Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections

Vote count?

Is the number of votes cast shown somewhere (in broadly real time), or is it kept secret until the poll closes? Just curious how the numbers are looking compared to the pilot. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:02, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Head to Special:SecurePoll, click on 'List'. We're currently at 305 votes from 290 voters, and climbing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Does a vote before a ban count?

It looks like Purplebackpack89 voted in the ongoing elections, but later that same day were banned by the community [1]. I'm pretty sure that votes by blocked users stand as long as the vote was not made when the user was blocked, but I had in my head that votes by banned users are struck retroactively. However, I couldn't find this covered in the voter eligibility rules of AELECT or RfA. Toadspike [Talk] 09:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Pinging the scrutineers here, since they're responsible for enforcing this: @RoySmith@Zzuuzz@Dreamy Jazz. That same discussion banned two other users, but it doesn't look like either voted in AELECT. Toadspike [Talk] 09:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Similarly, what about users banned after the voting phase, ie during the scrutineering phrase, should they also be struck? What about voting with a temporarily blocked account, that is then unblocked by the time of the scrutineering phase? As this wouldn't show up so obviously (as banned) unless checking logs individually I assume. There should be clarity based on when blocked accounts will be discounted, ie "if blocked during the voting phase July 23–29", or "if blocked during the election process July 9–??", for example. Recommending scrutineers make it up as they go along if no concrete guidance this time around, and then resolve this for December. CNC (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Trying to disenfranchise voters that were only blocked for some of AELECT sounds complicated. For this reason, it may make sense to let their votes stand. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:33, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand blocked users cannot vote, technically. If so, that removes a great deal of complication. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Good to know, sounds like a self-resolving issue then. CNC (talk) 10:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I'd be in favor of not striking it. It appears to have been valid at the time of voting. Trying to retroactively delete these kind of votes introduces complexity to the process. Also we didn't do anything like this last election, and we haven't previously discussed this kind of thing before, so there's no precedent. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree, as unless stipulated that votes would be deleted retroactively, then this shouldn't occur without community consensus, if it hasn't been discussed and no precedent has been set. That said, I still think scrutineers should decide, as those appointed to be responsible for such actions, and if deemed necessary to strike votes per current ambiguous wording. CNC (talk) 10:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

My interpretation is that the vote stands. I don't know if that's written anywhere, but is based on longstanding policy. For example, WP:BAN and WP:G5 are always very explicit about mentioning "in violation of their ban". Sockpuppetry may complicate the issue, but that doesn't seem to apply in this case so I won't go into that. However this discussion about socking seems to agree with my interpretation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:40, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe that the rules are clear: if the vote was valid at the time it was cast it stands. The only exception is if the scrutineers find that an editor has engaged in sockpuppetry and cast multiple votes in the election, in that circumstance all the votes they cast are struck. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

To make the rules clearer, I think WP:RFA#Expressing_opinions should adopt the AELECT wording of "not be sitewide blocked", or something similar.

Your interpretation of sockpuppetry is a little limited. If the editor socked to evade a block, all votes are struck. If the editor socked to vote-stack, but not in evasion of a block, I believe we strike all votes but one (presumably the most recent one from the master's account). But again, I'm not sure. Toadspike [Talk] 10:29, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

If someone socks in bad faith (not an accident involving voting with both their main account and their alt account due to inattentiveness, obfuscation is involved), I think it's reasonable to strike all the votes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

(ec) I believe we're going with the following interpretation, based on the link I've provided above (more in this page's recent archives): If someone tries vote-stacking with sockpuppets, all their votes are struck. This is not a common approach outside of Arb and Admin elections, but I'm comfortable with applying it here. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:52, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Hm. I am also in favor of that, but it conflicts with the "if a vote was valid, it stands regardless of what happens afterward" principle expressed in response to my initial question. Toadspike [Talk] 10:58, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

You're welcome to bring that up in a future discussion, though I would point to the discussion I've already linked. We're only concerned with attempts to fraudulently sway the election. I can see a clear difference in practice (though I will admit I'm not necessarily a huge fan). -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:06, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

If the editor socked to evade a block, all votes are struck. If the editor was blocked before the election and casts a single vote with a sock, then that single vote was not valid at the time it was cast and is struck for that reason. If the same editor casts multiple votes with a single sock then all-but the latest vote would be struck (if it wasn't done automatically) in the same way for as any other casting multiple votes from the same account, the latest vote would be struck for the same reasons a single vote would be struck. If they cast votes with multiple socks then all the votes would be struck both for being invalid when cast and for being an attempt at vote stacking. Thryduulf (talk) 13:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

• to be short: in general, the votes/participation of banned/blocked users stand/is accounted for in discussions (that is, obviously, if they made it before getting blocked). In case they were socks, votes of socks are discounted (this often happens in AFDs). To be very bureaucratic, in case the ban was imposed in relation of that particular discussion, even then discounting the vote is borderline. If that participant was blocked for gaming that discussion, then it would be appropriate to discount their participation. Other than that, if the editor was not blocked/banned when they participated, then their participation is considered valid. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2025 (UTC)
• As I discussed previously regarding sockpuppets, I think following the arbitration committee election rules is reasonable. For the arbitration elections, voters must not be sitewide blocked at the time of voting. Being blocked afterwards does not disqualify the vote. isaacl (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  Except, they say: "Scrutineers will strike all the votes cast by any sockmaster who voted multiple times, independent of whether the editor was blocked before or after casting the votes". I could interpret your comment to narrowly refer to this specific case described above, but then you mentioned sockpuppets. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:22, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  I was referring to my previous comment on handling sockpuppets, where I said I think it's reasonable to follow the same practice [used by arbitration committee elections] for administrator elections. This means allowing editors to vote if they aren't blocked sitewide at the time of voting if they are otherwise eligible. Users who vote multiple times using sockpuppets (added to clarify) become ineligible to vote. isaacl (talk) 17:05, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'm a bit unclear why we're preferring Arbcom election rules to RfA election rules, and then only some of them. Another example would be vanished users. Anyway I've spoken enough, and I'd want to hear from the other scrutes. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  These specific scenarios weren't discussed during any of the various large-scale community discussions, so there are no specific rules for administrator elections. In this absence, I feel it is reasonable to look at the community's views on arbitration committee elections and generalize them as applicable. English Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so we can leverage previous experience to craft a procedure based on common practice, gain more experience, and adjust later as needed. isaacl (talk) 20:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  I think we're in broad agreement about how to implement rules for this election (though it's possible the scrutineers may have to work some things out on the fly). Thanks to some excellent documentation for the most part. But for future elections, I think we should be aiming more for alignment with RfA procedures. Some specific discrepancies that I've noticed are the striking of sockmasters thing, of vanished users, and the prohibition of bot accounts (though I'd accept that last one is pretty edge-case). I'd prefer more alignment with RfA, but at least some type of mini-RfC would be a positive. Or a statement about defaulting to RfA rules, or something. For the next one. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

  I don't see these as discrepancies, as the underlying principle of giving each person equal weight a priori remains. As anonymous voting has inherent differences with an open discussion, there has to be adapatations. Anonymous voting follows the one vote per person approach, which is why you can't vote multiple times, no matter how you try to do it. With a open viewpoint request for adminship, the identify of everyone weighing in is known, and when the bureaucrats count noses to get a rough idea of the level of support, they can combine comments all belonging to the same person as needed. isaacl (talk) 01:21, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

  RfA rules aren't clear on all these edge cases either. Once these elections are over, we may want to hold a few RfCs. Toadspike [Talk] 06:59, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

• After an off-wiki scrute chat, we're of the opinion that Purplebackpack89's vote will not be struck. This is a decision which applies narrowly to this one user and is not intended to establish any kind of precedent. RoySmith (talk) 19:12, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Unable to vote despite being an Extended Confirmed user

I have been in the Extended Confirmed user group since July 19th, which means I should meet the requirements of being a voter (it goes without saying that I am not a bot nor have been blocked sitewide), and yet when I try to vote in the current election, I am told by the SecurePoll that Sorry, you are not in the predetermined list of users authorized to vote in this election. It directs me to this talk page to request assistance, which I am doing so now. I spent a couple hours (especially today) reading the full discussions of each candidate to make an informed vote for the election, so it would be unfortunate if that time spent reading on candidates (when I could have used to make improvements to articles instead) went to waste from being unable to vote despite meeting the listed requirements, and learning about this too late when I already put in the investment in learning about each candidate. Now if this is due to the fact that I received this user group too soon to the voting phase then I can understand that, but I would appreciate any help I can get on being to still vote in this election if I were allowed to based on these circumstances. Gramix13 (talk) 02:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

@Gramix13. You probably became extended confirmed after I generated the list of extended confirmed folks. It's an easy fix though. Try it now. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:51, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Looks like I was now able to cast my vote, thank you for your help! Gramix13 (talk) 04:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I wonder if adding a note to that error message saying that it might also appear if you very recently became extended confirmed and to just leave a note of this page if that is the case might be useful? Thryduulf (talk) 09:55, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

We could markup that part of the message with extendedconfirmed-show class, to avoid confusing folks to whom it doesn't apply. – SD0001 (talk) 17:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm tempted to be lazy and not fix it, since it only affected one person so far, and we will be changing away from voter rolls next election (so the root problem will fix itself). –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:49, 27 July 2025 (UTC)

Voting phase closes in 5 hours 18 minutes

Hello friends. Friendly reminder that the voting phase will close in approximately 5 hours and 18 minutes, at 23:59 UTC.

If I'm not around when this happens, I think most of the relevant things will auto-close/auto-switch (SecurePoll, watchlist message, banner at the top of AELECT pages). You may need to WP:PURGE the page to get some of these to update. Feel free to clean up anything if I'm not around. Just make sure not to close early :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Scrutineering phase

@RoySmith, Zzuuzz, and Dreamy Jazz: Hello awesome scrutineers. I am happy to announce that the voting phase has concluded. Now's your time to shine. Feel free to begin scrutineering, and please contact me when all 3 of you are done and are ready for me to run the tally. Helpful links: Special:SecurePoll/list/837, Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/SecurePoll setup#Instructions for scrutineers. Thanks so much. Happy scrutineering. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Yup, we're into it. RoySmith (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Might as well do this here. @Novem Linguae:​​ on behalf of the scrutes, the scrutineers have finished shining. You may proceed to the tallying. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@RoySmith, Zzuuzz, and Dreamy Jazz: Great job scrutineers. You finished your work in record time. Looks like no votes were struck either, a very clean election. Results are now posted. If I could call on you all one more time to do part 2 of the scrutineer instructions and double check the integrity of the results: Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Results, Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/SecurePoll setup#Verify tally. Please sign the results page if everything checks out. Thanks so much. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Results commentary

My overall impression of the field of candidates was very positive, and I'm somewhat surprised that so many of them fell short of the support cutoff. Despite it not being a competition, I imagine that many voters may have felt pressure to avoid supporting more than half of the candidates. I think that even those who were unsuccessful should still feel proud to have been a part of such a strong field of candidates. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree. That said, 9 out of 16 = 56% got elected, whereas in the previous (Oct-24) one 11 out of 32 = only 34% did. Of course, any number of factors could account for that difference. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

This is the second election in a row where the 65%-69.9% range of candidates was strong. We should look into RFCing a lowering of the pass threshold to 65% during the upcoming RFC phase. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, if you're looking for breakpoints in the data there's +2.2%/-3.4% around 70% but only +0.8%/-0.4% around 65%. Unless you're willing to go all the way down to 60%, 70% seems like a natural break in the distribution. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I think either fa should be raised from 65% or AE should be lowered to 65% ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 20:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

What if we looked at both elections combined to see about a break point? ^SMason_Garrison 21:03, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad that this time (unlike last time) there were enough questions/conversations that everyone who didn't pass has at least some understanding of why people opposed and where they can improve. I actually think these results are evidence that the 70% threshold is working exactly as it should, and I'll continue to oppose lowering it if another RfC on the topic is started. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:32, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Honestly speaking, I'm not sure why I got so many opposes. With RfA it would have been clear. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I feel similar. I wasn't really expecting to pass based on how things went in the discussion phase and what I observed off-Wiki, but I wasn't expecting it to be so low. A real downside to this method. If I stand again, it'll definitely be as an RfA. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 22:40, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, several people I gave my wholehearted support to fell short for reasons I really can’t identify. ^EF⁵ 22:46, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I share the perception that there were some well-qualified candidates who did not make it, and I want to encourage anyone who wants to, to run again, in either format. I feel that there were also some things that went very well this time, and that are worth noting. First, the results were compiled and made public very rapidly, and I want to thank everyone who worked on that. Also, I think that the process was reasonably successful in preventing obvious not-yet candidates from staying in before the start of voting. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

this is like a solution to non-existent problem. With RfAs there is no need for scrutiny/compilation. The result are instantaneous. Same goes for not-yet candidates. RfAs can handle that pretty well. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Maybe there could be an optional short "Feedback from voters" phase where all candidates (whether successful or unsuccessful) can choose to receive feedback from voters after results are revealed. fanfanboy (block_talk) 23:08, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

That's an interesting idea, @Fanfanboy. Schazjmd (talk) 23:15, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I like that, too, so long as it's optional. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

there is Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Debrief. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:33, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

The debrief for the October 2024 election was not intended to be place for candidates to receive feedback from voters, rather, it was a place for both candidates and voters to express what they thought went well/didn't go well with the process. The reason for the debrief was because the first AELECT was a trail election to see how it would work out, and we needed a place to discuss areas of the process that potentially needed changes so they could be included in the Phase II RFC. What I'm suggesting is an entirely different idea from the debrief. fanfanboy (block_talk) 01:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, optional as to not negate the reason AELECT exists in the first place. fanfanboy (block_talk) 01:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I think there's a very strong case to be made by lowering the bar 7.5 points to a 62.5% pass rate. Looking at the top end of admin candidates, it's very common for a strong RFA candidate to sail through with 99/100% of the vote. At Aelect, there is a soft ceiling at 80% with only 3/48 candidates exceeding it, and a hard ceiling at 85% which nobody has yet exceeded. At the high end, AELECT is 15-20% harsher than RFA. Looking at the lower end, we have EggRoll97, who received 39.89% in the October 2024 election, kept his head up, and ran a RFA that ended with a no-consensus crat chat in April 2025 at 65.8% support. He certainly improved as a candidate in the interim, but it's likely that RFA was the kinder venue there as well by a substantial amount. There is a natural break in the data just below 65%, with 10 out of our 48 candidates scoring between 69.9% and 64.5%. Given that AELECT is harsher than RFA, those candidates probably should pass in the future. On the other hand, there was only 1 candidate between 65% and 56%, so that's a good natural gap to put the bar between "easily passes at RFA scrutiny: and "close call" Given that Aelect is a newer process, I'd be conservative, and put the bar near the top of that natural break at 62.5, which is a round fraction (5/8ths). Tazerdadog (talk) 00:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• If everything is done, please drop a note at WP:BN to process the promotions. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:10, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  Officially we're currently still waiting for one of the scrutineers to sign, or otherwise. I'm sure they'll be along soon. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

  That's everyone signed. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:41, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Ability to customize Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Header

Howdy. Can someone good with templates take a stab at adding a parameter to Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Header such as |custom_message=, where I can add a custom message? Now that results are posted, I'd like to be able to update that. And I might want to update it again during the debrief phase, RFC workshop, and RFC phase. Thanks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: You can just modify the |status= parameter to remove {{Administrator elections status}} like I've done so here [2]. Due to [3], you need to add an asterisk or colon at the beginning of the text to make it look nice, but I think that should do what you want, right? Mz7 (talk) 18:06, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Debrief

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Debrief. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:58, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Order of Support/Oppose/Abstain

Currently the Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Results page shows the results as Support/Abstain/Oppose instead of the historically used Support/Oppose/Abstain order that has been used for RFAs forever. I understand from @Novem Linguae that somewhere here there was a discussion to keep this AE results like it is on the ballot, but I think internal consistency within our pages should take precedent. Especially as we have some pages, like the Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies/2024 and Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)/2024 pages, where we show both RFA and AElect results and show the tally there in consistent order of Support/Oppose/Abstain.

Support/Oppose/Abstain is also the general order that most votes are tallied/presented in government chambers (e.g. US Congress - which shows them as Yay / Nay / Present / Not Voting. Or WP:ARBCOM which also shows them as Support / Oppose / Abstain (e.g. latest Arbcom case.

So basically we use "Support/Oppose/Abstain" everywhere on wiki except here - so I'm gonna invoke Wikipedia:Consistency and would ask to reconsider so we can bring the results page here in line with other use on Wiki to avoid confusion :) Raladic (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

The status quo ante was neither of the options presented here. The status quo ante was oppose/abstain/support, to match the order of the columns in SecurePoll. The order of those columns in SecurePoll was the result of previous discussion. I'd recommend reverting to that order on the results page while this discussion takes place. I'm also not a big fan of folks messing with these results too much. What if a typo or miscalculation is made during refactoring? Then it looks like the scrutineers certified something that they did not. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I already reverted the column order (using the template).

I did also (as I noted in my edit summary) triplecheck the results to ensure that no typo or miscalculation was made (the % were helpful to crosscheck the support/abstains as I was replacing them one by one and had matching % in the preview to know it was right).

I just didn't realize the results page wasn't already using a row template since pretty much everything else around adminship stuff has some and I had created Template:AdErow last year for the October election already for the Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies/2024 page (which as I mentioned above, necessitates the columns being in sync with the status quo since 2003.

So, I get that the securepoll has some other order (and that was part of some discussion I missed), but it seems rather counter-intuitive, given that it is the opposite of pretty much every ballot sheet I've ever seen.

Support is always first, followed by Oppose and either you leave them blank, or there's a 3rd box thereafter for abstaining.

If you have the links handy, I'd love to see that old discussion as it does seem puzzling. Raladic (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I already reverted the column order (using the template). The column order is currently support-abstain-oppose. When I originally posted these results, the column order was oppose-abstain-support. My attempt to put it back in this order was reverted by you, I believe.

If you have the links handy, I'd love to see that old discussion as it does seem puzzling. Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections/Archive 6#Column order –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

No, that order of Oppose-Abstain-Support was changed to Support-Abstain-Oppose by @Extraordinary Writ - here.

I made my template conform to that. I didn't realize you want to go and introduce a different 3rd different order for the results page.

I do understand the psychology for during the voting due to limitations of the voting software, but we do not need to limit our resulting outcome pages to that. No one cares about how the voting software was structured once we look at the results tally and I think we should show the results tally in the usual order of modern election tallies, aka Support/Oppose/Abstain. Raladic (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the column order on the results page has to match the order on the ballot. Some of the considerations for the ballot (matching the arbitration committee election ballot, layout limitations) don't apply to the results page. Thus I think matching how the results are displayed on the RfA page and arbitration committee election pages is reasonable. isaacl (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Yup - agree and just made the same point above.

I think it's fine that the secure poll is set up to have Oppose and Support be visually separated by the neutral abstention in the middle. But I don't think we should stick to that for the results page.

(Personally I do feel that on the voting page support should be first and Oppose at the end, but that's a separate discussion that doesn't need to happen here, though I take your comment I saw from that other discussion that that order for the voting software is consistent with how it's presented for Arbcom member vote, so maybe we'll just keep that one as it is). Raladic (talk) 05:31, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't really mind whether we use Support/Abstain/Oppose (like ArbCom election results) or Support/Oppose/Abstain (like everything else). But yeah, I found it very confusing to do Oppose/Abstain/Support: it's one thing to do it like that on the ballot, but the results don't need to be the same way (as in ArbCom elections, where the ballot is O/A/S but the results are S/A/O). I don't think there's anywhere else on Wikipedia where we report results starting with Oppose. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:37, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Reminder: Abstain (in the election) =/= Neutral (in an RFA). — xaosflux ^Talk 09:30, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Yay, Nay, Abstentions, is how it’s done. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

My point is that "Neutral" in an RFA is still someone actively taking point in the discussion. "Abstain" in the election is someone specifically not taking part in the decision for a candidate. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

A secret vote is not active participation in a discussion. SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't care about the way the results are ordered. But I am wondering if, for future ballots, it might be worth changing the order from "oppose, abstain, support" to "support, abstain, oppose". Something that seems clear (at least to me) from the results is that voters trended towards opposing much more than what typically happens in traditional RfA. Perhaps, having "oppose" as the left-hand column has a psychological effect, and it might be worthwhile to reverse that. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:17, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

I suspect it is more that those voting oppose in the election don't need to worry about having to defend their position later. In traditional RFA's while supporters are mostly ignored, a significant number of opposers spawn discussions about their individual stances. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, who would have thunk it? The way to make RfA less toxic is to allow badgering of opposes. But, seriously, I find it hard to believe that the number of editors who hold back from opposing in traditional RfA would be large enough to account for the voting numbers in the election. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

There is a good argument that the election is by far "less toxic" for opposers, which far outnumber candidates. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:51, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I did almost vote oppose for all of the candidates I was intending to support until I did a double check of my ballot. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:10, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Unlisted candidates

There are still four unlisted candidates, namely Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates/A.FLOCK, Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates/Aaron-yabloko, Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates/Cloventt (already moved to userspace), and Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates/Lewis4482000. We still need to find out what we should do with those four pages. One suggestion would be to move three of those four pages to userspace (without leaving a redirect behind) like Cloventt already did and delete the redirect from Cloventt's subpage. Another suggestion would be to IAR delete the three pages that were not already userfied, together with the redirect from Cloventt's subpage. GTrang (talk) 17:09, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

We could also just leave them there. They're not hurting anything. They're not listed on the main candidate page, so the only way someone could find them is through a subpage search. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

We should update Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/July_2025#Withdrawing though, because right now we're saying they should be WP:SPD'd since they withdrawn/removed prior to the discussion phase.

I do think GTrangs suggestion to userfy them by default without a redirect would be the easiest thing.

We do also need to remove the Category from the pages as the currently show up at Category:Wikipedia administrator elections July 2025 candidates (I'll go do that right now. Raladic (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Novem that the best solution is to do nothing (aside from removing those categories, which you have correctly done already). I think the current wording at Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/July_2025#Withdrawing is fine: we can still ask people to request WP:G7 (author-requested deletion) for their unlisted candidate subpages, but if they don't do that, then there's no harm in just leaving it there. Mz7 (talk) 23:54, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

Would we maybe want to move them to a subpage structure though to make it clear they were not actually running in the election?

Like Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates/Withdrawn before Discussion Phase? Raladic (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I think people checking manually will generally look at the candidates page to see who ran. I think only categorizing actual candidate pages should suffice to support tools looking for a list of candidates. isaacl (talk) 03:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

election guides

The candidate discussion page said Please do not cast votes or issue any declarations of support/opposition here. Yet there were "guides" declaring support/oppose like this, and this. I am not opposed to actual guides that are neutral like by FemkeAsilvering, Novem, and others. But the two pages above are clear declarations of votes. Why is this this permitted? This is against the spirit of EFA. —usernamekiran (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator elections#c-Barkeep49-20250206190800-Q6: Voter guides (main election page linking to unofficial guides) for context. There was a consensus found that unofficial voting guides are fine. What the sentence you’re referring to at the individual candidates pages means is that we don’t want endorsements on the candidate page discuss discussions. Raladic (talk) 07:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The sentence you're quoting is just guidance about the purpose of that specific part of the page (hence the "here"). It's mainly just to make sure people don't treat the discussion phase like RFA, and post stuff like "Support - I already thought they were an admin!" or whatever. People are still allowed to disclose who they are planning to vote for elsewhere. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:47, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

you are missing the big picture. There was a reason why secret ballot was chosen. The discussion linked above discusses about voter guides. The pages I linked above can't be considered as voter guides. They are outright endorsements/support-oppose declarations. User:Novem Linguae/Essays/2025 administrator election voter guide, and User:Asilvering/AFD notes for July 2025 EFA are actual voter guides. —usernamekiran (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Secret ballot doesn't mean individuals are bound to secrecy as to their votes, it means that votes are by default secret. Every one of the linked examples you've provided is a valid voter guide. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 10:38, 3 August 2025 (UTC)