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.

Could somebody uninvolved please assess the consensus in #What should the page say on voting guides?. If we're going to have voter guides, people need to have time to write and read them, and the discussion opens in three days. – Joe (talk) 08:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019082500","author":"Joe Roe (mobile)","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Joe_Roe_(mobile)-20241019082500-Time_for_a_decision_on_voter_guides","replies":["c-ProcrastinatingReader-20241019095900-Joe_Roe_(mobile)-20241019082500"],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

I have closed it. No text will appear regarding their encouragement or discouragement on this page. The effects are that editors may write voter guides in userspace. My sense is that the main election page may not link to them, but there's nothing stopping an editor from compiling a list of voter guides, or categorising them for organisation and discovery. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019095900","author":"ProcrastinatingReader","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-ProcrastinatingReader-20241019095900-Joe_Roe_(mobile)-20241019082500","replies":["c-Joe_Roe-20241019135600-ProcrastinatingReader-20241019095900"]}}-->

Thanks. It's hard to imagine how people will find guides if they're not linked from some election-related page, but I'm sure we'll figure it out. – Joe (talk) 13:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019135600","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20241019135600-ProcrastinatingReader-20241019095900","replies":["c-Sohom_Datta-20241019144000-Joe_Roe-20241019135600","c-Thryduulf-20241019145300-Joe_Roe-20241019135600"],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

For what it's worth, I believe there is already a quarry query floating around that lists all currently available voter guides. (Not going to explicitly link to the query since I'm unsure if this page is considered part of the "main" election pages?) Sohom (talk) 14:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019144000","author":"Sohom Datta","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Sohom_Datta-20241019144000-Joe_Roe-20241019135600","replies":[],"displayName":"Sohom"}}-->

Voter guides should not be easy to find (I still maintain they shouldn't be allowed at all, but I accept that consensus isn't with me on that point) and wikilawyering around the consensus not to advertise them should not be attempted. Thryduulf (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019145300","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241019145300-Joe_Roe-20241019135600","replies":["c-Joe_Roe-20241019152200-Thryduulf-20241019145300"]}}-->

The consensus is that they're "not explicitly encouraged or discouraged". I'd say deliberately making them hard to find would fall on the "discouraged" side of things. – Joe (talk) 15:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019152200","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20241019152200-Thryduulf-20241019145300","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241019154600-Joe_Roe-20241019152200","c-Hey_man_im_josh-20241019212900-Joe_Roe-20241019152200"],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

Deliberately making them easy to find would fall on the "encouraged" side of things. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019154600","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241019154600-Joe_Roe-20241019152200","replies":["c-Joe_Roe-20241019154700-Thryduulf-20241019154600","c-Femke-20241019154900-Thryduulf-20241019154600"]}}-->

I guess they'll have to be just a bit findable, then. Hooray compromise. – Joe (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019154700","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20241019154700-Thryduulf-20241019154600","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241019155100-Joe_Roe-20241019154700"],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

That looks and awful lot like advertising their existence to me. Thryduulf (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019155100","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241019155100-Joe_Roe-20241019154700","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241019155600-Thryduulf-20241019155100"]}}-->

Accordingly, I've nominated the category for deletion as a violation of consensus. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 19#Category:Wikipedia administrator elections 2024 voter guides. Thryduulf (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019155600","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241019155600-Thryduulf-20241019155100","replies":[]}}-->

I think the current way to find them (via categories) works. Still not easy to find, but one also doesn't need to know how to find some quarry query. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019154900","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Femke-20241019154900-Thryduulf-20241019154600","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

I feel this way as well. Making them harder to find does fall under "discouraged". Hey man im josh (talk) 21:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019212900","author":"Hey man im josh","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Hey_man_im_josh-20241019212900-Joe_Roe-20241019152200","replies":[]}}-->

This (and this) kind of guide is very useful, and I think given the scale of nominations, some kind of statistical analysis is helpful as very few will have the time to go through all of them. Also highlights the mistake that many prospective candidates are making in not seeking — or accepting the unsolicited offers of — support / co-noms from admins. That is where most people will start their focus on imho. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019184300","author":"Aszx5000","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Aszx5000-20241019184300-Time_for_a_decision_on_voter_guides","replies":[]}}-->

@Hey man im josh: About this: [1], please see [2]: but any voter guides will not be linked to from this page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019211600","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241019211600-Time_for_a_decision_on_voter_guides","replies":["c-Hey_man_im_josh-20241019212700-Tryptofish-20241019211600","c-Tryptofish-20241020004900-Tryptofish-20241019211600"]}}-->

@Tryptofish: Your change implies no one can link a voter guide during a discussion on a candidate page. If voter guides are simply not to be linked from the admin elections page itself then your edit seems like it's not an improvement, as it implies something more. Just don't link to them from THAT page and leave the wording out. I get you don't like voter guides, but no need to include the wording. We should just revert anybody who links to the guides from Wikipedia:Administrator elections with a link to the close. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019212700","author":"Hey man im josh","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Hey_man_im_josh-20241019212700-Tryptofish-20241019211600","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241019213900-Hey_man_im_josh-20241019212700","c-Tryptofish-20241019214300-Hey_man_im_josh-20241019212700"]}}-->

Your change implies no one can link a voter guide during a discussion on a candidate page. That's correct, user:ProcrastinatingReader's close explicitly says any voter guides will not be linked to from this page, where the main elections page is the page under discussion. Linking them from other election pages would be violating the spirit of that close as well. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019213900","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241019213900-Hey_man_im_josh-20241019212700","replies":["c-Hey_man_im_josh-20241019215100-Thryduulf-20241019213900"]}}-->

"This page", to me, implies it should only not be linked from WP:Administrator elections. I don't read the close that way personally, and I see that as falling under them being discouraged instead of neither encouraged or discouraged. I don't see why a voter can't say "I read XYZ at josh's fake guide, would you care to address that concern?", would be inappropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019215100","author":"Hey man im josh","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Hey_man_im_josh-20241019215100-Thryduulf-20241019213900","replies":[]}}-->

(edit conflict) Well, on the one hand, the closing statement says: no wording to appear regarding voter guides, which certainly supports your case. On the other hand, it also says: but any voter guides will not be linked to from this page. It strikes me as strange to say that the latter should be enforced by linking to that closing statement, but not by linking to what the page actually says. Admittedly, the closing statement somewhat contradicts itself in that regard. I guess we have a "consensus" that voter guides cannot be linked to, as well as a "consensus" that we cannot say that voter guides cannot be linked to.

But I'm willing to work with a different wording than the wording I used, if you want it made clear that there will be no linking from Wikipedia:Administrator elections, instead of from election pages in general. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019214300","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241019214300-Hey_man_im_josh-20241019212700","replies":["c-Hey_man_im_josh-20241019215400-Tryptofish-20241019214300","c-Novem_Linguae-20241019215600-Tryptofish-20241019214300","c-CFA-20241019220300-Tryptofish-20241019214300"]}}-->

I guess I just don't see it as necessary to mention at all. Any mention complicates things until we get clarification on whether subpages can mention them at all. A candidate should be allowed to address something in a voter guide if a legitimate concern is brought up and someone wants to link the relevant point in a discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019215400","author":"Hey man im josh","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Hey_man_im_josh-20241019215400-Tryptofish-20241019214300","replies":["c-Soni-20241019215800-Hey_man_im_josh-20241019215400"]}}-->

ProcastinatingReader was the one who removed the original line, I saw no reason to inserting another wording without at least asking them first. It's the exact kind of due diligence Tryptofish was asking from us earlier when editors tried to remove any lines pre-closure. Soni (talk) 21:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019215800","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Soni-20241019215800-Hey_man_im_josh-20241019215400","replies":[]}}-->

Let's just have ProcrastinatingReader clarify the close when they get online: User talk:ProcrastinatingReader#RFC close clarification request. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019215600","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241019215600-Tryptofish-20241019214300","replies":[]}}-->

The close says Rough consensus for option 3 and Option 3 is No wording should appear regarding voter guides. If the close is more complicated than just "consensus for a specific option", then it should say that. Otherwise, no wording should appear per Option 3. C F A 💬 22:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019220300","author":"CFA","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-CFA-20241019220300-Tryptofish-20241019214300","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20241019220600-CFA-20241019220300"],"displayName":"C F A"}}-->

The close, in its entirety, says what it says. I agree with Novem Linguae: Let's wait and see what the closer says it should be understood to mean. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019220600","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241019220600-CFA-20241019220300","replies":[]}}-->

Response at User talk:ProcrastinatingReader#RFC close clarification request. Myself, I'm taking this as a clear indication that Josh was correct to revert me, and I'm happy to leave it at that. People can talk about guides on places like candidate pages, but links to guides from this page are to be reverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241020004900","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241020004900-Tryptofish-20241019211600","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241020012400-Tryptofish-20241020004900"]}}-->

this page. WP:AELECT not WT:AELECT, correct? –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241020012400","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241020012400-Tryptofish-20241020004900","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241020013000-Novem_Linguae-20241020012400","c-Isaacl-20241020013300-Novem_Linguae-20241020012400","c-Tryptofish-20241020013900-Novem_Linguae-20241020012400"]}}-->

I think that's the only logical interpretation. Thryduulf (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241020013000","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241020013000-Novem_Linguae-20241020012400","replies":[]}}-->

Yes; to quote: ... "this page" was supposed to mean Wikipedia:Administrator elections. isaacl (talk) 01:33, 20 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241020013300","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Isaacl-20241020013300-Novem_Linguae-20241020012400","replies":[]}}-->

Oh, yeah, when I said "this page", I meant it as opposed to this talk page. :) --Tryptofish (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241020013900","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241020013900-Novem_Linguae-20241020012400","replies":[]}}-->

If anyone knows why talk page archiving on this page is broken, feel free to fix it. In the meantime, I just one click archived a bunch of stuff, in preparation for the influx of topics we're likely to get during the discussion phase in 5 hours. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:06, 21 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241021190600","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241021190600-Talk_page_archiving","replies":["c-DreamRimmer-20241022075400-Novem_Linguae-20241021190600"]}}-->

Fixed. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022075400","author":"DreamRimmer","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-DreamRimmer-20241022075400-Novem_Linguae-20241021190600","replies":[]}}-->

1) Once the discussion phase opens in 3 hours 40 minutes, we should remove the two {{Notice}}s I placed on each candidate page.

The X section will not open until 22 October at 00:00 UTC. Please do not post comments yet!

This is an important timing to get right, so anyone that is around at this time should feel free to do it. This might be a good job for AutoWikiBrowser since many pages are involved.

2) Thinking long term, bonus points if someone wants to modify Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidate subpage template to wrap these notices in some kind of "display until" template, so in the possible next election things are more efficient. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241021202100","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241021202100-Removing_notice_templates_from_candidate_pages","replies":["c-DreamRimmer-20241022075500-Novem_Linguae-20241021202100"]}}-->

Done by HouseBlaster. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022075500","author":"DreamRimmer","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-DreamRimmer-20241022075500-Novem_Linguae-20241021202100","replies":[]}}-->

At Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase, when I visited earlier today, the sections/headers had edit links next to them. Just now when I visited it, these were gone. Did someone add a __NOEDITSECTION__ to one of the pages that's being transcluded? If so let's find it and delete it so we get our edit section links back :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:55, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022055500","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241022055500-Edit_section_links_have_disappeared_from_the_discussion_page","replies":["c-Bugghost-20241022063600-Novem_Linguae-20241022055500","c-DreamRimmer-20241022063700-Novem_Linguae-20241022055500"]}}-->

I'm not sure if this has been fixed by someone just now, but the edit section links are appearing for me now (they weren't a few minutes ago) BugGhost🦗👻 06:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022063600","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241022063600-Novem_Linguae-20241022055500","replies":[]}}-->

Fixed Special:Diff/1252625597. – DreamRimmer (talk) 06:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022063700","author":"DreamRimmer","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-DreamRimmer-20241022063700-Novem_Linguae-20241022055500","replies":[]}}-->

Should the table of candidates on the page Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates be shuffled? It would maximize fairness and reduce bias, wouldn't it? —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241008104100","author":"Andrybak","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Andrybak-20241008104100-Should_candidates_be_shuffled?","replies":["c-Espresso_Addict-20241008115000-Andrybak-20241008104100","c-Legoktm-20241010000700-Andrybak-20241008104100","c-WereSpielChequers-20241016124000-Andrybak-20241008104100","c-Toadspike-20241019211500-Andrybak-20241008104100"]}}-->

If the intent is to mirror RfAs, then no, as they are presented in order of nomination. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241008115000","author":"Espresso Addict","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Espresso_Addict-20241008115000-Andrybak-20241008104100","replies":[]}}-->

Unlike other elections, the candidates aren't running against each other, they're being evaluated individually. I don't think shuffling is necessary. Legoktm (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241010000700","author":"Legoktm","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Legoktm-20241010000700-Andrybak-20241008104100","replies":["c-MSGJ-20241011082400-Legoktm-20241010000700"]}}-->

I think it is likely that the candidates listed towards the top of the list will receive more attention than those lower down, just because most people will start reviewing from the top and some may not have enough time to complete the process — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011082400","author":"MSGJ","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-MSGJ-20241011082400-Legoktm-20241010000700","replies":["c-Soni-20241011124700-MSGJ-20241011082400"]}}-->

Frankly, shuffling candidates without the ability to sort them was annoying when it happened during U4C and BoT elections. I had notes on how I'd want to vote for each of them, and had to Ctrl-F 30+ names to vote properly.

If we end up having shuffled names via SecurePoll, I will request WMF T&S folks to make it so at least people will be able to also sort them alphabetically/by nom order Soni (talk) 12:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011124700","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Soni-20241011124700-MSGJ-20241011082400","replies":["c-Xaosflux-20241013170400-Soni-20241011124700"]}}-->

@Soni that feature isn't available so asking election admins to enable it is useless. See screenshot of what the poll looks like. You could file a feature request here to ask software developers to build that. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:04, 13 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241013170400","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241013170400-Soni-20241011124700","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241013175700-Xaosflux-20241013170400","c-Soni-20241014053100-Xaosflux-20241013170400"]}}-->

I plan to ask for an alphabetical listing of candidates and no shuffling, unless folks object. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241013175700","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241013175700-Xaosflux-20241013170400","replies":["c-Theleekycauldron-20241014180600-Novem_Linguae-20241013175700","c-ULPS-20241014232900-Novem_Linguae-20241013175700"]}}-->

I think it should be shuffled, not alphabetical. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014180600","author":"Theleekycauldron","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Theleekycauldron-20241014180600-Novem_Linguae-20241013175700","replies":["c-Isaacl-20241014184500-Theleekycauldron-20241014180600"]}}-->

Though I appreciate the concern about matching one's personal notes with the ballot, I agree with randomizing the order of the candidates on the SecurePoll ballot.

I don't really know what to do with the candidate page. With so many candidates, I think there is a risk that the candidates will get an uneven amount of consideration, but there's no readily available mechanism to address that in a satisfactory way. The easiest way to continually shuffle the candidates would be to do something similar as for the arbitration election page: implement the shuffle-on-purge approach, and then purge the page regularly, but that's likely to be annoying, assuming that most voters won't be visiting the page once, keeping that page in their browser without ever reloading it (or the browser restarting). Now that gadgets can be loaded on a per-page basis, it is possible for someone to implement the ability to shuffle the order once for a given user (using the same browser with Javascript enabled) without affecting the page load time for all pages, but it's highly doubtful anyone will do so and that approval of the gadget will attain consensus support in time for the election. isaacl (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014184500","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Isaacl-20241014184500-Theleekycauldron-20241014180600","replies":[]}}-->

I support shuffling, as it fixes the (valid) concern that only the top few candidates will be reviewed. There are quite a few people up for election, you can't expect every single voter to evaluate every single one. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:29, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014232900","author":"ULPS","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-ULPS-20241014232900-Novem_Linguae-20241013175700","replies":[]}}-->

@Xaosflux What I was saying was "In U4C elections, having many candidates on always-shuffled order was a pain". So I'd like either "Candidates are presented in some set order" (I don't mind any, personally) or "Candidates are shown shuffled, but you can re-sort them to alphabetical". I don't know if the latter is available, but surely the former is. Soni (talk) 05:31, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014053100","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Soni-20241014053100-Xaosflux-20241013170400","replies":["c-Queen_of_Hearts-20241014075800-Soni-20241014053100","c-Xaosflux-20241014094000-Soni-20241014053100"]}}-->

The latter is not. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 07:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014075800","author":"Queen of Hearts","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Queen_of_Hearts-20241014075800-Soni-20241014053100","replies":[]}}-->

Currently they can be in the order programmed in securepoll, or shuffled. There is no sorter regardless. Creating a sorter would require software feature request to make that functionality in the securepoll tool (which will certainly not be delivered in time for this election even if you were to submit it today). — xaosflux ^Talk 09:40, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014094000","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241014094000-Soni-20241014053100","replies":["c-HJ_Mitchell-20241014222700-Xaosflux-20241014094000"]}}-->

I support shuffling. It makes voters think a bit harder, but it avoids anyone getting an unfair (dis)advantage because their username starts higher or lower through the alphabet or because they were quicker or slower in getting their nomination statement up. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014222700","author":"HJ Mitchell","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-HJ_Mitchell-20241014222700-Xaosflux-20241014094000","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241015030800-HJ_Mitchell-20241014222700"],"displayName":"HJ\u00a0Mitchell"}}-->

I think I see enough support for shuffling to go ahead and turn that on instead of fixed order. Will be sure to ask for shuffling in the Phab ticket. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241015030800","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241015030800-HJ_Mitchell-20241014222700","replies":[]}}-->

If we were talking about a one off then I have no objection. But if they are in a different sequence each time I look at the list, then how am I supposed to keep track of which ones I have scrutinised? And if the ballot paper shows a different sequence to the list I looked at when I was scrutinising them than we have a problem -especially if I can only go to secure poll once for the whole batch rather than vote on each one when I've assessed them. ϢereSpielChequers 12:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016124000","author":"WereSpielChequers","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-WereSpielChequers-20241016124000-Andrybak-20241008104100","replies":["c-MSGJ-20241016135800-WereSpielChequers-20241016124000"],"displayName":"\u03e2ere"}}-->

No I think you can keep returning to SecurePoll to update your vote. So once you have scrutinised, then place your vote for that candidate, and you'll be able to see that you've already reviewed that one — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016135800","author":"MSGJ","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-MSGJ-20241016135800-WereSpielChequers-20241016124000","replies":["c-Xaosflux-20241016205000-MSGJ-20241016135800"]}}-->

Yes, this poll will allow you to cast a replacement ballot. You will not be able to see your prior ballot response, just cast a new one that will invalidate your last one. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016205000","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241016205000-MSGJ-20241016135800","replies":[]}}-->

I agree with others that having a constantly-changing list order is a huge pain. It was a pain with U4C and Board elections, and it will be even more of a pain here. I’m okay with randomizing the order once, but I would really appreciate if the order were then fixed, and most importantly that the nominations page and the ballot have the same order. Since relative performance of candidates doesn’t matter, it shouldn’t be a huge deal. Toadspike [Talk] 21:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019211500","author":"Toadspike","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Toadspike-20241019211500-Andrybak-20241008104100","replies":[]}}-->

Adding on to the trend of building the plane mid-flight, should there be something similar to RFA monitors during the discussion phase to keep things civil and to also make sure no support/oppose is expressed? fanfanboy (block) 16:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241008163400","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20241008163400-AELECT_monitors?","replies":["c-Femke-20241008174300-Fanfanboy-20241008163400","c-Novem_Linguae-20241022051400-Fanfanboy-20241008163400"]}}-->

That would be a good idea, yes! We can ask for volunteers next week, as some people might consider becoming a nominator this week. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241008174300","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Femke-20241008174300-Fanfanboy-20241008163400","replies":["c-Theleekycauldron-20241014180600-Femke-20241008174300"],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

Pretty sure I'm not nominating anyone, so I'll be standing by to monitor :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:06, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014180600","author":"Theleekycauldron","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Theleekycauldron-20241014180600-Femke-20241008174300","replies":["c-Pickersgill-Cunliffe-20241014182700-Theleekycauldron-20241014180600"]}}-->

Also happy to put myself foward. Worth questioning whether the "may not !vote in the RfA" rule still stands? Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241014182700","author":"Pickersgill-Cunliffe","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Pickersgill-Cunliffe-20241014182700-Theleekycauldron-20241014180600","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241021190400-Pickersgill-Cunliffe-20241014182700"]}}-->

Thanks. Added to WP:AELECT in this diff. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241021190400","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241021190400-Pickersgill-Cunliffe-20241014182700","replies":[]}}-->

@Theleekycauldron, in regard to your edit summary other monitors would be helpful please and thanks!, don't forget that @Pickersgill-Cunliffe has also signed up to be a monitor. Both of you are listed on the main WP:AELECT page right now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022051400","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241022051400-Fanfanboy-20241008163400","replies":[]}}-->

Given the large number of candidates and the timescales, would it be helpful if there was encouragement for existing admins to co-nom / endorse candidates before voting starts? I think some already have such endorsements but a lot don't. Is that because the admin-corps don't rate them, or is it for other reason (i.e. they stayed away from the process)?

If a decent number of admins lent their name to endorse a candidate, it would be very helpful to people like me and encourage me to put the time into supporting. Obviously, if they don't rate a candidate, then nothing is added, which is important as I think the avoidance of negative comments has probably been a big draw for attracting candidates. Aszx5000 (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016222300","author":"Aszx5000","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Aszx5000-20241016222300-Admin_co-nominations_\/_endorsements","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241016223600-Aszx5000-20241016222300","c-Novem_Linguae-20241016223800-Aszx5000-20241016222300","c-Hey_man_im_josh-20241016231200-Aszx5000-20241016222300","c-WereSpielChequers-20241017093500-Aszx5000-20241016222300"]}}-->

Admins are not special, and I see no justification why we should be allowed an exemption from the general discouragement to express support or opposition and prohibition on indicating personal voting intentions. You should form your own opinions on the candidates, not rely on what others think. Thryduulf (talk) 22:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016223600","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241016223600-Aszx5000-20241016222300","replies":["c-Asilvering-20241017011100-Thryduulf-20241016223600"]}}-->

I assume @Aszx5000 meant endorse via a nomination (ie, the usual way), not by some other means of endorsement. I'm not sure why more candidates didn't opt to have nominators, but it is what it is. -- asilvering (talk) 01:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017011100","author":"Asilvering","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Asilvering-20241017011100-Thryduulf-20241016223600","replies":["c-Aszx5000-20241017084100-Asilvering-20241017011100"]}}-->

Yes asilvering, only the normal endorsement / co-nomination, and certainly no negative comments / opposition comments. Aszx5000 (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017084100","author":"Aszx5000","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Aszx5000-20241017084100-Asilvering-20241017011100","replies":[]}}-->

Per the norms at WP:RFA, it is up to each candidate to ask people to be nominators. The process itself shouldn't seek to connect nominators with candidates, in my opinion. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016223800","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241016223800-Aszx5000-20241016222300","replies":["c-Aszx5000-20241017084500-Novem_Linguae-20241016223800"]}}-->

But maybe the reason that this RFA process has been so successful is that WP editors are - on balance - shy and reserved. Hence why some spontaneous endorsements from admins could be helpful (say to a max of 3 so it doesn't become proxy voting). This process runs the opposite risk of RFA, too many candidates and too little voter participation? Aszx5000 (talk) 08:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017084500","author":"Aszx5000","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Aszx5000-20241017084500-Novem_Linguae-20241016223800","replies":[]}}-->

As much as I'd have loved to be the nominator for several of these candidates (and did offer to be over the past year), I completely agree with Thryduulf. We're just editors with tools, we're not special. You don't even have to be an admin to be a nominator. I'm sure some of us are also terrible judges of character and I'm confident certain admins endorsing/nominating people would do more harm than good. If they wanted any of us to be their nominators, I like to think they would have asked. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016231200","author":"Hey man im josh","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Hey_man_im_josh-20241016231200-Aszx5000-20241016222300","replies":["c-Aszx5000-20241017085600-Hey_man_im_josh-20241016231200"]}}-->

I would be disappointed if a candidate that you endorsed didn't make it, and if I saw your co-nom, I would put the effort into supporting that candidate. Per my comments above, typical editors are probably shy and reserved - hence the huge success of this format - but, we now have the opposite problem of RFAs with too many candidates and potentially lower voter participation? I would limit the co-noms / endorsements to 3, but it would be an "own goal" if candidates that admins were happy with failed? Aszx5000 (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017085600","author":"Aszx5000","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Aszx5000-20241017085600-Hey_man_im_josh-20241016231200","replies":["c-Femke-20241017091300-Aszx5000-20241017085600"]}}-->

I think the ball should be in the court of the candidates. I want to emphasize to the candidates it's fine this week to refine statements, and ask for a co-nom from an experienced editor (or say yes to an offer you've previously had). I'd be happy to be contacted! I love the solution of Ahecht, with a single co-nom statement from somebody else, rather than having two nominators. Feels like it meets the spirit of the admin elections to make it into less of a big deal, but still gives confidence to voters that they've been thoroughly vetted. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 09:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017091300","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Femke-20241017091300-Aszx5000-20241017085600","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

Because admins can view deleted edits, an admin can check a candidates deleted edits, and if what they see is OK, give reassurances to the community. An admin checking something we all have access to has no more status than other member of the community. But an admin checking something that only admins have access to can help the community vetting process. For example in the past I've seen a candidate fail because their talkpages showed had a number of non notable articles deleted in the year or so before their RFA. However as someone who can view deleted I could see that they hadn't edited those articles for many many years, which put a completely different perspective on things. More commonly an admin looking at deleted edits can check that a bunch of deletion tagging was accurate and whether it was over hasty or lost anything with potential. We are in the first run of a new process. I would hope that any current candidate who received an email from an admin offering to add a nomination or co nomination statement would be happy to receive that email and would probably accept the endorsement. ϢereSpielChequers 09:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017093500","author":"WereSpielChequers","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-WereSpielChequers-20241017093500-Aszx5000-20241016222300","replies":[],"displayName":"\u03e2ere"}}-->

Alright, there was some desire in an above talk page section to keep sending MMSs for each phase, so let's go ahead and do that. Can you all help by proofreading the following? Thanks.

• Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/MMS/Candidate instructions - will go out very soon
• Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/MMS/Discussion phase
• Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/MMS/Voting phase

–Novem Linguae (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017104300","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241017104300-MMS_messages","replies":["c-CFA-20241017153600-Novem_Linguae-20241017104300"]}}-->

Is it possible to send out a mass message to all eligible voters (not just those subscribed to the list), or does that require a broader consensus? C F A 💬 15:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017153600","author":"CFA","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-CFA-20241017153600-Novem_Linguae-20241017104300","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241017212900-CFA-20241017153600"],"displayName":"C F A"}}-->

Mass messaging tens of thousands of editors would probably need a big discussion. I've added this to my notes to possibly discuss in the debrief, but it may be too late to do it for this election. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017212900","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241017212900-CFA-20241017153600","replies":[]}}-->

Without indicating how I will end up voting, I just want to say that I am very impressed at how many editors have stepped forward and that many or most of them have positive connotations in my mind. If this new method for selecting/electing administrators ends up adding a significant number of new administrators, I for one will be very pleased. Cullen328 (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011040300","author":"Cullen328","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cullen328-20241011040300-So_many_candidates","replies":["c-MSGJ-20241011083000-Cullen328-20241011040300","c-Worm_That_Turned-20241011133500-Cullen328-20241011040300","c-Bugghost-20241011145900-Cullen328-20241011040300"]}}-->

Yes it is very pleasing to see. I am a little worried about how much time it will take to give each candidate proper scrutiny, but I guess this is a good problem to have?! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:30, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011083000","author":"MSGJ","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-MSGJ-20241011083000-Cullen328-20241011040300","replies":["c-Fanfanboy-20241011133500-MSGJ-20241011083000"]}}-->

I think this lack of "proper scrutiny" might be beneficial as it may prevent opposes over minor details which we see happen often at RfA, though there are a few potential problems. It might allow for admins who aren't ready for the tools get accepted, though a remedy could be the proposed administrator recall that is currently under discussion. Another problem could be that voters will only do a surface level look through (xtools, edit count, candidate page, etc) and judge solely based on that, which might lead to more opposes than there really should be. I think the latter is unlikely though. fanfanboy (block) 13:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011133500","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20241011133500-MSGJ-20241011083000","replies":["c-Parabolist-20241013003200-Fanfanboy-20241011133500"]}}-->

Yeah, I would say that one of the metrics for success here isn't necessarily how many successes we get, but if those successes prove to be good admins. One of the concerns with a process like this is that we get another Lourdes situation. (Not that the traditional RFA process stopped that either, but just an uncontroversial example of a 'bad' admin.) Parabolist (talk) 00:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241013003200","author":"Parabolist","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Parabolist-20241013003200-Fanfanboy-20241011133500","replies":[]}}-->

Just to add some additional context, there have been 14 RfAs so far in 2024. There are currently 13 candidates for the elections, with an additional 2 who have sub pages and have not been added - and we're only half way through the sign up period. I believe this vindicates the position that man of us who have worked in RfA have - Candidates do not want to go through the RfA process, even if they are encouraged by those who believe they would make a good admin.

I expect there will be teething issues, I expect there will be disappointed candidates - I am hopeful that the whole process will be more pleasant for everyone, and that it will encourage additional runs in the future. Worm^TT(talk) 13:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011133500","author":"Worm That Turned","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Worm_That_Turned-20241011133500-Cullen328-20241011040300","replies":[],"displayName":"Worm"}}-->

Really impressive amount of people signing up - I few days ago I worried that there might not be any candidates! Big props to @Novem Linguae for getting this ball rolling from the offset and doing a lot of coordination - I know the process isn't over yet but it's looking very promising and we should get a few good new admins out of it. BugGhost🦗👻 14:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011145900","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241011145900-Cullen328-20241011040300","replies":["c-RoySmith-20241011163500-Bugghost-20241011145900"]}}-->

On the "good problems to have" front, has anybody checked with the SecurePoll folks to see if there's an upper bound on how many candidates the system can handle? I don't think there is, but if there is it would be better to find out sooner rather than later. RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011163500","author":"RoySmith","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-RoySmith-20241011163500-Bugghost-20241011145900","replies":["c-Ajraddatz-20241011164400-RoySmith-20241011163500"]}}-->

I don't believe there is, but just noting that we are still far far away from the number of candidates in some past securepoll elections - the first U4C election, for example, had 37 candidates on the ballot. Unless we are approaching 50 or more, we probably don't have anything to worry about. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 16:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241011164400","author":"Ajraddatz","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Ajraddatz-20241011164400-RoySmith-20241011163500","replies":[]}}-->

@Novem Linguae: Many thanks for the effort to move this forward. Whatever the ultimate outcome, I am very pleased to see a good number of candidates and that some OG Wikipedians from as far back as 2006 have been moved to throw their hat into the ring. It all bodes well. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 21:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241013214200","author":"Glane23","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Glane23-20241013214200-So_many_candidates","replies":[],"displayName":"Geoff"}}-->

Regarding this edit (and the subsequent modification): I guess it's OK for Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates to be transcluded elsewhere, but it feels like one more thing to remember to keep working. Perhaps another approach can be followed, such as section transclusion? isaacl (talk) 03:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016034700","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Isaacl-20241016034700-Transclusions","replies":["c-Sohom_Datta-20241016103900-Isaacl-20241016034700"]}}-->

I think the idea behind the edit was to have a {{RFX_report}} style transcluded report that folks could add to their user-page/user-subpages. (see #User:Cyberpower678/RfX_Report above). My initial edit was a minimal effort way of making it work, we could definitely go for making it a seperate template and use section transclusion if it is easier to maintain. Sohom (talk) 10:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016103900","author":"Sohom Datta","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Sohom_Datta-20241016103900-Isaacl-20241016034700","replies":["c-Isaacl-20241016152100-Sohom_Datta-20241016103900"],"displayName":"Sohom"}}-->

Since you made the initial edit, I assume you know the idea behind it ;-). From a user's perspective, though, I think enhancing {{RFX report}} to pick up the election-based requests would serve users better. However to avoid overwhelming specific pages such as the RfA page, it would probably need to be modified to have a collapsible portion, and an option added to control the visibility of entries above a certain number. isaacl (talk) 15:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241016152100","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Isaacl-20241016152100-Sohom_Datta-20241016103900","replies":[]}}-->

I just noticed that Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024 just redirects to Wikipedia:Administrator elections. This works fine for now but after the election it will be repurposed and we'll need another page maintain a record of this specific election – listing the candidates, results, etc. Are there any objections if I go ahead and create this now at e.g. Wikipedia:Administrator elections October 2024? That's the pattern used for WP:ACE, each election has its own page. – Joe (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019162600","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20241019162600-Index_page_for_each_election","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241019165100-Joe_Roe-20241019162600","c-Novem_Linguae-20241019200700-Joe_Roe-20241019162600"],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

I don't object to that, but it is not guaranteed at present that there will be future elections so it's potentially completely pointless. Thryduulf (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019165100","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241019165100-Joe_Roe-20241019162600","replies":["c-Joe_Roe-20241019173900-Thryduulf-20241019165100"]}}-->

I imagine if this is the only one, we'll want to turn Wikipedia:Administrator election into something like "Administrator elections were a...", so it'd still be useful. – Joe (talk) 17:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019173900","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20241019173900-Thryduulf-20241019165100","replies":[],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

I'd like to keep everything on this page for now for watcher count and centralization reasons, and in future elections I'd like to start using that election's talk subpage. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019200700","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241019200700-Joe_Roe-20241019162600","replies":["c-Joe_Roe_(mobile)-20241020074400-Novem_Linguae-20241019200700"]}}-->

I don't plan to change anything on this page or move the talk page. – Joe (talk) 07:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241020074400","author":"Joe Roe (mobile)","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Joe_Roe_(mobile)-20241020074400-Novem_Linguae-20241019200700","replies":[],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

...Well, was hoping this was an improvement, but not when all of the nominations are transcluded on the same page at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase. Not trying to exceed my monthly bandwidth. Thanks, but no thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022051400","author":"Steel1943","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Steel1943-20241022051400-This_page_is_too_big_and_I_can't_navigate","replies":["c-Asilvering-20241022055300-Steel1943-20241022051400"]}}-->

@Steel1943, you can get to each one individually from the links at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates. -- asilvering (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022055300","author":"Asilvering","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Asilvering-20241022055300-Steel1943-20241022051400","replies":[]}}-->

I can envision a scenario where a candidate has a brutal discussion phase and decides to withdraw either during the discussion phase or during the election itself. However the SecurePoll software may not allow this or it may become impractical to take someone's name off the ballot after a certain point. We should think about how we want to handle this. This also extends to how widely we publish the SecurePoll results of a candidate that has withdrawn. Say a withdrawn candidate was forced to stay on the ballot and gets 5% support, 80% oppose, 15% neutral. Do we still want to publish this far and wide, or do we want to keep this off of the results page? –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240930203700","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240930203700-Dropping_out","replies":["c-Asilvering-20240930204200-Novem_Linguae-20240930203700","c-Fanfanboy-20240930223400-Novem_Linguae-20240930203700","c-Bugghost-20241004123700-Novem_Linguae-20240930203700","c-Joe_Roe-20241004124500-Novem_Linguae-20240930203700"]}}-->

If someone withdraws, I don't think we should be publishing the results. We don't force RFA candidates to keep the vote open for a full week either. -- asilvering (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240930204200","author":"Asilvering","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Asilvering-20240930204200-Novem_Linguae-20240930203700","replies":[]}}-->

I say only publish the results of candidates who haven't withdrawn, no matter how it goes. For those that have withdrawn however, don't publish it. A question I would like to ask though is whether it would be okay to show the withdrawn candidate their results if they request it. fanfanboy (block) 22:34, 30 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240930223400","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20240930223400-Novem_Linguae-20240930203700","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20240930223600-Fanfanboy-20240930223400"]}}-->

It may not be possible to fully hide the results. For example WMF T&S and/or the stewards might post them on a talk page somewhere, or the software might display it. But keeping it quiet by not reposting it on the results page is probably the way to go, judging by the replies so far. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:36, 30 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240930223600","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240930223600-Fanfanboy-20240930223400","replies":["c-Fanfanboy-20240930232500-Novem_Linguae-20240930223600"]}}-->

A good way to keep it from getting out would probably be to mention on the AELECT page that withdrawn candidate results won't be published. fanfanboy (block) 23:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240930232500","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20240930232500-Novem_Linguae-20240930223600","replies":[]}}-->

I agree with the above - if a candidate withdraws, results shouldn't be published. The "result" is that they withdrew - the vote outcome stops being relevant (eg. if they withdrew during the vote but still got 95% support, the withdrawal would still be the final outcome) and so the votes casts shouldn't be published, as much as can be avoided. BugGhost🦗👻 12:37, 4 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241004123700","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241004123700-Novem_Linguae-20240930203700","replies":[]}}-->

People withdraw from ACE elections fairly frequently, just do it the same way? – Joe (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241004124500","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20241004124500-Novem_Linguae-20240930203700","replies":["c-Xaosflux-20241013120300-Joe_Roe-20241004124500"],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

Similar to ACE, I suggest that once the discussion phase begins, anyone that withdraws should get listed in a "withdrawn candidates" section (so that other editors that participated in discussion, ect should be able to find out what happened) at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates and so long as it is still feasible should be removed from securepoll. Once voting begins, they can't be removed from securepoll - but there would be no need to report their results as anything other than withdrawn. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:03, 13 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241013120300","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241013120300-Joe_Roe-20241004124500","replies":["c-Xaosflux-20241013120800-Xaosflux-20241013120300"]}}-->

e.g. see Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Candidates#List_of_withdrawn_candidates, notice the w/d are just simply not in the results table. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241013120800","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241013120800-Xaosflux-20241013120300","replies":["c-Xaosflux-20241013121100-Xaosflux-20241013120800","c-Soni-20241017052900-Xaosflux-20241013120800"]}}-->

If someone does withdraw during voting, they should prob be listed in the results table, but could just be as "withdrawn". Hopefully this is rare once a candidate makes it that far. This result should be published, so that editors that did vote would know what happened to their vote - though if the tally should or should not be included is a separate matter. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:11, 13 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241013121100","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241013121100-Xaosflux-20241013120800","replies":[]}}-->

So should candidates who withdrew after the deadline but before the voting be listed or not? (Say, below the main candidates list as "withdrawn") I think there's been one so far Soni (talk) 05:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017052900","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Soni-20241017052900-Xaosflux-20241013120800","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241017061900-Soni-20241017052900"]}}-->

I took the one withdrawn candidate off the list submitted to SecurePoll.

That list has been submitted now though, so going forward it will be harder to drop candidates from SecurePoll, as it will require posting in the Phab ticket and having WMF adjust the list of candidates.

Once the voting phase opens, it will become impossible to remove candidates (I think?). –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017061900","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241017061900-Soni-20241017052900","replies":[]}}-->

There are way too many candidates to not have some type of system in place. I suggest placing the candidates each on a separate page so that they need not be disrupted any further than that. After that has been done, they should all be given a number on this page and on their own page. Then people should be pointed to a random number generator, and told to use the last two digits to find a candidate to evaluate, and if that does not match anyone, to just keep trying until it does. That is not that many tries for thirty or so candidates. I apologize for making a sub-section, but I thought that no one might notice otherwise. -- Kjkolb (talk) 06:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022063900","author":"Kjkolb","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Kjkolb-20241022063900-Solution?","replies":[]}}-->

Here's a couple of tasks that are on the todo list. Would be happy to get help with these:

• YMake sure an RFA page for each candidate was created, redirected to their AELECT candidate subpage, taking special care with the numbering and to not overwrite old RFAs. Examples:
  • Point Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ahecht to Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/Ahecht.
  • Point Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hawkeye7 4 to Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/Hawkeye7.
• YMake sure Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase transcludes each subpage. You can check the page history for how we were doing it before.
• YCreate Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase. Should probably have a big button with a link to vote.wikimedia.org. We can specify the exact URL a bit later.
• YUsing Special:CreateMassMessageList or any other technique, create Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidate newsletter list and populate it only with our current candidates.

Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017104900","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241017104900-Chores","replies":["c-Soni-20241017122300-Novem_Linguae-20241017104900","c-DreamRimmer-20241017133700-Novem_Linguae-20241017104900","c-Tryptofish-20241022005700-Novem_Linguae-20241017104900"]}}-->

Ongoing : Until discussion phase opens, remove or otherwise mark any candidates who withdraw before then. (We are now at 35 candidates total). Pages affected -

• Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates
• Discussion phase list - Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase
• Individual candidate page; for example - Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates/Joseywales1961
• Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidate newsletter list

Soni (talk) 12:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017122300","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Soni-20241017122300-Novem_Linguae-20241017104900","replies":["c-Sohom_Datta-20241017122500-Soni-20241017122300"]}}-->

I think the only page that list all candidates right now is the call to candidates page Sohom (talk) 12:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017122500","author":"Sohom Datta","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Sohom_Datta-20241017122500-Soni-20241017122300","replies":["c-DreamRimmer-20241017131800-Sohom_Datta-20241017122500"],"displayName":"Sohom"}}-->

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidate newsletter list and Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase also include all the candidates' entries. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017131800","author":"DreamRimmer","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-DreamRimmer-20241017131800-Sohom_Datta-20241017122500","replies":["c-Sohom_Datta-20241017133600-DreamRimmer-20241017131800"]}}-->

I blame the cache for not showing me the latest edits :) Sohom (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017133600","author":"Sohom Datta","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Sohom_Datta-20241017133600-DreamRimmer-20241017131800","replies":[],"displayName":"Sohom"}}-->

All the candidates' RfA subpages correctly redirect to their AELECT nomination pages. I have created the voting phase page, set up the candidates' newsletter list, and transcluded all the candidates' nomination pages to the discussion phase page. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017133700","author":"DreamRimmer","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-DreamRimmer-20241017133700-Novem_Linguae-20241017104900","replies":["c-DreamRimmer-20241017135400-DreamRimmer-20241017133700"]}}-->

Novem Linguae, Just FYI: User talk:Pathoschild#AccountEligibility for Administrator elections and AccountEligibility. – DreamRimmer (talk) 13:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017135400","author":"DreamRimmer","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-DreamRimmer-20241017135400-DreamRimmer-20241017133700","replies":[]}}-->

• Note. I tried to ask an "additional optional question" at one of the candidate's RfA pages. Maybe I just did something wrong, but the template for doing so didn't work for me: [3], [4]. It may need some fixing. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022005700","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241022005700-Novem_Linguae-20241017104900","replies":["c-HouseBlaster-20241022015300-Tryptofish-20241022005700"]}}-->

  @Tryptofish: the template was confused because you included an equals sign in the question – see bullet point two at Help:Template#Hints and workarounds :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022015300","author":"HouseBlaster","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-HouseBlaster-20241022015300-Tryptofish-20241022005700","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241022024800-HouseBlaster-20241022015300"],"displayName":"House"}}-->

  I've posted a proposal for how to fix for the escaped equals sign problem in that RFA question template, if people want to weigh in or code it up: Template talk:Rfa-question#Named parameters. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022024800","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241022024800-HouseBlaster-20241022015300","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20241022195000-Novem_Linguae-20241022024800"]}}-->

  Thanks so much for the explanation. I didn't realize I had done that. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022195000","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241022195000-Novem_Linguae-20241022024800","replies":[]}}-->

I just closed SheriffIsInTown's EFA thread as unsuccessful; any chance someone wants to whip up a dedicated template/tracking cat? I can get on it tomorrow morning if not... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022043000","author":"Theleekycauldron","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Theleekycauldron-20241022043000-Template_for_closing_discussions?","replies":["c-Fanfanboy-20241022122500-Theleekycauldron-20241022043000"]}}-->

I really don't think discussions should be closed unless the candidate withdraws, even if the outcome is clear. fanfanboy (block) 12:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022122500","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20241022122500-Theleekycauldron-20241022043000","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241022205400-Fanfanboy-20241022122500"]}}-->

I think SheriffIsInTown withdrew, and the close was simply to indicate the withdrawal. I am not aware of any other discussions or sub-discussions being closed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:54, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022205400","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241022205400-Fanfanboy-20241022122500","replies":[]}}-->

Seems like there's a whole lot of MOS:PSEUDOHEAD going on in a lot (or all of them) of the candidate pages. You can even just add {{TOC limit}} to limit the table of contents during the transclusions. This doesn't help editors who need accessibility in reading while editing or any reader who is interested in the admin elections process. Now, I don't think mass changes should happen now during this election (unless y'all want to) but it could be planned ahead if there is one every year or every so often. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 00:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241023005000","author":"Cowboygilbert","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Cowboygilbert-20241023005000-Manual_of_style_issues_on_discussion_pages","replies":[]}}-->

I have seen this "admin score" tool and put in one of the candidates that I had not prior knowledge of and who almost maxed out on it Bastun. I know temperment / judgement is important for admins but is this tool seems useful in objectively screening for technical competency? Or it is not well regarded as a tool for candidate screening? Aszx5000 (talk) 20:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241021203700","author":"Aszx5000","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Aszx5000-20241021203700-Is_this_tool_any_good_for_apsects_of_candidate_screening?","replies":["c-Cremastra-20241021204000-Aszx5000-20241021203700","c-Bugghost-20241021211200-Aszx5000-20241021203700","c-Asilvering-20241021211700-Aszx5000-20241021203700"]}}-->

I don't regard it particularly highly since it places weird emphasis on certain things like userpages and quantity of edits to RFPP. Cremastra (u — c) 20:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241021204000","author":"Cremastra","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Cremastra-20241021204000-Aszx5000-20241021203700","replies":[],"displayName":"u"}}-->

I haven't seen this tool before but it looks very reductive. To me it looks like it just checks whether a user is active in particular ways, not whether they'd be a good admin BugGhost🦗👻 21:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241021211200","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241021211200-Aszx5000-20241021203700","replies":[]}}-->

It's a poor way to decide that someone is ready to be an admin, but it's a good way to decide that someone isn't. That is, you can see whether you (or someone else) have a deficiency in something that often comes up in RFAs before you think about running. For comparison, here's mine (I am an admin) [5], versus the most recent newbie poster to WP:TEA [6]. -- asilvering (talk) 21:17, 21 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241021211700","author":"Asilvering","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Asilvering-20241021211700-Aszx5000-20241021203700","replies":["c-Aszx5000-20241021212200-Asilvering-20241021211700"]}}-->

That is what I found useful about it - basic technical competency screening. If somone failed badly on that, then could imply not worth spending much time on (as I can't dilligence almost 40 names). Whether this is the right tool or not, the idea of having some technical screener to see if someone isn't - as @asilvering put it well - could be useful for this process. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241021212200","author":"Aszx5000","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Aszx5000-20241021212200-Asilvering-20241021211700","replies":["c-Asilvering-20241021212400-Aszx5000-20241021212200"]}}-->

@Aszx5000 I think you'll find that the discussions will help you, so you don't really need to "diligence" all the candidates. A more useful "objective" look than the admin score thing is this guide by @Novem Linguae: User:Novem Linguae/Essays/2024 administrator election voter guide. That's a list of basic yes/no-type questions that often come up in RFAs. Don't take the red X as a reason to not vote for a candidate if you don't feel strongly about that particular element; they're things that people often care about, but they don't have to be what you care about. -- asilvering (talk) 21:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241021212400","author":"Asilvering","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Asilvering-20241021212400-Aszx5000-20241021212200","replies":["c-Asilvering-20241021213100-Asilvering-20241021212400"]}}-->

I should add that, despite the name, I don't think NL's "guide" is a guide so much as a grown-up version of the admin scoresheet. -- asilvering (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241021213100","author":"Asilvering","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Asilvering-20241021213100-Asilvering-20241021212400","replies":["c-Aszx5000-20241021213400-Asilvering-20241021213100"]}}-->

I agree, and have noted that Novem Linguae's guide (above) is very helpful and objective. thanks again. Aszx5000 (talk) 21:34, 21 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241021213400","author":"Aszx5000","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Aszx5000-20241021213400-Asilvering-20241021213100","replies":[]}}-->

I see that the also helpful User:Femke/2024 admin election notes guide records previous offers of nomination that were made to candidates which I think is very helpful and important to point out. Could this type of information be added to the candidate's RFA page - I think that it is just as relevant as the statistics includes about other activities? Aszx5000 (talk) 10:03, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022100300","author":"Aszx5000","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Aszx5000-20241022100300-Is_this_tool_any_good_for_apsects_of_candidate_screening?","replies":["c-Femke-20241022101700-Aszx5000-20241022100300","c-Novem_Linguae-20241022205300-Aszx5000-20241022100300"]}}-->

I will note that my notes are likely incomplete and more people may have had offers. Everybody is free to improve the accuracy of these notes in my userspace. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:17, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022101700","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Femke-20241022101700-Aszx5000-20241022100300","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

I don't think adding stats like this that are hard to auto-compute and would require a human would get consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022205300","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241022205300-Aszx5000-20241022100300","replies":["c-Femke-20241023072000-Novem_Linguae-20241022205300"]}}-->

I'll try to manually add this information to the discussion where it's not yet been mentioned (the candidate pages are one of the sources I looked at). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241023072000","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Femke-20241023072000-Novem_Linguae-20241022205300","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

I want to be under cop or Under cover so what have I do Free State under cop (talk) 23:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241023232900","author":"Free State under cop","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Free_State_under_cop-20241023232900-Under_cop_Or_Cover","replies":["c-Ahecht-20241023234800-Free_State_under_cop-20241023232900"]}}-->

@Free State under cop See Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple. This page is for discussing the administrator elections only, in the future you can ask questions like this at Wikipedia:Teahouse. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241023234800","author":"Ahecht","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ahecht-20241023234800-Free_State_under_cop-20241023232900","replies":["c-Free_State_under_cop-20241023235400-Ahecht-20241023234800"]}}-->

So you are going to help me to be a under cop or Cover Free State under cop (talk) 23:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241023235400","author":"Free State under cop","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Free_State_under_cop-20241023235400-Ahecht-20241023234800","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241024003500-Free_State_under_cop-20241023235400"]}}-->

@Free State under cop. Ahect did help, by providing the correct next step. Please visit Wikipedia:Changing username/Simple and follow the directions there. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024003500","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241024003500-Free_State_under_cop-20241023235400","replies":[]}}-->

As some of you have seen, I ran a script User:Ritchie333/badspeedies list.py which is a variant of a script User:Ritchie333/badspeedies.py that I wrote some time back. This simply looks through a users contributions to find a 'Requesting speedy deletion' Twinkle-generated edit summary, with the logic that if it's still there, it probably means there's a CSD tag that was declined.

Normally, I run this script during each RfA, analyse the results, and if any look problematic, bring them up for discussion. However, since the discussion period is ending today, I needed to act fast, and simply dumped the script output on each page in the hope that people could help do the analysis for me, and follow up on anything that looks problematic, or is a non-issue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024162600","author":"Ritchie333","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ritchie333-20241024162600-\"Declined_speedies\"_script","replies":["c-Femke-20241024163000-Ritchie333-20241024162600"]}}-->

Thanks for doing this. As I said in an edit summary, I think this makes it more difficult to scroll through the large number of candidates, given that some candidates have a lot of (old) declined CSDs or just an incredible volumes where a low error rate gives a lot of hits. Does the script give an indication of % declined? I'm seeing a relatively high rate of false positives. Might be best to collapse this on all the discussion pages, allowing for analysis but hiding the data dump? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024163000","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Femke-20241024163000-Ritchie333-20241024162600","replies":["c-Ritchie333-20241024163400-Femke-20241024163000"],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

I'm sure I can add more features to the script if it's of interest to people, such as checking the diffs more closely and throwing away false positives such as reverting a Twinkle / CSD tag on user space. I can't remember mentioning the script before, though it's been linked to my user page for years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024163400","author":"Ritchie333","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ritchie333-20241024163400-Femke-20241024163000","replies":["c-Asilvering-20241024224500-Ritchie333-20241024163400"]}}-->

I think it would be really helpful to leave a note about this on each discussion page with the output, so that people are aware it's a bot dump and not a list of certified failures. If there's any way to add the number of CSD noms a candidate made also, that would be really helpful. But for that maybe we're out of time. -- asilvering (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024224500","author":"Asilvering","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Asilvering-20241024224500-Ritchie333-20241024163400","replies":[]}}-->

Just wanted to say how much I appreciate the editors who are going through a single aspect of assessment and reporting back. This is extremely helpful. I appreciate your work. Valereee (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241023193200","author":"Valereee","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Valereee-20241023193200-checking","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20241023223300-Valereee-20241023193200"]}}-->

I think everyone who is helping does indeed deserve thanks. But as I read through the candidate pages, I'm also noticing a potential issue with these "single aspect" data. At the time that I write this, deletion discussion stats and records of participation in GA and FA processes have become prominently visible features across all candidate pages, and they are also things that come up in some voter guides that rely heavily on statistical measures. These are all things that have a history of being interesting to some RfA !voters, but they are far from what is typically decisive. For example, I can think of many conventional RfAs where a few editors oppose based on not enough GA/FAs, while other editors support, saying that this isn't the right criterion. An editor may be a very accomplished content editor, and be very accomplished at navigating content disputes, without doing many, or any, GA/FA reviews. However, there's a possibility that this trial system is minimizing that, in favor of things that can quickly be quantified. "You treasure what you can measure." With a lot of voters making quick decisions about candidates that they might not have crossed paths with before, we may find that results reflect criteria very different from traditional RfAs. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241023223300","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241023223300-Valereee-20241023193200","replies":["c-Femke-20241023232200-Tryptofish-20241023223300","c-Asilvering-20241024223800-Tryptofish-20241023223300"]}}-->

I've been going over the list to see which candidates have so far gotten less scrutiny/commentary and tried to tackle something (such as accuracy and experience in the specific areas they want to work in, or demeanor at AN(I)). There is feedback going above those key stats for a majority of candidates, but not for all. This may be useful for those wanting to help out further in our last day of discussions. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241023232200","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Femke-20241023232200-Tryptofish-20241023223300","replies":["c-Mike_Christie-20241024021200-Femke-20241023232200"],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

Speaking as one of the editors who added some of the quantitative data, I agree with Tryptofish that it's not as informative as some of the commentary that emerges in a typical RfA, and that we may get results that don't reflect the usual criteria. However, I've also noticed that I'm paying far more attention than I usually do to RfAs. I often skip voting at a regular RfA if I don't know the candidate and don't see anything decisive in the comments I read. Here I feel like my investment of attention has a much higher payoff for the project, both in electing the right people and not electing the wrong people, because there are so many candidates. I expect to cast a non-neutral vote in all or nearly all of these RfAs, though I agree more discussion and comments would be helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024021200","author":"Mike Christie","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Mike_Christie-20241024021200-Femke-20241023232200","replies":[]}}-->

My aim with writing something more substantial for the AfD stats was in significant part to try to push people away from just looking at the numbers, since I was worried people would just start saying "match rate 84%, that's good", out of a lack of time. I hope it was successful - I've made this chart out of all those comments. Discussion will close soon, but if you find any of those too quantitative please let me know (I can at least update the chart). I was also hoping some others would be inspired to pitch in with other kinds of analysis, like Mike Christie on the GA/FAs. That was evidently less successful. I really wish that all those CSD declines hadn't just been dumped on the discussion pages with no context. -- asilvering (talk) 22:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024223800","author":"Asilvering","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Asilvering-20241024223800-Tryptofish-20241023223300","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20241024224900-Asilvering-20241024223800"]}}-->

As I also said above, I think everyone who has been trying to help with this trial deserves a lot of thanks, so what I'm saying here isn't meant to find fault with anyone's work. As someone who has, for a long time, done voter guides for ArbCom elections, I have opinions about what does or does not work, and I've been thinking about that for this admin election as well. I spent some time looking at all the guides, including asilvering's, and I noted your indications of how to interpret some of the symbols. But I also found it difficult to figure out whether or not I would agree with it, especially when I would have to do so for so many candidates. I find the most useful kind of information can be provided in the form of summary text (something that Bugghost is trying to do), rather than in stats that may be very relevant for one candidate, but irrelevant for another. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024224900","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241024224900-Asilvering-20241024223800","replies":["c-Asilvering-20241024225800-Tryptofish-20241024224900"]}}-->

Drat, I was hoping the "usefulness of AfD record" bit would help on that front. Any suggestions? -- asilvering (talk) 22:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024225800","author":"Asilvering","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Asilvering-20241024225800-Tryptofish-20241024224900","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20241024230400-Asilvering-20241024225800"]}}-->

I wish I could suggest something easy, but the only thing I can think of, offhand, is explanatory text for each candidate individually. (I'll add that I'm coming at this as someone who does not put much emphasis on deletion match rates when I evaluate RfA candidates.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024230400","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241024230400-Asilvering-20241024225800","replies":[]}}-->

We will need a way to close the 34 candidate subpages on October 24 at 23:59 UTC. I think RFA uses an auto close template for this. Should we go look at what RFA does, copy their template, add it to Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidate subpage template so we can see it in a sandbox, then use AWB/JWB to add it to all the candidate subpages? Does someone want to make the edits to Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidate subpage template and post the diff here for review? –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241023061400","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241023061400-Planning_for_the_end_of_the_discussion_phase","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241024221500-Novem_Linguae-20241023061400"]}}-->

Nudge. Do we have a gameplan for this? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024221500","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241024221500-Novem_Linguae-20241023061400","replies":["c-Asilvering-20241024222900-Novem_Linguae-20241024221500","c-HouseBlaster-20241024225100-Novem_Linguae-20241024221500"]}}-->

I think this means the answer is "let NL do it", I'm afraid. -- asilvering (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024222900","author":"Asilvering","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Asilvering-20241024222900-Novem_Linguae-20241024221500","replies":[]}}-->

I can do this – are we just adding {{atop}} or do we have a fancy template (example)? I'd imagine eventually we want to show whether the EFA was successful or not, but we obviously don't know that now. For the future, autohold was implemented after a discussion of its own for RFA. I would strongly support applying that consensus to EFA, and can probably implement something for the future. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024225100","author":"HouseBlaster","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-HouseBlaster-20241024225100-Novem_Linguae-20241024221500","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241024230300-HouseBlaster-20241024225100"],"displayName":"House"}}-->

I'm thinking we copy paste the autohold template code from RFA, get it working at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidate subpage template, then JWB it into all the candidate pages right now. Then the autohold triggers on its own in 57 minutes. You comfortable taking the lead on that @HouseBlaster? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024230300","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241024230300-HouseBlaster-20241024225100","replies":["c-HouseBlaster-20241024232200-Novem_Linguae-20241024230300"]}}-->

 Doing... HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024232200","author":"HouseBlaster","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-HouseBlaster-20241024232200-Novem_Linguae-20241024230300","replies":["c-HouseBlaster-20241024233200-HouseBlaster-20241024232200"],"displayName":"House"}}-->

Prototype is live at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidate subpage template (edit the date in {{hide until}} to see what it looks like when closed). Thoughts/comments, Novem Linguae? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024233200","author":"HouseBlaster","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-HouseBlaster-20241024233200-HouseBlaster-20241024232200","replies":["c-Isaacl-20241024233700-HouseBlaster-20241024233200","c-Novem_Linguae-20241024233900-HouseBlaster-20241024233200"],"displayName":"House"}}-->

Note that RfAs now have a template {{RfA/autohold}} that wraps the {{hide until}} template, which re-hides the text after a week. It's a hack so someone looking at older versions of the page won't see the discussion closed (starting from a week after the actual closing time). isaacl (talk) 23:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024233700","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Isaacl-20241024233700-HouseBlaster-20241024233200","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241024235600-Isaacl-20241024233700"]}}-->

This sounds like a good idea to implement. If you know how to do it, feel free to mock it up at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidate subpage template, and then we can go edit the candidate pages at our leisure. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024235600","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241024235600-Isaacl-20241024233700","replies":["c-HouseBlaster-20241025000800-Novem_Linguae-20241024235600"]}}-->

@Novem Linguae: I think you misunderstood what isaacl said. {{Hide until}} uses the time you are looking at the revision, not the time the revision was made. Because the autohold is present from the very beginning of RfAs, when looking at old revisions, you used to see the yellow "this is on hold" text because the date given has passed. (See, for instance, the revision after you substed your own RfA.) I created {{RfA/autohold}} to fix that problem – it hides the autohold after an additional week has passed, so previous revisions are broken only for a week after the RfA has ended. Only the revisions made between when they were placed and a few minutes ago will display incorrectly, and it is too late to fix that (very minor) problem. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025000800","author":"HouseBlaster","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-HouseBlaster-20241025000800-Novem_Linguae-20241024235600","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241025001000-HouseBlaster-20241025000800"],"displayName":"House"}}-->

Ah got it. Still might be a good idea to add it to the template then (so we can copy paste it for next election), but no need to go editing this election's pages with it, it sounds like. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025001000","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241025001000-HouseBlaster-20241025000800","replies":[]}}-->

Thanks! I adjusted the message. If it looks good, let's ship it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024233900","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241024233900-HouseBlaster-20241024233200","replies":["c-HouseBlaster-20241024234000-Novem_Linguae-20241024233900"]}}-->

 Shipping... HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024234000","author":"HouseBlaster","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-HouseBlaster-20241024234000-Novem_Linguae-20241024233900","replies":["c-HouseBlaster-20241024234700-HouseBlaster-20241024234000"],"displayName":"House"}}-->

 Shipped. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024234700","author":"HouseBlaster","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-HouseBlaster-20241024234700-HouseBlaster-20241024234000","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241024235500-HouseBlaster-20241024234700"],"displayName":"House"}}-->

Fantastic. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024235500","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241024235500-HouseBlaster-20241024234700","replies":[]}}-->

I added some details to the Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase page. Now's the time to copy edit the wording or make changes. Voting starts in 72 minutes.

I added a bullet discouraging people from blanket opposing. If there's major objection to that we can take it out but I hope we can keep it in. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024224900","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241024224900-Wording_of_the_\"Voting_Phase\"_page","replies":["c-SilverLocust-20241024233800-Novem_Linguae-20241024224900"]}}-->

I imagine that's more likely to give people ideas than to actually dissuade anyone from voting how they wish. SilverLocust 💬 23:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024233800","author":"SilverLocust","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-SilverLocust-20241024233800-Novem_Linguae-20241024224900","replies":["c-Asilvering-20241025000600-SilverLocust-20241024233800"]}}-->

WP:BEANS. Better to take it out, imo. You've already got in the bit about abstaining being the default. -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025000600","author":"Asilvering","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Asilvering-20241025000600-SilverLocust-20241024233800","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241025010000-Asilvering-20241025000600"]}}-->

Sounds like there's not much support for it. Removed. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025010000","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241025010000-Asilvering-20241025000600","replies":[]}}-->

Made a point of at least glancing at each candidate so I wouldn't have to abstain, ended up at 31 supports to 3 opposes. Really hope we can end up with 20+ elected by the end of this. Mach61 03:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025033100","author":"Mach61","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mach61-20241025033100-I'm_so_hyped","replies":["c-Ganesha811-20241025045500-Mach61-20241025033100"]}}-->

it's exciting! I ended up swinging to neutral on a couple last-minute, but still ended up with 20 supports. Definitely some kinks to be worked out, but this process has the potential to reinvigorate the admin corps in a substantial way. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025045500","author":"Ganesha811","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ganesha811-20241025045500-Mach61-20241025033100","replies":[]}}-->

So, I don't want to be egotistic, but I've been busy for a few days. As a result, I've completely missed the discussion phase of this election. Of course nobody will miss my participation specifically, but I imagine I'm not the only person who was busy this week, and there it starts to become a problem. Swathes of people missing the odd RfA is no big deal but missing the opportunity to weigh in on adding up to thirty five new admins to our community (doubling the number of active admins, by some measures) feels a bit unfair, considering this is the same community that regularly spends months discussing minor changes to its internal guidelines.

In future, I think it would be good idea to have a mechanism that links the length of the discussion phase to the number of candidates, so we ensure broad enough participation relative the potential impact of the election. – Joe (talk) 08:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024085600","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20241024085600-Length_of_discussion_phase_vs._number_of_candidates","replies":["c-Daniel-20241024091100-Joe_Roe-20241024085600","c-Novem_Linguae-20241024104400-Joe_Roe-20241024085600"],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

I've managed to review four of them, and found (what I consider to be) acute issues with two of those. I really can't do any more than four given it's the middle of the work week. I totally second what Joe says, although rather than linking discussion to number of candidates, I support capping the number of candidates (10-12) and extending the discussion phase to take in both 3 weekdays and 2 weekend days (5 total). We have editors who predominantly edit during the week, others that predominantly edit on the weekends, and this makes it hard being a weekday-only operation. Daniel (talk) 09:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024091100","author":"Daniel","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Daniel-20241024091100-Joe_Roe-20241024085600","replies":["c-Femke-20241024102500-Daniel-20241024091100","c-Femke-20241024160600-Daniel-20241024091100"]}}-->

I agree that a longer 4 or 5 day discussion phase is an improvement for next time, including at least a weekend day. But playing devil's advocate: we did have a week after the closure of the call for candidates to vet before the discussion phase started. I created my questions/comments mostly the weekend before. There are still a small number of candidates with very little analysis, for which I'll likely vote neutral if that does not change today. We're now down to 32 after a few withdrawals, making the process easier too. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024102500","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Femke-20241024102500-Daniel-20241024091100","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

To add to that, normally, some 70% of candidates make it. If we have similar numbers, we'd add some 21 admins here, not 35. Even if it were 35, I don't see how this would double the number of admins in the table you linked, which says there's around 450 active admins. It will require some higher-intensity mentoring probably, but I think we have the capacity to do this. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024160600","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Femke-20241024160600-Daniel-20241024091100","replies":["c-Joe_Roe_(mobile)-20241025070800-Femke-20241024160600"],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

"Up to" 35 admins. We don't know if the RfA success rate will transfer, though obviously yes it's very unlikely that it'll be 100%. In comparing to the number of active admins I was looking at the yearly figure, which was 30 last year. I may not be a great mathematician, but even I couldn't divide 450 by two and get 35! – Joe (talk) 07:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025070800","author":"Joe Roe (mobile)","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Joe_Roe_(mobile)-20241025070800-Femke-20241024160600","replies":["c-Femke-20241025071200-Joe_Roe_(mobile)-20241025070800"],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

That 30 in the table means there was a decline of 30 active admins compared to 2022, not that we only have 30 fortunately :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025071200","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Femke-20241025071200-Joe_Roe_(mobile)-20241025070800","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

Good idea having the discussion phase on a weekend next time. If you're still interested in participating, the discussion phase will be open for another 13 hours. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024104400","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241024104400-Joe_Roe-20241024085600","replies":[]}}-->

After casting my votes, the "Summary of your vote" page displayed the markup of text (as though there was a nowiki tag around it), rather than the text in markup. Not sure if this has happened for anyone else or it's just a thing on my end but I said I'd mention just in case. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025123400","author":"Ser!","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ser!-20241025123400-Not_sure_if_a_bug,_but...","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241025123700-Ser!-20241025123400","c-Xaosflux-20241025124900-Ser!-20241025123400"]}}-->

It is happening to everyone and is a bug. It was mentioned on the phrabricator ticket for the election and someone mentioned opening a ticket for it, but if they've done that I can't find it. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025123700","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241025123700-Ser!-20241025123400","replies":["c-Ser!-20241025124000-Thryduulf-20241025123700"]}}-->

No worries, cheers for the update. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 12:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025124000","author":"Ser!","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ser!-20241025124000-Thryduulf-20241025123700","replies":[]}}-->

• phab:T378159 is the request to add that. It's because they made the usernames on the list "clickable". — xaosflux ^Talk 12:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025124900","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241025124900-Ser!-20241025123400","replies":[]}}-->

You can't discuss the candidates during the actual election? What's the reasoning behind that? What if some major failing comes up on 26 October: you just keep it to yourself?? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024120200","author":"AirshipJungleman29","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-AirshipJungleman29-20241024120200-Wait_hold_on,_the_discussion_phase_ends?","replies":["c-Femke-20241024125500-AirshipJungleman29-20241024120200"],"displayName":"~~ AirshipJungleman29"}}-->

You bring it up at the talk page of the candidate (not ideal, but no appetite to change rules after the start). It might then become reflected in candidate overviews, so more people see it. The reasoning is to decrease pressure on the candidates, making sure they don't have to be online over the entire 10 days. I imagine if there is something truly disqualifying, we may need to start involving bureaucrats into the process. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024125500","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Femke-20241024125500-AirshipJungleman29-20241024120200","replies":["c-BusterD-20241024133300-Femke-20241024125500","c-Daniel-20241024163500-Femke-20241024125500"],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

User:AirshipJungleman29 has made an essential point: the discussion over candidates won't necessarily end when the formal discussion period ends. Only the centralized discussion will end. Other than WP:FORUM, there's nothing but social norms stopping users, groups, or projects from creating their own de-centralized discussions during the voting period. BusterD (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024133300","author":"BusterD","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-BusterD-20241024133300-Femke-20241024125500","replies":["c-AirshipJungleman29-20241024134300-BusterD-20241024133300"]}}-->

Ironically, considering what's currently going on at ArbCom, WPO might end up being the best place to disseminate information without getting scolded for avoiding these fairly terrible rules. Everyone's going to be reading it over the next few days anyway. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024134300","author":"AirshipJungleman29","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-AirshipJungleman29-20241024134300-BusterD-20241024133300","replies":["c-FOARP-20241024135300-AirshipJungleman29-20241024134300","c-Thryduulf-20241024140600-AirshipJungleman29-20241024134300"],"displayName":"~~ AirshipJungleman29"}}-->

Yeah, Timbo's thread on WPO is likely to be the one thing most people voting (no exclamation mark!) look at. I also tend to second Beeblebrox's recent comment on that thread - not that I want to drag this process out unnecessarily obviously. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024135300","author":"FOARP","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-FOARP-20241024135300-AirshipJungleman29-20241024134300","replies":[]}}-->

While you are free to describe the rules as fairly terrible, it's worth remembering that they exist because they were the consensus arrived at in the proposal and they've done a much better job of attracting candidates than RFA has (the 37th most recent RFA was in 2021). Thryduulf (talk) 14:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024140600","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241024140600-AirshipJungleman29-20241024134300","replies":["c-AirshipJungleman29-20241024141300-Thryduulf-20241024140600"]}}-->

I don't know if it's reasonable to attribute the gathering of 30+ candidates solely to a three-day discussion period. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024141300","author":"AirshipJungleman29","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-AirshipJungleman29-20241024141300-Thryduulf-20241024140600","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241024144400-AirshipJungleman29-20241024141300"],"displayName":"~~ AirshipJungleman29"}}-->

If you read the answers to the question I asked every candidate, the format of the elections, including discussion period, played a significant role in many of them choosing to stand. It's not the only reason of course, but it's not something that can just be dismissed as "terrible" either. Thryduulf (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024144400","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241024144400-AirshipJungleman29-20241024141300","replies":["c-BusterD-20241024145600-Thryduulf-20241024144400","c-Valereee-20241025151100-Thryduulf-20241024144400"]}}-->

As a one-off experiment, I look forward to seeing how the community responded. I'm overjoyed at the number of high-quality candidates who took this opportunity to grab a mop. I'm glad more overt campaigning hasn't take place yet. On the other hand, I've developed a thick stack of post-it notes about the risks such a scheduled voting system runs long term, just based on what has happened to date. BusterD (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024145600","author":"BusterD","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-BusterD-20241024145600-Thryduulf-20241024144400","replies":["c-AirshipJungleman29-20241024145700-BusterD-20241024145600"]}}-->

^ this. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024145700","author":"AirshipJungleman29","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-AirshipJungleman29-20241024145700-BusterD-20241024145600","replies":[],"displayName":"~~ AirshipJungleman29"}}-->

Yes, @Thryduulf, I did notice that, and appreciated your very neutral question that got at it. I haven't done a count, but it felt to me that many of these candidates chose this format at least in part because it minimized the expected awfulness of RfA. Valereee (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025151100","author":"Valereee","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Valereee-20241025151100-Thryduulf-20241024144400","replies":[]}}-->

Another side-effect of the discussion phase ending is that editors could place some (on the face of it) pretty damning material on a candidate's discussion phase in the last couple of hours, and the candidate or others will have no chance to respond before the page is frozen out. While obviously it could be rsponded to elsewhere, it will stand as a matter of public record unresponded and/or unchallenged. Our own sort of October surprise, if you will. I hope this doesn't happen, but it is a risk from my perspective — unless I've missed a procedure which prevents this? Daniel (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024163500","author":"Daniel","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Daniel-20241024163500-Femke-20241024125500","replies":["c-Starship.paint-20241025021300-Daniel-20241024163500"]}}-->

Daniel - you mean like this with ~20 minutes left? starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025021300","author":"Starship.paint","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Starship.paint-20241025021300-Daniel-20241024163500","replies":["c-Daniel-20241025032200-Starship.paint-20241025021300","c-Novem_Linguae-20241025034500-Starship.paint-20241025021300"]}}-->

Pretty much exactly that...not great. Daniel (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025032200","author":"Daniel","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Daniel-20241025032200-Starship.paint-20241025021300","replies":[]}}-->

I went ahead and deleted the comment and Starship.paint's response. It's an obvious sockpuppet. Maybe not enough for a WP:NOTHERE block yet though since the comment was pretty tame. If you disagree Starship.paint feel free to revert. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025034500","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241025034500-Starship.paint-20241025021300","replies":["c-Starship.paint-20241025041400-Novem_Linguae-20241025034500"]}}-->

Will not be reverting. Thank you Novem Linguae. starship.paint (talk / cont) 04:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025041400","author":"Starship.paint","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Starship.paint-20241025041400-Novem_Linguae-20241025034500","replies":[]}}-->

Well, I've been kinda swamped in IRL things, and as it happens I missed the entirety of the discussion phase. I will say, my intention was to ask every candidate "why did they join the election instead of starting an RfA at the same time" and "is there anything that you would like to call attention to that might be overlooked over a 3-day discussion period". Thankfully the first question was asked to everyone, but ah well.

It's in the past, so there's nothing to be done re: this. But as a future note I'm lamenting that this went by in a blink. (Some of my concerns, even if small, are unaddressed, so I'm forced to oppose in those instances). Even if I made it to my computer and asked my questions on the third day, such questions would not be likely to receive an answer in time. The onus of timestress, it seems, has been placed onto the questioners, forcing one to be lined up out of the gate as the only way to have an in-the-moment discussion about a candidate. Perhaps this was the intention. Seems to be. I can't say I'm a fan of it though, having seen it occur in this moment. Ah well. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025014700","author":"Utopes","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Utopes-20241025014700-Discussion_phase","replies":["c-Utopes-20241025015100-Utopes-20241025014700","c-Soni-20241025204900-Utopes-20241025014700"]}}-->

(Re: "only way to have a discussion", = one'd be lucky to have a discussion that started on day 2. Starting a discussion on day 3 is likely a no; not enough time to process and weigh in. This could be a wrong assessment though. I have not particularly read the entire discussion phase page yet.) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 01:51, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025015100","author":"Utopes","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Utopes-20241025015100-Utopes-20241025014700","replies":[]}}-->

@Utopes Some of my concerns, even if small, are unaddressed, so I'm forced to oppose in those instances To be clear, you're still allowed to reach out to individual candidates on their user talk if you have specific concerns to discuss. The discussion phase is mainly closed to reduce drawn out public discussion. Candidates are not "expected" to answer anything right now, but I imagine at least some might prefer reasonable questions than uninformed opposes. Soni (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025204900","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Soni-20241025204900-Utopes-20241025014700","replies":[]}}-->

Just for my own education, does anyone know why the SecurePoll ID numbers on enwiki and votewiki are different? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/812 and https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/1691. I'd ask on Phab but every time I make a post in that ticket it emails like 20 people, and we already spammed that ticket a lot today, so will start here instead. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025052000","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241025052000-SeucrePoll_vote_ID_numbers","replies":["c-Pppery-20241025052500-Novem_Linguae-20241025052000","c-Cryptic-20241025052800-Novem_Linguae-20241025052000","c-Xaosflux-20241025090600-Novem_Linguae-20241025052000"]}}-->

Enwiki's list includes on elections with a relationship to enwiki. Votewiki's list includes all elections, including things like Chinese Wikipedia's admin election. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 05:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025052500","author":"Pppery","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Pppery-20241025052500-Novem_Linguae-20241025052000","replies":[],"displayName":"* Pppery *"}}-->

I wouldn't be worried about the different ids. I'd be more worried that, if you go to the local Special:SecurePoll, it has a legitimate-looking list of polls, and a handy link to Special:SecurePoll/list/812. Which shows zero votes cast. —Cryptic 05:28, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025052800","author":"Cryptic","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Cryptic-20241025052800-Novem_Linguae-20241025052000","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241025053700-Cryptic-20241025052800","c-Cowboygilbert-20241025054500-Cryptic-20241025052800"]}}-->

Maybe the enwiki poll is some kind of dummy poll that just has a link to the votewiki poll in its header, and the rest of the vote form is hidden on enwiki. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025053700","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241025053700-Cryptic-20241025052800","replies":[]}}-->

looks like it shows that for all of them. might have to be an election admin to see the number of votes casted? Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 05:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025054500","author":"Cowboygilbert","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Cowboygilbert-20241025054500-Cryptic-20241025052800","replies":["c-Pppery-20241025064100-Cowboygilbert-20241025054500"]}}-->

The actual list of voters is at https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/1691. Novem Linquae is right.

Someone should file a Phabricator ticket for "don't show list on stub elections". * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025064100","author":"Pppery","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Pppery-20241025064100-Cowboygilbert-20241025054500","replies":[],"displayName":"* Pppery *"}}-->

It is just because they are sequential and the local one is just a shell, all it does is link to the central voting server, but is used to authenticate the user because our users don't log on to the central voting server. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025090600","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241025090600-Novem_Linguae-20241025052000","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241025213900-Xaosflux-20241025090600"]}}-->

Thanks! Some follow up questions, if someone knows. Mainly because I want to understand how SecurePoll works on the technical side. I've written patches for it and plan to write more.

Do these local shell SecurePolls auto create or does someone have to create them? Who created the one for our election? How does one look up logs for SecurePoll if they are not an electionadmin? (The "Logs" link is disabled for me, there's nothing in Special:Log, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SecurePoll:812 doesn't work.) What poll type does one choose to set up a shell poll? How exactly does enwiki SecurePoll authenticate a user for votewiki SecurePoll? Is there some service running in our server farm that helps the two communicate on the back end? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025213900","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241025213900-Xaosflux-20241025090600","replies":[]}}-->

It feels too silly to go to everyone's talk page individually and wish them luck. So, to everyone in general: thanks for running! I really appreciate all of you for throwing yourselves into this experiment. -- asilvering (talk) 00:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025000900","author":"Asilvering","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Asilvering-20241025000900-Good_luck,_candidates!","replies":["c-Starship.paint-20241025020200-Asilvering-20241025000900","c-AntiDionysius-20241025183900-Asilvering-20241025000900","c-Queen_of_Hearts-20241025201800-Asilvering-20241025000900","c-EggRoll97-20241025221600-Asilvering-20241025000900"]}}-->

• Thank you Asilvering, I appreciate this! starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025020200","author":"Starship.paint","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Starship.paint-20241025020200-Asilvering-20241025000900","replies":[]}}-->

Thank you! AntiDionysius (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025183900","author":"AntiDionysius","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-AntiDionysius-20241025183900-Asilvering-20241025000900","replies":[]}}-->

thank you, @Asilvering! Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 20:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025201800","author":"Queen of Hearts","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Queen_of_Hearts-20241025201800-Asilvering-20241025000900","replies":[]}}-->

Thanks! EggRoll97 ^(talk) 22:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025221600","author":"EggRoll97","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-EggRoll97-20241025221600-Asilvering-20241025000900","replies":[]}}-->

I have absolutely no idea why, but I'm receiving notifications (blue pings) from all of the "Voting phase" subsections on the candidate's individual talk pages. For example I just got one because someone else made a comment on LindsayH's talk page, even though I've never commented there myself or even looked at that page. Is anyone else experiencing this? —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241026045500","author":"Ganesha811","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ganesha811-20241026045500-Notification_bug","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241026052500-Ganesha811-20241026045500"]}}-->

Try clicking unsubscribe. The notification system uses the name and timestamp of the first comment when subscribing. If you subscribe to something like an MMS, you may accidentally subscribe to dozens or hundreds of them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241026052500","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241026052500-Ganesha811-20241026045500","replies":[]}}-->

The voting interface tripped me up a little, since usually the "support" option goes on the left. The instructions at the top of the page even say indicate your preference for each candidate with "Support", "Oppose", or “Abstain”., in a different order than the actual voting table. This may introduce confusion. Ca ^{talk to me!} 01:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025011500","author":"Ca","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ca-20241025011500-Voting_interface;_order","replies":["c-Perfect4th-20241026060300-Ca-20241025011500"]}}-->

+1, I expected Support & Oppose to be flipped and had to check to make sure I wasn't inverting the results of my research. Another very important issue in the grand scheme of the encyclopedia... but then again, fixing smaller problems is easier than bigger ones. Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241026060300","author":"Perfect4th","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Perfect4th-20241026060300-Ca-20241025011500","replies":[]}}-->

Right now, my only option for "Choose your most active wiki" is "en.wikibooks.org". I did create my account on Wikibooks but I'm most active on Wikipedia now. Is this a bug that needs to go to Phab? ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 00:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025004000","author":"Matthewrb","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Matthewrb-20241025004000-\"Choose_your_most_active_wiki\"_doesn't_list_en.wp?","replies":["c-Cowboygilbert-20241025005000-Matthewrb-20241025004000","c-Novem_Linguae-20241025005600-Matthewrb-20241025004000","c-Choucas_Bleu-20241026150100-Matthewrb-20241025004000"]}}-->

Going to ping @Novem Linguae just in case he doesn't see this. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 00:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025005000","author":"Cowboygilbert","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Cowboygilbert-20241025005000-Matthewrb-20241025004000","replies":["c-Sohom_Datta-20241025005600-Cowboygilbert-20241025005000"]}}-->

I think this a case of misleading messages, the drop down allows you to choose your home-wiki if you have multiple home wikis. Folks who registered post SUL unification tend to only have one home wiki which generally is the wiki where they created their first account and so have only option in the dropdown (my homewiki is mediawiki.org even tho enwiki is the one to which I have the most contributions) -- Sohom (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025005600","author":"Sohom Datta","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Sohom_Datta-20241025005600-Cowboygilbert-20241025005000","replies":["c-Matthewrb-20241025010200-Sohom_Datta-20241025005600"],"displayName":"Sohom"}}-->

Interesting. I only have 3 contributions to Wikibooks, while I have 13,000 to Wikipedia. My concern is that my vote gets rejected based on these tallies. Though from the below, it doesn't appear to be a concern. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 01:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025010200","author":"Matthewrb","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Matthewrb-20241025010200-Sohom_Datta-20241025005600","replies":["c-Cowboygilbert-20241025010500-Matthewrb-20241025010200","c-Sohom_Datta-20241025010700-Matthewrb-20241025010200"]}}-->

Yeah, CentralAuth still shows up as your home wiki being enwikibooks. Here is the central auth link. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025010500","author":"Cowboygilbert","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Cowboygilbert-20241025010500-Matthewrb-20241025010200","replies":[]}}-->

It shouldn't be rejected, and you shouldn't need to care about it. The only place it shows up is here when you vote. Sohom (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025010700","author":"Sohom Datta","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Sohom_Datta-20241025010700-Matthewrb-20241025010200","replies":["c-Matthewrb-20241025011000-Sohom_Datta-20241025010700"],"displayName":"Sohom"}}-->

Thank you both! Sounds good, I'll go cast my vote. ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 01:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025011000","author":"Matthewrb","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Matthewrb-20241025011000-Sohom_Datta-20241025010700","replies":[]}}-->

Thanks for reporting this. I am not sure how this combo box got included in our poll. It was not in the plan. I think we can safely ignore it / pick anything. I have mentioned it on Phabricator. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025005600","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241025005600-Matthewrb-20241025004000","replies":["c-Matthewrb-20241025010200-Novem_Linguae-20241025005600","c-Sohom_Datta-20241025011000-Novem_Linguae-20241025005600"]}}-->

Got it, thanks! ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 01:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025010200","author":"Matthewrb","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Matthewrb-20241025010200-Novem_Linguae-20241025005600","replies":[]}}-->

@Novem Linguae My understanding is that is included in every poll by default. I remember joking about my affiliation to mediawiki.org last Arbcom elections :) Sohom (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025011000","author":"Sohom Datta","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Sohom_Datta-20241025011000-Novem_Linguae-20241025005600","replies":[],"displayName":"Sohom"}}-->

Facing the same thing, the box only letting me pick frwiki even though I am way more active on enwiki. From the discussion above I presume it is because my account was created as an frwiki account before I made it a global one, but I figured I would report it as well; I will disregard the box and vote anyway. Choucas Bleu (T·C) 15:01, 26 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241026150100","author":"Choucas Bleu","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Choucas_Bleu-20241026150100-Matthewrb-20241025004000","replies":[]}}-->

In the Tallying section it says

• "After voting has ended, the election will be scrutinised by three stewards whose home wiki is not the English Wikipedia. They will check for any duplicate, ineligible, or sockpuppeteer votes, and strike them as necessary."

How is the check for sockpuppeteer votes carried out given that none of the scrutineers have checkuser privilege? Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025043400","author":"Sean.hoyland","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sean.hoyland-20241025043400-Tallying","replies":["c-FlyingAce-20241025043700-Sean.hoyland-20241025043400","c-Novem_Linguae-20241025051300-Sean.hoyland-20241025043400","c-Primefac-20241026154300-Sean.hoyland-20241025043400"]}}-->

Stewards are asked to be scrutineers precisely because they have checkuser privilege. –FlyingAce^✈hello 04:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025043700","author":"FlyingAce","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-FlyingAce-20241025043700-Sean.hoyland-20241025043400","replies":["c-Pppery-20241025045800-FlyingAce-20241025043700"]}}-->

What happens for the ArbCom elections is that ArbCom passes a motion to grant them CheckUser privleges. Presumably they will do the same here.

Stewards by convention don't use their rights where local users have the ability to, although they have complete access to everything. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025045800","author":"Pppery","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Pppery-20241025045800-FlyingAce-20241025043700","replies":[],"displayName":"* Pppery *"}}-->

On the technical side, I think all that data is stored on vote.wikimedia.org which is its own wiki, and the 3 selected stewards were made electionadmins over there of our election, which lets them see everything they need to see related to our election's voters for scrutineering. @Xaosflux might be able to double check me on this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025051300","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241025051300-Sean.hoyland-20241025043400","replies":["c-Sean.hoyland-20241025051400-Novem_Linguae-20241025051300","c-Xaosflux-20241025090300-Novem_Linguae-20241025051300"]}}-->

Thanks. That makes much more sense. So, I learned that 'steward' includes the checkuser privilege. I suppose I could have discovered that by looking at m:Stewards had I thought of that completely obvious solution. Sean.hoyland (talk) 05:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025051400","author":"Sean.hoyland","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Sean.hoyland-20241025051400-Novem_Linguae-20241025051300","replies":[]}}-->

Securepoll collects checkuser-like personal identifying information (PII) on each voter, this is collected in the poll system. The election administrators ("the scrutineers") are Johannnes89, EPIC, and Yahya. These users can see the PII for each person that casts a ballot. In ACE, we generally additionally grant the election workers local checkuser access, so they may additionally look up PII collected here on en.wiki. The stewards are not technically able to run the checkuser tool on-wiki, because they don't have access. They do have the access to give themselves the access, but such is restrained by policies. I suspect for this specific election, if some user irregularities were found that needed additional local PII the stewards would confer with the local checkuser team. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025090300","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241025090300-Novem_Linguae-20241025051300","replies":[]}}-->

I apologise if I have missed something obvious (I will admit that I have paid almost no attention to the process of setting up these elections) but where was it decided that the scrutineers needed to be non-enWiki users? Is this because ACE has a similar requirement and it was simply copied over, or is there a consensus that this is desired? (please do not ping on reply) Primefac (talk) 15:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241026154300","author":"Primefac","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Primefac-20241026154300-Sean.hoyland-20241025043400","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241026174700-Primefac-20241026154300"]}}-->

I copied ACE, and the stewards say yes. We can change this in the future. In fact we'll have to. The stewards have said they don't have enough bandwidth to scrutineer enwiki admin elections in the future. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241026174700","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241026174700-Primefac-20241026154300","replies":[]}}-->

Is it necessary to have the URLs for each candidacy include the month/year?

Throughout my time on Wikipedia and on other WMF projects, I have occasionally – not often, but more than once – interacted with people about whom I had a bad feeling. Nothing that would merit blocking, or even a report to a noticeboard, but... just in case, I watchlisted their putative RfA's. I've also watchlisted the RfA's of a few people who I felt had potential but weren't ready yet. I'm sure I'm not the only one to have done this – I'm positive I didn't think of this on my own – and, well, "every change breaks someone's workflow", right? DS (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241026164300","author":"DragonflySixtyseven","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-DragonflySixtyseven-20241026164300-URLs","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241026174800-DragonflySixtyseven-20241026164300"],"displayName":"DS"}}-->

We also created the corresponding WP:RFA/* subpages, and redirected them to the AELECT subpages. So watchlisting the RFA page should still work. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241026174800","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241026174800-DragonflySixtyseven-20241026164300","replies":[]}}-->

I should meet the voting requirements, but I'm having issues. I click "vote now" which takes me here, and when I click "go to the voting server" I get a message saying that I must logged in to vote in this election". Which I am. Tried a couple of times the last few days, editing on mobile. Any suggestions? Scribolt (talk) 13:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241026133400","author":"Scribolt","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Scribolt-20241026133400-Maybe_I'm_being_dumb","replies":["c-Jpeeling-20241026160900-Scribolt-20241026133400"]}}-->

I had the same, if you click the 'Desktop' at the bottom of the page then you should hopefully see the voting page. JP (Talk) 16:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241026160900","author":"Jpeeling","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Jpeeling-20241026160900-Scribolt-20241026133400","replies":["c-Scribolt-20241027064100-Jpeeling-20241026160900"],"displayName":"JP"}}-->

Thank you! Scribolt (talk) 06:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027064100","author":"Scribolt","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Scribolt-20241027064100-Jpeeling-20241026160900","replies":[]}}-->

I don't know but it just only gives me jawiki as an option. Is this a glitch? ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 13:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027132200","author":"AlphaBetaGamma","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-AlphaBetaGamma-20241027132200-\"Choose_your_most_active_wiki\"_Fails_to_list_enwiki","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241027132700-AlphaBetaGamma-20241027132200"],"displayName":"ABG"}}-->

@AlphaBetaGamma see #"Choose your most active wiki" doesn't list en.wp? above. The question isn't relevant to this election and so the answer is ignored. Thryduulf (talk) 13:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027132700","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241027132700-AlphaBetaGamma-20241027132200","replies":[]}}-->

WP:Administrator elections/October 2024 was expanded from a redirect a couple days ago (cc @Aaron Liu), but contains nothing meaningfully different from the main AELECT page. I think this needlessly overcomplicates things, and we'd be better off keeping everything on the main page and redirecting the subpage to this one for now, to avoid confusing people. (We could potentially move this page to /October 2024 later if there is consensus to repeat the process). Thoughts? Giraffer (talk) 00:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025003200","author":"Giraffer","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Giraffer-20241025003200-Subpage","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241025003800-Giraffer-20241025003200","c-Aaron_Liu-20241025010300-Giraffer-20241025003200","c-Novem_Linguae-20241025053200-Giraffer-20241025003200","c-Novem_Linguae-20241025215600-Giraffer-20241025003200"]}}-->

Support. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025003800","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241025003800-Giraffer-20241025003200","replies":[]}}-->

I don't see why it is a problem. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:03, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025010300","author":"Aaron Liu","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Aaron_Liu-20241025010300-Giraffer-20241025003200","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241025011600-Aaron_Liu-20241025010300","c-Cowboygilbert-20241025012700-Aaron_Liu-20241025010300"]}}-->

It duplicates what is written at WP:AELECT. Double the maintenance, and dangers of things getting out of sync. I'd be in favor of it getting its own page after the election. Will wait for some others to weigh in though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025011600","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241025011600-Aaron_Liu-20241025010300","replies":[]}}-->

The only thing that I like that is different is the expanded eligibility requirements, which can easily just be moved because I don't see why it's just for this election and not for any future ones (if there are any). But, it would've been nice to have a discussion beforehand if we should split the pages. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025012700","author":"Cowboygilbert","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Cowboygilbert-20241025012700-Aaron_Liu-20241025010300","replies":["c-Aaron_Liu-20241025013100-Cowboygilbert-20241025012700"]}}-->

@Novem Linguae It does not duplicate. The parent page transcludes the schedule and @Cowboygilbert the subpage transcludes the eligibility.
My original vision was for the fancy header to be a template transcluded everywhere. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025013100","author":"Aaron Liu","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Aaron_Liu-20241025013100-Cowboygilbert-20241025012700","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241025013600-Aaron_Liu-20241025013100","c-Cowboygilbert-20241025013900-Aaron_Liu-20241025013100"]}}-->

Scrutineer list is copy paste duplicated, discussion phase monitors are copy paste duplicated. All content is duplicated in general, saying the same thing as the main page. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025013600","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241025013600-Aaron_Liu-20241025013100","replies":["c-Aaron_Liu-20241025014800-Novem_Linguae-20241025013600"]}}-->

I don't think monitor and scrutinner lists specific to this election should be duplicated on the page about the system. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025014800","author":"Aaron Liu","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Aaron_Liu-20241025014800-Novem_Linguae-20241025013600","replies":[]}}-->

Then why is the header not in its own subpage or in template space if you wanted it to be transcluded everywhere. Unless you had {{subst:}} it, I can't find it anywhere else except on that page. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025013900","author":"Cowboygilbert","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Cowboygilbert-20241025013900-Aaron_Liu-20241025013100","replies":["c-Aaron_Liu-20241025014700-Cowboygilbert-20241025013900","c-Aaron_Liu-20241025015600-Cowboygilbert-20241025013900"]}}-->

Because I got sleepy and lazy 🫠 you can do the templating thing at WP:Administrator elections/October 2024/Header if you wanna Aaron Liu (talk) 01:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025014700","author":"Aaron Liu","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Aaron_Liu-20241025014700-Cowboygilbert-20241025013900","replies":[]}}-->

YKW, I'm not sleepy anymore. I just did that. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025015600","author":"Aaron Liu","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Aaron_Liu-20241025015600-Cowboygilbert-20241025013900","replies":["c-Cowboygilbert-20241025015800-Aaron_Liu-20241025015600"]}}-->

Good job, I guess. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025015800","author":"Cowboygilbert","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Cowboygilbert-20241025015800-Aaron_Liu-20241025015600","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241025034700-Cowboygilbert-20241025015800"]}}-->

Good idea. I like the /Header page idea since it simplifies maintenance and reduces duplication.

But the banner on the header page is big and complicated. I think having a non-graphical, one or two sentence ombox might be better. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025034700","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241025034700-Cowboygilbert-20241025015800","replies":[]}}-->

I ended up redirecting the subpage just now, and simplifying the header just now. It is the middle of an election and I don't feel comfortable having tidbit A and B on one page and tidbit A and C on another page. We should have single, centralized pages so we present the same information to each voter.

Basically, I want to avoid Wikipedia:Administrator elections having slightly different information than Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024, and Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Header having slightly different information than Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

After the election, I think we should copy paste the contents of Wikipedia:Administrator elections to Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024 to create a good historical record. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025053200","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241025053200-Giraffer-20241025003200","replies":["c-Aaron_Liu-20241025112000-Novem_Linguae-20241025053200","c-Aaron_Liu-20241025112500-Novem_Linguae-20241025053200"]}}-->

In my opinion, the ADE page should just be the system itself, i.e. move everything specific to this election (list of monitors, list of scrutineers, the schedule, "Are additional RFCs required before the trial?") to this election's specific page. I do not see any reason why the ADE page should have all this stuff. Also, we're gonna need a results section on the ADE2024 page anyway. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025112000","author":"Aaron Liu","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Aaron_Liu-20241025112000-Novem_Linguae-20241025053200","replies":[]}}-->

If we do this: make the ADE page just the policy and systems and the ADE2024 page everything specific to this election, then there is no duplication. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025112500","author":"Aaron Liu","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Aaron_Liu-20241025112500-Novem_Linguae-20241025053200","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241025213200-Aaron_Liu-20241025112500"]}}-->

In my opinion, the ADE page should just be the system itself. I think we should do this after the election, not during.

@Aaron Liu. Also, you have reverted me and turned Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Header into a mini-voting page, letting people skip the main voting page where all the voting information is. All of our other communications (T:CENT, MMS, watchlist notice, RFA header, etc.) are directing folks to the main voting page except for this header. Please self revert. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025213200","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241025213200-Aaron_Liu-20241025112500","replies":["c-Aaron_Liu-20241025213600-Novem_Linguae-20241025213200"]}}-->

Self-reverted the voting thing, sorry.

I think we should do this after the election, not during.

I don't see a difference or why-not. Aaron Liu (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025213600","author":"Aaron Liu","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Aaron_Liu-20241025213600-Novem_Linguae-20241025213200","replies":["c-Isaacl-20241025214700-Aaron_Liu-20241025213600"]}}-->

Since the process has started, I think it's better not to shift pages around and potentially confuse those who aren't following every single change being made. I prefer waiting until the results of the election are announced and then restructuring pages. (On a side note, I appreciate many like abbreviations. I suggest striving to use non-jargon as much as possible, nonetheless, to make the discussions more accessible to everyone.) isaacl (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025214700","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Isaacl-20241025214700-Aaron_Liu-20241025213600","replies":["c-Aaron_Liu-20241025225900-Isaacl-20241025214700"]}}-->

I still don't see how it would cause damage, but I do see that I'm in the minority here. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025225900","author":"Aaron Liu","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Aaron_Liu-20241025225900-Isaacl-20241025214700","replies":["c-Cowboygilbert-20241026021400-Aaron_Liu-20241025225900","c-Isaacl-20241026023200-Aaron_Liu-20241025225900"]}}-->

I feel like we should wait until the election ends because having a subpage can form to not work because this election is still in it's testing phase and this is a test run to see if the election works. I say that it's too soon to decide if the election will pass or fail community consensus. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:14, 26 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241026021400","author":"Cowboygilbert","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Cowboygilbert-20241026021400-Aaron_Liu-20241025225900","replies":["c-Aaron_Liu-20241026033300-Cowboygilbert-20241026021400"]}}-->

I dunno what you mean by "form to not work". To me it's just less confusing to organize these pages how every other project page is organized, but hey, I'm not most people. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241026033300","author":"Aaron Liu","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Aaron_Liu-20241026033300-Cowboygilbert-20241026021400","replies":[]}}-->

Well, I didn't say it would; I explained why I thought it could create unnecessary confusion. There's no urgency to restructure the page during the voting process. isaacl (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241026023200","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Isaacl-20241026023200-Aaron_Liu-20241025225900","replies":["c-Aaron_Liu-20241026033300-Isaacl-20241026023200"]}}-->

Yeah, unnecessary confusion is what I meant by damage. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241026033300","author":"Aaron Liu","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Aaron_Liu-20241026033300-Isaacl-20241026023200","replies":[]}}-->

Diff. Why has the vote link been made so complicated? I wish people would stop tweaking things during the voting phase. This is frustrating me. And I still see a mini voting page at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Header. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025215600","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241025215600-Giraffer-20241025003200","replies":["c-Aaron_Liu-20241025230200-Novem_Linguae-20241025215600"]}}-->

It's not just complication, it's centralization of the vote link ID so we only need to change it in one place.
I don't see why you'd object to the current version of the header. Having a short version just improves the chances that people will take in these instructions, especially when the voting page has a big blue "vote" button in the middle. At least for the Arb elections, short introductions to voting have proven to work well. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025230200","author":"Aaron Liu","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Aaron_Liu-20241025230200-Novem_Linguae-20241025215600","replies":["c-Cowboygilbert-20241026021500-Aaron_Liu-20241025230200"]}}-->

Having the vote button just seems worthless when we already have Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase which explain the voting phase in depth and has a vote button already. As well as a link to the voting page on the main page. So having multiple Vote buttons seems worthless and repetitive imo. Also, the changes to /Voting phase are complex because why make something harder when there is an easier way? You are just making the editing hard on yourself and other editors... Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 02:15, 26 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241026021500","author":"Cowboygilbert","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Cowboygilbert-20241026021500-Aaron_Liu-20241025230200","replies":["c-Aaron_Liu-20241026033100-Cowboygilbert-20241026021500"]}}-->

I'm not proposing adding a vote button; I was saying that a lot of people would probably just go to the voting page, ignore a lot of stuff because it's all too long, and smash the big blue button in the middle; thus, it's probably worth it to give a "mini-voting" sentence for a quick glean of information.
This way is better because it'll automatically switch text when each phase concludes. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241026033100","author":"Aaron Liu","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Aaron_Liu-20241026033100-Cowboygilbert-20241026021500","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241027174800-Aaron_Liu-20241026033100"]}}-->

Having 3 bolds in the /Header message is ridiculous. Makes it hard to find the voting page wikilink. That /Header is way too complcated. Clicking "edit page" on the header is also very complicated. Takes way too much brainpower to read and understand that wikicode. I do not agree with creating a complex thing here that has a bus factor and is hard to maintain. Did you get consensus for your edits? –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027174800","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241027174800-Aaron_Liu-20241026033100","replies":["c-Aaron_Liu-20241027194800-Novem_Linguae-20241027174800"]}}-->

Only one of the bolds is a link, so I don't see the issue. Since it's the same format as the ArbCom election's header, the bus factor is also low (see said header's 8 editors). That header also features 3 bolds in the same layout as this header, and I don't think I've seen anyone get confused by it. As this header has worked in that place, I think there is some very shaky consensus for it. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027194800","author":"Aaron Liu","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Aaron_Liu-20241027194800-Novem_Linguae-20241027174800","replies":[]}}-->

For anyone tracking data or who otherwise cares, I've disclosed my votes and basic info about my process/impressions on my talk page. Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 05:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027053300","author":"Sdkb","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sdkb-20241027053300-My_votes","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20241027223500-Sdkb-20241027053300"]}}-->

I know you said this in good faith, but we had a consensus that this sort of thing, which is essentially equivalent to a personal voter guide, should not be linked to from "this page". I'd argue that linking in this way from the talk page is also not a good thing. I really feel like we have gotten very far from the original intention that candidates should be able to stop watching once the voting phase has begun, without having to worry about additional opposition to them being posted in public. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027223500","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241027223500-Sdkb-20241027053300","replies":["c-Sdkb-20241027235300-Tryptofish-20241027223500"]}}-->

I hadn't been following the discussion about voter guides, but it appears you're referring to this. On a technical level, from the clarification the closer made, this page refers to the subject page, not this talk page. On a non-technical level, I don't think that having a secret ballot should mean that we are not allowed to disclose how we voted, which is basically all my thread is. I hope that it doesn't cause any stress to candidates. I would put more weight in that fear had I offered rationales, and particularly had the rationales included information from my own vetting that had not already been aired elsewhere. But absent that, there isn't anything to which a candidate could be expected to have any response. Best, Sdkb ^talk 23:53, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027235300","author":"Sdkb","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Sdkb-20241027235300-Tryptofish-20241027223500","replies":[]}}-->

Obviously, it's a little bit late to make any changes to the ongoing process and we don't know yet if the concern is even relevant.

While obviously the whole experiment of the Admin elections are there with trying to reduce the burden than RFA seemed to have had with the gradual reduction of candidacy thereof, I could imagine that some candidates may not have many votes and abstentions instead. Eespecially with this election having had 40 candidates, which honestly was too many to evaluate at once, so I can imagine many people having abstained on voting on candidates they didn't evaluate.

So, I'm curious how the community would feel if it happens that some candidate(s) got very little actual votes in term of, if the outcome for someone was based on say just 50 votes (15 oppose, 35 support would yield a 70% pass threshold), would we feel that the community actually had confidence in that candidate to hold the mop, or just that not enough people knew the candidate to evaluate them (e.g. abstained)? The flip of this could be, that many candidates may not have had many votes entirely, since the rules of Wikipedia:Administrator_elections#Tallying specify that the vote count is just "supports/(objections+supports)". Typically RFA candidates that have succeeded had at least 150 support votes, more often 200+ looking at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year with very in-depth commentary by editors participating in it, which while of course having been very arduous as well as a process, has meant that those given the mop at least feel that they were supported by the community.

Obviously I could be off base here and maybe it's a non issue and all the candidates actually will have a reasonable amount of counting votes, but somehow it just swirled around my head as I placed my votes, so I was curious what others are thinking about it? Raladic (talk) 02:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028020400","author":"Raladic","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Raladic-20241028020400-What_happens_if_a_candidate_had_very_little_votes_entirely","replies":["c-Espresso_Addict-20241028021200-Raladic-20241028020400","c-SilverLocust-20241028023000-Raladic-20241028020400"]}}-->

This has been discussed above, with various thresholds proposed. I think everyone agrees the current sitution is a bug, but also that it can't be changed for this pilot run. [Afaik, a candidate could pass on a single support vote, which might even be for themselves (I don't believe self-voting is prohibited?)]. I'd note however that the recent trend of RfAs getting hundreds of comments originated when the watchlist notice was implemented; for years before that, ~40–70 participants was quite common. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028021200","author":"Espresso Addict","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Espresso_Addict-20241028021200-Raladic-20241028020400","replies":["c-Raladic-20241028023300-Espresso_Addict-20241028021200"]}}-->

Ah I see it was touched on in Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#It's not too late to put in a minimum level of support, though no real discussion on what do we do if it does happen?

Like if someone becomes admin because of the (probably unlikely, but possible) just a single support vote - do we feel confident that that person would suddenly have sysop permissions, or, especially for this first-time experiment, should there be an emergency handbrake?

Since the new WP:ADMINRECALL procedure was written (pinging @Maddy from Celeste), but only takes gaining of adminship via RFA into account (and calls out that admins gained via RFA can't be recalled within 12 months), it doesn't currently have a procedure for admins gained by this election, so would we assume that such an admin would be subject to potential immediate recall if someone so challenges it? Raladic (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028023300","author":"Raladic","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Raladic-20241028023300-Espresso_Addict-20241028021200","replies":[]}}-->

There are currently 409 ballots cast. I'm confident that everyone will have many more than 50 non-abstain votes. SilverLocust 💬 02:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028023000","author":"SilverLocust","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-SilverLocust-20241028023000-Raladic-20241028020400","replies":["c-Raladic-20241028023600-SilverLocust-20241028023000"]}}-->

I'm not so sure. Of those votes, some will be struck. As I glanced over the list, I spotted at least one blocked editor who voted. It also looks like most of those votes were on the first day (291, vs 73 yesterday and 64 today) and glancing over the list, it's a whos-who of fairly active editors.

Personally, I abstained on the majority of candidates and only voted on a few who's names I recognized and read their candidacy and felt I could judge fairly. I imagine many others may be in a similar position. Raladic (talk) 02:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028023600","author":"Raladic","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Raladic-20241028023600-SilverLocust-20241028023000","replies":["c-SilverLocust-20241028062200-Raladic-20241028023600","c-Novem_Linguae-20241028090700-Raladic-20241028023600"]}}-->

Only one account that has voted so far is now blocked (LB). More broadly, the number of votes that tend to get struck is negligible. 8/6001 were struck in the Wikimedia Foundation election last month. 6/1597 in the 2023 Arbitration Committee election; 7/1570 in 2022; 2/1572 in 2021.

Some people have been saying on this page how many people they supported/opposed/abstained, and what I have seen has mostly just been supports and opposes, even if just based on the discussion page and impressions and unofficial voter guides. I would find it very unusual if there are candidates for which 90% of voters abstained. SilverLocust 💬 06:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028062200","author":"SilverLocust","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-SilverLocust-20241028062200-Raladic-20241028023600","replies":[]}}-->

If a voter met the criteria at the time we generated the voter lists, even if they get blocked later, their vote will probably still count. I am not aware of any plans to look for blocked users and discard their votes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028090700","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241028090700-Raladic-20241028023600","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241028114900-Novem_Linguae-20241028090700"]}}-->

Assuming we use the same criteria for striking as arbcom elections, then only those who people blocked for sockpuppetry who voted with more than one account will have their votes struck. For everyone else their vote stands if they were eligible to cast it at the time they voted. Lightburst was blocked at 08:43 UTC on 25 October, the public voter log doesn't give more precision than the day one which someone cast their vote but they were the ~54th voter and their time card suggests it is most probable they voted before 05:00 UTC meaning their vote would still stand. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028114900","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241028114900-Novem_Linguae-20241028090700","replies":[]}}-->

Hello, I went to determine my eligibility to vote in these elections by visiting the eligibility checking page. There I am told that my account "does not have at least 150 edits in the main namespace (including deleted) as of 24 September 2024 at 23:59 UTC (has 138)." Can someone please explain how this number is calculated? The number of user contributions I have is 289, of which 9 are after 24 September. Is it that Talk and/or Draft page edits are not included in this calculation? More broadly, can someone please explain why Talk edits are not viewed as valuable considerations for voter eligibility in this election, especially given that many interactions with Administrators are via Talk pages? Other Wikipedia elections do not make this "main namespace" distinction when counting contributions. Thank you in advance for any insight that others provide. Coining (talk) 14:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027143200","author":"Coining","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Coining-20241027143200-Count_of_Main_Namespace_Edits_for_Voter_Eligibility","replies":["c-Pickersgill-Cunliffe-20241027143500-Coining-20241027143200","c-DoubleGrazing-20241027143700-Coining-20241027143200","c-Espresso_Addict-20241028000200-Coining-20241027143200"]}}-->

You have as of now 142 mainspace edits. These are edits directly to articles, not to talk, user talk, draft, etc. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 14:35, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027143500","author":"Pickersgill-Cunliffe","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Pickersgill-Cunliffe-20241027143500-Coining-20241027143200","replies":["c-Coining-20241027144000-Pickersgill-Cunliffe-20241027143500"]}}-->

I appreciate the explanation. I suppose my follow-up question is why is "main namespace" used as a voting criteria here, when other elections, such as the Wikimedia Foundation elections are based on total edits? Coining (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027144000","author":"Coining","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Coining-20241027144000-Pickersgill-Cunliffe-20241027143500","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241027154100-Coining-20241027144000"]}}-->

We copied the voting criteria from WP:ACE. I'm not sure why they picked that. In the debrief I am going to suggest simplifying the criteria to WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED, which sadly will probably make it harder for you in particular to vote, but will greatly simplify the process of generating the list of eligible voters, and will bring us into alignment with WP:RFA. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027154100","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241027154100-Coining-20241027144000","replies":["c-Coining-20241027190000-Novem_Linguae-20241027154100"]}}-->

It might be helpful to understand the implications of such a switch for the democratic validity of the elections. There are 72,434 extended confirmed users, based on WP:EXTENDEDCONFIRMED. Is there any way to calculate the number of users with 150+ edits in the main namespace? Again, the Wikimedia Foundation elections are simply based on a set number of total edits; jumping up to the 500 edits required for Extended Confirmed status may be overkill. It could be better to choose a number of total edits that produces roughly the same number of eligible voters as the current criteria, but does so in a more transparent and logical way. Coining (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027190000","author":"Coining","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Coining-20241027190000-Novem_Linguae-20241027154100","replies":[]}}-->

You can see the breakdown of your edits by namespace here. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027143700","author":"DoubleGrazing","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-DoubleGrazing-20241027143700-Coining-20241027143200","replies":["c-Coining-20241027145700-DoubleGrazing-20241027143700"]}}-->

Thank you, @DoubleGrazing. It seems even odder to rely on "main namespace" criteria if a user has to go to an external (non-Wikipedia) website to find its calculation. (The Wikipedia contributions search -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ -- doesn't even refer to a "main" namespace.) I think my point above, in reply to @Pickersgill-Cunliffe, is the primary one though. Coining (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027145700","author":"Coining","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Coining-20241027145700-DoubleGrazing-20241027143700","replies":["c-50.223.140.130-20241027160400-Coining-20241027145700"]}}-->

Coining, you can also use the filters on Special:Contributions to see just your edits in the main namespace; it's referred to as "(Article)" in the dropdown there. For example, this lists your qualifying edits for this election. 50.223.140.130 (talk) 16:04, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027160400","author":"50.223.140.130","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-50.223.140.130-20241027160400-Coining-20241027145700","replies":["c-Sohom_Datta-20241027160500-50.223.140.130-20241027160400","c-Coining-20241027183800-50.223.140.130-20241027160400"]}}-->

Toolforge (and Wikimedia Cloud Services) are not external sites per-se, it is owned by Wikimedia and used by technical members of the community host tools that supplement and help with everyday editing. Sohom (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027160500","author":"Sohom Datta","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Sohom_Datta-20241027160500-50.223.140.130-20241027160400","replies":[],"displayName":"Sohom"}}-->

That link may list the "qualifying edits", but it doesn't total them up. It still says at the top "A user with 292 edits." Coining (talk) 18:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027183800","author":"Coining","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Coining-20241027183800-50.223.140.130-20241027160400","replies":["c-Fanfanboy-20241027185200-Coining-20241027183800"]}}-->

As the comment above yours mentions, Toolforge is owned by Wikimedia, and as such can be trusted for information about edits. fanfanboy (block) 18:52, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027185200","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20241027185200-Coining-20241027183800","replies":["c-Coining-20241027190500-Fanfanboy-20241027185200"]}}-->

I wasn't asserting that it couldn't be trusted; I was pointing out that it is not a particularly clear/obvious way for users to understand what thresholds they need to meet to participate in Wikipedia elections. It is probably a pretty low percentage of Wikipedia editors that even know that Toolforge exists. There isn't even a dedicated Wikipedia page for Toolforge. Coining (talk) 19:05, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027190500","author":"Coining","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Coining-20241027190500-Fanfanboy-20241027185200","replies":["c-Bugghost-20241027232100-Coining-20241027190500"]}}-->

I agree with Coining on this - 150 mainspace edits is a bit of an arbitrary line in the sand, and its not particularly obvious to the user if they've crossed it. Coining is right that by searching only on (Article) namespace for your contributions doesn't actually show you how many results there are (in Coinings case, it says "295 edits", but only 3 pages of 50 results). If this voting criteria remains the same we need some easier way of displaying voter eligibility (like how it shows on the user rights page); or we need to simplify the criteria (eg. to just Extended Confirmed). BugGhost🦗👻 23:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027232100","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241027232100-Coining-20241027190500","replies":[]}}-->

• As a general point, I'm not sure what an editor who does not know what mainspace edits are, how to find out how many of them they have made, what the toolforge tools are, & the like, is actually going to contribute to assessing admin candidates? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028000200","author":"Espresso Addict","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Espresso_Addict-20241028000200-Coining-20241027143200","replies":["c-Coining-20241028011200-Espresso_Addict-20241028000200"]}}-->

  How about we make a rule that Administrators not have any authority over the hundreds of thousands or millions of relatively new Wikipedia editors (especially those who have hundreds of edits, but haven’t been blessed to eat from the Tree of Knowledge), and in exchange I’ll agree that we shouldn’t have any say over who the Administrators are? Coining (talk) 01:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028011200","author":"Coining","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Coining-20241028011200-Espresso_Addict-20241028000200","replies":["c-Raladic-20241028014300-Coining-20241028011200"]}}-->

  Note that your comment above could be considered an ad-hominem personal attack on administrators and can lead to you being blocked from Wikipedia altogether, so I suggest you edit to remove it. Raladic (talk) 01:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028014300","author":"Raladic","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Raladic-20241028014300-Coining-20241028011200","replies":["c-Coining-20241028023900-Raladic-20241028014300"]}}-->

  Respectfully, my comment isn't a personal attack. As WP:NPA makes clear, editors should "Comment on content, not on the contributor," and that is exactly what my comment does -- it makes an argument that the reason less informed editors might be worthy of "contribut[ing] to assessing admin candidates" is because they are regulated by Administrators. It is a similar argument to "No taxation without representation". If anything, the assertion that editors like me don't have anything "to contribute to assessing admin candidates" could be construed as a personal attack. Still, I accept @Espresso Addict's comment as a genuine effort to make a point, though I disagree with it. And at the very least, I give @Espresso Addict the benefit of the doubt, which is totally consistent with WP:NPA's discussion of first offenses and isolated incidents. Indeed, the threat to block me is contrary to WP:NPA, which says "Blocking for personal attacks should only be done for prevention, not punishment." Coining (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028023900","author":"Coining","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Coining-20241028023900-Raladic-20241028014300","replies":["c-Espresso_Addict-20241028060100-Coining-20241028023900"]}}-->

  Indeed, sorry Coining, what I said was a bit overly pointed. I genuinely did intend to point to the general case.

  I've made it abundantly clear on this talk page and elsewhere that I think this trial of admin elections is not working; one of the principal reasons it (imo) isn't working is that the discussion phase has been unnaturally truncated -- which is what normally allows IP editors and editors with a low edit count to comment about their impressions of the candidate, which can significantly sway the vote. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028060100","author":"Espresso Addict","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Espresso_Addict-20241028060100-Coining-20241028023900","replies":["c-Coining-20241028133300-Espresso_Addict-20241028060100"]}}-->

  Thank you, @Espresso Addict, for accepting the conversation in the constructive fashion in which it was intended. Coining (talk) 13:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028133300","author":"Coining","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Coining-20241028133300-Espresso_Addict-20241028060100","replies":[]}}-->

The arbitration committee issued the following statement regarding a need for the community to approve CheckUser access for administrator election scrutineers: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § CheckUser access for administrator election scrutineers (permalink). The subsequent discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § CheckUser access for administrator election scrutineers (comment thread permalink). In any case, with the plans to move towards running SecurePoll elections under local community control, establishing a consensus for CheckUser access will be covered by discussions arising out of Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab) § Determining who should be an electionadmin (comment thread permalink). isaacl (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028172700","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Isaacl-20241028172700-Scrutineers_for_future_elections","replies":[]}}-->

Here's pageview analysis for the first ten candidate nomination pages. Three groups stand out:

1) "First in the list" (QoH).

2) "Drama" (Hawkeye7, ZippyBonzo).

3) "The peleton" (the rest) which all received similar numbers of page-visits, with visitor numbers falling slightly on average with how high they were listed in the original candidates list.

Obviously the process isn't fully over, and I'm only looking at the first ten. FOARP (talk) 11:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028114300","author":"FOARP","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-FOARP-20241028114300-Page_view_analysis","replies":["c-FlyingAce-20241028171200-FOARP-20241028114300","c-SilverLocust-20241028182500-FOARP-20241028114300"]}}-->

To be fair, when I did my review of the candidates I read Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase, which transcludes all the candidate nomination pages; that would not have counted as a "view" for all individual nomination pages, would it? –FlyingAce^✈hello 17:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028171200","author":"FlyingAce","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-FlyingAce-20241028171200-FOARP-20241028114300","replies":["c-Schazjmd-20241028172000-FlyingAce-20241028171200","c-Fanfanboy-20241028172400-FlyingAce-20241028171200","c-Thryduulf-20241028172400-FlyingAce-20241028171200"]}}-->

That's how I viewed them too. Schazjmd (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028172000","author":"Schazjmd","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Schazjmd-20241028172000-FlyingAce-20241028171200","replies":[]}}-->

Ditto. fanfanboy (block) 17:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028172400","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20241028172400-FlyingAce-20241028171200","replies":[]}}-->

That's the method I used as well. I'm pretty sure that @FlyingAce is correct about page views - on the 22nd Queen of Heart's discussion page for example got 426 views, but Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase, on which it was transcluded, got 1838 views the same day. Thryduulf (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028172400","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241028172400-FlyingAce-20241028171200","replies":[]}}-->

These are the pageviews for all 35: massviews analysis. (There are 36 titles listed because "/Rsjaffe" was originally at "/rsjaffe".) SilverLocust 💬 18:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028182500","author":"SilverLocust","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-SilverLocust-20241028182500-FOARP-20241028114300","replies":[]}}-->

If you try to vote at Special:SecurePoll/vote/812 and you receive the message Sorry, you are not in the predetermined list of users authorized to vote in this election" and you think you meet the eligible voter criteria at Wikipedia:Administrator elections#Who can vote, please add your name to the list below so that we can troubleshoot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024225400","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241024225400-\"Sorry,_you_are_not_in_the_predetermined_list_of_users_authorized_to_vote_in_thi","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20241024225700-Novem_Linguae-20241024225400","c-Bugghost-20241024232800-Novem_Linguae-20241024225400","c-Xaosflux-20241024233600-Novem_Linguae-20241024225400"]}}-->

• User:Novem Linguae - no this isn't a typo/example, I can't vote :(

  Is that simply because voting hasn't started yet? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024225700","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241024225700-Novem_Linguae-20241024225400","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241024230100-Tryptofish-20241024225700"]}}-->

  Nope. There's a bug. We're troubleshooting on Phabricator. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024230100","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241024230100-Tryptofish-20241024225700","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241025005800-Novem_Linguae-20241024230100"]}}-->

   Fixed. Root cause: The voter rolls accidentally had people that opted out of WP:ACE messages excluded. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025005800","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241025005800-Novem_Linguae-20241024230100","replies":[]}}-->

For me it's saying "This election has not yet started. It is scheduled to start on 25 October 2024 at 00:00.", which I assume is the expected message (?) BugGhost🦗👻 23:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024232800","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241024232800-Novem_Linguae-20241024225400","replies":["c-HouseBlaster-20241024233300-Bugghost-20241024232800"]}}-->

That is the error you want to see :) HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024233300","author":"HouseBlaster","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-HouseBlaster-20241024233300-Bugghost-20241024232800","replies":["c-Bugghost-20241024235700-HouseBlaster-20241024233300"],"displayName":"House"}}-->

I assumed as much - either way looks like cyberpower on the phab ticket has fixed it [7] BugGhost🦗👻 23:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024235700","author":"Bugghost","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Bugghost-20241024235700-HouseBlaster-20241024233300","replies":[]}}-->

• One reason to not use a whitelist if these go forward, it requires manual work (also a reason why for ACE we normally publish the whitelist in advance for public scrutiny). — xaosflux ^Talk 23:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241024233600","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241024233600-Novem_Linguae-20241024225400","replies":[]}}-->

I still can't vote and I meet all the requirements. The Blue Rider 17:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241029173600","author":"The Blue Rider","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-The_Blue_Rider-20241029173600-The_Blue_Rider","replies":["c-Cryptic-20241029174700-The_Blue_Rider-20241029173600","c-HouseBlaster-20241030024400-The_Blue_Rider-20241029173600"],"displayName":"Blue"}}-->

Probably because of your recent name change. —Cryptic 17:47, 29 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241029174700","author":"Cryptic","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Cryptic-20241029174700-The_Blue_Rider-20241029173600","replies":["c-Pppery-20241029182000-Cryptic-20241029174700"]}}-->

More likely because there were blocked at the time the voter roll was created. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241029182000","author":"Pppery","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Pppery-20241029182000-Cryptic-20241029174700","replies":["c-Xaosflux-20241029185100-Pppery-20241029182000"],"displayName":"* Pppery *"}}-->

And the block was still in affect at the start of voting. Suffrage requires "not be sitewide blocked during the election"... As this user isn't blocked any more, seems like they may qualify now. As this is a whitelist roll - this would require getting WMF to add to the override list, if there is support for letting this person vote. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241029185100","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20241029185100-Pppery-20241029182000","replies":["c-Espresso_Addict-20241030012900-Xaosflux-20241029185100","c-Thryduulf-20241030021100-Xaosflux-20241029185100"]}}-->

I believe that they currently qualify? Espresso Addict (talk) 01:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241030012900","author":"Espresso Addict","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Espresso_Addict-20241030012900-Xaosflux-20241029185100","replies":[]}}-->

not be sitewide blocked during the election is ambiguous, it could mean:

1. There is no point during the election at which they are subject to a site-wide block
2. There is at least one point during the election when they are not subject to a site-wide block
3. No site-wide blocks are placed on them during the election.

I don't think 3 is a reasonable interpretation given that it would allow those blocked before the election to vote but not those blocked during it. Both 1 and 2 are reasonable positions on the face of it, but looking further 1 has issues:

• It makes scrutineering much harder, given one would need to check every voter's block log to see whether they were blocked at any point during the election period
• It would disqualify editors for being the subject of bad (overturned), accidental (e.g. the wrong account was blocked by mistake), precautionary (e.g. potentially compromised accounts are blocked until it is established they are not or the owner has regained control) or test blocks.
  • These could be excluded from consideration, but if so I would expect language explicitly stating that (and defining the terms)
  • It would allow an admin acting bad-faith to disqualify voters by blocking them for a short period. e.g. if someone were to block me for 5 minutes around ~05:00 UTC it's unlikely I would notice until I next had cause to look at my block log (please don't try this!). The admin making such blocks should be sanctioned, but the victim should not be penalised by being disenfranchised.
• It (and #3) would be incompatible with the apparently uncontroversial interpretation at #What happens if a candidate had very little votes entirely that Lightburst's vote should stand if he voted before he was blocked.

This brings me to think that #2 is the most reasonable interpretation of the intent, and thus The Blue Rider should be allowed to cast a vote now they are no longer blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 02:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241030021100","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241030021100-Xaosflux-20241029185100","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241030022400-Thryduulf-20241030021100"]}}-->

If this is the interpretation we go with, it could be clarified for subsequent elections by changing "during the election" to something like "at the time of casting their vote". Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 30 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241030022400","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241030022400-Thryduulf-20241030021100","replies":[]}}-->

@Novem Linguae: Is it possible to add someone to the voter roll mid-election? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241030024400","author":"HouseBlaster","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-HouseBlaster-20241030024400-The_Blue_Rider-20241029173600","replies":["c-Pppery-20241030025100-HouseBlaster-20241030024400"],"displayName":"House"}}-->

It's technically possible, and was done with Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2019/Coordination/Archive_1#Eligible_with_former_account/current_account?_(RAGentry). But you'd have to convince someone who has access on votewiki to do it. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241030025100","author":"Pppery","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Pppery-20241030025100-HouseBlaster-20241030024400","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241030035800-Pppery-20241030025100"],"displayName":"* Pppery *"}}-->

Requested at phab:T371454#10275537. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241030035800","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241030035800-Pppery-20241030025100","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241030040800-Novem_Linguae-20241030035800"]}}-->

 Done. @The Blue Rider, you can go vote now :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241030040800","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241030040800-Novem_Linguae-20241030035800","replies":["c-The_Blue_Rider-20241030041100-Novem_Linguae-20241030040800"]}}-->

Thank you! The Blue Rider 04:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241030041100","author":"The Blue Rider","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-The_Blue_Rider-20241030041100-Novem_Linguae-20241030040800","replies":[],"displayName":"Blue"}}-->

Is the expectation really for users to review nearly 40 candidates, questions, discussions, etc.? I always supported having the option of using SecurePoll for RfAs, but for individual ones, not dozens. Maybe five or ten at a time, at most. If the limitation of SecurePoll is such large batches, then maybe it's a no-go. I realize this is a test of the feature (previously limited to ACE on-project, and WMF proposals cross-projects), but this is a lot to review. I don't think the candidacy size was well thought out, and it may end up dooming this approach. Which would be quite unfortunate. El_C 15:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017155200","author":"El C","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-El_C-20241017155200-Impractical:_nearly_40_candidates_is_too_much_to_reasonably_review_in_a_single_b","replies":["c-Ahecht-20241017155800-El_C-20241017155200","c-DreamRimmer-20241017161800-El_C-20241017155200","c-El_C-20241018150600-El_C-20241017155200","c-Hey_man_im_josh-20241018151200-El_C-20241017155200","c-TParis-20241031140900-El_C-20241017155200"],"displayName":"El_C"}}-->

@El C See #So many candidates above. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017155800","author":"Ahecht","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ahecht-20241017155800-El_C-20241017155200","replies":[]}}-->

There are currently 35 candidates in this election, which indeed makes it quite challenging to read through all the nominations and answers. We didn't expect so many candidates, but I think this a positive sign that so many users are stepping forward to run. As this is the first time organising an admin election, a lot of feedback has been received from the community, and more input will continue to be gathered until the election concludes. If these elections continue, future ones can be adjusted based on this feedback, such as limiting the number of candidates and tweaking the election and discussion phase dates. – DreamRimmer (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017161800","author":"DreamRimmer","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-DreamRimmer-20241017161800-El_C-20241017155200","replies":["c-Femke-20241017162200-DreamRimmer-20241017161800"]}}-->

There are two discussions about how we manage this number this time that you might want to join. That is #What_should_the_page_say_on_voting_guides? and #Notice_not_on_watchlist. This was unexpected, and between all the discussion we've had, there seems to be a consensus do to it differently next time. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241017162200","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Femke-20241017162200-DreamRimmer-20241017161800","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

That thread says something to the effect of: 'I'm pleased there's over a dozen candidates.' Whereas mine here says: 'I'm displeased there's nearly 40.' See, one thing is not like the other. El_C 15:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241018150600","author":"El C","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-El_C-20241018150600-El_C-20241017155200","replies":[],"displayName":"El_C"}}-->

I also would have preferred if securepoll allowed us to vote for each individual at our convenience, as opposed to voting on all of the candidates at once. Thankfully, we're able to go back and vote again (albeit on all of them at once again) if we want to change our votes, and our original votes will then be discarded. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241018151200","author":"Hey man im josh","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Hey_man_im_josh-20241018151200-El_C-20241017155200","replies":["c-Isaacl-20241018183700-Hey_man_im_josh-20241018151200","c-DoubleGrazing-20241018184400-Hey_man_im_josh-20241018151200"]}}-->

It's a tradeoff; retrieving the original votes would mean the software would need to store the required decryption key to access that info, which adds a potential surface for attack (and at least partially negates the goal of encryption, which prevents those with access to the database from seeing the votes). Other than a mechanism like that so voting could be broken up over multiple sessions, voting on individuals would require individual ballots, which also affects the user experience. isaacl (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241018183700","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Isaacl-20241018183700-Hey_man_im_josh-20241018151200","replies":[]}}-->

Just to say that I, for one, would be happy to withdraw from this election, or be bumped into a later batch, if either of those would help. (Perhaps I'm not the only candidate feeling this way, either?) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241018184400","author":"DoubleGrazing","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-DoubleGrazing-20241018184400-Hey_man_im_josh-20241018151200","replies":[]}}-->

SecurePoll for RFAs is the way to go. But, I'm not devoting all of my time to review 40+ candidate in a few weeks. I've voted (since it's truly voting this time) based on name recognition and I've opposed anyone I don't recognize. I know this comment will inflame a lot of people - but this is the reality. I feel strongly enough that the candidates aren't being properly vetted to vote oppose over abstain. Okay, folks, go ahead and hate on me now.--v/r - TP 14:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241031140900","author":"TParis","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-TParis-20241031140900-El_C-20241017155200","replies":["c-Valereee-20241031141700-TParis-20241031140900","c-DoubleGrazing-20241031145000-TParis-20241031140900"],"displayName":"T"}}-->

No hate, but there actually was a ton of vetting done by various editors, who reported their findings in the discussion sections, and multiple candidates had multiple nominators. Valereee (talk) 14:17, 31 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241031141700","author":"Valereee","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Valereee-20241031141700-TParis-20241031140900","replies":[]}}-->

Everyone obviously votes the way they think is best, but the way I see it, if I don't have an opinion on a candidate, I'll abstain (and be grateful there is that option). Logically, voting against someone because I don't know them would make no more sense (to my mind) than voting for someone because I don't know them. In this election I voted for 7-8 candidates, and against two, leaving the remaining majority as abstentions, precisely because I had no opinion on them either way (partly because I hadn't done enough research on them, in turn partly because of the large number of them). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241031145000","author":"DoubleGrazing","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-DoubleGrazing-20241031145000-TParis-20241031140900","replies":[]}}-->

If people really are bothered by the number just hold a quick poll, to split into say 4ths by sign up, the first group goes first the second group 10 days latter, etc if one of the candidates can't do it when they are assigned they can go sometime latter when they can (advertise the poll on cent). Some flexibility is part of the job after all. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241018184700","author":"Alanscottwalker","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Alanscottwalker-20241018184700-Do_a_quick_pool_spilt","replies":["c-Hey_man_im_josh-20241018185100-Alanscottwalker-20241018184700","c-SilkTork-20241023180100-Alanscottwalker-20241018184700"]}}-->

I don't think that's reasonable at this stage in the process in my opinion. Candidates have been prepping, whether just mentally or actually setting time aside to be ready to answer questions, and it would be unreasonable to change the schedule on short notice. Voters have also been preparing questions, comments, and doing their research to be ready and able to vote appropriately. Though I do think the port-mortem for the process will find consensus to split candidates up into staggered groups if we continue with admin elections. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241018185100","author":"Hey man im josh","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Hey_man_im_josh-20241018185100-Alanscottwalker-20241018184700","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241018190800-Hey_man_im_josh-20241018185100","c-Asilvering-20241018191300-Hey_man_im_josh-20241018185100"]}}-->

There is also the issue that (as I understand it) voting is held on a separate wiki (votewiki) and communities holding elections need to be allocated slots on votewiki in which to hold the election. This is why the election is being held now - I believe August or September would have been the first choice of those doing the initial organising. If I've stood the comments at WP:VPWMF correctly then this might change in the future, but the "if" in this sentence is substantial. Thryduulf (talk) 19:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241018190800","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241018190800-Hey_man_im_josh-20241018185100","replies":["c-Ahecht-20241018200000-Thryduulf-20241018190800"]}}-->

@Thryduulf SecurePoll can support multiple elections at once and multiple languages at once. The only limitation is that it cannot simultaneously hold an election for a left-to-right language and a right-to-left language. See Special:Diff/1059611454. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241018200000","author":"Ahecht","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Ahecht-20241018200000-Thryduulf-20241018190800","replies":[]}}-->

Agree. At this point, we're in or heading into the weekend, so I doubt we can get the WMF staff who set up the Secure Poll to change it for us. And I think it would only be appropriate to move some candidates into a later set if they specifically agreed to be moved into one (cf @DoubleGrazing above). Though if @Novem Linguae is confident that the relevant WMF staff would be able to attend to a last-minute change of plans on Monday, maybe this is still technically possible...? -- asilvering (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241018191300","author":"Asilvering","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Asilvering-20241018191300-Hey_man_im_josh-20241018185100","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241018193900-Asilvering-20241018191300"]}}-->

Using SecurePoll is expensive in terms of time (of WMF Trust & Safety who administer vote.wikimedia.org and who have a SecurePoll calendar that they use to try to keep polls from other wikis from overlapping, and of the stewards who do the scrutineering). I don't think we can convince those stakeholders to have 4 SecurePoll votes in a short timespan. In fact the stewards have already stated that they probably can't scrutineer for us in the future. This would also be a big change which would disrupt the schedule and candidate expectations, and an 11th hour change. In conclusion, I don't think this is a possibility for this election, but I imagine we can certainly make changes to address this after the election in the debrief. Perhaps capping future elections to 10 candidates, or elongating the discussion phase, or allowing voter guides, or whatever we want to do to mitigate the problems that come with having a lot of candidates. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:39, 18 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241018193900","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241018193900-Asilvering-20241018191300","replies":["c-Asilvering-20241018195800-Novem_Linguae-20241018193900"]}}-->

Thanks for the thorough response. I personally think the shorter discussion period is one of the strong benefits of this system (it just becomes difficult when there are so many candidates), so I hope we don't end up extending it. Based on your experience with setting up SecurePoll, do you have a sense of how often we could run these admin elections? Would quarterly be too much? Twice-yearly? -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241018195800","author":"Asilvering","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Asilvering-20241018195800-Novem_Linguae-20241018193900","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241018200300-Asilvering-20241018195800","c-Isaacl-20241018212800-Asilvering-20241018195800"]}}-->

Maybe yearly? WMF T&S didn't respond very quickly to my original emails, suggesting to me they are a bit busy and don't have a lot of bandwidth for elections. (Although they've been great this week with the election setup on Phab.) Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Enabling SecurePoll elections with the electionadmin right is probably the long-term solution to being able to hold multiple elections a year. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241018200300","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241018200300-Asilvering-20241018195800","replies":[]}}-->

Running elections more frequently on a sustainable scale will require them to be run locally. We've known that it was in the WMF plans, and the discussion to which Novem Linguae linked gives hope that it will come sooner rather than later. How often the community can run elections will probably come down to what decisions it wants to make on the requirements for scrutineering, as I think that will be the first bottleneck. isaacl (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241018212800","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Isaacl-20241018212800-Asilvering-20241018195800","replies":["c-Sohom_Datta-20241019144300-Isaacl-20241018212800"]}}-->

Going off on that thread, is there a historical reason we always use stewards instead of local enwiki CU folks for scrutineering ? Sohom (talk) 14:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019144300","author":"Sohom Datta","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Sohom_Datta-20241019144300-Isaacl-20241018212800","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241019145000-Sohom_Datta-20241019144300","c-Novem_Linguae-20241019200400-Sohom_Datta-20241019144300"],"displayName":"Sohom"}}-->

The idea for using stewards who don't regularly contribute to en.wp to scrutineer arbcom elections has historically been because they are not part of the community. CUs are appointed by and often work closely with the arbitration committee so there is a much greater potential for conflicts of interest, especially if they were also permitted to vote. Whether that degree of independence is needed for admin elections is not something that I can recall being discussed. Thryduulf (talk) 14:50, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019145000","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241019145000-Sohom_Datta-20241019144300","replies":["c-Sohom_Datta-20241019150800-Thryduulf-20241019145000"]}}-->

Whether that degree of independence is needed for admin elections is not something that I can recall being discussed. - That might be a useful point to bring up when WP:AELEC goes up for a vote after the trial period. I don't see stewards being any more impartial than local CUs in the context of admin elections. And choosing local CUs will probably allow us to increase the frequency in which we conduct these elections in general without overburdening our stewards (who already have a lot on their plates). Sohom (talk) 15:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019150800","author":"Sohom Datta","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Sohom_Datta-20241019150800-Thryduulf-20241019145000","replies":[],"displayName":"Sohom"}}-->

Maybe to avoid WP:NOTFISHING? Checkusers (stewards) that don't know as many enwiki people are less likely to violate WP:NOTFISHING during their checks of enwiki voters. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241019200400","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241019200400-Sohom_Datta-20241019144300","replies":[]}}-->

• The number of candidates indicates that this initiative has been hugely successful in encouraging folks to come forward. We've yet to see how it will work out - if the candidates will feel the experience has been positive, if the community will feel the process has not been too exhausting, and the real test will be how everyone responds when this is next done (will a similar number of candidates come forward, will sufficient community members get involved in discussion and voting). It might be a little early to propose improvements when we haven't yet gone through the process, though I was also somewhat daunted when I started to read the questions and answers, then scrolled down to see how many candidates there are. My thought was that staggering the applicants might be helpful, and it seems inevitable that it has already been suggested. Staggering, at the moment, seems to make sense - we could have a system of holding an admin election every xxx (say, a month), limit each election to 10 candidates, so any over ten go into the next election slot. If we find that a month is too frequent because there's too few candidates, then move to every three months, conversely if a month is not frequent enough, move it to every fortnight. Anyhow - I really like that so many have stepped forward, and I will endeavour to read though the info on each candidate and make a vote on everyone. SilkTork (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241023180100","author":"SilkTork","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-SilkTork-20241023180100-Alanscottwalker-20241018184700","replies":["c-King_of_Hearts-20241023215100-SilkTork-20241023180100"]}}-->

  We could have tentatively scheduled elections which run according to dynamic rules:

  1. The voting phase will run starting 0:00 UTC the first Sunday of each month and last for exactly one week.
  2. The nomination and discussion deadlines will be some predetermined number of days before voting begins.
  3. Any number of candidates may nominate themselves / be nominated for adminship. If, however, the number of eligible candidates should exceed 10 as of the nomination deadline, only the first 10 nominations (chronologically) will proceed to that month's election; the rest will be postponed until the next election.
  4. If the number of eligible candidates in a given month is less than 5, an election will not be run that month. Notwithstanding the above, elections will be held no less frequently as once every 3 months, even if there are fewer than 5 candidates.

  This ensures that there are 5-10 candidates each round, in all probability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241023215100","author":"King of Hearts","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-King_of_Hearts-20241023215100-SilkTork-20241023180100","replies":[],"displayName":"King of \u2665"}}-->

Just voted now and took me circa 30 mins, and I supported just over 2/3 rds of the 32 candidates and didn't need to abstain on any.

1. The Fenke and Novem Linguae guides are very helpful (amongst others), and the Fenke is a little more detailed in terms of past offers of support / co-nom which is helpful in terms of third-party validation and getting through the list.

2. The "Discussion" part at the end of each RfA where some admins (and other experiecned editors) have some analysis on each candidates activity and record is also extremely helpful, and really helps to build an impression imho.

Overall, an easier process to navigate than I expected, and hats off again to all who have built and ran this. Hopefully if my voting is any guide, we are going to have a lot more admins in Wikipedia shortly :) Aszx5000 (talk) 10:33, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025103300","author":"Aszx5000","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Aszx5000-20241025103300-Voting_first_impressions","replies":["c-Ritchie333-20241025103800-Aszx5000-20241025103300","c-SilkTork-20241025111300-Aszx5000-20241025103300"]}}-->

I voted support for 15 candidates, neutral for 8 and oppose for 9. The discussion and stats that other editors put up helped; I also went and looked at XTools' edit count for all of them and did the basic cursory check I'd do for anybody. All in all, it took about 45 minutes. I'm not sure that everyone else is going to dedicate that much time, though.

I don't want to say who exactly I voted for, but I noticed that of all the candidates that had a nominator behind them, I supported, except for one when I was neutral. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025103800","author":"Ritchie333","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Ritchie333-20241025103800-Aszx5000-20241025103300","replies":["c-Valereee-20241031152900-Ritchie333-20241025103800"]}}-->

I, too, took into account the fact a candidate had nominators. I think the learning for future candidates: if a well-regarded experienced editor has offered to nominate you, take them up on it even for elections. Valereee (talk) 15:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241031152900","author":"Valereee","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Valereee-20241031152900-Ritchie333-20241025103800","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241031205700-Valereee-20241031152900"]}}-->

Nominators are definitely helping me when I'm undecided on a candidate. They give a little push in the direction of support. Also, the admin elections format seems to have greatly reduced the number of support comments, so a glowing nomination helps take the place of some of these missing support comments.

Another mistake for candidates to avoid is short (1-2 sentence) answers to questions. It's hard to get to know a candidate and their thought process if the questions are not answered in enough detail. I think about a paragraph per answer is the ideal length for an answer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:57, 31 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241031205700","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241031205700-Valereee-20241031152900","replies":[]}}-->

I didn't check the time I took, but it was well over two hours. I relied heavily on Novem Linguae and Fenke's guides as both a starting point and an anchor - so thanks for those! I supported more people than I thought I would considering there was so little information to work on. I usually read through people's comments during an RFA, and use those as a source for where to look in a candidate's history; in this scheme some candidates had few comments. I took that as a positive for the candidate - few comments suggests few concerns, though lack of comments meant there was little clue as to where to look in a candidate's history.

I like the confidence of folks who self-nominate, though in this experiment I found I was counting a nomination as a positive point, largely because nominations (or co-nominations) stood out from the crowd. I also counted encouragement to become an admin as a positive, unless such support was private, and so not traceable. I have given all these candidate's less scrutiny than I would normally give - a quick look at given examples of good work, a look at user and usertalk pages is the most I felt I could do in the circumstances. I feel the most dubious candidates were identified during the process, and dropped themselves out; so, all in all, more scrutiny was probably not needed, and anyway we have probably become too suspicious of candidates over the years. It's time we were more welcoming and trusting. I support this process moving forward, though with a limit of ten candidates per session. SilkTork (talk) 11:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025111300","author":"SilkTork","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-SilkTork-20241025111300-Aszx5000-20241025103300","replies":["c-Mike_Christie-20241025112200-SilkTork-20241025111300"]}}-->

It took me close to an hour to go through and make decisions. That was less than it would have been, but I'd read about half the nomination pages in some detail over the discussion period, and glanced at the rest. I ended up supporting more than you did, erring on the side of "adminship is no big deal" where uncertain, but I did have a handful of opposes and some abstains. I agree that having a nominator is a big plus. The quantitative data presented (e.g. AfD, CSD analysis) wasn't always helpful in itself, but in some cases it led to discussions that I did find helpful. Seeing (positive or negative) commentary from other editors whose opinion I trust was also helpful. The discussion phase should be a little longer, I'd say. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:22, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025112200","author":"Mike Christie","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Mike_Christie-20241025112200-SilkTork-20241025111300","replies":["c-Thryduulf-20241025115600-Mike_Christie-20241025112200"]}}-->

In terms of the quantitive data, perhaps it would be useful in future to have an agreed set of statistics compiled for each candidate prior to the start of the discussion so they could be presented at the same time and in the same format for each. Working this out in advance would enable it to be as objective, relevant and contextually aware as possible (e.g. for declined CSD stats, pages recreated after deletion are not relevant and both absolute number and proportion of all noms are more useful than just absolute number). Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025115600","author":"Thryduulf","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Thryduulf-20241025115600-Mike_Christie-20241025112200","replies":["c-Espresso_Addict-20241026014500-Thryduulf-20241025115600"]}}-->

I think this will prove harder than it sounds. F'rex, I looked at the summary of articles created for all candidates who met my basic criteria; the tool often shows many deleted articles which often turn out to be redirects, sometimes appear to be articles tagged for deletion (there's a bug here), or articles split where the split was not perceived to be viable alone. Some editors create hundreds of mainly very short articles, others lavish time on a smaller number of creations. Imo with all these stats, as Mike Christie wrote above, by far the most interesting thing is the discussion that they generate, which in this election round was curiously truncated. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241026014500","author":"Espresso Addict","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Espresso_Addict-20241026014500-Thryduulf-20241025115600","replies":[]}}-->

I was greatly impressed with the breadth and quality of the candidates. Agreed that most dubious candidates dropped out during the process, the length of the process felt more than sufficient. It was an easier review process than I expected. A regular process like this in batches of 10-15, with some of the data from guide tables autogenerated, would be welcome. – SJ + 23:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241025235600","author":"Sj","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Sj-20241025235600-Voting_first_impressions","replies":["c-JuxtaposedJacob-20241028104000-Sj-20241025235600"]}}-->

+1 for your suggestion of having smaller batches; this was almost painful to read through. I wonder if there could be a defined period every 4-6 methods where 10-12 people could run for administrator? That would keep it regular, hopefully help keep sysop numbers up, while preventing reader fatigue.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 10:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028104000","author":"JuxtaposedJacob","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-JuxtaposedJacob-20241028104000-Sj-20241025235600","replies":[]}}-->

I would like to second the suggestions above for considering smaller batches of candidates for any future elections. I found the full list daunting and ended up giving less thorough evaluation of each candidate than I would have at a traditional RfA. I ultimately abstained on 14 candidates, mostly because of concerns that didn't rise to the level of a full oppose in my mind, or a focus on areas of Wikipedia I am less familiar with and a feeling that I couldn't really evaluate their potential as an admin. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241029013500","author":"Eluchil404","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Eluchil404-20241029013500-Voting_first_impressions","replies":["c-Chipmunkdavis-20241029133800-Eluchil404-20241029013500"]}}-->

Smaller batches are needed. It took me some time spread over a couple of days to go through these. This resulted in technical glitches regarding securepoll, which does not work if left open for awhile, and of course each new load sees all 32 names re-randomized. There are ways around this, but it's inconvenient. If it was less than 10 names say being chucked about that would be easier to manage. CMD (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241029133800","author":"Chipmunkdavis","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Chipmunkdavis-20241029133800-Eluchil404-20241029013500","replies":[],"displayName":"CMD"}}-->

I just voted, and I supported 18 candidates and opposed 14. I did not abstain on any. I tried to judge the candidates the same way I would have done at a conventional RfA, and I judged them only in their own right, not against one another. I didn't do my research all at once, but I spent a fair amount of time on it. It definitely would have been a lot easier with a smaller pool of candidates, but I was not overwhelmed by this number. There were some where I knew how I would vote immediately upon seeing their usernames, because I was already familiar with them, but I would say that a majority were new to me. I started by reading the entire discussions at every candidate's candidate page. This was where I found the most useful information. I also looked at all the voter guides and vote lists that I could find, and used them largely for those candidates where I was having trouble making up my mind. If after reading the guides I was still uncertain, I went back to that candidate's candidate page and read it again, and then I was able to make up my mind. For the most part, I found comments about a candidate's strengths and weaknesses far more helpful than the reams of statistics that were posted. I also noticed that quite a few voter guides simply repeated, in tabular form, what was already available to see on the candidate pages, which did not strike me as useful; some of the other voter guides were not finished in time (which somewhat undermines the argument that guides would be useful to editors when there were so many candidates: even some of the guide writers ran into the problem of there being so many candidates). Perhaps in future iterations we will have fewer candidates, more substantive discussion, and fewer statistics. But I feel, cautiously, like this may have been a successful venture, because it may be a way to get good candidates who find this process less stressful than the old system. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241030002600","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20241030002600-Voting_first_impressions","replies":["c-Valereee-20241031153500-Tryptofish-20241030002600"]}}-->

I did it over several days, too, taking notes for myself on those who were easy supports and those which I needed to continue reading on until the end of the discussion phase. By the end I had a list which probably took me a few hours to compile, and voting took maybe 10 minutes. I didn't find it overwhelming, but that was mostly due to the fact so many editors had chipped in with analyses they'd done on particular aspects, sort of like an FA review. I also did read voter guides, which in general were also helpful. Definitely let's set a limit on the number of candidates in future, although I kind of wonder if this first explosion was due to pent up demand for something other than RfA. Valereee (talk) 15:35, 31 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241031153500","author":"Valereee","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Valereee-20241031153500-Tryptofish-20241030002600","replies":[]}}-->

When reading through all the candidates pages, I read all them all through the transclusions for convenience. However, whenever I wanted to open a candidates nomination page, I would have to scroll all the way up to get the link from the box containing all the candidates. This was inconvenient as I would also still have to scroll back down and find where I was at. I suggest we add links to the candidates subpages alongside the transclude page.

An example would be:

The candidates subpage can be found here

(transcluded page here)

or

(transcluded page here)

I feel these would be more convenient. fanfanboy (block) 18:37, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027183700","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20241027183700-Example_2","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241027185900-Fanfanboy-20241027183700","c-Cowboygilbert-20241101031600-Fanfanboy-20241027183700"]}}-->

Sure! If you can figure out a way to do this in an automated way using mw:Help:Magic words, go ahead and edit this into Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidate subpage template so that it helps in the possible next election. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:59, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027185900","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241027185900-Fanfanboy-20241027183700","replies":["c-Femke-20241027190200-Novem_Linguae-20241027185900","c-Fanfanboy-20241028161300-Novem_Linguae-20241027185900","c-Cowboygilbert-20241030013400-Novem_Linguae-20241027185900"]}}-->

With a small note that hiding a link behind the word "here" isn't great design and bad for accessibly. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241027190200","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Femke-20241027190200-Novem_Linguae-20241027185900","replies":["c-Fanfanboy-20241028141100-Femke-20241027190200"],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

Noted. fanfanboy (block) 14:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028141100","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20241028141100-Femke-20241027190200","replies":[]}}-->

Done, guess we'll have to wait to see if it works or not. I think it does, but I was well out of my comfort zone when trying so I hope I didn't break anything. fanfanboy (block) 16:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241028161300","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20241028161300-Novem_Linguae-20241027185900","replies":["c-Bastun-20241029125800-Fanfanboy-20241028161300"]}}-->

Seeing as we're talking about accessibility - a dark-blue username on a black background is illegible for many people, who then have to hover over your signature to be able to find out your name. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241029125800","author":"Bastun","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Bastun-20241029125800-Fanfanboy-20241028161300","replies":["c-Fanfanboy-20241029132300-Bastun-20241029125800"]}}-->

I was already asked about this and modified it accordingly. fanfanboy (block talk) 13:23, 29 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241029132300","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20241029132300-Bastun-20241029125800","replies":[]}}-->

wouldn't just adding in : The candidates subpage can be found at [[{{FULLPAGENAME}}]] below the nomination header work? or would there need to be some sort of wikiwizarding needed. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241030013400","author":"Cowboygilbert","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Cowboygilbert-20241030013400-Novem_Linguae-20241027185900","replies":["c-Fanfanboy-20241030122100-Cowboygilbert-20241030013400"]}}-->

I think I tried something like that and it didn't work. fanfanboy (block talk) 12:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241030122100","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20241030122100-Cowboygilbert-20241030013400","replies":["c-SilverLocust-20241030182800-Fanfanboy-20241030122100"]}}-->

{{FULLPAGENAME}} isn't preserved during transclusion. Instead, it can use {{subst:FULLPAGENAME}} (which doesn't change if the page is later moved) or {{#invoke:TEMPLATENAME|main}} (which does). SilverLocust 💬 18:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241030182800","author":"SilverLocust","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-SilverLocust-20241030182800-Fanfanboy-20241030122100","replies":["c-Fanfanboy-20241030184300-SilverLocust-20241030182800"]}}-->

Very helpful, but what if I also only want the subpage name? fanfanboy (block talk) 18:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241030184300","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20241030184300-SilverLocust-20241030182800","replies":["c-SilverLocust-20241030185300-Fanfanboy-20241030184300"]}}-->

{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}} or {{SUBPAGENAME:{{#invoke:TEMPLATENAME|main}}}}. SilverLocust 💬 18:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241030185300","author":"SilverLocust","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-SilverLocust-20241030185300-Fanfanboy-20241030184300","replies":["c-Fanfanboy-20241030192000-SilverLocust-20241030185300"]}}-->

That's perfect, thanks! I've updated Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/October_2024/Candidate_subpage_template to use the later. fanfanboy (block talk) 19:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241030192000","author":"Fanfanboy","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Fanfanboy-20241030192000-SilverLocust-20241030185300","replies":[]}}-->

Instead of making a whole new thread, I will be saying this here. I've fixed the subpage as well and added language to make sure that editors abide by the manual of style in terms of MOS:PSEUDOHEAD. While it may look like it's an acceptable way to use bold face when making a pseudo-header, it's not to be used that way. It's meant to be used if sub-sub-sub-headers can't be hidden using {{TOC limit}}, which in our case it can be hidden. I also changed the levels of the headers as it has to follow the levels and shouldn't skip. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 03:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241101031600","author":"Cowboygilbert","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Cowboygilbert-20241101031600-Fanfanboy-20241027183700","replies":[]}}-->

For a considerable period today—probably the 5.5 hours after the UTC date rolled over to October 31—the status of the election on this page and at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Candidates was marked as closed due to the transclusion of Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Header, which calls Template:Administrator elections candidate/data. On the template, the ending date for the election had been set to October 31, but the template appears to read this as meaning the beginning of October 31 rather than the end of it. Since no one working on these pages caught this ahead of time, as a temporary fix I have switched the end date listed in the template to November 1 and edited the header to read "00:00 on November 1", since that is the best option I am technically capable of performing quickly myself. On the one hand, the header and template syntax should be fixed again to correctly read "23:59 on October 31", so please help with that if possible. On the other hand, there is the possibility that some editors did not proceed to vote because the top of these pages told them that the election had already ended. It's impossible to tell what effect this might have on the makeup of the participants, but editors in some time zones may have been more misled than others. Presumably the use of SecurePoll does not allow for the extension of the deadline to accommodate these editors. If integrity of results is important, more scrutiny of such things ahead of time is needed. Dekimasuよ! 05:45, 31 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241031054500","author":"Dekimasu","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Dekimasu-20241031054500-Voting_incorrectly_marked_as_closed_for_several_hours","replies":["c-Dekimasu-20241031054900-Dekimasu-20241031054500","c-Joe_Roe-20241031065800-Dekimasu-20241031054500"]}}-->

I have also updated the contents of Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase for the same reason. It is possible there are other similar problems. Dekimasuよ! 05:49, 31 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241031054900","author":"Dekimasu","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Dekimasu-20241031054900-Dekimasu-20241031054500","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241031064000-Dekimasu-20241031054900"]}}-->

Thanks for catching this. I've reverted to the simple versions I originally wrote, that don't have any complex template wikicode that can get messed up. Another editor wanted to make things more complex in the section Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#Subpage above, which was driving me nuts, but I didn't want to be too pushy so I backed down. But apparently that was a mistake on my part, since it led to this error. Let's keep everything simple and hard-coded so there are no more errors. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241031064000","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241031064000-Dekimasu-20241031054900","replies":["c-Aaron_Liu-20241031114200-Novem_Linguae-20241031064000"]}}-->

My bad on this. I misinterpreted the schedule. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241031114200","author":"Aaron Liu","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Aaron_Liu-20241031114200-Novem_Linguae-20241031064000","replies":[]}}-->

So if it was shown as closed from 00.00 to 05.30 UTC, that was e.g. 17.00 to 22.30 PDT and potentially could have denied people in the western hemisphere a vote if they were planning to do it at the last minute their time. I think there's a case for prolonging the vote an extra 12 hours, so ending 12.00 UTC on 1 November so that people in those timezones get another evening. – Joe (talk) 06:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241031065800","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20241031065800-Dekimasu-20241031054500","replies":["c-Extraordinary_Writ-20241031071600-Joe_Roe-20241031065800","c-SD0001-20241101142500-Joe_Roe-20241031065800"],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

I'm not sure it'd really help: people who think voting is already closed aren't likely to ever check again. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241031071600","author":"Extraordinary Writ","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Extraordinary_Writ-20241031071600-Joe_Roe-20241031065800","replies":["c-Joe_Roe-20241031072900-Extraordinary_Writ-20241031071600"]}}-->

Good point. – Joe (talk) 07:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241031072900","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20241031072900-Extraordinary_Writ-20241031071600","replies":["c-BusterD-20241031142400-Joe_Roe-20241031072900"],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

I changed the text, adding the word "still". BusterD (talk) 14:24, 31 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241031142400","author":"BusterD","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-BusterD-20241031142400-Joe_Roe-20241031072900","replies":[]}}-->

It's a moot point now, but it appears SecurePoll doesn't allow changing the end date of a poll once it starts. I filed phab:T378817 about this. – SD0001 (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241101142500","author":"SD0001","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-SD0001-20241101142500-Joe_Roe-20241031065800","replies":[]}}-->

If you haven't voted yet and want to, make sure to get it done soon. I'll be putting my vote in during this time. Happy electing! –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241031210700","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241031210700-3_hours_until_voting_phase_closes","replies":["c-PhotogenicScientist-20241031214300-Novem_Linguae-20241031210700"]}}-->

Putting all that work into one of the most comprehensive voter guides, and coming up to the wire on casting your own vote, eh? Bold haha.

In all seriousness, that was a great guide. It really helped me inform myself much more painlessly, and vote on candidates I might've otherwise had to abstain on. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241031214300","author":"PhotogenicScientist","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-PhotogenicScientist-20241031214300-Novem_Linguae-20241031210700","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241031230300-PhotogenicScientist-20241031214300"]}}-->

one of the most comprehensive voter guides. Thanks!

My voter guide was mainly just stats. I still needed to read the discussions a bit to make an informed decision. Between making the voter guide, reading the discussion phase when it was open, then re-reading it when it was closed, even just skimming some things, still totaled about 10 hours I think. Properly vetting 32 candidates is a lot of work.

I cast my vote just now. 12 oppose, 3 abstain, 17 support. I think this batch of candidates was pretty high caliber, which is awesome.

Another fun fact: eliminating duplicates there's 605 total voters so far. So very good electorate participation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:03, 31 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241031230300","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241031230300-PhotogenicScientist-20241031214300","replies":["c-Cowboygilbert-20241101032300-Novem_Linguae-20241031230300"]}}-->

616 total voters after voting has finished. Now time to see which ones are socks and which ones aren't! Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 03:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241101032300","author":"Cowboygilbert","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Cowboygilbert-20241101032300-Novem_Linguae-20241031230300","replies":["c-Serial_Number_54129-20241101135400-Cowboygilbert-20241101032300"]}}-->

@Cowboygilbert: Please sign in to your Original Account. Thank you. SerialNumber54129 13:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241101135400","author":"Serial Number 54129","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Serial_Number_54129-20241101135400-Cowboygilbert-20241101032300","replies":["c-Cowboygilbert-20241101135700-Serial_Number_54129-20241101135400"]}}-->

@Serial Number 54129, i genuinely cant tell if this is a joke or not Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 13:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241101135700","author":"Cowboygilbert","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Cowboygilbert-20241101135700-Serial_Number_54129-20241101135400","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241101192900-Cowboygilbert-20241101135700"]}}-->

Looks like a joke. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241101192900","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241101192900-Cowboygilbert-20241101135700","replies":[]}}-->

After editing MediaWiki:Robots.txt to block all administrator recall subpages from search engines, I realised that since requests for adminship pages are noindexed, admin election pages should be as well, so I've added them to Robots.txt too. These elections went relatively well but this may or may not be the case for future iterations of this process. As I said at Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall, I've been blocking pages from search engines since 2008. Graham87 (talk) 13:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241101133600","author":"Graham87","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Graham87-20241101133600-Noindexed_admin_elections_subpages","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241101193200-Graham87-20241101133600"]}}-->

Copying what RFA and ACE do sounds good to me. Thanks for making the change. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241101193200","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241101193200-Graham87-20241101133600","replies":[]}}-->