable, and none of that complexity falls on the candidates' shoulders. Especially if the maximum number of candidates we decide on is low - say, the 8 or 10 options above - we shouldn't be devoting four or five slots to people who've tried and failed before, maybe a couple elections in a row, in preference to people who've never run, or who've been waiting longer for a second chance. —Cryptic 10:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B per Cryptic. Personally I think AELECT should be a one-shot deal, but at a minimum we shouldn't have perennial candidates crowding out others. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A is fairest in my opinion. Everything else has been too much workshopping to make effective policy. Soni (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option B is most fair. I share the concerns about perennial candidates and generally agree with Cryptic and Writ. Toadspike 11:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B is fairest, but I'd really prefer if we made this question moot by having no limit in the question above. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B > C > A. I agree with Cryptic that this is the fairest. I don't think AELECT should be a one-shot deal, but equally I do agree that perennial candidates should be discouraged. Separately, I explicitly oppose E, how many friends you have who are willing and able to write a co-nomination statement should not be at all relevant to whether you get to stand - indeed I'd be in favour of limiting it to a maximum of just one co-nominator, both to stop it getting out of hand and to not discourage self-nominations. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q3 Discussion

Q4: Scrutineering (yes/no)

Should AELECT elections be scrutineered (voter's IP addresses, user agents, etc. recorded and checked by trusted users for sockpuppetry)?

  • Option A - Scrutineered. Personal data of voters is visible en-masse to electionadmins, similar to ACE elections (current)
  • Option B - Not scrutineered. Personal data of voters is visible en-masse to electionadmins because there is no way to turn it off in SecurePoll, but it will not be methodically checked.

Q4 Survey

Q4 Discussion

Q5: Scrutineering (who will scrutineer)

If Q4 achieves consensus for Option A (doing scrutineering), who should the scrutineers be in future administrator elections?

  • Option A - 3 stewards who are given local CheckUser access solely for scrutineering the election (current)
  • Option B - 3 English Misplaced Pages checkusers
  • Option C - 3 stewards who are given local CheckUser access solely for scrutineering the election; if not enough Stewards are available, English Misplaced Pages Checkusers may volunteer

Q5 Survey

  • Option B. The stewards have stated If the test is successful and enwiki decides to hold admin elections more frequently, I'm not sure Stewards have the capacity to support them. Archive link. I think it'd be fine to have English Misplaced Pages checkusers fulfill this function. These folks are already vetted and trusted to view IP addresses and other sensitive data. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option B, we trust CUs to do this for pretty much everyone on the project; I can't think of a single reason why we couldn't trust them to do it in elections. Assuming they're happy to do so, of course? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option C. I think it would be acceptable to have local checkusers do it, but if stewards are able and willing I think that'd be preferable, as has been the consensus for many years of ArbCom elections. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B, there is no reason to involve Stewards. It makes sense to have them involved for Arbcom given the need for more independence in those elections but not admins (note re. potential COI, I am a Steward) MarcGarver (talk) 11:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I have a slight preference for C, since stewards from other homewikis are likely more impartial than our CUs, but I also have no issues with B. Toadspike 11:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • C per Extraordinary Writ, while noting that this is a minor issue. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B. During the workshop phase I said using stewards as scrutineers for abcom elections is correct because en.wp checkusers are appointed directly by and work closely with arbcom, therefore there is a clear potential for a conflict of interest. The same is not true for admin elections. My opinion on this has not changed. Thryduulf (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option B. CheckUsers already keep an eye on RfA and there is no reason why they can't be the group to do the same here. Giraffer (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option B CheckUsers are already trusted to carry out such work, there is no reason they should also do so in admin elections. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Is your comment missing a "not"? –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q5 Discussion

I think the issue was the short notice rather than a lack of willingness, but equally I see no reason why local CUs can't do it. MarcGarver (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Not unwilling, but. It depends on how frequent these are going to be. If this was annual, I'm sure we could muster the resources, if it is going to me monthly - that's not going to work. — xaosflux 11:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q6: Voter guides (main election page linking to unofficial guides)

For future administrator elections, should Misplaced Pages:Administrator elections link to unofficial voter guides?

Q6 Survey

  • Option B. Especially in large elections such as the 32-candidate election we just had, voter guides are very useful for helping to gather information on the candidates. Obfuscating a good tool doesn't seem necessary to me. Linking to the category should be sufficient -- we don't need to advertise voter guides more heavily by listing or transcluding them on the actual page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A. Unlike arbitrator elections, the candidates aren't running against each other, there's no set amount of seats to fill, and voting for or against a particular candidate doesn't hurt or help the others. There is no legitimate reason to make voters' scrutiny more difficult by directing them to pages besides the main discussion page, and no reason at all except to game the discussion limits, or perhaps self-aggrandizement on the parts of guide writers. Put your discussion on the candidacy pages where it belongs. —Cryptic 10:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    ACE is actually a 2-prong decision, the first being "is THIS candidate" acceptable for this position at all (just like RFA) -- the secondary component is to fill the limited committee slots with those that have been found to be the most acceptable to others. — xaosflux 12:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I'd buy that if we had ever, even once, not filled an arbitrator slot. —Cryptic 12:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option B. As a voter, getting input on candidates in a neat summary is very helpful. Direct questions/comments/concerns should be on candidate discussion pages, but last time this led to folks dumping all sorts of statistics onto the discussion pages (like AfD stats and declined CSDs), which cluttered things. I don't understand the obsession with suppressing voter guides expressed in previous discussions. Toadspike 11:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B - let the community post nice tabulated information for each other and make it easy to find. This also reduces the amount of work duplication I'd have to do to vote intelligently. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B, and not really a problem if there is a list on a template similar to ACE. Transcluding them all - hard no. — xaosflux 11:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A per Cryptic. Voter guides are just about justifiable for ArbCom elections, but they are absolutely not for admin elections. The best guides are neutral, factual and aid doing one's own research about the candidates however the utility of these can be replaced by a standard set of statistics agreed in advance as relevant and compiled for every candidate and so the harm caused by guides that try to influence the way someone votes. Ideally voter guides should be be banned completely but at the very least we should not be promoting or endorsing them in way shape or form. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q6 Discussion

Q7: Voter guides (non-main election page linking to unofficial guides)

For future administrator elections, what shall the rules be regarding other links to unofficial voter guides?

  • Option A - May be linked from any election-related page (such as talk pages, discussion phase pages, etc.)
  • Option B - May not be linked from any election-related page (such as talk pages, discussion phase pages, etc.)

Q7 Survey

Q7 Discussion

Q8: Voter guides (official guides)

For future administrator elections what shall the rule be regarding official voter guides?

  • Option A - No official voter guide shall be produced (current)
  • Option B - An official voter guide shall be produced, containing only a pre-agreed set of factual statistics

Q8 Survey

  • If official stats are to be provided, provide them on the candidacy pages where they're most likely to be seen. —Cryptic 10:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A. I don't think an official voter guide is necessary. It could become a maintenance burden for election administrators to have to publish this. Perhaps best to crowd-source it to the folks that do unofficial voter guides. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    No reason such a guide would only be able to updated by election admins, if it can only contain statistics anyone could update it. (compare to ACEGUIDE - the election team normally updates it, but there are no restrictions on others making productive edits as well). — xaosflux 11:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option B. During the trial elections, a lot of statistics were dumped onto candidate pages, which cluttered the discussion. (ex.) This was done in good faith by well-meaning editors to improve transparency, but a discussion area is not the best place for that. An official voter guide, on the other hand, is a great place. Toadspike 11:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A to avoid the appearance of bias, which can be seen as simply as which statistics are displayed and how prominently. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B sure seems fine. — xaosflux 11:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A, it would be very easy for an "official" guide to be biased, for instance by choosing which statistics to show. I don't think we should guide voters by telling them which statistics would be more or less relevant to consider. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B, to avoid giving a justification for spamming random and irrelevant statistics (which is most of them) on discussion pages and discourage people thinking individual voter guides are somehow a good thing because they contain statistics. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A What editors consider to be relevant experience for an admin will vary. Whatbis important for one may not be important for another. "Official" guides are only ever going to give a certain perspective on whatbis required. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q8 Discussion

Q9: Suffrage requirements

Who may vote in future administrator elections?

  • Option A - Use the Arbitration Committee elections suffrage criteria: created their account over 2 months before the election, have 150 mainspace edits by 1 month before the election, have 10 live edits in the year running up to 1 month before the election, not be sitewide blocked during the election, not be vanished, not be a bot, and not have already voted with this or another account. (current)
  • Option B - Use the Requests for adminship suffrage criteria: SecurePoll will be programmed to require, at the time an editor attempts to cast a vote, that they be extendedconfirmed on English Misplaced Pages, not be sitewide blocked on English Misplaced Pages, and not be a bot. Additionally, scrutineers will remove any duplicate votes, sockpuppet votes, or vanished account votes.

Q9 Survey

Q9 Discussion

I have no strong preference here - both methods seem similarly trivial to game, if that's what we're trying to avoid - but there's plenty of people able and willing to generate the list of eligible voters. I'm one of them. The idea that there's sort of insurmountable technical problem and that we won't ever be able to have elections again if Cyberpower678 stops wanting to it shouldn't be a factor. —Cryptic 11:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

"both methods seem similarly trivial to game" – you might be right, but generally admins are looking for gaming of XCON far more closely than they are looking for gaming of...150 edits in one month. Consistency can be valuable. Toadspike 11:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q10: Minimum vote requirement (minimum supports)

Should there be a minimum vote requirement to elect a candidate?

  • Option A - no requirement. (current)
  • Option B - require 20 supports minimum to pass
  • Option C - require 50 supports minimum to pass
  • Option D - require 100 supports minimum to pass

Q10 Survey

  • Option A - We had absolutely no problem achieving a reasonable quorum in the last election (the average number of support+opposes per candidate was 385, and the lowest any candidate received was 318). Hypothetically, let's say we had an election where only 20 people participated. Even then, I still think that the support percentage required to pass (currently 70%) would prevent unqualified candidates from getting elected. Therefore I think any quorum requirement just adds unnecessary complexity to the process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option B There were concerns expressed in the first election of a hypothetical candidate getting through with very few support votes, on the basis of absence of against votes. Personally I think that's unfounded, but to address these concerns a (low) minimum number could be required. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option D or C, I guess, as a failsafe to ensure genuine consensus; it doesn't add complexity when it's not an issue. (No RfA candidate has passed with fewer than 100 supports since the WP:RFA2015 reforms, and the last one with fewer than 50 was in 2011.) But I agree this will probably never be a problem. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 10:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option D or C - Just because it is very unlikely happen to allow someone to become an admin on a technicality if for some reason it did every happen. As it should never happen, the sensible thing is to make sure it it did we have a safety guard. As a programmer I can say that I have seen a lot of bugs caused by 'that should never happen' logic. KylieTastic (talk) 11:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A I believe the hypothetical concerns are unfounded and it's exactly the kind of "just in case" policy carve outs that lead to extreme bureaucracy and scope creep. Every single additional clause to complicated processes make things marginally worse, and I am strongly against the kind of precedent that assuages every "this will never happen" concern with changing our policies. In the 0.1% of universes this happens, we still have a process to deal with it, it's called WP:IAR. Soni (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option C or D per KylieTastic. I hate bureaucracy as much as the next guy, but I don't see IAR as a good failsafe. 100 is a fairly high bar, though, so I prefer a lower one. Toadspike 11:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B>C>D>A. There should be some requirement. — xaosflux 11:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A per NL - poor attendance of an election shouldn't affect pass rate. B second choice. Tazerdadog (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A No need to create rules when there is not a problem. Misplaced Pages is overly complicated as is. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A > B > C > D. If you think a candidate should not be an administrator, oppose them, if it looks like there will be few votes then get people to vote. There is no support threshold at RFA and candidates becoming admins with very few supports has never been an issue (and what counts as "very few" has changed considerably across the lifetime of the project) so it isn't going to be an issue at AELECT. If we do have to have a bar, it should be as low as possible. Thryduulf (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A At this time it's not needed. At some future point election become so mundane that fewer and fewer editors take part, and the something like this could be needed, but at this time I don't think it's needed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 12:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q10 Discussion

Q11: Minimum vote requirement (minimum supports and abstentions)

Should there be a requirement to receive more support votes than abstentions in order to pass?

  • Option A: No (current)
  • Option B: Yes

Q11 Survey

Q11 Discussion

Q12: Call for Candidates phase duration (when signups open)

When should candidates sign up to stand in an election?

  • Option A: Nomination window - candidates may nominate themselves only during a specified window (current)
  • Option B: Open sign up - candidates may nominate themselves at any time up to the deadline

Q12 Survey

  • Option A - Worked fine in the last election. The advantage of a sign up window over option B is that 1) it prevents folks from signing up and then being inactive at the time of the election, and 2) it reduces the amount of time the candidacy is public (reducing candidate stress). If one of the RFCs above about only having X candidates per election passes, and if we get into a situation where there are too many candidates, it will be especially important to not have inactive candidates on the list. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B seems harmless. Option A is manifestly unfair if any of the choices involving sign-up order in Q3 are selected - who gets to run would depend on when the sign-up period starts. Even changing the start of the candidacy phase as in Q14C doesn't fix this; if the one or two times in a year it opens at a reasonable time in your time zone happens to be during your busiest season at work, you're still out of luck. —Cryptic 11:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A or no consensus. I think A is reasonable and worked fine. Alternatively, I'm happy if we bunt this entire question to a future "NON RFC" discussion. Cryptic raises valid points, but I would rather also not hedge my !vote against every outcome this mega-RFC might cause. If we choose something where timing is important, I think a simple discussion is sufficient to change the status quo. Soni (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Weak A. I agree with Cryptic that a fixed sign-up time with limited spots could be unfair, but if places are scarce we should add more elections or more spots regardless of the sign-up system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toadspike (talk • contribs)

Q12 Discussion

Q13: Call for Candidates phase duration (what future elections can be signed up for)

If Q12 option B (open sign up) is chosen, for which elections should nominations be accepted?

  • Option A: Only the next scheduled election (current)
  • Option B: The next scheduled election and the election after that
  • Option C: The next scheduled election and the following two elections
  • Option D: For any future election.

Q13 Survey

  • Option A - Worked fine in the last election. The advantage of a sign up window over longer options is that 1) it prevents folks from signing up and then being inactive at the time of the election, and 2) it reduces the amount of time the candidacy is public (reducing candidate stress). If one of the RFCs above about only having X candidates per election passes, and if we get into a situation where there are too many candidates, it will be especially important to not have inactive candidates on the list. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I see nothing wrong with D, especially if our combinations of choices in the other questions generates a significant waiting list. Just require that candidates confirm they're active and still want to run when their name comes up. —Cryptic 11:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A - B/C/D is the same type of bureaucracy creep and policy overload I would personally prefer to avoid. This is another question that I think should have been skipped from Phase II altogether. Soni (talk) 11:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A. If we have a nomination window, then all nominations must be made in that window. Thryduulf (talk) 12:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A. As I said above, the solution to scarce candidate spots (which would be a great thing!) is more elections or more spots, not more bureaucracy to game. Toadspike 12:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q13 Discussion

Q14: Call for Candidates phase duration (time of day to open)

If Q12 option A (a nomination window) is chosen, at what time of day should it open?

  • Option A: Not important. Pick a time for that particular election in advance, and stick to it. (current)
  • Option B: The window should always open at the same time (e.g. 00:00 UTC)
  • Option C: The window should open at a different time of day each election (e.g. move forward 6 hours).

Q14 Survey

  • Option A - Seems like a non-issue. The call for candidates phase is currently a week long, so the time of day that it opens and closes shouldn't be an obstacle for anyone. Even if they work 5 days a week, they will still have 2 days out of the 7 days to submit their candidacy. It is unlikely the time of day would be a factor. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I highly doubt that this will become relevant, since I don't think we'll have enough candidates again for this to be an issue, but if I had to choose Option C seems most fair. Toadspike 11:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • A. We can revisit this if candidates in some timezones are being disadvantaged, but we will have actual knowledge of who is being disadvantaged and in what way so we can make sure whatever we change it to actually helps that rather than accidentally making it worse. Thryduulf (talk) 12:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q14 Discussion

Q15: Candidate ordering

How should candidates be ordered on the candidate page and in the SecurePoll software?

  • Option A: Chronological by signup date on call for candidates page, random in SecurePoll (current)
  • Option B: Chronological by signup date
  • Option C: Random
  • Option D: Alphabetical

Q15 Survey

  • Option D - Alphabetical. This is the most convenient for voters. It allows easy cross-referencing to an offline list that the voter might have made of how they plan to vote, easy cross-referencing to voter guides, etc. The current system of randomizing voters in SecurePoll is inconvenient to voters, and makes it easier to make mistakes transferring one's offline ballot into SecurePoll. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • D. Per Novem Linguae it is much more convenient in the actual voting process, especially if there are lots of candidates. MarcGarver (talk) 11:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Any of B, C, or D are fine so long as the order doesn't change. (That is, if C means we pick a random order and stick to it, not that the order is random each view, and especially if it's a different random order than in SecurePoll.) —Cryptic 11:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Not A, no preference between the rest (agree with Cryptic). Toadspike 11:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • D , reevaluate after the next election, the datapoint would be if candidates lower on the list get significantly less total non-abstain votes. — xaosflux 11:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option D: Alphabetical --C1K98V 12:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • D, Alphabetical is what most people are used to and it makes things easier if one wants to go back and double check.· · · Peter Southwood : 12:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q15 Discussion

Q16: Discussion phase length (length in days)

How long should the discussion phase be?

  • Option A – 3 days, prior to the voting phase (current)
  • Option C – 5 days, prior to the voting phase
  • Option E – 7 days, prior to the voting phase
  • Option E2 – 7 days, concurrent with the voting phase
  • Option F – 10 days, including the 7-day voting phase
  • Option G – 14 days, including the 7-day voting phase

Q16 Survey

  • E2, F, or G. Ending "official" discussion while voting is still open is stupid, thinking discussion ends just because we say it's officially ended is gullible, and making it harder for other voters to find that discussion means we're making worse choices. —Cryptic 11:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A - I might end up in the minority on this one, but I think having a short discussion phase is one of the many ways that administrator elections reduced scrutiny and stress for candidates. I would argue that these ways of reducing scrutiny and stress for candidates is the "secret sauce" that makes AELECT work so well, making it a much less stressful/toxic process than RFA. If we start making changes that shine more of a spotlight on candidates, we'll be moving the slider back in the direction of RFA and messing with the "secret sauce". The last election was regarded as very successful, so in this case, I think it'd be safe to say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". We should be careful of making changes to AELECT that just slowly turns AELECT into RFA. RFA has major flaws, and AELECT's uniqueness fixes a lot of these RFA flaws. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A per NL. We should be attempting to make RFA more like AELECT, not the other way round. I think having it concurrent to voting has some benefits so also okay with Option E2. But generally prefer shorter discussion periods over longer. Soni (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A or E2 per Novem Linguae and Soni. I would prefer a longer discussion phase, but I realize that this is extremely discouraging to candidates and could defeat the purpose of admin elections. Keeping discussion open during voting seems sensible, though, so maybe that's a good compromise? Toadspike 11:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • E>E2 ; there is massively more time spent on this by voters than candidates, they should be afforded enough time to engage. — xaosflux 12:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A --C1K98V 12:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Strongly oppose A and C. I'm not really bothered about the exact length, provided it isn't fewer than seven days long. I understand the desire to make AELECT less stressful, but it should never come at the expense of candidate scrutiny. Having a smaller discussion period to relieve pressure on candidates is the wrong approach. Giraffer (talk) 12:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • C > A > E. I think there are significant benefits to having discussion before voting, as this makes it more likely for WP:NOTNOW candidates to realise this applies to them and gives them time to withdraw before they get disheartened by a huge no vote. I do agree that we should keep the discussion period short to avoid the elections becoming more like RFA, but there does need to be a balance between this and scrutiny and I think 5 days will be a better balance than 3, but 3 days is better than 7. Thryduulf (talk) 12:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q16 Discussion

Q17: Discussion phase length (overlap with voting phase)

If Q16 options F or G are chosen, shall formal questions and answers on candidate pages continue during the voting phase?

  • Option A – No (current)
  • Option B – Yes, additional formal questions and answers are permitted.
  • Option C – Further questions may be permitted but candidates are not obliged to answer them.

Q17 Survey

Q17 Discussion

Q18: Supervising the election

What shall the administrator elections page say about who supervises the process?

  • Option A - The process is supervised by the bureaucrats. (current)
  • Option B - The process is supervised by the electoral commission, in consultation with the community.
  • Option C - The process is supervised by the electoral commission, currently consisting of Novem Linguae, in consultation with the community.
  • Option D - Delete the bureaucrat sentence, and do not replace with anything.

Q18 Survey

  • All of these options are fine. C is the de facto situation, A is the "ideal", choosing D and letting any uninvolved editor do what they can to help out might be most practical (and also kinda the de facto situation). Toadspike 12:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q18 Discussion

  • Electoral commission currently links to Hyperlink. It would be better if the proposal specified how the commission would be chosen. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    I assume that was deliberate, since there currently is no electoral commission. But if not, @Novem Linguae, you wanna fix that? Toadspike 12:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Thanks for checking. Yes, it was intentional. Just now I went ahead and changed it to a red link so it's less confusing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • I probably won't post in the survey section of this question since my name is in it. When the AELECT proposal by Worm That Turned was created, he envisioned the bureaucrats being heavily involved in the process, since bureaucrats are heavily involved in the RFA process. Seems like their wheelhouse. However, in practice, the bureaucrats were not really involved, and I ended up doing most of the AELECT backend work. This question was added by me as a way of asking the community what direction we should go in with listing who administrates the AELECT process and how they administrate it. The idea of an "electoral commission" comes from the WP:ACE process and is one possible term we could use to call the folks that do the backend work of AELECT. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q19: Participating in administrator elections multiple times

Are unsuccessful candidates from an admin election allowed to reapply for adminship at a subsequent admin election?

  • Option A: Yes (current)
  • Option B: Yes, but not the immediately following one
  • Option C: Yes, but there should be a limit to the number of times a candidate can run
  • Option D: No, any future requests for adminship must go through standard RFA.
  • Option E: Yes, but not if they have run either in an election or in a standard RFA in the last 3 months.

Q19 Survey

  • Option D, followed by B/C, per what I said on Q1: "the elections process is a great way to streamline the process for uncontroversial candidates, but serious opposing arguments deserve to be hashed out through the consensus process". If a candidate has been previously voted down, then there are serious opposing arguments that are best dealt with at RfA. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    This vote seems to come from an inherent assumption that RFA is somehow more robust than AELECT, or that the process in it is sacrosanct for "serious arguments". I just want to say I reject that assertion. Soni (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    RfA is far more robust than AELECT. The former has been tested, analyzed, and tweaked for over twenty years, while the latter was created a year ago, with the details largely hashed out by rough agreement (not formal consensus) among ~10 people, and has only been run once. Giraffer (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A - There is likely to be a huge time gap between elections. Also, people repeatedly running isn't a problem at RFA, so I think it's unlikely to be a problem at AELECT. If it becomes a problem, we could look into having the community topic ban a person from AELECT via ANI, the same way we would probably handle someone making too many RFAs. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A per NL. It feels like a solution in search of a problem - There's no need to pre-emptively complicate the process chasing hypotheticals. Soni (talk) 11:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Not B or E. Someone running twice in a row is already not going to pass, if for no other reason than "'Optional' question Q4: Dude, you just ran three months ago and got 19% of the vote. Why on earth do you think you're going to do better this time?" Putting a hard minimum time limit on recandidacy is going to falsely imply to the candidates that all is forgiven and they're welcome to rerun as soon as the time is up, and to the voters that any recandidacy remotely near that hard time limit - whether it's three months or three years - is obviously too soon. —Cryptic 11:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option E. --C1K98V 11:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A per Novem Linguae and Cryptic. Toadspike 12:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    In the last elections, some candidates only failed narrowly with no clear reason. They have appropriately been urged to run again. Point is, we shouldn't default to branding those who don't pass as incompetent fools and ban them from ever running again. Toadspike 12:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q19 Discussion

  • Abstaining from a "vote" due to my COI as a candidate in the first election. If a restriction is placed on running again, I suggest that is not put in place until after the next election (because candidates in the first trial were not warned it was their "only chance" and might have waited until a later election had they known). MarcGarver (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC).
    +1 Toadspike 12:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q20: Election frequency (how often)

Ideally, how often should administrator elections be held?

  • Option A – Every year
  • Option B – Every six months
  • Option C – Every three months
  • Option D – Every two months
  • Option E – Every month

Q20 Survey

  • B sounds about right to me, but ultimately we just need to pick something and re-evaluate it down the line once we see how many candidates we're consistently getting. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 11:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option B sounds about right. Also fine with Option A or Option C. One month or two months is probably too often -- there's a lot of work on the back end that goes into each election. I purposely worded this question as "ideally", because we want to keep flexibility here. This will be very dependent on how many candidates we are consistently getting, who ends up scrutineering and what their bandwidth is, other bus factors such as the bandwidth of myself and Cyberpower678 (voter roll generation), and if WMF green lights local SecurePoll elections that aren't dependent on votewiki / WMF Trust & Safety. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option C --C1K98V 11:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • B>A. Would consider C if we do away with traditional RFA. — xaosflux 12:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • C > B > A. These need to be frequent enough that we don't overload voters with too many candidates, and to produce more new admins. Toadspike 12:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A. Elections take up a lot of editor time, and holding two per year seems excessive when we don't have an accurate judge of the long-term demand for the process yet. The global election calendar is already pretty saturated (ArbCom, Board of Trustees, Steward, U4C) and we are at real risk of election fatigue, so I don't think starting with every six months is the right way to go. Giraffer (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q20 Discussion

  • If it's to be only once or twice a year, could we please not have it be the same times every year? A lot of peoples' availability varies fairly consistently year-to-year; if the only times elections are held are when you're always the busiest, then you're locked out of them forever. —Cryptic 12:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
    Or they could be held in cycles not tied down to a year, like every nine months. Giraffer (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q21: Election frequency (relationship with number of candidates)

Shall the election run based on the number of candidates that sign up?

  • Option A – No, regularly scheduled elections should run regardless of the number of candidates. The election is only skipped if there are zero candidates.
  • Option B – Yes, regularly scheduled elections should run only if the maximum number of candidates has been reached, otherwise the election is skipped.
  • Option C – Yes, regularly scheduled elections should run only if some other minimum threshold (write-in your number) of candidates has been reached, otherwise the election is skipped.

Q21 Survey

Q21 Discussion

Q22: Support and oppose section

Should a section be added to the Candidate nomination page in which brief, reasoned expressions of support/opposition can be voluntarily made after voting opens?

  • Option A: No (current)
  • Option B: Yes

Q22 Survey

  • oppose kinda feel like that defeats the purpose. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A - The first administrator election was very successful. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Let's not turn AELECT into RFA. The point of AELECT is to be different than RFA so that we can fix RFA's problems. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A - the thing that gave me most nerves in my RfA was to be opposed by people I respected. By not saying oppose or support, I think it's much easier to raise concerns without it coming across as an attack. The RfA systems reminds me of the adversarial legal system, making people take up the role of supporter or opposer. The strenght of the election is that we move more towards investigative discussions. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
  • Option A. But while I oppose explicit s/o "votes" on the discussion page, non-neutral comments (when based on evidence) should be encouraged. Toadspike 12:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Q22 Discussion

Category: