Misplaced Pages

:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections - 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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cryptic (talk | contribs) at 10:37, 7 January 2025 (→Q3: Maximum # of candidates in each election (selection criteria): B). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:37, 7 January 2025 by Cryptic (talk | contribs) (→Q3: Maximum # of candidates in each election (selection criteria): B)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

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; 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. Within 24 hours, this page will be 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)

2024 United Kingdom general election=== 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)

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)

Q2 Discussion

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)

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

  • Option A. Yes. This is the norm for SecurePoll elections. The idea behind scrutineering is to prevent sockpuppetry from influencing an election. Election integrity is important. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

Q5 Discussion

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

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

Q6 Survey

Q6 Discussion

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

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

  • Option A - May not be mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Administrator elections. May be mentioned on other pages such as talk pages. (current)
  • Option B - May be linked from any election-related page.
  • Option B - May not be linked from any election-related page.

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

Q8 Discussion

Q9: Suffrage requirements

Who may vote in future administrator elections?

  • Option 1 - 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 2 - 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

Q10: Minimum vote requirement (minimum supports)

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

  • Option 1 - no requirement. (current)
  • Option 2 - require 20 supports minimum to pass
  • Option 3 - require 50 supports minimum to pass
  • Option 4 - require 100 supports minimum to pass

Q10 Survey

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 1: No (current)
  • Option 2: 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

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 1: Only the next scheduled election
  • Option 2: The next scheduled election and the election after that
  • Option 3: The next scheduled election and the following two elections
  • Option 4: For any future election.

Q13 Survey

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 1: Not important. Pick a time for that particular election in advance, and stick to it. (current)
  • Option 2: The window should always open at the same time (e.g. 00:00 UTC)
  • Option 3: The window should open at a different time of day each election (e.g. move forward 6 hours).

Q14 Survey

Q14 Discussion

Q15: Candidate ordering

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

  • Option 1: Chronological by signup date on call for candidates page, random in SecurePoll (current)
  • Option 2: Chronological by signup date
  • Option 3: Random
  • Option 4: Alphabetical

Q15 Survey

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

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

Q18 Discussion

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

Q19 Discussion

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

Q20 Discussion

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

Q22 Discussion

Category: