Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections

more signals that self-nom is the default?

We're also saying at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Candidates#List of candidates To sign up as a candidate, once your candidate page is created, add your name to the following table in alphabetical order with the {{Admin election candidate}} template. Do not add any candidate other than yourself.

Should we reword somehow? Valereee (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's an indication that the candidate has reviewed the nomination and is ready to proceed forward, rather than indicating a norm that most candidates will nominate themselves. So if there were to be any rewording, I suggest something along the lines that candidates should add their name once they are satisfied with their nomination and are ready to proceed. isaacl (talk) 16:14, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I've reworded to say nominators are allowed to transclude with permission too. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I meant to ask about that – so it's the candidate, rather than the nominator, who adds them to the table? Or at least, makes the call when to add? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

As I stated, I would rather have left it up to the candidate to do the final go-ahead. But to be fair, I don't think the exact wording will make a lot of difference, given that the process only moves forward at the candidate deadline. isaacl (talk) 17:05, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

I looked at what we did last AELECT, and it was a mixture of nominators and candidates. Makes most sense as it creates most flexibility. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

The instructions don't have to be overly literal. Saying something like "include the candidate in the table when they are ready to proceed" would cover both situations, and emphasize that it's up to the candidate to make the final decision. isaacl (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

Could we change in "Call for candidates": Candidates may either self-nominate or be nominated by other editors with the candidate's consent. to include the nominators list link: Candidates may either self-nominate or be nominated by other editors with the candidate's consent. ? Maybe it'd help point editors towards successful nominations? I tried to find this passage to add wl but got lost in the ins and outs of transclusions. Regards, CNC (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

@CommunityNotesContributor I've made the edit [1]. That section is transcluded from the election page for the current month. I'm not sure that's the best link target, maybe Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination would be better. But now that you know where the text comes from, you can tweak it as desired. Toadspike [Talk] 22:59, 3 May 2026 (UTC)

WP:Request an RfA nomination seems more suited for that purpose. My impression is that many of those who successfully nominated only once on the AEN list are more likely to be the types of nominators who happened to work in the same topic or process as their candidate and built rapport that way, and less likely to be the types to go out of their way to scout potential candidates or be open to nominating a previously unfamiliar user. Left guide (talk) 00:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I also agree that WP:RRN is a better link. The list of admin election nominators is more of a stats page than an indication of who's willing to nominate another user. Some of the users on that list are indeed frequent nominators. Others only nominate specific candidates whom they're confident about. Accessedgrant (Epicgenius mobile alt) (talk) 01:29, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

I've changed the link, and I also agree that it's a better target. :) Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 01:42, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, that works too. Added a link from there to AEN as well. CNC (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe this comment is better suited for the "debrief" phase, but I think for the next election we should have a more direct warning right above the "CANDIDATE USERNAME HERE" box at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Candidates advising editors to reach out to someone they trust to ask for a nomination unless they are extremely confident in themselves. Having a nominator might be the most reliable heuristic for success in administrator elections so far:

• In WP:AELECT1, 7 of the 11 successful candidates had at least one nominator, and all 21 of the 21 unsuccessful candidates were self-nominations.
• In WP:AELECT2, 7 of the 9 successful candidates had at least one nominator, and 6 of the 7 unsuccessful candidates were self-nominations.
• In WP:AELECT3, all 6 of the 6 successful candidates had at least one nominator, and 1 of the 2 unsuccessful candidates was a self-nomination.

We are now on WP:AELECT4, where 4 out of the 8 candidates so far are self-nominations, and I would be surprised if the trend does not continue. For reference, our instructions at RfA have long had a prominent statement discouraging self-nominations: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate#To nominate yourself (we used to do this before it was made more tame in October 2023 due to WP:BITE concerns). I think our administrator election page should have a similar word of caution.

Having a nominator has two critical benefits: (1) When you run in an administrator election, you are running alongside numerous other candidates, and I suspect that many voters do not have enough time to carefully vet each candidate. When you have a nominator vouching for you whom voters instinctively trust, that allows the voter's trust in the nominator to extend to you. (2) You and your nominator will work together on presenting your candidacy: it's important for candidates to give their nominators a draft of their responses to the three standard questions and get feedback if they need to be more detailed or if they are too off-topic. Your nominator often also has your back and will help defend you against opposition in the discussion phase.

I know that there are already several places in our election pages (including the watchlist notice) where we encourage prospective candidates to find a nominator, but for WP:AELECT5, we should go a step further and have an {{ombox}}-style warning that actively discourages self-nominations. Mz7 (talk) 04:50, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I've checked this every day for the past week and made every self-nominator aware of WP:ADESELF within a day of the nomination page's creation. If someone still wants to self-nom after reading that, I kind of have to conclude it's some combination of

1. hubris
2. unwillingness to read advice
3. unwillingness to take advice
4. unwillingness/inability to comply with cultural standards
5. inability to find an experienced nominator
6. NOTHERE
7. CIR.

Maybe let's keep that red flag available? Valereee (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I feel like these are dangerous assumptions to make about potentially well-qualified candidates. A nominator should be seen as an endorsement, not a checkbox. What if the candidate wants to do it by themselves? I personally would prefer to go through RFA or AELECT alone though I probably won't run anytime soon, if ever. A lack of a nominator should not lead to immediate assumptions of bad faith, but rather lead to more research on the candidate ourselves, maybe find out why they decided to forego a nominator. fanfanboy (block_talk) 14:15, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Exactly this. AGF applies to all aspects of Wikipedia, including in whether to run for adminship with or without a nominator. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Of course, and if someone has a great response to "Why did you decide to run without a nominator?", I'm all ears. The fact I can't immediately think of a reason doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Valereee (talk) 14:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I personally am not sure this is a problem that needs fixing. Currently (as Mz7 points out), "does the candidate know that it's the norm to get a nom" correlates very highly with "is the candidate suitable for adminship", but we have no indication that these have a direct causal link. If we put up barriers to require getting a nom, I'm sure a lot of the same unqualified candidates will just get some random editor (or off-wiki friend) to nom them instead. These sorts of processes will always attract well meaning but unqualified candidates who don't know community norms (just check out the history of WP:RFA).

It's also worth remembering that AELECT was designed explicitly for editors who don't want the sort of examination and discussion that RFA consists of, so it's not that surprising that it is attracting candidates who are less willing to reach out to another editor to nominate them (a process that involves examination and discussion). BugGhost 🦗👻 08:07, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 fanfanboy (block_talk) 14:16, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I get that, and it's a tradeoff. You don't have to have that examination/discussion with your nominator, but you also don't benefit from that examination/discussion with your nominator. Valereee (talk) 17:21, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I may be an outlier here, but I don't favor further modifying the language to discourage self-nomination. As an active nominators, I'm aware of the empirical relationship between nominators and success at RFA/EFA, but this is only occasionally a causal relationship. Success at RFA/EFA requires demonstrating a use-case for the tools, understanding of policy, and a considerate temperament, broadly speaking. A qualified candidate is generally able to put themselves forward without nominators: in recent years we have had nine such, by my count (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Qualified candidates tend to have nominators, in my experience, because 1) a nominator on the hunt for good candidates will usually find a qualified one before they think they're ready, especially when they have a degree of humility, 2) qualified candidates are likely to see the value of a nominator, and ask one for a review. But neither of these factors directly affect a given candidate's quality. Nominators help, of course, especially with qualified but imperfect candidates. We offer advice on how to answer questions, the weight of our name recognition, such as it is, and often a much needed confidence boost. But the presence of a nominator is, IMO, a strong heuristic for preparedness, not an actual measure of quality. We should continue to emphasize the need for experience, but not turn a nominator into a goal in and of itself, lest we see Goodhart's law in action. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that merely having a nominator is just a heuristic and not necessarily the cause for why a candidate is successful, but I would still argue we should discourage self-nominations except when the candidate is highly confident in themselves. The key is that when an unqualified candidate reaches out to a potential nominator, that potential nominator is empowered to say "no, not yet, and here's why". The process of searching for a nominator thus serves as an important initial screen to inform unqualified candidates that they are not likely to succeed and to provide feedback on how they can improve their chances in a future election cycle (lack of constructive feedback is one of the most common complaints about the AELECT process from unsuccessful candidates—see Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Debrief#Feedback from candidates). Yes, some nominators will make mistakes and decide to move forward with premature nominations, but I view the benefits of encouraging unqualified candidates to seek early feedback as clearly outweighing the potential downside of having Goodhart's law dilute the usefulness of a nominator's presence as a success heuristic. (To be honest, I'm actually more worried about nominators being too picky and turning away qualified candidates that would succeed than the opposite problem of nominators being too lax and nominating prematurely.) Mz7 (talk) 09:01, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly about the benefits of having an experienced editor review your contributions. But I think we ought to move away from framing that as a nominator-only activity. Community approval of candidates for adminship is a transparent and public process. The selection of candidates by nominators, and of nominators by candidates, is not - these days it's a very non-public process, often reliant on email or discord connections, and on murky networking more generally. The value of off-wiki forums for community building and mentorship is immense, but we should be wary of anything that might turn membership in those into an unwritten requirement. I would support both emphasizing the need for experience in a candidate, and the utility of having more eyes on that experience. We currently list Sohom Datta's EFA, but there's lots of other data, including that graph of edit counts in successful candidates someone posted. I would also support offering more public avenues for nominator evaluation. As an aside I really wish we could turn ORCP into a useful exercise again, as it was in its earliest days.

Finally, I think we need to be realistic about what the posted instructions and advice achieve. There will always be candidates who put themselves forward ignoring all advice to the contrary: NOTNOW candidates have been a fixture of RFA for longer than either of us has been around. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, the optional RfA candidate poll continues to provide useful feedback in most cases. The current set of participants are generally willing to provide feedback for editors at many different levels of readiness, and the emphasis has shifted to providing more detailed comments, versus a probability rating. isaacl (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

What I think the problem is with ORCP is that it's underutilized. Granted, I don't check it out that often, but when I do it's usually empty or has only one entry. fanfanboy (block_talk) 23:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Assuming the premise for a moment, that's more an issue with the recruiting / education process regarding administrators than with the optional administrator candidate poll. Note that there are prominent editors who think the poll doesn't achieve anything that can't be achieved in other ways with fewer drawbacks, so whether it's under-used depends on your point of view. isaacl (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

There are several nominators who have actively discouraged the use of ORCP over the years, and ORCP itself has sometimes succumbed to the same issues of overly harsh critique and performative behavior that also plague RFA itself, defeating its intended purpose. The percentage of serious candidates has consequently declined over the years. It's use by a greater number of candidates would be a good thing, I think, but there's other cultural shifts we need to see there. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, it's been about a year and a half since the last person who posted to ORCP went on to become an admin. Left guide (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

As I alluded to, the current set of participants are very welcoming. Of course any process can be improved, but personally I don't think cultural shifts are needed amongst those providing feedback. isaacl (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

And I'm not sure we can even say it's occasionally causal. Maybe in the case of voters who have decided they simply won't vote for someone who doesn't have a nominator, but could there possibly be enough of those to affect an outcome except the very closest ones? There are many reasons someone might choose to run without a nominator that are also the reasons they might not get enough support in an election or at RfA. Strong correlation, not causality. Valereee (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I am hesitant about how much further we should emphasize the desirability to have a nominator, assuming that the process continues to allow candidates to self-nominate. I think the real focus to emphasize is for potential candidates to find some experienced editors to provide a reality check on the viability of their candidacy. I appreciate that some of the support for having administrator elections is based on coaxing editors to run who are reluctant to solicit opinions from others regarding becoming an administrator. Nonetheless, I think it's valuable to encourage those who are thinking about requesting administrative privileges to cross-check their personal perceptions with other editors, something that they need to do to apply policy and guidelines as an administrator. Some editors will remain undissuaded, as evidenced by those who have signed up as candidates despite feedback in various places such as the optional RfA candidate poll that they aren't ready. I don't think that can be eliminated without requiring nomination from an experienced editor, and that just opens up another debate on who is eligible to be a nominator. isaacl (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm seeing valid arguments on both sides here. Based on what started this discussion, I think the top priority should be to make it clearer to not-yet candidates that it can be a big mistake to self-nom, in order to avoid the unpleasantness of having to tell them they should withdraw. That doesn't require telling well-qualified candidates that they are required to find a nom, and well-qualified candidates who have good reasons (whatever those reasons might be) to self-nom will also have enough clue to understand how they differ from not-yet candidates. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

We should not be telling anyone who meets the requirements that they should withdraw, for any reason. We can, and arguably should, advise them that their chances of success are very low (and explain why) but that's as far as it should go imo. Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I worded that imprecisely, but that's what I meant. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it's also worth letting people know that an ill-considered run can actually damage their future chances. A lot of people seem to think it's sort of a dice roll and independent. There are candidates I think could succeed if (X), but running and failing can affect future runs. Valereee (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

If candidates have read Advice for RfA candidates and/or Advice for admin elections candidates (preferably both), there is probably no need to dwell on the issue of 'with or without a nom?'. There are many reasons why a bid for the mop can fail and this is just one of them. We should preferably remain neutral and let them do what they think best. How they phrase their self-nom will largely precipitate what searching questions they get asked and will impact on voters' perception of their suitability for adminship. Candidates have plenty of time to be introspective after the event.

However, the first of those two pages (which was written 15 years ago) has had 13,077 hits in just the last 6 years and has become the de facto advice for RfA and Valereee's page has had 1,287 already. They they do therefore appear to be the go-to pages for prospective candidates.

Perhaps a links to the AELECT advice page should be displayed more prominently nearer the top of the candidates' page as a remidner at Administrator elections/May 2026/Candidates. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:23, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Mass questions

One interesting thing unique to elections (that isn't possible at RfA) is the phenomenon of individual editors asking the same question to all candidates in a rapid-fire seemingly indiscriminate manner. Are folks ok with it? And if not, do we want to establish any guidelines or ground rules for the practice? Left guide (talk) 03:10, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

There was some previous discussion at the debrief for AELECT3 about mass questions (Toadspike, Gramix13 and Chaotic Enby from my scan over that debrief). 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 03:37, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think mass questions are truly the problem. Its disruptive mass questions that are the issue, which doesn't include all mass questions. The three beginning questions candidates have to respond to are mass questions, and are also good questions. I don't know exactly what the solution is for this issue (maybe giving the monitors more leeway when dealing with mass questions?) but I don't believe getting rid of mass questions entirely is for the best. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 04:02, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

There were editors who would ask the same question of every candidate participating in the open feedback process, so this isn't a novel phenomenon (though it may be a case of returning fashion). If someone has specific criteria that they wish to examine, I think it's reasonable for them to pose an appropriate question to each candidate.

Rapid-fire questions is, to me, a separate concern. Perhaps a limit on the number of questions could be considered (per person for each candidate), similar to the arbitration committee elections. isaacl (talk) 04:38, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think this is a problem. If it's a good question that helps voters decide whether the candidate would make a good administrator, then what does it matter if an editor gives it to one candidate or all of them? If it's a bad question, then it's bad regardless of how many candidates it's given to. I also agree with isaccl when they say this isn't new.

There are general questions that are relevant to all (or at least most) candidates, and there are questions that are only relevant to a few (or maybe just one) of them. I don't see anything wrong with asking mass questions that fall in the former category. Chess enjoyer (talk) 04:54, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I personally am not a huge fan of indiscriminate mass questions, but I think they're only actionable when clearly irrelevant to the candidate being asked. For example, though it was phrased quite reasonably, asking this question to all candidates in an election regardless of their experience with the area in question could reasonably be questioned by the monitors. I think we're more tolerant of irrelevant questions at RfA for a variety of reasons, but poor mass questions at AELECT are uniquely disruptive. A bad mass question massively wastes voters' time by forcing them to read or scroll past a dozen answers to the same bad question. Voters are being asked to do more work at AELECT by vetting many more candidates at once; we should be respectful of their time. Toadspike [Talk] 12:31, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree. Some areas of adminship, and edit filters are good example, are irrelevant to most admins. Only questions that are relevant to all candidates should be asked to all candidates. Thryduulf (talk) 14:31, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

100% agree with this, the questions really should be tailored to each candidate. AELECT voters already have a lot to go through in a short period of time, and mass questions end up wasting community time. – LuniZunie_(talk) 14:56, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

You mean, asking all candidates the same question?

This page is confusing. I see a list of questions (same for all candidates), then a warning that it's not time to ask questions yet, and here a discussion of having the same question for all candidates.

I want to ask all candidates: What should happen when the consensus violates the policy on reliable sources? Mevsherd (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mevsherd, do you have a specific instance in mind? Valereee (talk) 23:19, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I think I'd rather keep it general. Mevsherd (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Mevsherd, well, I'm not sure as a candidate I'd have enough information to answer the question as you've written it here, but in general the answer is 'get more input from other editors'. You could, for instance, notify relevant WikiProjects of the discussion, or ask for input at reliable sources noticeboard, or if the article is a bio of a living person, at BLP noticeboard. If it's an ongoing problem with people misusing sources to push a particular point of view and/or refusing to discuss, you could open a discussion at administrators' noticeboard or if it's in a contentious topic, at arbitration enforcement.

But if you're asking this at AELECT because you think a candidate might answer, "An admin should change the content in an article that was added via consensus that violates policy and then protect the article from further changes", that's not what admins do except in extremely limited cases, like a BLP violation. Admins have no special authority over content. It's the editors working at that article who make content decisions. Valereee (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

The first three questions you see are the standard questions for all admin candidates, including those at request for adminship. The thing that was telling you not to discuss yet is for admin elections only, it opens two days after the call for candidates closes, and only then you are allowed to discuss and ask questions outside of the standard three. This page is for discussing details about the admin election process itself and how it should work, not for discussing candidates in the elections. fanfanboy (block_talk) 02:22, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Mass questions are permitted and have not been a problem in the past. I think we should close this section and save this issue for the RFC phase. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think the intention was to make any changes to the current election. That, as you say, should be left for the post-election RfCs. But I'm not sure saying they "have not been a problem" is accurate. Maybe they haven't been disruptive or required monitor action, but based on discussion here and prior they do not seem very popular. Toadspike [Talk] 07:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

It can be helpful to go into the RfC phase with an idea of what issues we are to address, and how to do so to the best of our abilities. While we do have a workshopping phase, a prior informal discussion absolutely helps, both to figure out the extent of the issue and have proposals emerge on how editors would prefer it to be addressed, which we can then further refine down the line. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:05, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Isn't that what the debrief page is for? fanfanboy (block_talk) 12:15, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Definitely, but (at least in my opinion) that shouldn't prevent us from holding similar informal discussions before the debrief! My bigger worry is that at the moment of the debrief, the decision to not hold an RfC phase was already made, while holding a discussion earlier could have surfaced the issues in time and helped sway that decision. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:05, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I do think it's a recurring problem. We're putting quite some load on the candidates with the volume of mass question, which are of variable quality. A simple system where mass questions should be seconded before they're asked might sort out the good from the less good. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:31, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The load for a given candidate isn't based on whether or not a question is asked of other candidates, though. I'm wary of introducing filtering systems for questions beyond the current monitoring process, as it adds another layer of administration to argue about. isaacl (talk) 14:43, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

It doesn't increase the load on a given candidate but it does increase the load on voters. Thryduulf (talk) 14:57, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

It does, also, increase the load on all other candidates who wouldn't have had this question asked if it wasn't a mass question. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Voters can choose to ignore any question they feel is irrelevant. isaacl (talk) 15:10, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

But they have to actively choose to do that, and the longer the list of questions is the less likely it is that people will read them (tl;dr is a thing). Thryduulf (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

It's a thing whether or not questions are tailored to a specific candidate. If we move to a model where questions need approval, personally I don't think whether or not the question can be deemed applicable to all candidates matters. Appropriateness should be determined for each candidate on an individual basis. isaacl (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I thinking of something where there is a rule something like questions not clearly directly relevant to an individual candidate will be removed by monitors. If you want to ask the same question to more than 3 candidates they must be approved as generally relevant beforehand. Thryduulf (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

The first rule already exists, and it can be used whether or not questions are posed to one candidate or to many. isaacl (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

Seconding your proposal to second them! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:55, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure anything needs to be done here. Anyone should be free to ask questions to any candidate they want, including the same question(s) to all candidates. Whether these questions are insightful and relevant is a different matter, and one that is difficult to adjudicate procedurally - and I feel like an attempt to introduce a procedure would be unnecessary and cumbersome. I'm happy to let the monitors use their judgement on a case-by-case basis. BugGhost 🦗👻 16:07, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I think anyone who thinks a question is reasonable to ask of every candidate should probably be directed to WP:Should you ask a question at RfA? Because at minimum it might be doing the opposite of what you think it's doing. :D Valereee (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

I considered spamming the same question for all candidates. I could probably come up with half a dozen suitable questions, most of which would amount to "Do you actually know what the policies and guidelines say, or are you going to be spreading rumors about 'policy requires' things that no {{policy}} even mentions, or directly rejects?" But I decided it was a bad idea in principle, and I would encourage other editors to not do this.

Perhaps what we should do is ban indiscriminate spamming of the same question to all editors, but introduce a limited additional list of universal questions, chosen by the community for each round. That is:

• There are the standard questions, which are the same every round (Why are you interested? What are your best contributions? How do you deal with conflict?).
• Every round, editors propose and vote on a few more questions (What do you think about last month's big drama? How do you feel about new editors? What's your view of this principle?).
• Individual questions are expected to be different for each candidate (Can you explain this edit you made 12 years ago? How do you expect your XFD participation to change?). It would probably be good to introduce a rule that no editor should be asking individual questions of more than about half of the candidates, to avoid gaming the anti-spam rule ("My suggestion for the universal new question list didn't get accepted, so I'm going to find an AFD comment for each candidate, and ask each one a 'personalized' version of the same basic question about whether they're a deletionist or an inclusionist").

WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

• LEvalyn messaged me, Carrite, Robert McClenon, Spravato, and I2Overcome about boilerplate questions, like mine. I appreciate your concerns about copied-and-pasted questions, but asking individuals different questions isn't easy without treating them too differently, regardless of their statuses. Well, I asked one of candidates a different question and was torn on whether to ask a different one on another. Would even rewriting the same questions still be the same questions in context? In my case, I asked one question about a Signpost piece using an LLM and another question about one ArbCom-approved principle. How else can I ask the nominees whom I've barely or never interacted much? George Ho (talk) 22:34, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  LEvalyn said to me that apparently I need to read the replies to other questions. I'm new to admin elections but LEvalyn seems to have a good point. 🥤Spravato!🍒/🧋 23:22, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

  @George Ho, you're not obligated to ask every candidate a question, let alone two. But the candidates will absolutely feel obligated to answer you, no matter what you ask. Consider that asymmetry, and consider, next time, whether you need to ask any questions at all. -- asilvering (talk) 23:28, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I think mass questions is kind of a red herring here – it's relevance that matters, and the tools to fix this already exist. Mass questions will usually be irrelevant, but sometimes a mass question will be relevant to one candidate, and sometimes an individual question will be a crapshoot. Mass or not, monitors can and should be (I've done it more than once as a monitor) removing every question that is less "do you know how to do what you are intending to do?" and more "what do you think about my pet issue that has nothing to do with you?". It is a sap on candidate and nominator time to make them come back to the drawing board for a half-dozen questions that have nothing to do with the candidate's fitness or intentions for the mop. It would be really nice to have active monitor help with that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:44, 10 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree. Or, at least, I think preventing mass questions would do most of the work towards fixing the problem in any case. -- asilvering (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

If we can't agree to prevent mass questions in general, then perhaps they should be pre-screened by monitors to make sure they're relevant and that not too many of them are happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe that's the fix? If you're planning to ask the same question of multiple candidates, vet it first? Valereee (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

yea. I think that could work. Especially for newer users like me that might need a lil more help 🥤Spravato!🍒/🧋 01:32, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Spravato Are you aware that you are not yet eligible to vote in this election? (You have made less than 500 edits.) I don’t want you to be disappointed if you try to vote and you can’t. I₂Overcome ^talk 04:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

yes I am aware. I just want to be familiar with the process so that when I can vote, I'll do good votes 🥤Spravato!🍒/🧋 04:34, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Great, just making sure. I₂Overcome ^talk 04:40, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

If we're going to start screening questions, then as I stated previously, I don't like having screening triggered based on how many candidates are asked a question. Questions can be irrelevant when asked to one candidate, and many people can ask irrelevant questions to one candidate. In my view, if screening is introduced, it shouldn't be done as a partial measure. isaacl (talk) 05:04, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

But if ten people wants to ask all candidates a question we deem irrelevant, that's a demand for 120 answers.

If ten people want to ask one candidate a question we deem irrelevant, that's a demand for just 10 answers.

The math matters here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should be considering the effect on the one candidate as well. I appreciate you have a different point of view. isaacl (talk) 05:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Isaacl, if you have an example of a single candidate getting a tremendous number of irrelevant questions, that would be helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 06:00, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there have been a tremendous number of irrelevant questions, whether it is to one candidate or multiple. Thus personally I don't believe screening is worthwhile, as I've previously discussed. isaacl (talk) 06:10, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, when several editors ask mass questions with dubious relevance or utility, it evolves into a sort of tragedy of the commons, with the shared resource being the candidates' time and attention in the five-day discussion period. Left guide (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

This seems like a solution in search of a problem. Mass questions are allowed at ACE, and it's not much of an issue. The most questions at a current EFA is 25, and candidates are under no obligation to answer questions they find irrelevant. I got 31 questions at my RfA, so I'm not convinced there's something about this format that requires restricting the ability to ask questions in any way (in the past, we'd have editors who would show up to many RfAs to ask similar questions; this is just the same thing, but more obvious, since the candidacies are happening at the same time). Elli (talk | contribs) 06:07, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Chatting to people I would love to see running in AELECT5, this is a problem, with people indicating they might not want to run if there are that many questions. They are optional, but it the past voters have really not liked people leaving (too many) questions open and it increases stress if you do not have the time to answer all. The discussion stage is shorter than in RfA, meaning this volume of questions can catch you off guard, especially if there are questions that ask for a lot of time, if you lean towards perfectionism, or if you have limited time due to family/work/disability. I would not have been able to answer anywhere near 31 questions during my RfA. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:23, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

That's fair; I don't want to dissuade potential candidates from running. However, when people get clueless questions, they get an opportunity to demonstrate the skills we want to see in admins (in terms of how they respond), so I'm very hesitant to support restrictions. Requiring every question be higher-stakes and personalized would make the process more stressful, at least for me. Elli (talk | contribs) 06:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

This isn't limited to mass questions, though. The situation you're describing is when one candidate gets asked different questions by different editors, not one editor asking the same question(s) to every candidate. It's entirely possible to overwhelm the candidate with specific questions that are only relevant to them. I wonder if a cap on how many questions an individual candidate can be asked would be worth exploring (then again, that would be kind of silly when you remember that candidates techniclally don't have to answer any questions other than the first three). Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:37, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Chess enjoyer: I wonder if a cap on how many questions an individual candidate can be asked would be worth exploring If one follows the RfC link for "two questions per editor" on an election page, there was a separate RfC option for this matter on the same page that was SNOW-opposed at a ratio of 34–1 back in 2015. Left guide (talk) 06:49, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

Well that answers that. That RFC was over a decade ago, but the reasons it was opposed are still relevant. Chess enjoyer (talk) 06:53, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I wonder whether a limit on how many questions "I" can ask (total, all candidates combined) would be acceptable. The end result would be a small reduction in the number of total questions asked, but it wouldn't affect most editors at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

If there's consensus to limit the total number of questions that a candidate has to answer, then the corresponding solution is to introduce a limit. It could be both a per-questioner rate limit and a total overall per-candidate limit. There might be a problem with questioners rushing to get their questions in first. I don't have any ideas on how to resolve that without adding more overhead to the process, though (question selection). It might not be a significant problem, as for most candidates the amount of additional info gained from another question diminishes as the number of questions go up. isaacl (talk) 06:43, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I really don't think that "the arbs manage to survive it" is a strong argument for making prospective admins run the same gauntlet. Not to mention that your RFA was highly unusual, since you were the first (successful) discussion-first candidate in that trial. -- asilvering (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

I will try to address some of the comments, since I was one of the editors who submitted what are being called mass questions. First, I will agree with one suggestion about screening. I think that it would be a very good idea if there were a call for questions, and editors could submit proposed questions for all candidates. The call for questions should begin before the candidates are listed, so that the editor-submitted general questions will be seen by the candidates in advance, and so that the questions will be completely independent of who the candidates are. If that had been the case, I would have submitted in advance one of my questions, the one about artificial intelligence, and would not have asked the other question. I think that the main answer is that there should be a call for questions, because sometimes there are questions that should be asked of all candidates, and I think that how to deal with artificial intelligence is one in May 2026. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I will comment on at least one point, and that is the after-the-fact advice that I was given that I should have written customized questions to each of the candidates rather than presenting the same question to all candidates. That comment implies that the community should try to minimize the time that is demanded of the candidates in completing the election. I respectfully disagree. I was trying to minimize the time that was demanded of a voter. The community should be trying to simplify the process of participating in the election for the voters, even if that increases the time required for the candidates. The candidates should be ready to spend some time explaining to the community why they should be selected as admins. It is my opinion that it is more important to save time for the voters than to save time for the candidates. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:54, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I think we have to find a balance between these things. If we push too far into "The candidates should be ready to spend some time", then we won't have any candidates. This would, naturally, result in the maximum possible savings on voter time, but it's not the goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that asking questions saves the voters time. In fact, it's asking that they spend even more of it. It adds up to huge walls of text that aren't terribly relevant. Targetted, insightful questions help voters a good deal. Mass questions, in my opinion, do not. -- asilvering (talk) 03:08, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Personally I think that it can be useful to ask a candidate about a topic in context of their specific circumstances. Thus I don't agree that only generic questions should be posed. isaacl (talk) 03:14, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps instead of coming up with mass questions before the call for candidates, we could come up with some during the housekeeping phase? fanfanboy (block_talk) 03:20, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree there might be some value in prescreening questions intended to be asked of all (or most (or maybe even multiple?)) candidates, if only to weed out the getting-to-know-you ones ("How did you come up with your username?") and the ones that amount to "Which wikipolitical parties are you in? [If they differ from mine in the smallest detail, expect an oppose!]". But we certainly should not limit questions to mass, prescreened questions only, as sort of implied above; and the goal shouldn't be to minimize voters' time investment - which shouldn't be a consideration at all! - but to maximize their accuracy. —Cryptic 03:48, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps I need to clarify. I was never proposing that all questions be prescreened. I was proposing that questions to be asked of all the candidates be prescreened. So I am saying that there should be three groups of questions. The first is the three universal questions. The second would be prescreened questions submitted by editors, which will be asked at the same time as the universal questions. The third group would be questions for each candidate, which would be the same as they currently are. Those questions will not be prescreened, but, as is currently the case, may be removed by the monitors if they are inappropriate. "Have you stopped posting malware at the biographies of living persons noticeboard?" What would be new would be the limited group of mass questions suggested by editors and accepted by the monitors. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

---

Question count (left) and ratio of question count (right) by candidate in AELECT by election, of non-withdrawn candidates.

Was told to share this here, posting without comment. Number of questions posed to candidates by election. Non-snow closed candidates at RFA sine January 2024 recieved on average 15.9 questions. Bobby Cohn 🍁 (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks like this election in particular is an outlier with the amount of question per candidate being higher on average compared to the previous ones. fanfanboy (block_talk) 00:46, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It does seem like a lot of questions were asked this time round. I think it may have been useful if the monitors were a little firmer about enforcing the "maximum of 2 questions" rule - I think the follow-up clause may have been stretched a little thin with some of these. For example, George Ho posed 4 questions for Vestrian24Bio (five if you include the struck question (asking for feedback for their essays) that the candidate may have started drafting an answer to) - the last of which literally started with Dunno what else to ask honestly, so... Here goes:. They similarly asked 4 questions to Asukite, and then 2 questions for each of the remaining candidates. I think this probably should have been a scenario where a monitor steps in. BugGhost 🦗👻 08:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Okay, I think the least we could is limit mass questions to only one per person. I think we should be more strict than that obviously, but two mass questions from the same person is a bit much. fanfanboy (block_talk) 13:59, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion Phase no longer on Watchlist Notice?

Isn't the watchlist notice supposed to stay up until discussion closes? We still have a little over 8 hours before it closes. fanfanboy (block_talk) 15:11, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The same happened with the previous phase notification. I wonder if this is all fixed to a time zone other than UTC? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:15, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Per this, its exclusive rather than inclusive. The notice was set to expire on 12 May 2026 here, and if its exclusive it wouldn't include 12th may. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 15:17, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. Left guide (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Only the end date can be considered exclusive. It's actually because the dates are for time 00:00 unless specified. So for the end date you either put the following day "13 May 2026" or add the time "12 May 2026 23:59:59". KylieTastic (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

To me, if something expires on 12 May, then it means 12 May at 23:59, not 00:01 (using 00:01 for clarity). That's also how best before and use by dates are used. JuniperChill (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

May 2026 Administrator Elections – Voting Phase

The voting phase of the May 2026 administrator elections has started and will continue until 19 May 2026 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• May 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase (we are here)
• Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Voter guide

Does anybody have a voter guide? There are way too many questions for all these candidates, I’m not reading all that. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 00:51, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

@Bzweebl: Voter guides can be found at Category:Wikipedia administrator elections May 2026 voter guides. Left guide (talk) 01:02, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! Why isn’t there a public link to them like previous times? No clue how I would have found that if you didn’t tell me. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 01:10, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

See question 6, question 7, and question 8 of the RFC phase for the first admin elections (October 2024). fanfanboy (block_talk) 02:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

There's a link on Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026. isaacl (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Oh thank you, I wouldn’t have thought to click on “Procedure” to find it. I’m glad it’s still somewhere though. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 13:37, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Why "neutral" instead of "abstain"?

May I ask why on the vote page, "Abstain" is listed as "Neutral," even though the sentence above says "indicate your preference for each candidate with "Oppose", "Abstain", or "Support"."? fanfanboy (block_talk) 02:31, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

The setup instructions used to list the appropriate options to use. Now that the instructions are contained within a walkthrough, only election clerks can see the instructions, so I don't know if the options are described. isaacl (talk) 04:12, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Neutral and abstain have different meanings. I would encourage the election clerks to change it back to abstain. Although they may need to consult with the scrutineers first, who will probably not like either option (having the wrong word used nor changing the wording mid-election), so it may be difficult to determine the least bad path here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:23, 13 May 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to add back the instructions to the main page, I was focused on the walkthrough but completely forgot it wouldn't be visible to non-election clerks wanting to know how they work for reference. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:06, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

And just realized I was the one who mixed the two up to begin with when building the walkthrough. Thanks a lot for pointing this out! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I've asked the other election officials for what to do here. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:16, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

There is consensus among election clerks to not change the options mid elections. Sohom (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It would probably be better for someone who can see and edit the walkthrough to support an on-wiki version of the instructions. Also I feel that the election clerks should be free to document their procedures in a way that works best of them, so if you/they prefer to keep it as is, so be it. isaacl (talk) 01:22, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The walkthrough is also on-wiki (it uses Help:Guided tours), but I personally believe that documenting the procedures in a way that is as transparent as possible (with redundancy between the walkthrough and the instruction list) should be a goal, especially if we want to have more editors learn to clerk for future elections. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:33, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Having two sets of instructions (bulleted list and guided tour) is increased maintenance burden, with double work updating them and opportunities for them to accidentally drift apart. I would lean towards just a bulleted list, but of course I am a bit biased :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:53, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The guided tour version is roughly fairly simple and boils down to bullets + a CSS selector and some transition JS code Sohom (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I know it is on-wiki, though I didn't know where it was stored (it would have been helpful to just link to MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-aelect.js, rather than having me figure out the right page name). The point is that its format maps directly to the physical layout of the tour, making it difficult to use as a human-readable set of instructions. Maybe there's a way to generate human-readable steps from the Javascript file. In any case, I leave it up to the election clerks to decide on what works for them. isaacl (talk) 08:09, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Oppose / Neutral / Support

I don't know about anyone else, but I would have expected those radio buttons to be the other way round (Support - Neutral - Oppose). I just assumed they were the usual way round and nearly voted in the completely opposite way from which I intended. I wonder if anyone else has done that, and not noticed? Black Kite (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't think I did, but your question made me unsure enough that I went back and revoted hahaha Valereee (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

Can't really be changed, the order goes -1, 0, 1 and is set from SecurePoll. Sohom (talk) 19:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

It can be changed in future elections. There's a way to type in 1, 0, and -1 instead of -1, 0, and 1 when setting up an election.

However I would not be in favor of changing it in future elections. It has been this way for 4 elections now and this is not commonly complained about, so I think folks are used to it this way and OK with it this way.

I would have to research why I did it this way, but I think I probably copied it from WP:ACE. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:48, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

I remember noticing this in past elections, and have assumed that it is somehow baked-in to SecurePoll. But if we consider changing it for future elections, I would be in favor of changing it, on the basis that it's more logical and intuitive to have "Support" come first. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

The order was last discussed in June 2025 (see Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections/Archive 6 § Column order). It matches the order of the options in the arbitration committee election, and follows previous precedent for the past administrator elections. isaacl (talk) 22:31, 14 May 2026 (UTC)

That's as may be, but IMO it's not intuitive. Black Kite (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This is similar to the perennial debate in survey form design regarding rating scales, whether they should run from positive (on the left) to negative, or from negative to positive. Personally I prefer the latter, and in my mind that translates to the oppose / neutral / support order on the voting form, but YMMV. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:21, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

As I stated in the previous discussion, I agree with DoubleGrazing: I think the choices are akin to a rating scale, and personally I think it's more common to see such scales displayed in increasing order, in the direction of the text (left to right in English). There are also synergy advantages in following the same approach as previous administrator elections and the arbitration committee elections. isaacl (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

All the common rating scales I've ever seen (i.e. Amazon, Trip Advisor) have positive ratings on top (i.e. first). And I have never seen a questionnaire about opinions put "Strongly disagree" first (unless they're trying to lead you). But, yes, if this is how it's always been done... Black Kite (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Most surveys I've taken go strongly disagree - disagree - neutral - agree - strongly agree when horizontal, but

strongly agree
agree
neutral
disagree
strongly disagree

when vertical.
Amazon gives me ★☆☆☆☆ to ★★★★★, so most negative is first on the left, most positive is last on the right. I wonder if there's some science around this, or if people have just been winging it since polling and reviewing started.

★☆☆☆☆ Who do you think you are, treating someone like me with such contempt? Is there anyone else among the traders who deal with Dilmun who has treated me this way? Only you treat my messenger with contempt! Be advised that I will no longer accept any copper from you that is not of good quality. From now on, I will personally select the ingots in my own yard, and I will exercise my right of refusal against you, since you have treated me with contempt. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

There is tons of science around it, partially because the people who write and analyze survey research luvz de statz. I used to be more familiar with it than I am now so I won't try to actually discuss, but yes, that science is out there in breadth and depth to which most will find a bit funny. :D Valereee (talk) 13:04, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Since we're all just posting what we like, I think Oppose | Abstain | Support makes the most sense because that's visually what we're most used to seeing on survey forms and such (concur with SFR and isaacl). qedk (t 愛 c) 13:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

And Support/Oppose/Neutral makes the most sense to me, because that is the order of a traditional RfA. Pawnkingthree (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

This lines up with ScottishFinnishRadish comment about how surveys and websites order their options when vertical or horizontal. RFA is vertical, AELECT is horizontal. fanfanboy (block_talk) 20:22, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Regarding the fact that O/N/S was used as the order in the ArbCom election, I feel like I do remember past ArbCom elections around 2015-2017 timeframe having the more intuitive Support/Neutral/Oppose order. My suspicion is that the ordering was changed to the current Oppose/Neutral/Support on the whim of whoever set up the SecurePoll one year, and it just stuck. We should not treat recent ArbCom elections as some kind of binding precedent. I would also argue that it should be Support/Neutral/Oppose. Mz7 (talk) 07:34, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

As discussed at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Feedback § ♬ Left right, left right, left ♬, Xaoxflux verified that the order has been Oppose/Neutral/Support going back to 2018 (which was as far back as they checked). As I said in the June 2025 discussion, the administrator election ballot could go its own way, but there is an advantage to making the ballot consistent across the two types of elections (as well as past administrator elections). isaacl (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

For the record, I nearly made the same mistake as Black Kite. I thankfully checked the headers one last time before voting. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we could clarify on the voting instructions the order to prevent confusion? fanfanboy (block_talk) 19:47, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking we could have a discussion about whether or not editors want to change the order – but first, we'd have to discuss how to format the choices for that discussion (and before that we'd...). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

The first bulleted item on the voting page lists the options in the order that appear in the columns, from left to right (though of course as noted earlier, it says "Abstain"). As suggested in the discussion last year, perhaps an ✗ and ✓ can be added to the column labels. (It seems the requisite Phabricator task has been resolved and merged.) isaacl (talk) 21:43, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Indicators like those would definitely help. fanfanboy (block_talk) 22:10, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

I guess this brings us to another drawback of having GuidedTour as the only SecurePoll setup notes now. Instead of someone boldly adding such icons to the SecurePoll setup notes so that they are carried over to the next election, only @Chaotic Enby can easily update the SecurePoll setup notes now. In theory an interface admin could update MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-aelect.js and a regular admin could update a subpage such as MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-aelecttranslate/introduction, but this would also require technical knowledge of where to find these pages. It is quite a bit more complicated than the previous one page bulleted list. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:15, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to delete the guided tour and revert back to the election notes, since consensus is clearly against it. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 12:06, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not against the idea of a guided tour, so unless there's more behind-the-scenes discussions with the election clerks, I don't see a consensus against it. isaacl (talk) 17:24, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

For what it's worth, wouldn't linking those pages as part of the bulleted list solve said problem ? Sohom (talk) 16:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Wondering if there could be a way to have those pages directly call embedded anchors in the main page so we wouldn't need separate pages to maintain. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:27, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It's more than just two pages. I think there's 7 pages. One concern is because it's multiple pages and some of the pages are in program code, that it makes it difficult to update for anyone except the maintainer. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Novem Linguae: I do get this, but also to CE's point, I wish there was a script-able API to Special:SecurePoll that can "auto-do" the actions mentioned on the Setup page. The current instructions are very much "copy this, click this button, do X" which are very easy to do mechanically but also easy to mess up so it would be nice to be able to basically say "Just run this script with the date and the name" to setup a Admin election. (and the way I see it a Guided Tour is kinda a primitive way of doing the same). Sohom (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

I like this idea, although as a counterpoint, I think there's benefits to not having such a script (I actually weighed the pros and cons of both before going for GuidedTour). Mainly, we want clerks to familiarize themselves at least a little bit with what's going on under the hood if there are any issues down the line with SecurePoll, and having them go through the motions of setting it up is a good way to have some baseline hands-on experience of how it works. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:48, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Fanfanboy I've added verbiage as part of the voting instructions, feel free to improve the language. Sohom (talk) 16:20, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

For the record, I nearly made the same mistake as Black Kite. I worry that changing the order after 4 elections might cause more people to almost make mistakes than the number of people currently almost making mistakes, due to muscle memory. We could always RFC this in the RFC phase if we want, but I think there's some good arguments against changing. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It's kind of like getting countries that drive on the left-hand side to drive on the right—yeah, it'll alleviate confusion in the long run, but it's gonna generate a whole lot more in the short term. All we can do is trust that the average Wikipedian is competent enough to check which column they're voting in before hitting the button. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:00, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Either order is arbitrary, changing it will just lead to another set of voters confused next election. For the record I think the current O/A/S ordering makes the most sense. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:49, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Debrief

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/Debrief. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:19, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

RfC phase

Based on the early discussion, it seems like an RfC round may be helpful this time, on at least two questions: should there be a higher formal threshold for Aelect nominations to discourage candidates who don't have a prayer And should there be limits on asking the same question repeatedly to some/all candidates? —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Yep, definitely. AELECT3 didn't see much willingness for immediate changes, but the climate this time seems to be slightly different, and many proposals for how to address these issues are being suggested. Depending on how much support there is, I'll open up the RfC workshop tomorrow. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:21, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Rather than an RFC for increasing the minimum requirements for just AELECT, doing one for AELECT+RFA may be more worthwhile. Skimming through Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFC phase#Q5. Candidate edit count requirement there were at least some people who supported the status quo simply because a change would disconnect AELECT from RFA. 45dogs (they/them) (talk page) (contributions) 19:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to see what the feedback is in the debrief process, and rely on that in crafting the RfC. There's no urgency in starting the RfC workshop, and it would be useful to collect as much information as possible first. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Expanding degree of curation for the discussion phase

Currently, there is a soft form of curated discussion: monitors can remove questions after they have been posed if they deem them to be irrelevant for evaluating a candidate. Numerous people have expressed interest in expanding the degree of curation for the discussion phase. I suggest the following aspects should be considered during an request for comments workshop:

• Who will do the curation? The most obvious options are the monitors, or a community consensus, though other options could be devised.
• What curation criteria will be used? Some non-mutually exclusive examples:
  • Has a substantially similar question already been posed by anyone to any other candidate / N other candidates (including the same candidate)? Should the curators be able to make an exception if they deem the question to be sufficiently appropriate for the specific candidate in question?
  • Is the question deemed to be sufficiently relevant to evaluating a candidate?
  • Has a hard upper limit on questions to a given candidate been reached?
• Will curation take place prior to officially presenting the question to the candidate? This is probably the only workable option if the community is doing curation.
• When will curation take place? Options include prior to the discussion period, overlapping with the discussion period with a cutoff time before the end of the discussion period, or (as is the current case) concurrent with the discussion period. If the community is doing curation, then prior to the discussion period is probably the only workable option due to the amount of time required to reach community consensus. A split curation approach could be followed, where the community curates questions prior to the discussion period, and monitors curate questions during the discussion period.
• Are questions that fail the curation criteria deleted, or moved to an uncurated question location?

On a side note, users whose questions aren't approved might choose to use candidate talk pages. That will presumably have little effect on all other users, though, since they won't see the questions (or can easily choose to ignore them).

Discussion can wait until the workshop; I'm just raising these points to think about in preparation. isaacl (talk) 22:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree that these are important questions, especially the first two bullets. However, I'm not sure "curation" is the correct framing. The community specifically seems to want a reduction in the number of irrelevant questions posed to candidates. I am not aware of concerns about the way moderation currently works, which is that monitors act on rule violations once they occur. Any preemptive action or pre-screening of questions would conflict with longstanding community norms (e.g. WP:BLOCKPREVENTATIVE, WP:PREEMPTIVE) and is (in my opinion) so unlikely to attain consensus we shouldn't bother putting it up for discussion. Toadspike [Talk] 10:48, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Some voices (not sure yet if there is a consensus) have expressed the desire to reduce their effort (and the candidates' effort) in going through questions by eliminating questions they personally feel are irrelevant. One way or another, that means selecting which questions are posed (at least on the formal candidate pages). I agree that historically there hasn't been a community consensus to select questions with the open viewpoint request for adminship process. There does seem to be a shift in mood with the election process towards streamlining the discussion process, though, to a sufficient extent that it should probably be discussed in a workshop. isaacl (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

A thing to keep in mind, I think the community has wanted us (the monitors) to be much less aggressive and only act on obvious rule violations. @Fram You were one of the folks to have the "be less aggressive" sentiment last year, what do you think of the above? Sohom (talk) 14:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but I really haven't followed this years elections, the only time I looked at them was when some new essays (Wikipedia:Notability (individual sports) an a sister essay) were linked from two questions. See e.g. the very bottom of this. But otherwise I haven't checked how things went this year, and have no useful opinion to offer. Fram (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The best solution, then, is to codify community expectations into new rules, since those seem to go beyond preventing "too rude" and "disorganized" questions. Toadspike [Talk] 14:31, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I think some people are reaching for the "questions posed to more than one candidate are irrelevant" standard because they think it will be an easy criterion to manage. There are, however, subleties that I've tried to draw out with my example criterion that will require interpretation. Plus personally I don't think it really addresses the underlying problem, so we ought to look at criteria that meets the real intent, rather than a proxy.

In real-world election contests, generally no one can read all the questions and answers for a candidate, so voters just look for the questions of interest to them. Maybe this approach can be assisted with a format change: impose a word limit on questions, and collapse the answers, so it's easier for potential voters to skip over questions in which they have no interest. isaacl (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

The other way to do it is to flip it on its head. Have a separate page for "Optional questions for all candidates", have a section for each question, and each candidate can put their answer under each question. This gets back to the intent of asking all candidates the same question, which is to compare their responses. Questions asked at this page would count against the question limit for each candidate. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:24, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

This would help potential voters skip questions that were posed to all candidates, though it wouldn't help them skip any question in which they have no interest. Given that there is no limit on the number of candidates that can be selected as admins, personally I don't think the intent for everyone posing such questions is to compare the candidates. isaacl (talk) 16:17, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

My proposal would be stating that Questions must be relevant to the specific candidate being asked. Monitors will remove questions which do not comply with this requirement. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:53, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

This is essentially what I had in mind as well. The alternative is some kind of numerical limit on mass questions, which is difficult when the number of candidates varies with each election. Toadspike [Talk] 06:41, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Using this as an example in the context of the various considerations I listed, this would correspond to the following:

• Curation done by monitors.
• Criterion is if the question is deemed sufficiently relevant to evaluate the specific candidate.
• Curation takes place after question has been posed.
• Curation is concurrent to discussion period.
• Question failing criterion is removed.

isaacl (talk) 16:03, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

This is also my preferred solution rather than stricter numerical limits. Each optional question should clearly be in reference to the specific candidate being asked. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 16:06, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

Elected admins that aren't using the bit

What should we be doing in these cases? Are we simply using the inactive criteria that we use for all admins? IMO, if you put yourself forward for admin elections and then don't (or hardly ever) use the bit, there should be some sort of period of time where it can simply be removed from you again. I'm not mentioning any names, but it isn't difficult to look at admin activity, and when you've answered a question about what exactly you want to do with the tools and then you don't do any of those things... Black Kite (talk) 18:12, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we use the same inactivity criteria we use for all admins? In solidarity, asilvering (talk) 18:14, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

As you noted, the inactivity criteria does specify a period of time after which administrative privileges are removed. Personally I don't think the criteria should differ based on how an admin was selected. isaacl (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I agree with aslivering and isaacl - there is no reason given or apparent for treating elected admins any differently to those who chose RFA. If you think the inactivity criteria should be expanded to cover new admins who don't immediately use the tools then this isn't the place to propose that (based on the discussions linked at WP:INACTIVE it looks like the village pump is the correct venue) but I think it is unlikely to gain consensus without evidence of a problem that this will solve. Thryduulf (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Same: I don't think it matters too much, and shouldn't be different. Most folks don't end up quite doing what they said in their Q1. I've discovered I mostly like the opposite type of tasks from what I expected (the low-brain ones when I'm too tired to write content). That's a fairly normal trajectory.

And every tiny bit helps with using the tools! In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 18:24, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. It can be hard to guess in advance what you will actually use the tools for. I wrote many of my RFA answers with the intention of specializing in deletion processes, and then I ended up using my tools mostly for technical things (deploying gadgets). –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:46, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we use the regular criteria? Have you evaluated whether these admins meet those? Several AELECT candidates have been doing unlogged admin work (AELECT monitoring and AE participation come to mind). Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:32, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

If someone is using the bit to an extent that doesn't make them eligible under the existing inactivity criteria, but hasn't done anything actively harmful, I can't say I understand the problem. We've had plenty of people who run at RfA who don't use the bit much, or anywhere close to what was originally expected, and as long as they're not harming the site and contributing occasionally, I see that as a net positive. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

FWIW, this is the definition of the “net-positive” people scream at RfAs. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

OK. I knew these would be the answers. And no-one is complaining if a new admin only uses the tools sporadically whilst they're learning. But frankly, if you place yourself in an election and try to get people to vote for you for saying you will be active doing X, Y and Z, and then you don't do any of those things (or indeed much of anything at all) once you're elected, I think that unless you've had a problem in your personal life which has stopped you from contributing, you've basically lied to people. YMMV, of course. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Is that different from someone standing at RfA saying "I will do XYZ" then not doing that? CoconutOctopus talk 18:50, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. However, I'd suspect that it doesn't happen very often (or at all) with RfA candidates if they've put the effort in to be scrutinised in detail, as opposed to AELECT where people only tend to pick up issues if they are very obvious. Black Kite (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

I think you'd be surprised if you looked at monthly activity levels over the past fifteen years following RfA. An immediate dropoff in editing isn't uncommon. Valereee (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think that is fair. Usually, people describe their Q1 as their motivation for asking for the tools: it's an intention, not a promise. The pattern is the same at RfA and AELECT: very often people end up doing very different things as interest evolve, or real life puts a spanner in the works. In solidarity, —Femke (talk) 🐦 18:52, 25 May 2026 (UTC)

Indeed, I see Q1 as an expression of intent, rather than a binding question - in my own AELECT nom, I said I would use the tools for AIV but ended up hardly being able to address any AIV reports. It would be worrying indeed if an admin were blocked or banned for not doing what they said they wanted to do in Q1.

As for AELECT/RfA, the means through which an admin got the mop really shouldn't matter. If there is an actual issue of misconduct, it should be handled the same way regardless of how the tools were obtained. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

RFC workshop is open

Come weigh in on proposed questions, or add your own, at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/RFC workshop! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:54, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

T397575

phab:T397575 was closed as resolved on May 11. Wikipedia:Administrator elections/SecurePoll setup should be updated accordingly, which I cannot do since it's now fully protected. Pinging @Chaotic Enby as the primary maintainer of that page. Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry for the full protection... Least bad option to avoid code injection in interface pages while keeping everything up-to-date. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:10, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

 Done Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:11, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, but there are still a few other places on the page it's mentioned. Try searching "T397575" in the page source for the rest.

And yeah, I get that it has to be protected -- unfortunate, but necessary. Just the way it goes, sometimes. :) Mr. Starfleet Command (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Should be good! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

RfC scheduling

With participation at the workshop having deadened, I wonder if anyone knows when the RfC proper will take place, since no dates appear in the expected spots. Is it just a matter of someone corralling the questions and options there is consensus to include at the workshop? Left guide (talk) 04:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

(Ty for the notice that we are doing an RfC.) I believe that the answer to your question is yes at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/RFC phase. Granted, I don't believe there is an immediate deadline as one of the prior RfCs wasn't started until three months before the next election. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:09, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

We started the process this past January for the May election, which would equate to starting it in June for an October election. It started as a fairly leisurely process since we had no RfC, but with one, we do probably want to get the RfC going so it doesn't turn into a situation where we're rushing. Valereee (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2026 (UTC)

Most of the setup for an election is really just copy-pasting last elections pages to next one. If anything, an election setup is only a weeks worth of work. Only time things get kind of messy is when modifying pages because an RfC tool place, but even that's not too bad most of the time.

Regarding when the RfC should take place, it usually begins around a week IIRC after someone points out that discussion at the workshop is dead. fanfanboy (block_talk) 20:29, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

If it helps, I'll say that it looks to me like it's dead. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Whenever the election clerks launch it. Perhaps this section will be a nudge in that direction. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2026 (UTC)