Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

This isn't working

I've been mostly away for a bit and missed all of the build up and discussion to this, but I think being an admin is a relatively big deal. There are far too many people running, the vetting for most users is close to the bare minimum, and discussions appear to have closed so I can't flag any concerns. I get RfAs aren't working either, but I'm really unsure how this process is improving the community. SportingFlyer T·C 02:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not saying the ongoing process is perfect, but I would have thought the potential for improving the community is obvious - new admins join the corps and contribute their time to helping Wikipedia function. Wherever you fall on the WP:NOBIGDEAL spectrum, we as a community need to be more willing to try new things. We won't know for certain whether we've succeeded until we see the elected admins out on the Wiki doing work, but isn't it worth a shot? Or are we so sclerotic that we will let the encyclopedia's cogs and gears clog and stall while we spend hundreds of hours arguing over which grease to use, where to apply it, and precisely how many miligrams are needed? —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:50, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
This. Let's vote, wait, and see. If you have a better idea, out with it, but if not, this is what we've got. TOADSPIKE [Talk] 21:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Speaking as someone standing I share some of SportingFlyer's concerns. This is especially when you compare the page-views for the most recent traditional RFA to the candidate pages in this process - it's clear this process so far just hasn't had many eyes on it compared to the traditional RFA (at least on a per-candidate basis) and that the candidates with the most views are those higher up in the list (so people are just clicking on the first few). You also see this in some of the abortive voter-guides where people have apparently gotten part-way through the list and just given up (e.g., this, this, this). Kudos to the ones who did it all the way to the end (e.g., Femke's guide, Asilvering's, Novem Linguae's, Significa liberdade's and Timbo's over at WPO).
    If I had to guess as to why, I'd say it's because there have been a lot of talk-page notifications related to these elections, over a long period, and so some users have mentally tuned them out.
    On the plus side there's been more than 400 votes (no "!") cast, and I have to assume most of those won't be abstains. That's more than we would see in any single high-engagement RFA.
    For me personally, if I pass I can only assume it's because few have a problem with my candidature. But also, if I don't pass then I won't have the first clue as to why not because no-one has raised any objections at all. Keep thinking positive I guess. FOARP (talk) 09:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah I agree with the above concerns about this - there were too many candidates for this election - as you pointed out, I couldn't finish my public notes in time, "only" reviewing 16 candidates (this was partially due to IRL concerns as well). But this is a trial run, and this is a very useful thing to learn, and a easy problem to mitigate next time - eg. we could stagger the discussion phases so no more than 5 candidates are being discussed at once, or we could make WP:ORCP's a mandatory requirement for candidates (to weed out NOTYET candidates and to get some initial due dilligence prior to the election, and to make running less of a "why not toss my hat in the ring and see what happens" decision). It was definitely a problem this election but it doesn't have to be for the next one. BugGhost🦗👻 09:30, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    To clarify: I don't agree with the sentiment that "This isn't working" - regardless of the number of candidates and the fact it was difficult to review them all thoroughly this time round, I think the actual election process was successful in its aims of getting more candidates to step forward and to reduce contention during discussion. BugGhost🦗👻 09:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    I think it can be improved from where it is, primarily by cutting down the number of candidates for any single election, and maybe extending the discussion period at least over a weekend. At least in the numbers that count (candidates, votes-cast) it may be called a success already. I'm also not sold on a secret ballot system, since I expect there will be opposing votes without any explanation of what they were based on, but I guess that boat has probably sailed already.
    I'm not sure drama will be avoided in the long run. Based on the people who are saying who they are voting for, it looks like anyone who any doubts at all were raised about in the discussion phase may have a hard time passing - the essential issue of people not getting through because minor long-ago issues serve as a catalyst for oppose-voting is still there. FOARP (talk) 11:00, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    I expect there will be opposing votes without any explanation of what they were based on - this is true, but this is a natural consequence of a new system that attempts to shield candidates from harsh criticism. If you look at the "should voter guides be allowed" discussion from a couple of weeks ago there's a significant amount of people who want this system to prioritise candidate welfare at the expense of more thorough/public vetting. I understand the motive behind that thought but I agree that it might make it harder for candidates in the long run if they are unsuccessful the first time. BugGhost🦗👻 11:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    I agree this particular point is not a big deal, especially since a candidate can always opt for the traditional process instead. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    Three thoughts: 1) yes, if a candidate wants a thorough discussion of all their flaws since they first posted, they can opt for the RfA; 2) if a candidate is unsuccessful, they could always open a discussion on their own Talk page and invite feedback on why they were unsuccessful; 3) It's not like a secret ballot is a new and radical invention. Society has been using them for a long time. Why is a secret ballot viewed with such suspicion on Wikipedia? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    "Why is a secret ballot viewed with such suspicion on Wikipedia?" Perhaps because it's trivially easy to create accounts with pseudonyms and not so easy to create real-world voters? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:47, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
    To make sure I understand the concern on this point, are you worried that the bar for eligibility isn’t high enough, or that it won’t be possible to enforce? Innisfree987 (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
    Innisfree987 I was attempting to give a (somewhat flip) answer to a (possibly somewhat flip) question. It seems very clear, at least to me, that it is easier for those people who wish to facilitate the promotion of corrupt admins (or to prevent the promotion of virtuous editors) to manipulate any secret voting system, than to manipulate an open-commenting system such as RfA. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
    I've finally finished my voter guide. However, I can say one thing about this process: We need to extend the discussion phase from 3 days to 5, because it is not at all worth exhausting myself just to find relevant information in such a short time. Mox Eden (talk) 20:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm really unsure how this process is improving the community. The premise behind admin elections is the RFA process is too toxic/difficult, so we needed a process that is more candidate friendly. By that metric, admin elections has been a success. We had 32 candidates make it to the voting phase, which is more admin candidates than the entire rest of this year. Not saying this to preach. This process has plenty of problems too. But hopefully that answers your puzzlement about how a process like this is expected to help the community. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not puzzled. I'm actively saying that I don't think this new process is very good. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Do you think the concept is irredeemable? I feel like with a few parameter tweaks (eg. discussion length, candidate number caps) a lot of your criticisms would be mitigated. BugGhost🦗👻 18:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
With your tweaks it would just become multiple RfAs at once with a ballot instead of a list of votes. I don't think it is irredeemable, but if we're holding the concept of being an administrator to a high standard, I think it might be. SportingFlyer T·C 21:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
That's the whole point though. The vast majority of active admins became admins at the time where there were far fewer eyeballs, less vetting, questioning and toxicity in the process. The reason why this proposal achieved consensus in the first place was because maintaining the status quo and excessively high standards which didn't exist in the past was considered to be a not-so-good idea among a big section of the community. Gizza (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Even if all 32 get the mop, we will still be down on admin numbers. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I understand why we're trying it. I'm not against trying it. I'm just saying the current format is too much work given that I'm someone who takes voting in an RfA fairly seriously. Perhaps others don't, and that's fine. SportingFlyer T·C 15:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I have to agree that there are too many candidates running. It's overwhelming to look at all of them and most people aren't putting in the effort. Honestly: I opposed any candidate whose name I didn't recognize and only glanced at the other dozen before making my decision. I hope this many candidates is a first-time one-off; if not, there may be a need to limit the number of them. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 21:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    The way I approached voting was to vote neutral in the four cases where the discussion was insufficient to determine anything and I was unfamiliar with the folks. I don't see much evidence of people supporting whilly nilly, and believe this blind opposing will lead to a worse outcome. The candidates I'm voting neutral on are all active in admin-adjacent areas, which means there will be people out there who can judge them fairly. In terms of voter effort, I can recommend reading User:Significa liberdade/EFA, which has a good summary of strenghts and weaknesses of the candidates, synthesizing the key parts of the discussion and other candidate overviews. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
    (ec) I rather hope that's a rare response. But large numbers of oppose votes from people who haven't the time to assess the candidates would be an unfortunate result of this trial, and would leave a number of candidates wondering why people had opposed their RFAs. I have limited time/internet access this week and either may not vote at all, or just support a couple of candidates who I know from multiple interactions, and oppose any where a cursory glance throws up things that are red flags to me. Abstain is an option and I may use it on more than two dozen who I don't have the time to properly assess but who don't have any obvious downside. ϢereSpielChequers 08:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
    I hope very few people default to oppose (or to support); either would be quite unfair, I think, and I agree with Femke and WereSpielChequers that blind opposing would harm this trial for no good reason. I agree that we should limit the size of the pool in future elections, if there are any. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
    Why did you oppose rather than abstain? A lot of people spent a long time vetting all the candidates and people just opposing everyone they don't immediately recognise reverses that effort. A "don't recognise the name, didn't have time to vet properly" oppose !vote at a traditional RfA would be correctly ridiculed. BugGhost🦗👻 11:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
    I'm a little surprised there aren't more people who are doing the same thing. My primary concern when reviewing admin candidates is their temperament, because an admin with the wrong temperament can create tons of drama and additional work. Unfortunately, the optional questions are a poor way of determining someone's temperament. There's really only two options: either you can do a deep dive into their talk and Wikipedia namespace participation, or wait for someone who has had a bad experience with the candidate to appear and say so. In a traditional RfA, there's plenty of time for the former, and the latter seems to happen inevitably. This election has not provided adequate opportunity for either. I'm concerned by that lack of scrutiny. Under the circumstances, I would rather see tons of people fail (which, if it did happen, I think would be blamed on the experiment and not meaningfully hinder their future prospects for adminship) than tons of people pass whose temperament will cause problems later. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 20:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    I read at least a few AN(I) threads for all the candidates (all of them where they were mentioned by name in a heading), and did not have any concerns that weren't brought up eventually during the discussion phase. I'm not too concerned with temperament for the cohort in general. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
    Seriously. I really hope "oppose because I haven't looked into them" isn't a common refrain in this election. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

First, the only way anyone will think this process "worked" is if we get a bunch of admins out of it, so let's see what happens. If we do, let's separate the number of candidates from the process itself in the post-mortem. I agree there were too many to properly consider, but let's say we did a coordinated push where we got the same number of candidates to do a full RfA. We'd still get complaints about the number of candidates, but we wouldn't be saying "RfA doesn't work" (well, we would, but for other reasons). If there's consensus after this that there were too many candidates, here's a fix: limit the number of candidates, then figure out a sensible interval for elections.
What I find most awkward about the process itself is the difficulty of raising potential issues and finding out about them. In a full RfA we typically learn about potential problems (and other perspectives on said problems) after someone posts an "oppose per such and such pattern of behavior via these diffs". Without such a format, it seems awkward for someone to drop a big quasi-"oppose" statement in a discussion section or frame it as a question. Further, as pointed out, it's not even clear people paid attention to the candidate pages. When the first two candidate pages I clicked on only included routine questions and afdstats, with little to no discussion, I didn't even bother opening the rest and instead relied entirely on my own [often cursory] research. I think I had about the same number of supports and abstains, with just a handful of opposes, but in some cases I came across things that I might've commented on if it wouldn't have been the only real comment on the candidate page, and if it weren't already too late to do so. Also worth noting that what I'm complaining about will be seen as a feature, not a bug, to some others.
Last thing: while I was ambivalent about "voter guides" this time (and at every arbcom election), I kind of wished I knew about some here. Spread the effort of getting to know so many users, you know? I think if voter guides came back up, I'd say we should support them/collect them, but create some guidelines/criteria, e.g. "clearly explained criteria/methodology", "not under any topic ban", or "more than a thousand edits". FWIW. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 12:40, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

At ACE we have the official stats-only voter guide, and user-mostly-opinions-guides. Do you think the prior would have helped? — xaosflux Talk 13:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
2023's: Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2023/Candidates/Guide. — xaosflux Talk 13:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I feel like a guide like Femke's would work better instead of a guide that is provided at ACE. One that shows edit count, activity, blocks/bans, any big noticeboard mentions about them, permissions, and area of focus. I feel like leaving out quality content because that's not what being an admin is all about. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm concerned that would create a situation where whoever gets to create a voter guide would become a "gatekeeper." Perhaps this is a one-off and there is pent up demand from users who want to be admins and the next time we do this there will be fewer users running, but I'm concerned about how this would work in practice. SportingFlyer T·C 05:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I think candidate pages without much activity are good. That means that some folks went digging and didn't find anything negative worth commenting about. If you sample a few more candidate pages, I'm sure you'll notice the busier candidate pages too, and notice why they are so busy.
Personally if I found something negative about a candidate, I asked a question about it. I think certain questions and certain comments took the place of a traditional RFA's "oppose" votes. Although in one case the answer to my question was so satisfactory I changed my planned oppose to support. So that's a nice thing about asking questions. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this is necessarily the case. I investigated every candidate in moderate detail and was only able to support a few, yet I personally found it too intimidating to write my rationales on the candidate page in the face of the perceived 'wall' of being nice to the candidate. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
That's not necessarily the case - the page view analysis suggests there was fatigue. SportingFlyer T·C 05:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
  • There was no site wide announcement, was it? I received a couple of news in the admin's newletter, but I think that is hardly enough. I actually don't mind if we suddenly elect 30 or 10 new admins. It should be "easy" to become one. But doing it in "silent mode" seems like a poor test. - Nabla (talk) 12:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    The election was listed at WP:CENT, which is how standard RFAs are advertised. Thryduulf (talk) 12:41, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    The announcement came up at the top of my Watchlist every day, in advance of the elections starting, and during the voting period. The only way to stop it was to click the "dismiss" button. And it came up separately when I was on my desktop and on my phone, so although I clicked dismiss on my desktop after the voting period, it was still on my phone for a few days. I think there was adequate notice. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:01, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I strongly support the new process. RfA in my opinion is a vicious process that easily descends into character assassination. Is it any wonder that our number of admins has dropped steadily, when the process to get new admins is so stressful and can involve personal attacks on the candidate? I agree that with this first try, there was a lot of voter fatigue, trying to go through all the information on the 32 candidates, but that's a process issue. Next time, there should be a cut-off point: "Nominations close on X date, or when there are 10 candidates, whichever comes first." But ask yourself: why did 32 people suddenly step forward, when there had only been 14 RfAs all year to that date? Maybe, just maybe, wild thought here, it was because the RfA process discourages people who want to help with the project from putting up their hands. There was a theme to several of the candidate statements: "I want to help." That's the basic requirement for being an admin: someone who is committed to the project and wants to help. Suddenly having a surge of 32 volunteers putting up their hands is great! The last time there were more than 32 RfAs was in 2017, when there were 40. Maybe the numbers for the election process will taper off somewhat, but this is very encouraging.
I'm sure these numbers have been posted before, but I think they bear repeating:
2024: 14 RfA candidates (at the time of the election; 1 since then)
2023: 19
2022: 20
2021: 11
2020: 25
2019: 31
2018: 18
2017: 40
(From https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship_by_year)
We need more candidates to have more admins. If the RfA process actively discourages candidates, and the new voting process encourages them, then I think it's clear that we need to keep the new voting process. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

As the polls are about to close, I really wanted to say thank you to all the candidates who made it possible to try out the new system! This seems to me like it’s been a really worthwhile experiment and a much more humane option (not only because multiple candidates dispersed attention on any one, but also because of shifted policies on what kinds of comments could be made) and we only need to balance it with some limit on how many people can stand at once so everyone can get the amount of attention they deserve—I reviewed candidates over several days and still couldn’t properly get through all 30+, so I’m afraid I may have missed supporting some deserving folks. So if it doesn’t work out in this first slightly chaotic run, please know that for me at least it didn’t necessarily mean I thought you shouldn’t be an admin, only that I ran out of time for reviewing, and thank you again for volunteering to be the ones we worked out those kinks on! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

+1, agreed. Particular thanks to Novem Linguae for pushing to make this happen throughout this year! I wonder if in the future, there could be an open call for candidates, at any time, and whenever the number of candidates reaches, say, a dozen, an election will be scheduled for, say, 3 weeks later. And the discussion period should be over weekend. And voting should open with discussion. Leijurv (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
It's a feature to start discussion before voting opens. That way, people vote with information available. I would support an overlapping period (5 day discussion, and voting starts on day 3 or 4), so that we keep benefits of both options. The open call is interesting. Would we be able to pull this off if voting is hosted locally? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
As written, the proposal for the open call seems difficult to me—there’s a high expectation of availability during discussion phase, but in this scenario candidates would have to commit without knowing which days they needed to be present. Seems more workable to offer a date and then let folks sign up if that date works for them. Innisfree987 (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Someone should only seek adminship at a time convenient to them, as not answering questions relatively promptly is seen by many as a big red flag even if there is a very good reason (especially as it might not be possible to share the reason on-wiki without disclosing more personal information than you are comfortable with). Thryduulf (talk) 16:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Everyone seems to agree that there were too many candidates this time round and there seems to be consensus for a limit of about 10 if we ever do this again. One issue that would need to be worked out though would be how to deal with it if more than 10 came forward. If it's on a first come first served basis then the time when the call for candidates goes out will affect things and favour editors in some parts of the world over others. 6pm UTC on a weekend would be great for candidates in Europe, but not for any in East Asia, Australia, New Zealand etc when it would be in the middle of the night and they'd wake up to find they'd missed out. Also (and this is probably something for the review process) if there's a candidate limit it would seem sensible to put minimum requirements for standing as a candidate so that spots wouldn't be occupied with those with no hope of election with more realistic candidates missing out. Something like at least 1 year since first edit and 5k edits. No candidate with less than that has a realistic chance but any exceptional candidate would have the standard RFA route anyway.
Also, when are we approximately expecting results? Valenciano (talk) 18:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
One option for that issue could be a waitlist-type scenario, where editors who miss out on one election because of the 10-candidate limit are automatically in for the next cycle unless they opt-out. That way they could also have first choice to fill any spots left open if someone withdraws during the call for candidates period.
I think the only info we've got so far for duration is Historically for other elections, scrutineering has taken a few days or weeks — an exact end date is not available. from the main AELECT page – have any of the scrutineers mentioned a timeframe yet? Happy editing, Perfect4th (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I see the concern that the timing of your election shouldn't be a surprise - you should know when you sign up. Therefore: Perhaps there could be an election scheduled infrequently, let's say yearly by default. Signups would close if/when 10 people put down their name. Discussion would begin on, say, a Friday, voting would open on, say, Saturday or Sunday. If the candidates reached the limit of 10, we would run another election the next month (continuing monthly as long as demand is high). If we didn't reach the limit of 10, we'd wait until the next normally scheduled one (e.g. annually). That way it could scale with demand, but without the "surprise" of putting down your name without knowing when your discussion/voting period would be. Leijurv (talk) 19:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes and perhaps we could vary the starting days, for reasons similar to what Velenciano mentions about editor availability in different time zones—depending on off-wiki obligations (childcare, religious commitments, whathaveyou), while weekends may work best for some editors, they may not work at all for others. It would be nice if we used successive elections to offer different options on that front. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Why not just leave nominations permanently open rather than trying to make the start time fair? There will be an initial burst of nominations because of a backlog of need and then it will settle to some steady state rather like the current one off system. With a backstop of shutting it off if it gets flooded with more than 120 on the list at one time to allow the community to decide if the system needs a standard to reduce snowball chance nominations. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
I believe the question of fairness in the start time is best addressed by allowing elections to be more frequent (to allow supply to rise to meet demand, so to speak). For example by scheduling the next election sooner if we hit 10 candidates, and further in the future if not. Having it be permanently open is fine, the only issue I see is what Innisfree987 brought up, which is that there's a high expectation of being available to answer questions, and not knowing when your discussion period is makes it very difficult to make that commitment. Therefore it should probably be scheduled in advance. Meaning, when you sign up as a candidate, you should know exactly the time slot that you're committing to be available to answer questions for. Leijurv (talk) 18:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Also, when are we approximately expecting results? Latest ETA from the stewards: 600 votes shouldn’t take too long. Scrutineering might just take a couple of days if we don’t find anything that needs further investigation and a bit longer if we detect suspicious votes… I will work on it over the weekend. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
And to follow up, the latest update from the stewards at meta:Steward requests/Miscellaneous#Scrutineering of enwiki admin election in late October is that they've completed scrutineering and notified WMF T&S to decrypt and tally the results. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
The results have been posted Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Results and so far have been certified by 2 of the 3 scrutineers. Thryduulf (talk) 20:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks first to everyone who worked on these elections. We've gotten 11 new admins out of this so by that measure it is a success.

Thanks second (but not in any order of precedence) to everyone who voted. The oppose votes generally greatly exceeded anything warranted by comments made to the candidates indicating that perhaps something was amiss in terms of communication/familiarity/acceptance, but the overall number alone makes this a qualified success.

Thanks third to everyone who ran. To have less than third of candidates pass shows this was far from the cake-walk I think some editors thought it might be. FOARP (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Planning for the debrief phase

I won't go into too much detail yet since we're busy with other phases right now, but my initial thoughts for the debrief phase are 1) do it after the results of the election are posted, so that everyone has a complete picture. 2) Host it on this talk page or a subpage. 3) Divide it into two major sections: feedback from voters and feedback from candidates. 4) Debrief first, RFCs later. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense. I think hosting it on a subpage (and advertising it widely of course), makes the most sense as this talk page may be too busy. I wonder if we need to structure it further, as I imagine there might be a lot of commentary. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
First, I want to say thanks to NL for all the careful work you have been doing on this. I also agree with that general approach. A closely related thing that occurs to me is that, given all the expressed concern about whether there are "too many" candidates, and what kind of effect that will have on who does or does not get elected, is that we should not rush into an RfC, because there may be knee-jerk reactions that might not hold up with the passage of time. For example, I expect that there will be some quick reactions like "some users got elected as admins, but most of us didn't have enough time to vet them". Maybe in the first months after this trial, we will have some new admins who crash and burn – or maybe in that time we will be very happy with the work of the new admins. That quick reaction that I posited would look very different depending on which of those two possible scenarios might happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
There's some wisdom here, and I want to second your thanks to Novem Linguae. —Ganesha811 (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I will second you on the wisdom, and third you on the thanks to Novem. With all the other election fireworks going on right now (to which we have no choice but to respond speedily), let's give the air time to clear before we start RFCing. BusterD (talk) 14:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Femke that it should be a subpage. If done on the talk page it could cluttered up with other stuff not necessarily part of the debrief. I also agree that RFCs should come later. Lastly, I thank you Novem for making this process possible. fanfanboy (block talk) 14:25, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
Is a centralized debrief subpage for voters set up yet? I'm certain we'll get different commentary AFTER results are posted. BusterD (talk) 14:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Do you mean, to misquote Sir Humphrey, no one will want to change a system that got them elected. Whereas if you failed to get through? Iz coz the system sucks! :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Not yet. I am planning to wait because I think the debrief would be more useful if done after we know how many and what kinds of candidates got elected. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Now we know. Eleven passed. BusterD (talk) 20:35, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Debrief is now open. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Debrief

Hello friends. Now that we have seen the results of the voting, I think we have enough data to start leaving good feedback about how everything went. I have created a debrief page at:

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Debrief

You are cordially invited to leave feedback there. Thank you. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Do we want to allow replies and conversations on the debrief page? Or just pure top level comments? Might be more organized without replies. I'm not sure though. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I think for the voter section, organising by topic might work better? With responses and dialogue. That would give us a good idea of which RfCs to launch when the dust has settled. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to also say I think place-holders at the top of the order should be discouraged - this is dumping towels on sun-loungers to mark them as "yours" territory. FOARP (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Thoughts on the process from a participant.

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Debrief
 – –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Voter guides should've been linked from the project page like ACE does

Voting closed yesterday, and it is only today that I learned about the existence of Category:Wikipedia administrator elections 2024 voter guides. Definitely would've saved some time and effort, had I known about it. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:12, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_elections/Archive_3#What_should_the_page_say_on_voting_guides? regarding this. Voter guides were originally discouraged and would not be linked within official pages. But after this election, I'm sure many people (including myself) have changed their minds. fanfanboy (block talk) 14:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Voter guides (and worse) are inevitable. BTW, I was in my county's early voting line last night so I ended up last minute voting for admin elections using my phone (the voting interface worked great). Fortunately I'd done some voter digestion early. Looking forward to the announcement. I hope we get a bunch. I voted for a dozen of the candidates. And then I voted in the US general election. So a productive hour. BusterD (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I find it funny that AELECT and US elections took place around the same time. fanfanboy (block talk) 14:31, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I distinctly did not find it humorous. Or helpful. But it was coincidental. BusterD (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Somewhat philosophical point: Voter guides become more useful (to voters), the more candidates there are. In an RfA, there's little point in a voter guide, you just go and express your opinion by !voting and hope to persuade others to follow suit. In an election with (hypothetically) 100 candidates, few would plough through them all, so anyone bothering to make a even semi-decent voter guide could expect to be leaned on by a large number of voters. Which may or may not be a good thing, from democracy's perspective. Perhaps this is yet another reason why future elections (if any?) should be limited to relatively small number of candidates, to stop them turning into a 'party system' where a few influencers with their voter guides hold a lot of sway. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Guide writers (intentionally or otherwise) influencing people to vote for or against candidates they (don't) like rather than voters doing their own research on candidates based on what matters to them is exactly why I was opposed to (and remain opposed to) voter guides for admin elections. Fewer candidates would discourage both voter guides and lazy voters. Thryduulf (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Slightly off-topic, but I'm nervous about regularly scheduled elections for much the same reason. In the US, continuous campaigning has become its own super-industry. I'd rather just vote on the first ten through the door. And then the next ten. And so on. That would be a nice problem to have. BusterD (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Personally, when reading voter guides, I 100% expect the writer's personal bias to be baked in. And I take that into account with how much credence I give everything I read from them. Their thoughts on the candidate are just that - their thoughts, not the truth.
In any case, I found that having more information and an attempt to increase transparency into the candidates stats/history/what-have-you to be beneficial. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I 100% expect the writer's personal bias to be baked in. I think there's two styles of voter guide: one that tries to be objective and just focuses on stats/data (example: User:Femke/2024 admin election notes), and one that tries to be subjective and gives the voter's opinion on the candidate (example: User:Mz7/ACE2023#Candidates). Both are useful. The former has less or no bias baked in. The latter is obviously biased, especially if it states who they are voting for. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
If we’re having elections, and we’re using secret ballot, then voting guides are inevitable - all you’re going to get by saying they’re not allowed is pushing them off-wiki on to WPO. I think people will use them even if there are only 10 candidates.
RFA works (to the extent it works) because everyone’s comments on the candidate are right there to be read by following editors. FOARP (talk) 07:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Balance is key. Too many candidates causes voters to vote without much information, potentially allowing for candidates who shouldn't have the tools to get them anyways and vice versa. Too little candidates will cause too much scrutiny, causing contention and undeserved opposes. fanfanboy (block talk) 14:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I agree. 32 candidates was a bit too many. Elections should be limited to a smaller number of candidates (with an increased frequency of elections if need be). With fewer candidates you wouldn't really need guides because you can make your own decisions by being able to go through their editing history. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:52, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
In a single RFA, a voter's guide is unnecessary because everyone's opinion is obviously on the page already. It's not a function of the number of the candidates so much as the secrecy of the vote. -- asilvering (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
One outcome we need to really guard against is AELECT just cannibalising RFA without even increasing the number of applicants. To be sure of avoiding that, there needs to be a good number of slots open at AELECT - so regular elections, and a cap that is relatively high (e.g., 20) and can be raised when needed. FOARP (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
That's going to depend on what the pass rate looks like on elections with smaller numbers of candidates. While the scrutiny and stress in an election may be a little lower, my guess is that the oppose rate will be higher simply because people aren't worried about being badgered for their opposes. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Speaking of pass rates, it is my opinion that this election had a lot of qualified candidates. If the pass rate is really low, and not enough of these candidates pass, that will be a signal that we need to lower the support threshold. Candidate time/stress and community time should result in a process that promotes the correct caliber of candidate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:03, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
If the threshold is dropped, what about the people at this election who would have passed under the new threshold? FOARP (talk) 20:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Based on these results, I think we should go down from 70% to 65%. The 65.00-69.99% range in this election had good candidates. I supported 4 of 5 of them. However, if you're asking if we can do anything retroactively, I don't think that would achieve consensus. They would need to run again. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm one of those five in the 65-69.99% range and I would also oppose a retroactive change. We all knew the rules when we stood and we cannot move the goalposts now, that would rightly go down very badly. I'll watch the debrief phase with interest and hope to contribute in the coming days. But overall, I think this has been a success and with some tweaks, could be a regular thing. Valenciano (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
It's because those are user created voter guides and not an "official" voter guide like what ArbCom elections have where it's created by the coordinators. Hopefully in the future, if we have chosen or elected coordinators, we'll have official voter guides that are away from opinions but tell the facts about that person in a fast and easy way to understand. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 20:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
ACE also links to unofficial voter guides. IMO the official voter guide is just basic matter-of-facts such as positions running for and the identities of the candidates. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Which is better to have because it doesn't show opinions on the editor who is in the election, almost all of the ones in the ACE election are based on opinions. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 20:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
If we're fine with only having 3 columns—Since, Previous usernames, & Previous runs—then I'd be fine with it. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

It's not too late to put in a minimum level of support

Sorry folks....but really, we need to put in a minimum level of support for successful candidates; percentage is not enough. We have created a scenario where it would be possible to get adminship with fewer than 15 support votes, and that's just not okay.

I propose the following:

  • Successful candidates will have a minimum of 70 voters either supporting or opposing. Of those votes, 70% must be support votes.

Really, it's not too late. Please let's do this. I really hate that we've created a system - even a trial system - where we have so many candidates that nobody can effectively evaluate them, and thus poorly vetted candidates get adminship. Risker (talk) 03:22, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

It's 100% too late to change the rules or format. You're also nuts if you think anybody would actually get less than 15 supports and somehow still pass here, that's an absurd assumption of low participation. Let's be realistic here. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I strongly suspect that we will have much higher levels of participation than on any normal RFA. But in case we don't, and someone truly unvetted and horribly destructive gets through, we can deal with that when it happens. -- asilvering (talk) 03:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
If every one of them gets through, we will still have no more admins than we had last year. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
My sense is also that it's very unlikely that there'll be such a low turnout. If that or something else wildly expected happens, I think we have to rely on the bureaucrats to exercise common sense and not flip the bits if this process has failed to produce a sensible result. – Joe (talk) 07:50, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the above that it's too late to change the rules here - if there is a low turnout (which, based on the surprise number of candidates, I doubt will happen), then we'll just have to deal with that. The best thing to do here is to vet candidates in advance. I recommend checking out User:Novem Linguae/Essays/2024 administrator election voter guide for a rough overview of the candidates. BugGhost🦗👻 10:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Having a minimum makes sense as otherwise, the risk is that voters become very defensive in voting and vote no by defaut even where they have spent no time on the candidate, as they might be concerned that low-participation candidates could slip through. Even a 50 de-minimus would be pretty uncontroversial imho and useful for both candidates and voters. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:14, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) While I agree this would have been desirable, the time to raise this point was during the initial RFC, or during the subsequent discussions, or during the preparation, or (in extremis) during the candidate signup. It is definitely too late to change the rules now. The only thing you can do about this now is to encourage those eligible to vote to do so. You can vote to oppose those you have not evaluated if you are worried they might be appointed with a low number of support votes, but evaluating them is preferable. Thryduulf (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I really hope people do not vote oppose just because they ran out of time to assess some candidates. We're a big community, and it's good to put some trust in each other. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:27, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
That is why a de-minimus might be helpful (although it would be a late rule-change which is not ideal per the feedback above), and even more importantly, why getting admins to co-nominate (and candidates to accept such co-nominatation) could also be very helpful in encouraging voters to take more risk with this exciting new process. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
It would certainly not be ideal, especially for the candidates, but it is an option that is open to voters. Thryduulf (talk) 12:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, please don't vote all oppose. That would be damaging to the trial. Please just vote abstain if you're unsure about a candidate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Those who oppose the process should not be voting all oppose as a protest, that's just inappropriate and disruptive. It's fine to disagree with the process, but the candidates shouldn't feel it as a result. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
People can literally vote oppose for any reason. Sounds like the process is working as designed. -Fastily 05:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Indeed being able to oppose without having to justify (and potentially be badgered about) your reasoning was one of the reasons proponents gave for having secret voting. Not being convinced of a candidate's suitability for adminship (for whatever reason) is a perfectly legitimate reason to oppose. While the candidate (and others) would likely prefer voters to abstain when that reason is due to not having evaluated the candidate in as much depth as the voter would like, there is nothing in the rules or guidance that requires this. Thryduulf (talk) 10:58, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree that a candidate getting low absolute support numbers but passing due to a high support percentage is a theoretical problem but one which shouldn't happen in practice. The number of candidates putting their name forward is already much, much higher than expected and I think the total voting numbers for each candidate in the admin election will follow suit. Gizza (talk) 08:10, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

  • I've just had a quick skim through the 2007 crop of admins. 2007 averaged more than one RFA a day, and obviously at times when there were lots of candidates some RFAs had few participants. A 70 participants threshold would have lost us a significant proportion of them, including a current admin who was unanimously appointed by 22 participants that year. Not only that but it would have the perverse effect that voting oppose could result in one admin being appointed by 50 supports to 20 while others were narrowly rejected by 50 supports to 19 opposes and clearly rejected by 65 supports to zero opposes. If after this round of elections we decide on a minimum threshold for the future, I suggest either a minimum support threshold (perhaps 20?), or a minimum majority (perhaps 15?) but not a minimum participation level. ϢereSpielChequers 09:09, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I've already commented on the other version of this over at WT:RFA, but the specific threshold proposed here is unworkable. If 69-0 shouldn't pass, 49-21 definitely shouldn't, but the reverse would be true. If we do this, it should be a minimum number of support votes. —Cryptic 03:19, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • It would be useful if those voting oppose had to put down a reason ("not enough experience" "poor answer to Q5" "no time to fully evaluate" etc), and those reasons were anonymously made public after the RfA was over - so what we get is the reasons for the opposes, but not who said what. Oppose reasons are valuable to the candidates if they pass or not, revealing to them the concerns that folks have. It would also help show possible weaknesses in the scheme if too many people were saying that they opposed because they had no time to evaluate. SilkTork (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    I've often said that if candidates can stand failing at RfA once, that the first would hold all of the answers they needed. If you improve based on feedback, and upon the reasons for voters' opposes, you'll stand a great shot at a second RfA. Theleekycauldron did exactly that between her first and second RfA and she came out with the fourth most supports ever a year and a half after her first RfA. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    Exactly! She cleaned house. Took advice. Admitted errors. Got better. Theleekycauldron's high activity level at a highly visible board (WP:DYK) between the two processes did tend to paint her as trusted and having an obvious need of tools. Not everyone is as energetic as TLC, but she responded directly to the previous feedback, won over her opposers, and made new friends. All while graduating college. She's a good adult, and we rewarded her with all this responsibility. BusterD (talk) 03:36, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    One of the original issues with leek was that she was very young. Now she can always look back at crashing THAT glass ceiling, but not in the way she might have liked. BusterD (talk) 03:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
    Reasons I've opposed candidates in this election include too great an error rate/volume at CSD, apparently not understanding most admin actions, not having enough experience, inappropriate draftifications, and not participating in areas they want to work in. Reasons I've supported include being demonstrably competent in the areas they want to work in (or more generally competent), and demonstrating an awareness of their strengths and weaknesses (I opposed for a much wider variety of reasons than I supported - three candidates I support have identical comments in my notes, no two of those I opposed do).
    One of the reasons I opposed the election in the initial RFC was because there is no way for the candidates to know why people opposed them and so no easy way to know what they need to improve on in the future, and equally there is no way to learn what people are seeing in the successful candidates that the unsuccessful (and future candidates) can learn from. I could leave 40 individual comments/emails but (a) that's not in keeping with a secret vote and (b) if even a 10th of voters did that candidates would be overwhelmed. Thryduulf (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Given that over 600 people voted, several candidates had over 200 opposers and even some of the successful candidates had over 100 opposers, I think we can stop worrying about admin election needing a minimum support threshold. ϢereSpielChequers 11:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Observation on the value of nominators in this run

11 people passed of the 32 candidates, of those 11...

I think a lot of people leaned on candidates having nominators in this election, possibly due to the number of candidates and having difficulty evaluating that many. I'm also aware that at least a couple candidates had privately been told by people I hold in high regard that they'd be willing to nominate them, but did not take them up on it. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree that having a nominator is a good idea, and is likely to improve the chances of being elected. On the other hand, I suppose some candidates were attracted to the process because, in addition to having the voting in private, they also did not feel like they would have to approach potential nominators, and perhaps have the risk of being declined. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't address that some candidates chose to run without a nominator though. I also wonder whether this was simply because of the number of candidates and, if limited to 10 candidates, they would have the same value as they did here. I think having someone credible speak on your behalf will always be valuable, but I think because of the number of candidates that those who had them benefited and were given additional weigh as a result. Queen of Hearts did the best after all, and they had offers but ran without any. So I think it's an interesting thing to discuss and consider. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
TBH, it never occurred to me that nominators were even a feature in this new format (all due to my own ignorance, obvs, and had I thought about it I might have at least looked into or inquired about the matter, but didn't). Even the 'offer to nominate' I had was more "there's an election coming up, would you consider running?" than "...would you like me to nominate you?" I think this could be clarified in the candidate instructions for future elections (if any), especially as it seems to be such a big factor. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
I was really dismayed by how few candidates ran without nominators, since I thought it would seriously hurt their chances (it seems I was right). Going forward, I think we'll need to make it a bit clearer. But hopefully also people will be more likely to ask for noms, given these results. -- asilvering (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm not 100% sure that it's even the fact that some had nominators, or whether that was a side effect of a likely trust of the community in them.
Personally, looking over the list of the candidates that passed the election and had nominators, or offers from nominators, I recognized quite a few names, many more than of the other candidates that didn't, and I'm probably not alone in that observation.
So I think it might be more that, if another admin has felt confident in their candidate to co-nominate them, it is likely a positive signal that the candidate has probably shown prospects with using partial mopping permissions and/or judgement in their respective field of editing, which also likely means that candidate has crossed path with more active editors and thus may also be experiencing confidence by more people from the community.
So I think from my anecdotal debrief/interpretation of that, I think it might be worthwhile to consider the offer of a co-nomination to be a (soft?) criteria for future candidates as it likely yields a (slightly) smaller, but much more likely to pass scrutiny field of candidates and may actually just be the natural selection criteria that could bring future candidacies from 40 to a more manageable 10 (if this initial election can be a rough first indicator). Raladic (talk) 06:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_elections/Archive_5&oldid=1259376304"