Wikipedia talk:2024 administrative elections proposal

Archives

Technical feasibility

I've just received an email from the T&S team, confirming that it is technologically feasible to hold admin elections via SecurePoll! There will be some implementation questions, but it should be workable on a twice-a-year cycle, maybe more. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:05, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pricing to move

I strongly suggest making the introduction neutral, making the rationale much more concise without loaded language, and moving the proposal up front. I think it would be better to avoid codifying specific details that are better adjusted on the fly as needed, though I appreciate there is balance between making a proposal sufficiently concrete to satisfy those looking for details and sufficiently flexible to encompass a broad number of supporters. For instance, I don't think removing names from the ballot should be done once a poll has started (and I don't think that's very easy to do).

I don't think a specific nomination period is necessary. If they've submitted their nomination when the train leaves, they can go. I suggest "Abstain" instead of "Neutral", as this more accurately reflects the purpose of that option. I disagree with write-in votes; I think recruiting should be done separately.

I don't think it's a good idea to codify that scrutineers should be bureaucrats. I think that limits the pool and will create pushback from the bureaucrats.

I don't think there should be two pass levels. I think the community needs to get used to elections first before also introducing a new category of administrators. isaacl (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

This proposal seems interesting, so I've left a few comments and suggestions below. They're mostly to do with the neutrality and scope of the proposal. I haven't gone through the actual wording of things much; this is mostly about the ideas behind them.

A lot of the descriptions of RfA (particularly in the introduction and "Current system" sections) are significant extrapolations of the consensus in RFA2021, and (sorry to be blunt) verge on grievances. I think the more neutrally worded the intro and principles can be, the more likely this is to attract support.

The idea of admin elections is already a contentious one, so I would try to keep the proposal as barebones as possible. I'd get rid of the six-month terms entirely – by including them, you would be limiting support for this proposal exclusively to people who believe in both temporary adminship and admin elections, rather than everyone who believes in the elections. The pass threshold might also be a sticking point with some people, so maybe have options for 65, 70, and 75%?

Four times a year is very often. There were 16 plausible candidacies last year (12 successful), and it's hard to know how many people would prefer this system over RfA. I think starting with one or two elections per year (I lean one) would be better. There's also a technical cost to running SecurePoll, and using it five times a year on enwiki might be asking quite a lot for how much it will actually benefit us.

I think the mailing list idea is well-intentioned but too bureauractic. This proposal tries to cover a lot of ground in making acquiring adminship less unpleasant, but allowing candidates to set preconditions for their run feels like a step too far. The section on standing for election doesn't mention anything about third-party nominations – if those are allowed, that should be clarified.

Likewise, the write-ins are a nice idea but I can't help but think that it isn't worth it for how controversial it might be. Having write-ins may also cause issues around whether the candidate actually wants to be an admin or not (electing someone who hasn't run would be like appointing someone through RfA who hasn't accepted a nomination).

Getting bureaucrats to do the scruitineering process is a BIG ask. AFAIK, scrooting (humor me) is largely just checkusering, so IMHO it would make way more sense to have a predetermined subset of uninvolved non-arb checkusers do it. They have the training & skills and there are more of them to rotate among.

I hope this is helpful – feel free to use or ignore as much of it as you like, and let me know if anything needs clarifying :) Giraffer (talk) 23:24, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A related proposal has achieved consensus

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 13: Admin elections and Wikipedia:Administrator elections for more details. You are welcome to join the discussions about it at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]