This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Administrator elections. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello friends. Just a friendly reminder that the Call for Candiates phase will be officially closing in around 30 hours. If you are planning to submit a candidacy and haven't done so yet, please do so soon.

Courtesy ping to folks that have created subpages and not listed them on the Call for Candidates page yet. @AntiDionysius, Dr vulpes, FOARP, Sohom Datta, The Squirrel Conspiracy, and Velella: Please add your subpages to the Call for Candidates page soon! I may automatically add these at some point after the Call for Candidates phase closes, but for now because of the comments in Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#Nominations, it seems like a sensitive issue and I think the community wants you to control the timing of when you share your subpage. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241013175400","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241013175400-30_hours_left_in_Call_for_Candidates_phase","replies":["c-Just_Step_Sideways-20241014224200-Novem_Linguae-20241013175400","c-Aszx5000-20241015005500-Novem_Linguae-20241013175400"]}}-->

I think we have enough candidates now... Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014224200","author":"Just Step Sideways","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Just_Step_Sideways-20241014224200-Novem_Linguae-20241013175400","replies":[]}}-->

Amazing outcome in terms of people coming forward - hats off to the designers/creators of this process. Comprehensively solved the issue of getting people to go for RfA. Helpful where admins co-nom, and I hope they can still do that after the closing? Aszx5000 (talk) 00:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015005500","author":"Aszx5000","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Aszx5000-20241015005500-Novem_Linguae-20241013175400","replies":[]}}-->

Will there be a mass message sent out to all eligible voters, similar to ArbCom elections? C F A 💬 19:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014195900","author":"CFA","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-CFA-20241014195900-Notifications","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241014201100-CFA-20241014195900","c-Bri-20241015033100-CFA-20241014195900","c-Novem_Linguae-20241021185900-CFA-20241014195900"],"displayName":"C F A"}}-->

No plans for that at this time. We are planning a watchlist message and T:CENT. We also did some posts to admin-ish and RFA-ish noticeboards/talk pages a couple times previously, but no further plans because I wanted to reduce the amount of WP:MMS spam. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014201100","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241014201100-CFA-20241014195900","replies":["c-CFA-20241015233300-Novem_Linguae-20241014201100"]}}-->

I get avoiding spam as much as possible, but with nearly 40 candidates I think it's best to try to notify as many people as we can. This is the first time this process has ever happened — many less-active users will be completely unaware this is taking place unless they are actively checking their watchlists. Maybe it's too late to consider a mass message, but I'd argue this on par with (or maybe even more significant than) ArbCom elections. C F A 💬 23:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015233300","author":"CFA","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-CFA-20241015233300-Novem_Linguae-20241014201100","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241016001600-CFA-20241015233300"],"displayName":"C F A"}}-->

An additional MMS would not be difficult. I can do that if desired. Anyone else want to weigh in before a final decision is made? Also do we want to MMS the start of the discussion phase, the start of the voting phase, or both? –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016001600","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241016001600-CFA-20241015233300","replies":["c-Espresso_Addict-20241016004100-Novem_Linguae-20241016001600","c-Bugghost-20241016102900-Novem_Linguae-20241016001600","c-Fanfanboy-20241016221900-Novem_Linguae-20241016001600"]}}-->

Certainly start of discussion phase, or perhaps both. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016004100","author":"Espresso Addict","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Espresso_Addict-20241016004100-Novem_Linguae-20241016001600","replies":[]}}-->

I support sending out a MMS at the start of discussion phase, due to the number of candidates. I would say having another one before the voting phase might be overkill (and could encourage people voting without reviewing candidates). BugGhost🦗👻 10:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016102900","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241016102900-Novem_Linguae-20241016001600","replies":[]}}-->

I agree with the 2 statements above. fanfanboy (block) 22:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016221900","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20241016221900-Novem_Linguae-20241016001600","replies":[]}}-->

It will be covered in The Signpost News and notes, but of course not everybody reads it (just the cool kids). ☆ Bri (talk) 03:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015033100","author":"Bri","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Bri-20241015033100-CFA-20241014195900","replies":[]}}-->

 Partly done. Both additional MMS messages are queued up at WT:MMS. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241021185900","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241021185900-CFA-20241014195900","replies":[]}}-->

Couldn't see any mention of this process on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship or the associated templates, e.g. Template:RfA Navigation? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241010093800","author":"MSGJ","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MSGJ-20241010093800-Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship","replies":["c-MSGJ-20241010111700-MSGJ-20241010093800","c-Fanfanboy-20241010120300-MSGJ-20241010093800","c-Bugghost-20241010125800-MSGJ-20241010093800"]}}-->

Follow up: there is a note on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and I've added a link to the navigation template — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241010111700","author":"MSGJ","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-MSGJ-20241010111700-MSGJ-20241010093800","replies":[]}}-->

There is a mention of this process in the 4th paragraph of WP:Requests for adminship. fanfanboy (block) 12:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241010120300","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20241010120300-MSGJ-20241010093800","replies":[]}}-->

I noticed this too - maybe we should add an Ombox at the top of WP:RFA saying something like this:

A trial admin election process is underway, and is currently accepting nominations.

(Haven't added this myself because I'm not confident with editing templates, and changing the RFA header seems like a bad place to practice). BugGhost🦗👻 12:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241010125800","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241010125800-MSGJ-20241010093800","replies":["c-Fanfanboy-20241010132400-Bugghost-20241010125800"]}}-->

Looks good to me. fanfanboy (block) 13:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241010132400","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20241010132400-Bugghost-20241010125800","replies":["c-Bugghost-20241010134700-Fanfanboy-20241010132400"]}}-->

Nice - I've added this info box to WP:Requests for adminship/Header BugGhost🦗👻 13:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241010134700","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241010134700-Fanfanboy-20241010132400","replies":[]}}-->

Hi. Should there be a candidate in the trial admin elections that obviously won't pass to test early closures or withdrawals? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 20:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241010205800","author":"Rotideypoc41352","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Rotideypoc41352-20241010205800-Testing_candidates_with_no_chance_in_trial_elections?","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241010211800-Rotideypoc41352-20241010205800","c-ToBeFree-20241011015800-Rotideypoc41352-20241010205800","c-Xaosflux-20241013164700-Rotideypoc41352-20241010205800"]}}-->

It's probably not needed. I don't think we do this for other elections such as ArbCom elections. Thank you for the idea though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241010211800","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241010211800-Rotideypoc41352-20241010205800","replies":[]}}-->

An early closure is comparatively unlikely to happen when the results are only published after the election. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011015800","author":"ToBeFree","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-ToBeFree-20241011015800-Rotideypoc41352-20241010205800","replies":[],"displayName":"~ ToBeFree"}}-->

There's not much to "test" - once the polls open the ballot wouldn't be changed. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:47, 13 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241013164700","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241013164700-Rotideypoc41352-20241010205800","replies":[]}}-->

It comes off a bit defensive. This probably made sense in the lead-up to this election, but now that it's "clearly happening", should it be removed? The "After the trial, request for comment discussions will be held" sentence could be kept and moved elsewhere. Leijurv (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014201000","author":"Leijurv","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Leijurv-20241014201000-Remove_the_\"Are_additional_RFCs_required\"_section?","replies":["c-Cowboygilbert-20241015022400-Leijurv-20241014201000"]}}-->

@Leijurv:, Its still needed imo. Atleast changing the section title may be worth it but not removing the whole paragraph though. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015022400","author":"Cowboygilbert","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Cowboygilbert-20241015022400-Leijurv-20241014201000","replies":[]}}-->

I have a question. I was asked a question about my thoughts on incivility, and I answered, and then realized that my answers could be tweaked into an essay that may be linked to for voters to read, since dealing with incivility is an important consideration for administrators. My question is whether I can update my nominating statement to include a link to an essay on incivility, and, if so, can I do this now, or should I wait until the discussion period? If in the discussion period, can I do this by asking myself a question and answering it? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015192500","author":"Robert McClenon","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Robert_McClenon-20241015192500-Adding_a_Link_to_an_Essay?","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241015212200-Robert_McClenon-20241015192500"]}}-->

Unless others object, I assume that candidate subpages are still considered drafts and not a live RFA-ish page until the discussion phase opens. So feel free to modify your nomination statement. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015212200","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241015212200-Robert_McClenon-20241015192500","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20241015222100-Novem_Linguae-20241015212200"]}}-->

I agree with that. My understanding is that the intention has been that no more nominations will be made, but there is no restriction on candidates updating or correcting their existing nominations. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015222100","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241015222100-Novem_Linguae-20241015212200","replies":["c-Valereee-20241016100800-Tryptofish-20241015222100"]}}-->

I think we should probably encourage them to do so if they want. Some may wish to based on the discussions here, and those who threw their hats in the ring early would be at a disadvantage if we didn't allow it. Valereee (talk) 10:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016100800","author":"Valereee","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Valereee-20241016100800-Tryptofish-20241015222100","replies":[]}}-->

Hello friends. Below is a draft of what I plan to post in Phabricator to ask WMF T&S to set up SecurePoll for us. If you have suggestions for things to change, or you have suggestions for settings to add to this list, or if you see an obvious error, please let me know in this talk page section. Will post this on Phab after a day or two. Thanks.

Current settings can be viewed at https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/SecurePoll:1691 and https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/SecurePoll:1691/msg/en

* Scrutineers
    * Johannnes89
	* EPIC
	* Yahya
* Candidates
	* Queen of Hearts
	* EggRoll97
	* SheriffIsInTown
	* Rsjaffe
	* Leonidlednev
	* Zippybonzo
	* Joseywales1961
	* MarcGarver
	* Iwaqarhashmi
	* NoobThreePointOh
	* ThadeusOfNazereth
	* SilverLocust
	* Ahecht
	* Hawkeye7
	* Sable232
	* Mdewman6
	* Starship.paint
	* Frost
	* The Squirrel Conspiracy
	* AntiDionysius
	* Dr vulpes
	* Valenciano
	* Sohom Datta
	* SWinxy
	* FOARP
	* LindsayH
	* Velella
	* Robert McClenon
	* SD0001
	* DoubleGrazing
	* Pbritti
	* Knightoftheswords281
	* Pharaoh of the Wizards
	* Bastun
	* Peaceray
	* Spy-cicle
* Poll type:
    * Range voting (histogram range)
* Poll radio buttons for each candidate:
	* Support
	* Abstain       <-- ticked by default
	* Oppose
* We will need the exact support count and the exact oppose count for each candidate. Whatever the best way to set that up is.
* Options
	* Shuffle candidates on the voting page = yes
    * Return-to URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrator_elections
    * Feedback link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_elections
* Poll dates:
	* Election Start Date: 2024-10-25 00:00:00 UTC
	* Election End Date: 2024-11-01 00:00:00 UTC
* Poll question:
	* Shall the following users be given administrator permissions on English Wikipedia?
* Eligible voter list:
	* [Cyberpower678 will generate for us. Will add link here.]

• Messages (copied and adjusted from ACE):

   * https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T371454#10245702
   * Next election, change ""Support", "Oppose", or "Abstain"." to ""Oppose", "Abstain", or "Support"." Also discuss the change on a talk page. Isaac wants a discussion.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 22:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015225400","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241015225400-SecurePoll_settings","replies":["c-Xaosflux-20241016000200-Novem_Linguae-20241015225400","c-Soni-20241016130400-Novem_Linguae-20241015225400","c-Novem_Linguae-20241017112900-Novem_Linguae-20241015225400"]}}-->

2 other items to get ready. On the "entry link" you can link to something, suggest to the admin elections page; after the poll there is a "feedback" type link - that should prob be to this page. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016000200","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241016000200-Novem_Linguae-20241015225400","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241016001900-Xaosflux-20241016000200"]}}-->

 Done. Added those two. Thanks for the ideas. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016001900","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241016001900-Xaosflux-20241016000200","replies":[]}}-->

Will there be a way to add a link to each candidate? Linking Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/Queen of Hearts (say) beside QoH will be much more useful for voters than just listing the names and nothing else. Soni (talk) 13:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016130400","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Soni-20241016130400-Novem_Linguae-20241015225400","replies":["c-Xaosflux-20241016131100-Soni-20241016130400"]}}-->

No, the poll options are plain text. The link inbound to the voting server can have link to the election page. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016131100","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241016131100-Soni-20241016130400","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241016133300-Xaosflux-20241016131100"]}}-->

JSutherland (WMF) on Phab said he did link each candidate to their candidate page on the ballot. https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/SecurePoll:1691/msg/en seems to support this as well. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016133300","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241016133300-Xaosflux-20241016131100","replies":["c-Xaosflux-20241016140000-Novem_Linguae-20241016133300"]}}-->

Oh good! That didn't used to work! — xaosflux ^Talk 14:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016140000","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241016140000-Novem_Linguae-20241016133300","replies":["c-Xaosflux-20241016140200-Xaosflux-20241016140000"]}}-->

...or perhaps was avoided to prevent people leaving the ballot.... wonder if SP is giving those links an open in new target. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016140200","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241016140200-Xaosflux-20241016140000","replies":[]}}-->

Looks like WMF already got all the above programmed in for us. Woohoo. Here's some additional stuff that I will ask them to program in. I copied the arbitration committee election text and changed it to fit AELECT. Please feel free to look it over before I submit it and leave any comments/feedback here.

* messages: intro -
```
[[:w:en:Wikipedia:Administrator elections|Election main page]] • [[:w:en:Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections|Report problems or issues]]
'''''Instructions'''''
*'''Use the radio buttons.''' Please use the radio buttons below to indicate your preference for each candidate with "Support", "Oppose", or “Abstain”. An “Abstain” vote does not affect the outcome in any way.
*'''Vote in a single sitting.''' Voting must be done in a single sitting. 
*'''You may change your vote by starting over.''' After your vote has been accepted, you may change your vote any time before the close of voting. To do so, reuse the voting interface and a fresh default ballot page will be displayed. You will need to complete the process again from scratch. For this reason, consider keeping a private record of your vote. Your new ballot page will override the old one.
```

* messages: jump-text - `This poll is set up for the 2024 English Wikipedia Administrator Election. Please click the button below to be sent to the secure voting server. Please note that when you vote certain information including your IP address and user agent will be collected to allow scrutineers to ensure the integrity of the vote. That information will be deleted 90 days after the election concludes and will only be visible to scrutineers and staff election advisors`

* messages: return-text - `2024 English Wikipedia Administrator Election`

* messages: unqualified-error - `Your account does not meet the requirements to vote in this election. If you believe you are receiving this message in error, please post on the [[:w:en:Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections|election talk page]].`

* questions: messages: text - `2024 English Wikipedia Administrator Election candidates`

–Novem Linguae (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017112900","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241017112900-Novem_Linguae-20241015225400","replies":[]}}-->

The original text of the AELECT proposal was During this time, no bolded !votes should be cast, it should be a clear discussion., which I read as meaning that there should not be bolded supports and opposes, but that I read as meaning that "I plan on voting for this candidate" or "I support this candidate" would be acceptable.

Looks like it keeps getting changed to During this time, no votes or expressions of support/oppose (with or without boldface) are cast. and variations of that.

How strict do we want to be about forcing folks to keep their planned votes secret? I am leaning against this personally. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:06, 16 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240916180600","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240916180600-Prohibiting_supports_and_opposes","replies":["c-Isaacl-20240916182800-Novem_Linguae-20240916180600","c-Bugghost-20241004131500-Novem_Linguae-20240916180600"]}}-->

I'm the one who changed it to that wording, so don't think it keeps getting changed to that.

True enough, as you state, the original wording is straight from the 2021 proposal (upon which the 2024 proposal was based). My personal feeling is that it doesn't matter if the expression of support was in bold or not, so I don't think it's a good idea to emphasize that. I appreciate the message was that it's not done the way it is during the traditional open-viewpoint RfA, but I see no meaningful difference between "Support" and "I support the candidate". Maybe there's another way to word this without barring people saying things like "At the moment, I'm leaning towards supporting the candidate." isaacl (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240916182800","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Isaacl-20240916182800-Novem_Linguae-20240916180600","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20240916183400-Isaacl-20240916182800"]}}-->

A previous wording said During this time, commenters must not indicate their support or opposition, which I read as being a bit on the stricter side. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240916183400","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240916183400-Isaacl-20240916182800","replies":["c-Isaacl-20240916184700-Novem_Linguae-20240916183400","c-Isaacl-20240916185300-Novem_Linguae-20240916183400","c-Tryptofish-20240916185700-Novem_Linguae-20240916183400"]}}-->

I don't know how to square the circle: I don't think it's sustainable for anyone moderating the discussion to have to draw fine distinctions between "this wording is a clear vote" and "this wording just falls short enough of a vote to be OK". I think a strict rule on expressions of support/opposition is the only way for the restriction to work. isaacl (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240916184700","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Isaacl-20240916184700-Novem_Linguae-20240916183400","replies":[]}}-->

Also, my apologies: I did not remember making that previous change in April, or else I would have opened a section for discussion. isaacl (talk) 18:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240916185300","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Isaacl-20240916185300-Novem_Linguae-20240916183400","replies":[]}}-->

First of all, as I pointed out in another section of this talk page, "it should be a clear discussion" is extremely suboptimal. Are we saying that discussion should not be unclear?

I agree with isaacl, that the whole point of a secret ballot process, being trialed to see if it's less stressful for candidates, becomes moot if we also have editors posting public votes. The discussion should be an opportunity to get questions asked and answered, and for editors to point out strengths of the candidate, as well as areas of potential concern. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 16 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240916185700","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20240916185700-Novem_Linguae-20240916183400","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20240916190000-Tryptofish-20240916185700"]}}-->

I also don't think we need to say "(with or without boldface)". --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240916190000","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20240916190000-Tryptofish-20240916185700","replies":["c-Isaacl-20240916190900-Tryptofish-20240916190000"]}}-->

I think the intent was that comments should clearly not be votes, but discussion about the candidate's characteristics, not that everyone should be expressing themselves clearly to everyone else.

I also don't think the parenthetical is necessary. I included it as an incremental step in order to preserve the idea that the discussion is not like the support/oppose/neutral sections of the open-viewpoint RfA process, but am happy with omitting it. isaacl (talk) 19:09, 16 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240916190900","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Isaacl-20240916190900-Tryptofish-20240916190000","replies":[]}}-->

My general view would be that making it obvious how you're going to vote is fine, but editors should be strongly encouraged to include some sort of point/evidence/opinion, even if it's a little vague.

Just statements of support/oppose with no further substance should maybe be given a reply to point out the purpose of the discussion phase. Striking/removing any messages would probably be counterproductive, a reminder reply would probably be fine. Examples of the kind of messages I'm referring to:

• Easy support! - Example (talk)
• I think they'd be a great admin so I'm going to support! - Example (talk)
• No chance I'm voting for them - Example (talk)
• I thought they were already an admin - support!!!! - Example (talk)
• Oppose - per ExampleUser2 - Example (talk)

Statements of support/opposition that include any form of point to discuss should be allowed - eg:

• Easy support, always been a pleasure to work with at DYK - Example (talk)
• This diff makes me find it impossible to support this candidate - Example (talk)
• Oppose - sorry, but not enough content creation for me. - Example (talk)

BugGhost🦗👻 13:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241004131500","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241004131500-Novem_Linguae-20240916180600","replies":["c-Bugghost-20241004133800-Bugghost-20241004131500"]}}-->

I've BOLDly edited some of the wording about the discussion period - feel free to revert if anyone feels I missed the mark here. BugGhost🦗👻 13:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241004133800","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241004133800-Bugghost-20241004131500","replies":[]}}-->

In WP:ADE#Period 1: discussion and questions, would it be a good idea to add this?

Personal voter guides are strongly discouraged, and will not be linked to from the RfA page.

My thinking here is that editors are accustomed to using Secure Poll for ArbCom elections, where voter guides are used, and so someone might get the idea of creating a guide for the admin elections too. But this would be contrary to the intention of keeping "support/oppose" off of the public page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240515195100","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20240515195100-Hashing_out_Details_-_Voter_guides","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20240911212700-Tryptofish-20240515195100","c-Novem_Linguae-20241008163900-Tryptofish-20240515195100","c-Espresso_Addict-20241010211400-Tryptofish-20240515195100","c-Cryptic-20241011001400-Tryptofish-20240515195100","c-Bugghost-20241011072600-Tryptofish-20240515195100","c-Fanfanboy-20241011125800-Tryptofish-20240515195100","c-Tryptofish-20241011230200-Tryptofish-20240515195100"]}}-->

Noting: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240911212700","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20240911212700-Tryptofish-20240515195100","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20240916052700-Tryptofish-20240911212700"]}}-->

I removed it for now for the reasons in my edit summary ("not mentioned in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Proposals/Admin elections. policing people's userspaces seems unenforceable"). If this gets more supporters though, feel free to add it back. I am not strongly opposed but I feel it can benefit from more discussion. On the one hand, it could reduce toxicity. On the other hand, it might be weird to have an election without a voter guide. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240916052700","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240916052700-Tryptofish-20240911212700","replies":["c-Soni-20240916060100-Novem_Linguae-20240916052700","c-Giraffer-20240916093900-Novem_Linguae-20240916052700"]}}-->

I do not have strong opinions either way.

The admin elections does specifically say "No (public) discussion" after 2 day period, so some form of time control over the guides will still be needed, but mostly as a "Do not bypass discussion period" more than anything. Perhaps only allow guides listed while the period is open?

I do find @Tryptofish's "generally discourage guides" the simplest solution though, but we don't have consensus for it. If we don't have that, mentions of guide should be policed at least. Soni (talk) 06:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240916060100","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Soni-20240916060100-Novem_Linguae-20240916052700","replies":[]}}-->

Disclosure: I was the one that added it to the page. Election guides are useful for elections where there is a need to compare candidates (i.e. elections appointing users to a number of seats on a committee), which this is not. Admin elections are basically a bunch of concurrent RfAs with voting on SecurePoll, and so I don't see a real benefit in having the voter guides -- we don't have them for regular RfAs, and I don't think that should change here.

Having voter guides would let people comment on candidates outside of the election pages with the intent of influencing voters. Given how the discussions at RFA2024 lent towards increasing moderation at RfA, this seems like a step in the wrong direction. I don't think we can ban them, but we can certainly discourage them (or ban linking to them). Giraffer (talk) 09:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240916093900","author":"Giraffer","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Giraffer-20240916093900-Novem_Linguae-20240916052700","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20240916175800-Giraffer-20240916093900"]}}-->

First, I did this: [2], because that language was really bad. Second, the reason I brought up voter guides in the first place (a long time ago), was because this is an entirely different kind of process than ArbCom elections. ACE-style voter guides would be seriously antithetical to the spirit behind this trial RfA process. As for the argument that we shouldn't police userspace, I'm usually someone who agrees that we shouldn't do that, but this seems to me to be something different, particularly if we are discouraging, rather than prohibiting it. Anyway, I now suggest: "Personal voter guides are discouraged, and will not be linked to from the RfA page." --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 16 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240916175800","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20240916175800-Giraffer-20240916093900","replies":[]}}-->

With the high quantity of candidates signing up, do we want to reconsider our official discouragement of voter guides? These may become essential for doing proper research on candidates. It may be unreasonable to expect voters to read every discussion page and/or check the background of every candidate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241008163900","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241008163900-Tryptofish-20240515195100","replies":["c-Toadspike-20241009230500-Novem_Linguae-20241008163900"]}}-->

I have considered making one myself and support allowing voter guides in general. It looks like there will be too many candidates for us to reasonably expect every voter to do a deep dive on each. Toadspike [Talk] 23:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241009230500","author":"Toadspike","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Toadspike-20241009230500-Novem_Linguae-20241008163900","replies":["c-Toadspike-20241010192900-Toadspike-20241009230500"]}}-->

@Giraffer@Tryptofish@Soni Pinging because this has become a much more important question since you last discussed it a month ago. The number of candidates is extraordinary, which pleases me greatly, but I (as a voter) would love to have a voter guide instead of having to dig through 13 nom/question pages, user pages, xtools summaries, contribs, and anything else myself. Expecting due diligence from voters without a guide will add up to hundreds of hours of volunteer time wasted, with each voter duplicating the same research efforts. Toadspike [Talk] 19:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241010192900","author":"Toadspike","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Toadspike-20241010192900-Toadspike-20241009230500","replies":["c-Giraffer-20241010195100-Toadspike-20241010192900","c-Soni-20241011031600-Toadspike-20241010192900"]}}-->

Thanks for the ping. I didn't anticipate having this many candidates, which does change things. My primary concern remains keeping the voter guides consistent with the rules on supporting/opposing candidates publicly, but I think educating voters is the more important thing here, and so I would support allowing them but banning explicit declarations of support or opposition. Giraffer (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241010195100","author":"Giraffer","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Giraffer-20241010195100-Toadspike-20241010192900","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241010203300-Giraffer-20241010195100"]}}-->

I think at a minimum we should remove our sentence discouraging voter guides, replacing it with no statement about them. I think another option would be to maintain a list of them on an AELECT subpage somewhere so people can find them, and maybe replacing that "discouraged" sentence with a sentence such as "A list of unofficial voter guides can be found here." I would support allowing them but banning explicit declarations of support or opposition. I don't recommend trying to police what is allowed in the voter guides themselves. Is it really the role of AELECT to tell people what to write or not write in their userspaces? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241010203300","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241010203300-Giraffer-20241010195100","replies":["c-Giraffer-20241010215200-Novem_Linguae-20241010203300"]}}-->

For those that we link. It just seems odd to me we would ban support/oppose comments on the discussion pages but allow them in linked user guides. It's a minor point, though. Giraffer (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241010215200","author":"Giraffer","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Giraffer-20241010215200-Novem_Linguae-20241010203300","replies":[]}}-->

I'm quite happy this is the problem we are facing now. Much better than not having any candidates at all.

I think NL's suggestion is a clean way forward. Link to an (unofficial) list of guides, remove the discouragement line. Let the community have the tools they need, without us explicitly getting in that way. Soni (talk) 03:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011031600","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Soni-20241011031600-Toadspike-20241010192900","replies":["c-Cryptic-20241011032600-Soni-20241011031600"]}}-->

If we want to change our minds and allow discussion for (looks at date) two weeks instead of the three days that passed in the RFC, there's a place for that. On the pages labelled "discussion". —Cryptic 03:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011032600","author":"Cryptic","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Cryptic-20241011032600-Soni-20241011031600","replies":["c-Soni-20241011043200-Cryptic-20241011032600"]}}-->

I do not want to have a 2 weeks discussion process. While 3 days may be too short, there is value in reducing the amount of time candidates would go through fretting and worrying about the questions. A couple months back when we were ironing things or confirming consensus, I'd have supported 1 week and opposed 2 weeks. Now I am against both, as they significantly change the candidate experience, too close to the deadline. Comparatively, voter guides can cause a lot less stress for candidates, therefore I consider them fair game for WP:CCC.

I understand that you prefer something significantly longer. But your goals are not necessarily the idea behind the process at large. It may be worth considering amendments in a future run (or another process altogether) that aligns with how you expect RFA to improve. Soni (talk) 04:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011043200","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Soni-20241011043200-Cryptic-20241011032600","replies":["c-Cryptic-20241011045800-Soni-20241011043200"]}}-->

You misunderstand me. I'm not advocating a longer discussion period (at least, not in the comment you're replying to), and certainly not two weeks of it. I'm against changing the schedule that people have already signed up for. Voter guides are discussion. If we permit them then we are, in effect, starting the discussion period right now extending it until whenever it is we stop permitting them. Voting period starts in two weeks; that's where I got that number from. —Cryptic 04:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011045800","author":"Cryptic","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Cryptic-20241011045800-Soni-20241011043200","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241011053100-Cryptic-20241011045800","c-Soni-20241011055200-Cryptic-20241011045800"]}}-->

Some background: The one week intermission to set up SecurePoll was my idea. Some of my emails to WMF T&S were taking awhile to get responses, so I wanted to make sure there was plenty of time to set it up in case there were delays. If SecurePoll is able to be set up quickly this election, we could definitely shorten or eliminate the intermission in the future (assuming the community wants to renew admin elections, we'll see how it goes). The length of the discussion phase and probably lots of other things can also be discussed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011053100","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241011053100-Cryptic-20241011045800","replies":[]}}-->

Ah, I understand now. I have no strong opinions on when voter guides should begin/end. My natural instincts say letting them be is perfectly fine (Aka, voter guides can exist) but I also understand if we choose to restrict (listed) voter guides to specific timeframes. Soni (talk) 05:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011055200","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Soni-20241011055200-Cryptic-20241011045800","replies":[]}}-->

• I really don't see how voters are meant to assess this many candidates properly. For candidates I don't know, I normally, as a minimum, look through the last 500 mainspace non-minor edits, sample at least five page creations, and look through talk-page archives for the past 18 or so months, as well as reading all the answers to questions. I'm only going to have time to do that properly for a fraction of the candidates. It would really help if trusted editors who have experience in nominating candidates were to provide their insight. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241010211400","author":"Espresso Addict","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Espresso_Addict-20241010211400-Tryptofish-20240515195100","replies":[]}}-->
• I continue to think the draconic limit on discussion time plus actively encouraging everybody to run at once is the worst idea ever, but if we must do that - and I suppose at this point we must - then the only reasonable way to making voting guides consistent with that is to forbid their presence on-wiki until the discussion period begins. At which point the people who want to make them should just, y'know, discuss the candidates on the candidate discussion pages. Like everybody else. —Cryptic 00:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011001400","author":"Cryptic","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Cryptic-20241011001400-Tryptofish-20240515195100","replies":[]}}-->
• Reading the original proposal I do not think there's grounds for discouraging voter guides or blocking linking to them. The relevant parts of the proposal are During [discussion phase], no bolded !votes should be cast, it should be a clear discussion. - I read this as just saying "this isn't the period where voting happens" - it's setting the expectation that it that discussion part of the page is not the vote itself. It's effectively just saying "don't bother writing Support or Oppose on the discussion page because it won't get tallied". The other relevant part is [while the securepoll is running,] discussion should be closed, and while candidates may be asked direct questions on their user talk pages, the intent is that they should not be required to watch their discussion page, nor the election for the full period - this again is just referring to the discussion page - it still explicitly allows further thought on the candidate in userspace (via questioning candidate on their talk page). In my view there isn't any notion in the proposal that would stop anyone writing their opinion/voting intentions in userspace before/during the election, nor does it stop anyone linking to a userpage like that from the main discussion page. BugGhost🦗👻 07:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011072600","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241011072600-Tryptofish-20240515195100","replies":["c-Bugghost-20241011084200-Bugghost-20241011072600"]}}-->

  To be more specific: I think Novem Linguae's above suggestion of maintain a list of them on an AELECT subpage somewhere so people can find them, and maybe replacing that "discouraged" sentence with a sentence such as "A list of unofficial voter guides can be found here." is the right thing to do here, seeing as we're likely to have at least 13(!!!) candidates being discussed simultaneously. BugGhost🦗👻 08:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011084200","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241011084200-Bugghost-20241011072600","replies":["c-Femke-20241012075500-Bugghost-20241011084200"]}}-->

  (never hide links behind "here" for accessibility. The wording at ACE is: "These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion.") —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241012075500","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Femke-20241012075500-Bugghost-20241011084200","replies":["c-Bugghost-20241012082500-Femke-20241012075500"],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

  I didn't know that was an accessibily concern, thanks. The "here" link was part of a quote from another's comment, and I don't think it was intended as a proposed exact wording. BugGhost🦗👻 08:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241012082500","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241012082500-Femke-20241012075500","replies":[]}}-->

• I don't think we have to worry about having to review so many candidates because to be honest, there are a few candidates who if they went with RFA instead would've been closed as NOTNOW by now (which I think is a good thing that we have some brave ones). All we really need to do is review candidates who have at least some chance of passing. fanfanboy (block) 12:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011125800","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20241011125800-Tryptofish-20240515195100","replies":[]}}-->
• I've just gotten back from a wiki-break, and I see there have been a lot of comments. A lot of what I'm reading isn't really about voter guides, and I don't think it belongs in this talk section. If some editors feel that there are more candidates than were expected, and/or feel that this makes the trial process more cumbersome than expected, that's a separate issue. For the specific issue of voter guides, I don't think that voter guides as a solution to being able to vet a lot of candidates is a sufficient reason to override the basic premise of the trial: that candidates should be able to run without having public statements of support or opposition. Remember folks, the rationale for the trial is that we might get more good candidates if candidates didn't have to go through being discussed critically in public. That should remain the decisive consideration here. If you don't like having to do the same things you might do for traditional RfAs for multiple candidates at the same time (which doesn't seem like such a big deal to me, but I realize others may differ), then that's a reason to oppose continuation of the the process after the trial. It's not a reason to encourage voter guides, and I continue to be opposed to linking to them from the RfA pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011230200","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241011230200-Tryptofish-20240515195100","replies":["c-Toadspike-20241012073200-Tryptofish-20241011230200","c-Bugghost-20241012084900-Tryptofish-20241011230200"]}}-->

  @Tryptofish and others – voter guides do not have to express support or opposition. Would you be opposed to a voter guide that summarizes xtools stats, userrights, and objective criteria like "answered questions on discussion page yes/no" in one big table for all candidates? Even that would be helpful. Toadspike [Talk] 07:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241012073200","author":"Toadspike","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Toadspike-20241012073200-Tryptofish-20241011230200","replies":["c-Isaacl-20241012214300-Toadspike-20241012073200"]}}-->

  I think an overview of candidates akin to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Guide would be uncontroversial. However I don't think it should include xtools stats directly within the guide, or something like "answered questions on discussion page", as that would make a presumption that those characteristics are important to note in an overview of the candidate, unless a community consensus agreed upon it. isaacl (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241012214300","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Isaacl-20241012214300-Toadspike-20241012073200","replies":["c-Toadspike-20241014152300-Isaacl-20241012214300"]}}-->

  Right – that doesn't go quite as far as I'd like, but it's a step in the right direction that I am happy to support. Toadspike [Talk] 15:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014152300","author":"Toadspike","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Toadspike-20241014152300-Isaacl-20241012214300","replies":[]}}-->

  re: the basic premise of the trial: that candidates should be able to run without having public statements of support or opposition - I think this is a bit of a stretch. The discussion phase will definitely have statements of implicit support/opposition. If, for instance, a discussion participant posts a big list of damning diffs from the candidate, its clearly an "oppose" at heart, whether it explicitly includes that word or not. And this wouldn't be a problem, because the purpose of the discussion phase is to discover and analyse reasons for support/opposition. The election process definitely aims to reduce contention but it makes no promises that candidates will avoid public scrutiny or to disallow voters summarising their due dilligence. BugGhost🦗👻 08:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241012084900","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241012084900-Tryptofish-20241011230200","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20241012233300-Bugghost-20241012084900"]}}-->

  I'm absolutely opposed to any sort of personal voter guide that is "officially sanctioned" by linking to it from any sort of election-related page. If someone wants to create one in their user space and let their friends know about it, there's no reason to stop them, and it would be difficult to do so. I think the idea of some sort of wink-wink guide that just has "objective" statistics would either be of little use, or would be endorsing some candidates over others without saying it out loud. I do realize, of course, that there are going to be comments in the discussion period that skirt the line of supporting or opposing. That seems to be an unavoidable flaw in the system (as it was for the two-day discussion trial that the community recently decided was not worth continuing), but the existence of one flaw is not a good reason to allow more flaws. Perhaps some editors paid no attention during the discussion that led to the consensus to conduct this trial, but it is absolutely the case that the rationale for the trial, and one of the most appealing features of it, was that it would reduce the exposure of candidates to being publicly evaluated, and it was hoped that this would make more qualified candidates feel willing to undergo the process. Anyone pretending otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. Look, I'm someone who has long been writing a voter guide of my own, for ArbCom elections. But this isn't an ArbCom election, and there aren't a fixed number of seats to be filled. Either we conduct this trial according to what was agreed to originally, or we might as well just pack it in. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241012233300","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241012233300-Bugghost-20241012084900","replies":[]}}-->

Given the timescale at which we're operating, we need to close this discussion reasonably soon and decisively. I'd really hate for us to make a decision and have to reverse it again via WP:CR or other incredibly slow bureaucracy. Knowing this, does anyone have opinions on how we process consensus?

I believe we have a consensus already in favour of Option 3. But I'd rather not attempt to INVOLVED-close it if that may get challenged. I am also okay deferring this evaluation to Novem Linguae as the current de-facto elections coordinator (of sorts). Either way, I'd like us to evaluate consensus on this and move on sooner than much closer to our discussion phase deadline.

Soni (talk) 23:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016234400","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Soni-20241016234400-Consensus?","replies":["c-Isaacl-20241016235200-Soni-20241016234400","c-Novem_Linguae-20241017005300-Soni-20241016234400"]}}-->

Technically, the bureaucrats were designated to manage the process, but I'd as soon have any uninvolved experienced evaluator of consensus determine the consensus viewpoint. isaacl (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016235200","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Isaacl-20241016235200-Soni-20241016234400","replies":[]}}-->

I tried to provide some leadership on this and cut through red tape, but was reverted. Luckily it's not a huge issue. It's just a sentence of discouragement. It just means that voter guides will need to live in userspace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017005300","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241017005300-Soni-20241016234400","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20241017230100-Novem_Linguae-20241017005300"]}}-->

No, I strongly object to editors engaging in a free-for-all because someone thinks there is consensus for Option 3 (there is no such consensus). This isn't a matter of cutting through red tape. It's a matter of not changing rules while the process is already underway. It's unfair to the candidates to change the rules this way. If someone wants to do things differently the next time, that's another matter, although I think it would make more sense to have that discussion after this trial has been completed. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017230100","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241017230100-Novem_Linguae-20241017005300","replies":["c-ProcrastinatingReader-20241019094200-Tryptofish-20241017230100"]}}-->

I have closed the discussion as someone otherwise uninvolved in this discussion (and the entire admin elections process). Insofar as I understand, voter guides were not a key part of the proposal that was approved at RFC and led to this page, so I believe the matter is appropriately subject to talk page consensus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019094200","author":"ProcrastinatingReader","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-ProcrastinatingReader-20241019094200-Tryptofish-20241017230100","replies":[]}}-->

I'm uncomfortable about discussing this kind of change – something that changes the experience of candidacy – this late in the trial process. At this point, we are quite close to having all the candidates already having publicly entered the election process, based on their understandings of what the page currently says. It seems to me to be unfair to the candidates to consider changing the rules about guides this late, almost like a bait-and-switch. There's nothing wrong with discussing changes that might be made for the next election, if there is a consensus to have one, but I think it's too late to change this feature for this election. Of course there's also nothing wrong with continuing to discuss things about making the process run smoothly, but I think the language about voter guides should be left as-is, for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241013220200","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241013220200-Making_changes_after_candidates_have_declared","replies":["c-Fanfanboy-20241014035900-Tryptofish-20241013220200","c-Novem_Linguae-20241014202100-Tryptofish-20241013220200","c-Giraffer-20241014223700-Tryptofish-20241013220200"]}}-->

I 100% agree, we are already to far into the process to make drastic changes such as this one. If there is consensus to keep this process, only then should we discuss big changes. fanfanboy (block) 03:59, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014035900","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20241014035900-Tryptofish-20241013220200","replies":["c-Bugghost-20241014155700-Fanfanboy-20241014035900"]}}-->

Seeing as the above poll seems to be an almost exact tie between the different options (I count four Option 1's, four Option 2's, five Option 3's, and three Disallows when tallying every participants first and second preferences), I'm conceding this and am personally viewing it as a no-consensus, and so I'd be fine leaving the wording as-is for this cycle to minimise surprise for candidates. I still think voter guides (or candidate overviews, however they are framed) would be useful and non-harmful for candidates in future elections, and maybe necessary if we also receive this number of candidates next time round - but I agree there's not a strong enough consensus for changing the wording this close to the election. BugGhost🦗👻 15:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014155700","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241014155700-Fanfanboy-20241014035900","replies":["c-Bugghost-20241016134900-Bugghost-20241014155700"]}}-->

There have been more opinions shared since I wrote the above, and so I'm striking it some of it - I don't want to insinuate the issue is closed when it technically isn't, and interpreting the results should probably be done by someone more experienced than me. Bug Ghost🦗👻 13:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016134900","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241016134900-Bugghost-20241014155700","replies":[],"displayName":"Bug Ghost"}}-->

I don't think changing the voter guide rules mid-election would be a big deal. The kinds of things I think it'd be a big deal to change mid-election would be the schedule (when and how long each phase is). The fact that we have so many candidates has completely changed the pros and cons of having voter guides compared to when the rule was first created. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014202100","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241014202100-Tryptofish-20241013220200","replies":["c-Soni-20241014203400-Novem_Linguae-20241014202100"]}}-->

And it's not necessarily a rules "change" anyway. Option 3 (which I personally favour) changes nothing, but a revert back to this page's status quo. The main RFC didn't add the wording around voter guides, we self-decided here. I do not feel overly attached to keep to that, just because a few more days have passed. Soni (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014203400","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Soni-20241014203400-Novem_Linguae-20241014202100","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20241014215700-Soni-20241014203400"]}}-->

First, thank you to BugHost for saying that. Second, for those editors who disagree with what I said, I'd like to point to the end of Cryptic's comment in the sub-section just above, where one can see how it might feel for some candidates. I want to avoid making anyone feel like that, and I believe that this is a significant concern. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014215700","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241014215700-Soni-20241014203400","replies":[]}}-->

This iteration of admin elections are quite clearly an experimental process, which I think makes any (minor) mid-election changes more justifiable. It would be pretty naive of candidates to enter into the first instance of a process and not expect a couple corrections to be made; there was no way we were going to get everything right the first time. Giraffer (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014223700","author":"Giraffer","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Giraffer-20241014223700-Tryptofish-20241013220200","replies":[]}}-->

Moved from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship § Notice not on watchlist

 – Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 23:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015230400","author":"Queen of Hearts","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Queen_of_Hearts-20241015230400-Notice_not_on_watchlist","replies":[]}}-->

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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015214200","author":"Johnbod","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Johnbod-20241015214200-Notice_not_on_watchlist","replies":["c-Xaosflux-20241015215400-Johnbod-20241015214200","c-Queen_of_Hearts-20241015215500-Johnbod-20241015214200","c-Femke-20241016073300-Johnbod-20241015214200","c-Novem_Linguae-20241017110000-Johnbod-20241015214200"]}}-->

@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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015215400","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241015215400-Johnbod-20241015214200","replies":[]}}-->

@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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015215500","author":"Queen of Hearts","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Queen_of_Hearts-20241015215500-Johnbod-20241015214200","replies":["c-Espresso_Addict-20241015225800-Queen_of_Hearts-20241015215500"]}}-->

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)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015225800","author":"Espresso Addict","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Espresso_Addict-20241015225800-Queen_of_Hearts-20241015215500","replies":["c-Johnbod-20241016025900-Espresso_Addict-20241015225800","c-Thryduulf-20241015232200-Espresso_Addict-20241015225800","c-Levivich-20241015233000-Espresso_Addict-20241015225800"]}}-->

Exactly! Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016025900","author":"Johnbod","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Johnbod-20241016025900-Espresso_Addict-20241015225800","replies":[]}}-->

Changing things to account for the larger than expected number of candidates has been suggested multiple times (for various reasons) and as far as I can tell the rough consensus has consistently been that the timetable, etc cannot be changed because the precise details were agreed in an RFC. If the discussion period is extended (and there are arguments both for and against doing so) then absolutely the watchlist notice should be extended similarly, but I do not support a watchlist notice during the fallow period. Thryduulf (talk) 23:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015232200","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241015232200-Espresso_Addict-20241015225800","replies":["c-Espresso_Addict-20241015232800-Thryduulf-20241015232200"]}}-->

Changing the timetable now would indeed seem impossible, but I don't see the same prohibition for changing the way it is advertised; surely that was not discussed in detail in the RfC? And by the way, I've been commenting on Talk:RfA rather than here deliberately, so as to gain a wider audience. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015232800","author":"Espresso Addict","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Espresso_Addict-20241015232800-Thryduulf-20241015232200","replies":[]}}-->

We need to let go of the notion that it's important for every voter to vet every admin candidate. Those who want to have like three weeks to do it. For everyone else, there's an "abstain" button. And for any who get through who shouldn't, there's undo, recall, and arbcom. We'll be fine. Levivich (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015233000","author":"Levivich","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Levivich-20241015233000-Espresso_Addict-20241015225800","replies":["c-Espresso_Addict-20241015233100-Levivich-20241015233000"]}}-->

I think it's far more likely there's the oppose button. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015233100","author":"Espresso Addict","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Espresso_Addict-20241015233100-Levivich-20241015233000","replies":["c-Johnbod-20241016025900-Espresso_Addict-20241015233100"]}}-->

Yes, if I don't think there has been proper scrutiny, I'm liable to Oppose them all, which would be a great pity. I'm sure I'm not the only one. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016025900","author":"Johnbod","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Johnbod-20241016025900-Espresso_Addict-20241015233100","replies":["c-SandyGeorgia-20241022152200-Johnbod-20241016025900"]}}-->

Agree with Espresso Addict, Johnbod, and El_C in later thread; with three dozen candidates at a time when IRL issues leave me not enough time to adequately scrutinize any of them, I am likely to oppose at a substantially higher rate than I normally would. Because I have been extremely busy IRL, I don't know when the watchlist notice appeared, but I'm glad it did, as I've only seen it today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:22, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022152200","author":"SandyGeorgia","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-SandyGeorgia-20241022152200-Johnbod-20241016025900","replies":[]}}-->

• Agree vetting is time-consuming and we should help voters make a fair decision. Let's add the following: "People are invited to review candidates in preparation for the WP:administrator elections discussion period, which opens October 22." —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016073300","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Femke-20241016073300-Johnbod-20241015214200","replies":["c-Bugghost-20241016100100-Femke-20241016073300","c-Xaosflux-20241016132000-Femke-20241016073300"],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

  Support this - for this to work with this quantity of candidates we need voters to review candidates before the discussion phase. BugGhost🦗👻 10:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016100100","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241016100100-Femke-20241016073300","replies":[]}}-->

  The RFC doesn't seem to specify, and tangential question 20 was opposed to less advertising - so a WLN/T:CENT doesn't seem to be a hard no. I'm not loving the idea of using banners to tell editors to 'go read all these pages, but don't even think about discussing them!'... — xaosflux ^Talk 13:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016132000","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241016132000-Femke-20241016073300","replies":["c-Femke-20241016194600-Xaosflux-20241016132000"]}}-->

  While I see your point, the closer we are to the opening of the discussion phase, the more sense it makes for people to start thinking about questions / discussion points, given that they have 4 days less discussion days than in a normal RfA. We could put this on the watchlist from the 18th to have 7 days in total of prep+discussion. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016194600","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Femke-20241016194600-Xaosflux-20241016132000","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

I do think this goes against the spirit of the original RFC. Candidates are not really supposed to be "on the clock" and heavily scrutinized for more than 3 days. I think a watchlist notice during the SecurePoll setup phase asking all of Wikipedia to scrutinize the candidates might be going against the RFC. If someone sees a consensus to add a watchlist notice for this then it is what it is, but I do not personally plan on adding one. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017110000","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241017110000-Johnbod-20241015214200","replies":["c-Femke-20241017122300-Novem_Linguae-20241017110000"]}}-->

The amount of scrutiny per candidate is likely less than foreseen due to the success of lowering the bar for nomination, so I don't think a bit of prep time goes against the spirit of how much we wanted to reduce the more over-the-top scrutiny. More importantly, I fear that many questions and discussion points now will be raised at the end of the discussion phase, which would mean that candidates have to hurry to respond if they can at all. By giving voters a heads-up, we allow for a calmer discussion phase where questions are hopefully mostly raised on day 1 and 2. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017122300","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Femke-20241017122300-Novem_Linguae-20241017110000","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

• And remove the dumbass prohibition on voter guides; whoever thought that was a good idea might as well have had a stated aim to reduce voter oversight. SerialNumber54129 13:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016132300","author":"Serial Number 54129","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Serial_Number_54129-20241016132300-Side_discussion_on_voter_guides","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241016133600-Serial_Number_54129-20241016132300","c-CFA-20241016134600-Serial_Number_54129-20241016132300","c-Xaosflux-20241016135300-Serial_Number_54129-20241016132300","c-Tryptofish-20241016211100-Serial_Number_54129-20241016132300"]}}-->

  You may want to move your comment to Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#What should the page say on voting guides? –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016133600","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241016133600-Serial_Number_54129-20241016132300","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241016140100-Novem_Linguae-20241016133600"]}}-->

  @Serial Number 54129 I strongly recommend you read that discussion, where multiple people have explained why they hold the exact opposite view to you. Thryduulf (talk) 14:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016140100","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241016140100-Novem_Linguae-20241016133600","replies":["c-Serial_Number_54129-20241016141400-Thryduulf-20241016140100"]}}-->

  And since none of those participants could possibly have foreseen an eventual 36 candidates for the relatively short period, the opinions people held then are less pertinent to a very different set of circumstances. Still, thanks for ASSUMING I hadn't read the discussion that i was actually commenting on. SerialNumber54129 14:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016141400","author":"Serial Number 54129","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Serial_Number_54129-20241016141400-Thryduulf-20241016140100","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241016142000-Serial_Number_54129-20241016141400"]}}-->

  Given that the discussion was opened when there were 14 candidates and the last comment was made after the close of nominations, your comment here is clearly incorrect. It is also not clear that you were commenting on that discussion given you left your comment in a completely different section. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016142000","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241016142000-Serial_Number_54129-20241016141400","replies":[]}}-->

  There isn't a prohibition on voter guides? C F A 💬 13:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016134600","author":"CFA","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-CFA-20241016134600-Serial_Number_54129-20241016132300","replies":[],"displayName":"C F A"}}-->

  I'm not seeing any policy prohibiting anyone from publishing their own voter guide, the current status is just that the election pages won't advertise them (along with how it actively discourages anyone from discussing how they intend to vote on the candidate discussions). 13:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC) — xaosflux ^Talk 13:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016135300","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241016135300-Serial_Number_54129-20241016132300","replies":[]}}-->

  I am apparently the dumbass who originally started the discussion about voter guides. And I did that five months ago, so I'm wondering why the dumbasses who couldn't be arsed to comment then, are suddenly getting worked up now, after the process is underway. The success of this trial at attracting a lot more candidates than anyone expected – remember, the purpose of the trial was to find ways to get more good candidates to come forward – likely reflects candidates' expectations that they would not be raked over the coals in public. And there is no prohibition on voter guides, just a prohibition on linking to them from official pages. But don't worry about what I think, because I'm just a dumbass who doesn't care about voter oversight. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016211100","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241016211100-Serial_Number_54129-20241016132300","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20241016214200-Tryptofish-20241016211100"]}}-->

  The time period from the end of nominations to the last day of voting is 17 days. With 36 candidates, any editor who wants to personally evaluate every candidate before voting ends can evaluate about 2 candidates per day, which doesn't seem so daunting to me, even without voter guides. And there are likely some candidates where one can form an accurate opinion without doing an exhaustive study. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016214200","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241016214200-Tryptofish-20241016211100","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241016220800-Tryptofish-20241016214200"]}}-->

  so I'm wondering why the dumbasses who couldn't be arsed to comment then, are suddenly getting worked up now, after the process is underway. I think it is normal for more folks to get involved as the event draws closer and affects them more directly. Also consensus can change and all that. Missing an original discussion should not disqualify someone from participating in a new discussion. Finally, a lot has changed between the original discussion and now. In my opinion, the increased # of candidates completely changed the pros and cons of having voter guides. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016220800","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241016220800-Tryptofish-20241016214200","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241016223000-Novem_Linguae-20241016220800"]}}-->

  It's made some of the pros stronger, but it has also increased some of the cons by a greater amount, and hasn't really "completely changed" anything in my opinion. If you want voter guides then get consensus for them before the next election (assuming there is one). Thryduulf (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016223000","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241016223000-Novem_Linguae-20241016220800","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20241017231400-Thryduulf-20241016223000"]}}-->

  I agree with Thryduulf. Novem Linguae, first let me say thank you for all the work you are doing on this. But that said, you misrepresent what I actually said. I'm not saying anyone's comments should be disqualified. I'm noting, first, that when I raised the issue in a timely way, I was greeted by crickets, which was unfortunate. And I'm also saying – and here, I feel very strongly! – that it is now too late to change the rules on voter guides, because all the candidates have already gotten into the election. This is about more than just the issue of some editors wanting guidance when there are so many candidates. It's about what the candidates expected when they announced, and whether it's fair to go against their good-faith expectations. Especially since the consensus in favor of conducting this trial was based on the premise that we want to find ways to get more RfA candidates, and that reducing the amount of public evaluation of the candidates was a major reason for the trial. And finally, I don't think my reasons for advocating for this sentence on the page should have been called "dumbass". --Tryptofish (talk) 23:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017231400","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241017231400-Thryduulf-20241016223000","replies":[]}}-->