Wikipedia:Administrator elections/May 2026/RFC workshop

Q1.1. Mass questions

Should mass questions (asking substantially the same question to the majority of candidates) be allowed, beyond the three standard questions?

• Option A – Yes (current)
• Option B – Yes, but with restrictions (per subsequent questions)
• Option C – No

Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC) Edited by Gramix13 (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Option A. The "thanks for offering to serve as sysop" is already a mass question, and this type of question can somewhat reflect the community's concerns about adminship in general. -- Least Action (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Please do not vote. This will come in a later phase on a different page. Izno (talk) 15:40, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The "(asking the same question to all candidates)" wording is problematic. If we settle on "no" as an answer to this as currently posed, we'll see questions asked of all except one of the candidates.

On the other hand, I wouldn't want to see this posed as just "(asking the same question to multiple candidates)" either. Sometimes it's perfectly appropriate to ask the same question of two or three candidates - say, they've expressed an interest in doing a specific sort of admin work. Maybe "(asking the same question to a majority of candidates)"? —Cryptic 17:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Separately, do we have to preemptively worry about asking almost the same question? For a long time at RFA, we had a couple users who'd ask which of the following usernames they'd block, with a different set of usernames for each candidate. —Cryptic 17:25, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe "asking substantially the same question to a majority of candidates"? Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:27, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I think it should be clarified if a substantially similiar question criterion applies across multiple questioners. Personally, I wouldn't want to have such a criterion in place with a workaround where someone else can copy a question and ask it to another candidate. Also, it should be clarified what happens when the threshold of N candidates is reached. Are all the instances removed, or are the N-1 instances left in place? copy edited 18:49, 7 June 2026 (UTC) isaacl (talk) 18:12, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think copying questions is as much of a problem, as it would mean that N different voters wanted this question answered, rather than just one, which strongly disrupts the potential for disruption. But both are very good points to raise! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:26, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm not as optimistic as you; I think there's a good potential for copycat editors to clone questions. But either way, the criterion should be clarified regarding how to count the number of similar questions. isaacl (talk) 18:38, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I think questions not approved as mass-questions to be directly applicable to each individual candidate and striking/deleting ones that are not would prevent this sort of bypassing of mass questions. Thryduulf (talk) 19:07, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, if as I suggested, the number of times a substantially similar question can be posed is counted across all questioners, then the workaround wouldn't be possible. All I'm saying is that this method of counting should be specified. isaacl (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This isn't a hypothetical scenario, I noticed this happening during the July 2025 election. The question What is your perspective on Artificial Intelligence (AI) as it relates to Wikipedia? was asked, word for word, by both Carrite and The Squirrel Conspiracy during that election to all 16 candidates. I do agree that copied and cloned questions need to be considered in the count however, and I would trust monitors to make that determination. Gramix13 (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• Your question should be specific to this candidate, and the wording of your question should show how it's specific.

Good: You've said that you want to work in deletion. In this AfD you said this. If your thinking has changed since then, how has it changed?

Bad: As a sysop, how would you defend the encyclopaedia against the oncoming horde of AI-wielding hooligans?

Questions that aren't specific to this candidate can be removed by a monitor. If you replace them, you risk being page-blocked.—S Marshall T/C 19:20, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

S Marshall's question looks good.

If we want to stick with the original wording, I'd suggest spelling it out:

• All candidates are asked the same three standard questions. After that, individual editors may ask "optional" questions. Most of these "optional" questions are personalized to the individual, but some editors copy/paste the same "optional" question for all candidates. Should individual editors be allowed to ask the same or substantially the same question to all (or nearly all) candidates?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I like that, perhaps the options should be

• Yes (current)
• Yes, but with restrictions (per subsequent questions)
• No

I'm not sold on the wording of the second option's parenthetical but something like that should alleviate @Ahecht's concern below Thryduulf (talk) 10:27, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Thryduulf I went ahead and BOLDly added that as an option. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried people will immediately vote "no" on this one as a knee jerk reaction to what happened in the latest election without seeing questions like 1.4 below. I'd also be concerned about people that would want to vote something like "Yes, but only if 1.4C passes". Maybe reword it to Should some form of mass questions...? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:02, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm really not sure I see the problem with mass questions. If someone has a good, general question that helps them and others inform their vote, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to ask it of everyone. If the question is annoying or inappropriate, it can always be removed as any question can. --Blablubbs (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

In theory I agree, but in practice what we see is questions that just seem irrelevant to assessing the candidacy of that specific candidate. If there's actually a good, general question that helps inform the vote for all candidates, we should just be adding it as a fourth question. So far none of the mass questions I've seen in the last decade or more has ever made me think, "Wow, great question, that's important to know! We should definitely get an answer from everyone on that one!" Instead we get things like "What Wikipedia policy would you change?" And the problem is that's not a no-harm bit of silliness when we end up with some candidates getting thirty questions. Valereee (talk) 13:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Valereee: I certainly see where you're coming from, but I'm still not really sold on the approach of trying to regulate questions like this. I think the bar for policing the "relevance" of questions should be a fairly high one, and I haven't yet seen a very convincing case that there is a systemic issue here that is (a) significantly disruptive to the process and (b) not solvable by simply reminding candidates that they are free to not answer (or only briefly answer) questions they don't want to answer. Voting criteria are always going to be subjective – what you or I, or indeed a plurality of the community might consider irrelevant to assessing a specific candidacy might be the crucial driver behind someone else's voting decisions, and I think it is ultimately not a bad thing for people to seek clarity on those aspects if they feel that the "default" set of questions doesn't adequately cover them. --Blablubbs (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

AIUI candidates nominally have the option to not answer "optional" questions, and in practice, doing so results in them being punished by voters. As a result, "optional" questions are only optional if you would like to lose the election. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think we have enough examples for otherwise well-qualified candidates in admin elections that failing to answer some questions has a significant effect. (I'm not suggesting that anyone deliberately set out to provide an example, nonetheless.) Maybe this used to be true with the open viewpoint request for adminship process, but it's not something I've noticed, at least for a while. isaacl (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Some non-answers – namely those that concern questions that a lot of people do think are relevant to a candidacy – are certainly likely to elicit a negative reaction from voters in the same way as bad answers to those questions would be. I doubt that non-answers to questions few people care about (which, as I understand it, are the perceived problem that this RFC is trying to solve) are going to move the needle for many, though. Skimming over the last two batches of successful candidates, I saw at least two who skipped a question with no apparent repercussions.

Even assuming arguendo that non-answers are indeed inherently disqualifying, I'm still not sure what the underlying issue that is supposed to be solved is. Do we think there is an inherent and enduring problem with candidates being asked many questions, and/or with some questions not being considered universally relevant? If yes: How and why is this detrimental to the process? --Blablubbs (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

The theory is that it's detrimental because the possibility of feeling pressure to thoughtfully answer -- possibly requiring research/seeking advice and then writing, editing, rewriting -- 30+ questions over the course of five days may discourage qualified candidates from participating.

FWIW, I don't think we even have to assume non-answers are indeed inherently disqualifying. Depending on the question and the point at which it's asked I don't think most experienced editors think that's true, only that some voters may treat it that way and therefore some candidates may feel that pressure. We have to consider perception, not just reality. Valereee (talk) 13:43, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

It's also the cast that the proportion of questions not answered matters, at least to some voters. Answering 5 of 6 questions in researched detail is seen differently to answering 5 of 20 questions, even if answers in the same detail.

Each additional question and answer also takes time for voters to read, and TL;DR is very much a factor. Thryduulf (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Even irrelevant questions, to be clear, as voters still have to parse them to make sure they're not relevant, and the noise can end up drowning the more relevant questions and discouraging people from participating. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 14:46, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I really wish there was a middle ground that made it hard, but not impossible to ask a mass question. Maybe something like "Mass questions must be seconded by 2 other editors before they can be asked to more than 3 candidates. Monitors should work with questioners to present a well worded and maximally relevant version of the question, and retain the authority to disallow an inappropriate mass question at their discretion". It feels like there is always 1 or 2 hot button issues at any given time that voters would like every candidate to weigh in on, but nobody wants to see a dozen people charging in with a dozen pet topics each of which gets a mass question. Tazerdadog (talk) 10:23, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@Tazerdadog This question is whether mass questions should be permitted in any form, question 1.2 below is what form they should be permitted in, including whether there should be some form of pre-approval. Thryduulf (talk) 10:31, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I see that, I am just nervous that this question will get awkward conditional votes. My intuition is saying that there's got to be a better-structured way to ask the questions, but I can't quickly put my finger on it. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Hence my suggestion for separate "yes (without conditions)" and "yes (with conditions determined below)" options. Maybe a "yes (with or without conditions)" option would be good too, but that's getting more complicated. Thryduulf (talk) 17:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Yep, three options sound better than two. People can !vote for multiple options in an RfC, so that should be fine. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 18:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Option B would make it a little weird if there's a consensus in favor of it but none of the modifications or any of the modifications but not it. Therefore, I believe it should be a simple up or down and we should let the other RFC's speak for themselves. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't want to be too bold, but I feel like from discussion we may be ready to revise this slightly to:

Should mass questions (asking substantially the same question to the majority of candidates) be allowed, beyond the three standard questions?

Option A – Yes (current)

Option B – Yes, but with restrictions (per subsequent questions)

Option C – No

Valereee (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I like that revision, and I think it does a good job of tying together what has been discussed. I'd support using this version of the question. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Same here! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 23:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I also agree. Thryduulf (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and boldly updated the question based on the given support here. If anyone disagrees, please feel free to revert me, and give a reply for the rationale. Gramix13 (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Q1.2. Approval for mass questions

If mass questions are allowed: Should they require approval before being asked?

• Option A – No (current)
• Option B – Yes, from monitors
• Option C – Yes, from community consensus
• Option D – Other (specify)

Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This might benefit from a "See also" to questions about when the mass questions have to be approved, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, are you thinking something like 'approval must be requested before discussion phase in the next upcoming election starts'? That would help limit the 'what can I ask?' types of questions but still allow the toggle-switch ones to be considered. If an editor has a toggle-switch question, I assume they have it all the time, not just during the discussion phase. Valereee (talk) 12:21, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't object to that, but my comment was about the RFCs themselves. This question would IMO benefit from a note that says "See Q1.1 on whether to have mass questions, Q1.7 on how many mass questions, etc." WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Some elaboration on what community consensus might look like would be ideal. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Feeglgeef, are you thinking something like 'from community consensus via discussion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections', or were you looking for more detail than that? Valereee (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Sure. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Q1.3. Number of mass questions

If mass questions are allowed: Should there be a restriction on how many can be asked?

• Option A – No (current)
• Option B – Yes, one per voter
• Option C – Other (specify)

Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Could be clearer. The options indicate that the question concerns a single editor, but the question itself does not. Potential rewording:

If mass questions are allowed: Should there be a restriction on how many an editor can ask?

• Option A – No (current)
• Option B – Only one
• Option C – Other (specify)

Either way option B should use another term than voter, one need not vote to ask questions. fifteen thousand two hundred twenty four (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, that's definitely an improvement! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 23:37, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking maybe clarify further:

If mass questions are allowed: Should there be a restriction on how many an editor may ask?

• Option A – No, editors may ask two questions of each candidate in total, including mass questions (current)
• Option B – Yes, editors may ask only one mass question
• Option C – Other (specify)

Not sure this is an actual problem, but (current) isn't actually "no restriction". Valereee (talk) 12:32, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm leery of "one per editor" because we've seen that less experienced editors seem to take "two per candidate" to mean "you should think of two questions to ask". So I'm a little concerned they'll also take "one per editor" to mean "you should think of a question you can ask everyone". We ought to be discouraging that kind of thinking somehow, maybe? Mass questions should be pretty rare. They should be keyed to something Wikipedia admins both have any particular control over and are highly likely to encounter no matter what their admin focus. Valereee (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

We can frame that in the instructions in terms of popularity: "Most editors don't ask any questions. However, to prevent candidates from being overwhelmed by a few loquacious editors, no individual is allowed to ask more than two questions of any candidate." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

We could probably use this opportunity to suggest proposals limiting the total number of mass questions (instead of per-voter), presumably by picking the ones with the most support before the question phase (probably involves a variant of Q2.3 specifically for mass questions). Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 13:08, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Q1.4. Placement of mass questions

If mass questions are allowed: Where should they be placed?

• Option A – With other questions (current)
• Option B – On a separate section on each candidate page
• Option C – On a separate common section, similar to U4C elections
• Option D – Other (specify)

Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I suspect that I'd be voting "D", because it depends on how many are allowed, if they're curated, etc. Maybe hold this question until after some of the others are answered? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that's a very good point. I hate to suggest two RfCs lol. Valereee (talk) 13:28, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we tweak to:

If mass questions are allowed: Where should they be placed?

• Option A – With other questions (current)
• Option B – On a separate section on each candidate page
• Option C – On a separate common section, similar to U4C elections
• Option D – Needs to be decided after we've settled the other mass-question issues
• Option E – Other (specify)

The reason I'm thinking this might be worth asking now is that it's possible Option C would actually mostly solve the issues, no matter what the answers to the other questions are. Valereee (talk) 12:50, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Q1.5. Candidate question cap

Should there be a cap on how many questions an individual candidate can be asked, and how high?

• Option A – No cap (current)
• Option B – 30 questions
• Option C – 20 questions
• Option D – Other (specify)

Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The game theory is problematic. There's an obvious opportunity for someone who wants you to pass to ask you 17 sympathetic or unchallenging questions.—S Marshall T/C 19:22, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, voters can ask two questions each, so that's a bit unrealistic. But point taken. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 19:32, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It probably wouldn't be hard for 15 supporters to ask two questions each. The behaviour would be obvious, though, so could backfire. I agree the gaming incentive isn't good, but am not sure if it would be a problem in practice. isaacl (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I also see a gaming aspect to "Get your questions in now before this special limited offer ends! After there are X questions you'll only be allowed to ask one! Once there are Y questions, we're all sold out until next election!" Valereee (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

As Left guide pointed out to me at WT:AELECT, this has been proposed before. Chess enjoyer (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

That was in 2015 for RfA, which (especially back then) had a very different culture compared to today's AELECT – that same RfC saw strong opposition to RfA clerks, for instance. In the latest debrief, people have noted that AELECT tends to attract increasingly more questions than RfA, which may be a motivating factor. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 22:57, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

All of that's true, but I think the gaming concerns are still relevant. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

While I think there are reasonable concerns about a cap (could it prematurely stop an ongoing conversation (*), and would it encourage supporters to fill up slots to achieve this), it seems there may be enough interest in the idea to pose the question again. (*) In this situation, though, conversation would likely just continue in another venue. isaacl (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I think limiting the absolute number of questions is problematic for reasons described above, however I would support something like restricting it to one question per voter (rather than two) once the candidate hits 20 questions. Giraffer (talk) 00:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

That's a good suggestion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Also seconding this "soft cap" idea, feel free to add it! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I also think it would be helpful to ask about such a soft cap. I'm not sure whether it can be incorporated into this question, or asked as a separate question, or asked instead of this question. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It'd be helpful to have some idea of the usual number of questions. If people usually get 10, but one person got 42 last time, then editors might feel very comfortable implementing a cap. If most candidates are getting 30 or more, then these suggested numbers might be less appealing (or maybe more appealing, if they think that there are currently too many). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

In the last election the average (mean, median and mode) number of questions was 3121. The maximum was 27 and the minimum was 17.

In the December election the mean and median were 11, the mode was 10. The maximum was 16 and the minimum was 6. Withdrawn candidates are included, unanswered questions are included. Struck questions are excluded.

Generally, unsuccessful candidates were asked more questions than successful ones - in both elections an unsuccessful candidate was asked the most and a successful one the fewest. Thryduulf (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I might be misreading this, but shouldn't the average be lower than the maximum? Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:10, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Nope, you're not misreading it, I typoed. The average in the December election was 21 (not 31). Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

For the July elections, the mean number of questions was about 13, the median was 12 (11.5 if not including the withdrawn candidate's questions), and the mode was 11. The maximum was 26, but that's an outlier and the second most was 17, and the minimum was 9. Just like the last two elections, the one with the most questions was unsuccessful, and the one with the least was successful. Gramix13 (talk) 05:16, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Seeing the data tabulated by Gramix13, combined with my response in 1.6, I would not set a limit for candidate question number. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 18:35, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

As I told Xaosflux below, let's await the workshop to commence before going to the voting phase. George Ho (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

• Option A, voters shouldn't be shut out just because other voters got to the question box first. — xaosflux ^Talk 08:55, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  @Xaosflux: Umm... Better read what this from the top banner says:

  Please do not vote. This will come in a later phase on a different page.

  What shall you do about your votes then? George Ho (talk) 09:02, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  Ok, so that's not a "vote" - it's a "I think Option A is a good idea because....". — xaosflux ^Talk 09:05, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Q1.6. Voter question cap

Should there be a cap on how many total questions an individual voter can ask across all candidates in a single election combined, and how high?

• Option A – No cap (current)
• Option B – 2 questions
• Option C – 25% of the number of candidates
• Option D – 50% of the number of candidates
• Option E – The number of candidates
• Option F – Other (specify)

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:05, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It might make sense to specify this as a % of candidates (e.g. 25%, 50%) rather than an absolute number. Thryduulf (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Good idea. I reworked the options (other than 2). --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Rounding up or down? Also does "candidates" include those that have withdrawn? Otherwise the cap could decrease as some candidates withdraw, with I don't think is an intended side effect here. Gramix13 (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

In terms of rounding I was thinking just rounding to the nearest whole number, but I'd be happy with always up or always down if others prefer that. I think the cap should be set when nominations close and then not change for the rest of that election, even if the number of candidates changes as that seems the fairest for all concerned. Thryduulf (talk) 21:19, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Option E might say "The number of candidates (e.g., one question each or two questions to half of them)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

If a voter asks a candidate a question, and that candidate resigns, should the questions asked still count towards the voter's limit? I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 20:45, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Per some of the comments just above, there can be unintended problems with framing this question this way. Instead of basing this on either an absolute number or on % of candidates, it might be a good idea to work with the "soft cap" idea from 1.5, above, and have the cap kick in only after the number of questions goes over a given threshold. Another thing, as noted in a section above, I think "voter" should be changed to "editor". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

• I think per candidate limits are enough. Options B->E fail for low candidate pools, if adopted there should be a lower bound to this limit as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 08:57, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

  While I get the main point, I don't understand how the number of candidates matters for option B? Thryduulf (talk) 09:39, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Q1.7 Mass questions and question limits

If some requirement for mass questions to be pre-approved is imposed in question 1.2 should should an editor's approved mass question count towards:

• The limit of questions that editor may ask an individual candidate?
• Any limit on the total number of questions that editor may ask in total imposed in question 1.6?

The interaction between these questions seems worth understanding in advance. I debated various formulations of this question, but decided allowing people to just vote yes or no to each option individually was probably the simplest. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

This feels important. One complication could be that a pre-approved mass question might be written/sponsored by more than one editor.

It'd also be a good idea to have a (low) limit on the total number of mass questions. Imagine candidates facing not just the three standard questions, but also 17 pre-approved mass questions plus individual/personal questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Do we really think there's a possibility multiple mass questions would get approved? For me the first I want to know is, "How is this relevant to whether an editor would be a good admin?" And just the simple process of requiring approval -- and seeing the discussions of/questions at other requests for approval -- would make even most inexperienced editors stop and think, "Hm. How does the answer to 'What Wikipedia policy would you change?' give me information I need in assessing this candidacy?" I'm guessing simply requiring approval would clue people in that mass questions are something to give serious thought to, rather than something to think up quick before the soft cap is reached. Valereee (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This is partly a reply to this comment, and partly a reply to your comment above about assessing specifically that one candidate:

Some people ask a mass question because they're single-issue voters. They don't want to assess candidates holistically; they want to know whether the candidate agrees with them on a single point of doctrine. For such a voter, it doesn't matter if the candidate's intention is to work on X; they want to know whether the candidate holds the One True™ View of Y, because Y is the only thing that matters. The answer to "Whether an editor would be a good admin?" is, for these voters, reduced to the answer of that one question. They want to ask everyone for their views on Y, because they will vote for those who agree with them and reject those who don't. They believe their question about Y is important.

The problem for the overall process is that there are so many "Ys": Do you hold the One True™ View on the deletion–inclusion spectrum? Do you hold the One True™ View on NPP work? Do you hold the One True™ View on AFC standards? Do you hold the One True™ View on AI detection? Do you hold the One True™ View on blocking experienced editors? Do you hold the One True™ View on this CTOP subject? How about this other CTOP subject? Please, show me that you can maintain a plausible appearance of neutrality while also giving me a clear signal that you'll support the One True™ Side when there's a dispute about this issue.

Consequently, I think that we need to either consider a system of criteria like WP:NEWCSD, and have the curation process consider only compliance with the criteria ("Vote: Does this question meet Criteria 1? Criteria 2? Criteria 3?", rather than whether we want to have that question ("Do you think this would be a good mass question?"), or we need to have the curation process limited to a small (one, two, or three?) number of winning questions ("Rank these possible questions; the two favorites will be asked"). It's not enough to hope that people will understand that it's only for important questions; they will agree, and insist that their issue is very important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I feel like I see checking for the One True™ View a lot less often than I see questions that are clearly just developed by someone seeing they get two questions and casting about for something to ask. Often it feels like they've gone looking through previous RfAs to find a question. If someone actually does have a One True™ View that they use as a toggle switch, I kind of feel like that's actually a relevant question for that voter, even if I also feel like it's a silly thing to use as a toggle switch. Being an inclusionist/deletionist etc. doesn't matter any more for admins than it does for any editor. Really from your list only being willing to block experienced editors is an admin thing. And given that we humans are ridiculously bad at predicting our own future behavior, even that's pretty iffy as a toggle switch. Valereee (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I'm surprised.

• Deletionist–inclusionist POVs tell you how the admin will lean in a borderline XFD dispute or whether they might be slightly more likely turn a blind eye on a second PROD attempt. Ditto for AFC, especially if you're on the exclusionist side and you want more admins to support (e.g.,) occasional violations of WP:DRAFTNO, etc.
• Admins get the NPP user right (WP:NPPADMIN), and some editors want to know whether the candidate will be lax or stringent there, and whether they might be lax or stringent in granting and revoking the NPP user right to non-admins.
• Admins are supposed to delete AI articles per WP:NEWLLM.
• Admins run AE, and editors in that area want to know whether the new batch might favor the Wrong™ side in AE disputes about that area.

All of those examples are related to admin activities. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Well, we're getting off into a tangent here so probably should discuss those examples elsewhere. Like I said, I don't actually think the question is irrelevant if someone has such a toggle switch. Valereee (talk) 11:44, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I would not describe them as irrelevant questions. My concern is that if all candidates have to answer all the "toggle switch" questions, then it is overly burdensome, especially if each individual question/answer only matters to one or two potential voters. Consequently, I'd prefer that only the most popular such questions get asked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Q2.1. Question curation

Should questions be curated beyond obvious rule violations?

• Option A – No (current)
• Option B – Yes

Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

"Obvious rule violations" needs clarifications. Is this "obvious personal attacks" or "obvious violations of AELECT's own rules" or ? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I intended this as meaning the minimum expectations on monitors currently, so the former. The latter would be a bit redundant: should questions be curated beyond our rules on curating questions? Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I think "obvious rule violations" should be changed to "obvious personal attacks" (or maybe "obvious personal attacks or the like"). --Tryptofish (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Option B - Yes. I would like this to be "conservative," in that, beyond those which violate explicit rules, only clearly inappropriate or needless questions should be disallowed. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 17:05, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Q2.2. Curation process

If questions are curated: Who should decide whether questions are appropriate?

• Option A – Monitors
• Option B – Community consensus
• Option C – Other (specify)

Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

This is another question for which my first thought is "depends on when it's being done". Isn't it the monitors' actual job to remove inappropriate questions after they've been posted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

If this is determined by community consensus, what does that look like? Would this be an RFC? How long would discussion go on for? Who would be responsible for closing (monitors I presume)? What about questions asked near the end of the discussion period, what if the consensus process is ongoing and active when that arrives? Gramix13 (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I took the idea from @Isaacl's suggestion here, if you want to look at the specifics. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 16:55, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

It might make sense to switch the order in which 2.2 and 2.3 are asked, because that would help clarify the question that WAID asked. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Good idea! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 21:08, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

If the community wants to screen questions, then I think the only practical approach is to add a new screening phase to the process before the discussion phase can start. (There are pros and cons to this, but discussion of that can wait until the request for comments discussion.) isaacl (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Main worry is that this could introduce some additional bureaucracy, and prevent follow-up questions as an unintended side effect. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 21:34, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the monitors are the obvious choice. CC would likely turn a reasonably efficient process into a bit of a zoo, as well as extend the duration of elections excessivley. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 16:59, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Q2.3. Curation timing

If questions are curated: When should curation take place?

• Option A – After the question is asked to the candidate
• Option B – Before the question is asked to the candidate
• Option C – Before the discussion period
• Option D – Other (specify)

Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

The “before the discussion period” option precludes follow-up questions, so I don’t think that should be an option for individual questions. However, that should be an option for mass questions. In general, I think the mass question and individual questions portions of the rfc should be separated from each other, as the concerns and the handling would be quite different. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 15:46, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like having different rules on when curation takes place, because a question asked to an individual candidate can turn into a question asked to multiple candidates. Thus a question to one candidate (including followup questions) could affect whether or not a question covering similar ground could be asked to another candidate. I agree option C limits the ability to engage in conversation on the formal questions page, but I also think it's the only practical choice if the community wants curation to happen by community consensus. isaacl (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Can't we just specify that Option C does not preclude followup questions? Valereee (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

That would mean that followup questions aren't curated. In that case, the question should be reworded to clarify this. isaacl (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Does this apply to all questions, or only to "mass questions"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

All questions (it's not otherwise specified, and not in the mass question section either). Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:02, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I would prefer mass-questions curated before publication. Individual curation after it's asked, and if unfair, revdel of the response if the candidate requests it. It's imperfect, but I think that asking for prescreening of all questions would likely be unfeasible. If that's incorrect, than I would find prescreening acceptable for all Q's. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 17:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, we really ought to have separate Q's for mass questions and regular questions here. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:04, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Q2.4. Irrelevant questions

If questions are curated: Should questions that are not relevant to a candidate be curated?

• Option A – No (current)
• Option B – Yes

Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I think you are suggesting that irrelevant questions be rejected for being posed to the candidate? For clarity, I suggest not using "curated" for this action, since this is confusing with the usual meaning of undergoing a selection process. isaacl (talk) 19:41, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

What's the threshold for "relevant"? Is this irrelevant like generic ("What do you think about newbies?") or irrelevant like there's an inapplicable condition ("Tell me about three times you've blocked an editor, and why", when the obvious answer is "I've never done that, because I'm not an admin yet")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:42, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with what isaacl said about the jargon "curated". I think "curated" should be changed to "removed" at the end of the question. As for "relevant", my inclination is to adopt a strict interpretation of the word, so as to apply to obviously generic questions. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Option A for now, mostly because of the very subjective nature of "irrelevance." Current judgement by the monitors seems reasonable. I might have a different opinion if this were stated differently, though. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 16:55, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

To clarify, this is the RfC workshop, not the RfC phase itself, we're working on which questions to ask and how to workshop them best. Your feedback on how to state it differently to avoid subjectivity is more than welcome! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 17:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I didn't think there was any need to curate any irrelevant questions. Who determines which one is relevant and which one is irrelevant? Also, irrelevant questions are usually the one that uncovers the "real person". ✠ SunDawn ✠ Contact me! 01:42, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Previous questions deal with who would decide (monitors/community other) and when. The assertion that irrelevant questions are somehow the most important ones is probably for the RfC phase rather than the workshop phase, but out of pure curiosity I'd love to hear an example of an irrelevant question that uncovered the real person in a RfA/AELECT. Valereee (talk) 12:46, 19 June 2026 (UTC)

Q2.5 Duplicate questions

If questions are curated: Should questions that duplicate a question already asked to the candidate be removed or merged?

• Option A: No (current)
• Option B: Yes

Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Can you clarify if you are referring to a duplicate question to the same candidate, or to another candidate? If the same candidate, then are you asking if the question should be deleted? isaacl (talk) 18:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking of questions to the same candidate, aiming to avoid some of the pile on for candidates some editors think should not be running. I was thinking that curation would probably be deletion or striking but didn't want to tie the hands of whomever is doing the curation.

As for questions for multiple candidates, that's trickier as there will be occasions when it's not a mass question to ask the same of a small number of candidates - for example if two candidates both state their motivation is working at RFD then asking them both questions about the applicability of WP:CSD#R3 would be entirely appropriate. I'll comment about "copycat questions" in the discussion about Q1.1 Thryduulf (talk) 19:03, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I asked whether you meant deletion because if the curation process is approved, then all questions will get curated (that is, will be evaluated as per the approved process to determine if they will be asked). This would include duplicate questions. isaacl (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Could this be considered as a "should duplicates be merged" question? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

If the question hasn't been answered then merging might make sense but I don't think it does if a new question duplicates one that has already been answered. Thryduulf (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I suggest changing "that duplicate a question already asked be curated" to "that duplicate a question already asked the candidate be removed or merged". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:47, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Done. Thryduulf (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Option B, please. Repetition for style points or dogpiling is unattractive at best. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 16:54, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Hiobazard This is a draft of an RFC, it's not open for voting yet. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Q2.X. Additional curation

If questions are curated: Should questions be curated for other reasons?

• Add your own mini-RFC here!

Q3.1. Candidate requirements

Should there be requirements for candidates at AELECT and/or RfA?

• Option A – No requirement beyond extended-confirmed (current)
• Option B – Additional requirements for both AELECT and RfA, to be determined in a standalone RfC
• Option C – Additional requirements for AELECT

Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

Should we consider splitting out the requirements for a user with/without a nominator, or alternatively have the requirement be on the nominator (which is the candidate in a self-nom)? I don't want to lose candidates like the trusted technical maintainer from German Wikipedia, who had a strong technical need for tools here despite a 3-digit local edit count. Having a nominator who obviously has the clue to be taken seriously propose someone for adminship should pass any barrier we put up to keep people from stumbling into this process unprepared. Tazerdadog (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

as someone with a current score of 0/1 nominations, sometimes nominations may be weak or done with a wrong angle. – robertsky (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Right, but as a member of the community with 20 years experience and a bunch of "we trust you" bits - if you put someone forward for adminship, it is worth the community's time to consider them for adminship. Tazerdadog (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I think the more practical thing to do is to warn candidates that while EXTCON is the official minimum, in practice, almost nobody gets elected with an edit count/tenure of less than X/Y, unless very unusual specific circumstances apply (e.g., needing to be an admin to complete some significant technical work). This would require effort to compile the data from the last three to five years, but stating the plain facts shouldn't require an RFC.

Another option is to require that anyone with less than X/Y must have a nomination from a current admin. Trusted technical maintainers should have no difficulty finding current admins to nominate them, and aspirational newbies should find this difficult. That change should require an RFC/evidence of consensus, however. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

We already have the data, the lowest edit count in recent times is 7,700 (rounded to the hundred). See #Q3.4. Call for candidates reference point for providing such a warning in the call for candidates, which might interest you. Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 01:04, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Option A, please. See my comment at 3.3, below. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 16:52, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I believe we should remove this one and let the other RFCs speak for themselves. Feeglgeef (talk) 02:51, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• A seems enough just to avoid completely frivolous candidates. — xaosflux ^Talk 08:59, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Q3.2. Candidate edit count requirement

If a new requirement is introduced for AELECT: Should there be an edit count requirement for candidates, and how high?

• Option A – No requirement beyond extended-confirmed (current)
• Option B – Have at least 1000 edits on English Wikipedia
• Option C – Have at least 3000 edits on English Wikipedia
• Option D – Have at least 5000 edits on English Wikipedia
• Option E – Have at least 7000 edits on English Wikipedia
• Option F – Other (specify)

Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby I would change Option C to 3,000 edits to match WP:PMCRITERIA (at least to me, I could never vote for an option that would have weaker requirements than one of the bundled permissions). In the same vein, I'm not sure Option B is needed as it's not substantially different from the current 500 edit limit. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:17, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I took these from Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/RFC phase, but it's good to adjust them! Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 20:43, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I went ahead and tweaked option C per above. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:49, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Option A, please. See my response at 3.3, below. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 16:51, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

@Hiobazard, we aren't voting yet, just workshopping to determine which questions to ask and how to ask them. Valereee (talk) 18:18, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

• Maybe 500. (as opposed to getting early XC because any random admin gives it to you). — xaosflux ^Talk 09:00, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Per the last(?) RfC, it might be best to adjust RFA at the same time.

Additionally per that same RfC, Option D was the main option seriously considered as an alternative to Option A, with C at 2,500 being the next closest. With Options B and E only having support from one voter each outside of second choices and split votes, it might be best to leave those off. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

Q3.3. Candidate account age requirement

If a new requirement is introduced for AELECT: Should there be an account age requirement for candidates, and how high?

• Option A – No requirement beyond extended-confirmed (current)
• Option B – Have an account age of at least 12 months
• Option C – Have an account age of at least 18 months
• Option D – Have an account age of at least 24 months
• Option E – Other (specify)

Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

My feeling is that the community wants to see a certain baseline level of activity for a extended period of time, to feel assured that the candidate is an active participant in the community. Thus perhaps a criterion such as "minimum of X edits per month for N months, where the N months fall within an M-month period" would be more suitable that just account age. isaacl (talk) 18:21, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

It's harder to check, though, and what if the minimum is 100 per month for 10 months, and the candidate did 99 one month (exams, holiday, military duty, hospitalization...) but 2,000 in all the others? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I think that's the where the N months fall within an M-month period portion of isaacl's comment. Say: "At least 10 months of 100 edits, among the last 18 months" i.e. scattered months, not contiguous Leijurv (talk) 06:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I would choose Option A. I like EC as the official minimum, and I think information for candidates would serve better than higher official limits (See 3.4 below.) I also think that a candidate's judgement on whether now is indeed the time to run is a nice addition to their history for future acquisition of tools. Hiobazard (talk/contribs) 16:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

This applies to all questions regarding candidate eligibility, but I'm parking it here: I hope there is an option for "see how the improvements to the watchlist notice and candidate instructions work in the next election". I'd rather avoid more CREEPy rules, and I am hopeful that a watchlist notice which is not an attractive nuisance will do the trick. If not, I'd like to revisit this conversation without being told "we had an RFC five months ago and rejected that idea". Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:43, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Like above maybe 90 days to avoid odd edge cases where you get XC manually early. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:01, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

Q3.4. Call for candidates reference point

Regardless of specific requirements, should a note indicating a reference threshold be provided in the call for candidates?

• Option A – No (current)
• Option B – Yes, based on Wikipedia:Administrator elections § Candidate eligibility: "Users with less than one year or 5,000 edits generally don't have a realistic chance of succeeding"
• Option C – Yes, based on past AELECT candidates: "In the past, successful AELECT candidates have had at least 7,700 edits"
• Option D – Other (specify)

Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 12:53, 7 June 2026 (UTC)

I like this idea and these options. (Someone should double-check the numbers, though.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Would it be worthwhile including account age as well, a sixth month old account with 5k edits is still extremely unlikely to succeed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 10:36, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

Option B mentions "one year" of editing experience. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 18:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I was thinking more about options C including both edit count and account age for the lowest / youngest admin elected through AELECT. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 02:19, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Change the text "one year" in Option B, along with Wikipedia:Administrator elections#Candidate eligibility, to something like "one year of experience" or "one year of editing experience". "One year" alone is vague and incomplete, and could refer to one year of account age or something else. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 18:39, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I like Option B, and might even remove "generally" and add something like: "Further, an unwise premature candidacy may negatively influence an editor's future election chances, as a history of wise and thoughtful decision-making is a core requirement for adminship." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiobazard (talk • contribs) 16:45, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Q4.1 Get rid of scrutineer certification

Should the scrutineers be required to certify results?

• Yes (current)
• No

Scrutineers can't really certify anything special. All that we know is how many people voted (but well anyone can know that from the voting list). It's more a step that doesn't serve much of a purpose from my experience and it's something unique to enwiki (for instance the U4C doesn't do it for its elections). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:26, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

So scruts post up the results and call it a day? This is assuming that whatever strikes have been done prior. – robertsky (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

As I recall, there has been a case where the results for an arbitration committee were miscopied (or percentages miscalculated), so I think it is good to have a step where the posted results are double-checked. However I'm indifferent on whether or not that step needs to be given a formal name like certification. isaacl (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree some double checking would be useful, but that can be any election or admin or scrutineer. Having them all sign-off is a bit more performative than useful and it doesn't have to be the scrutineers. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree that it can just be something that is done, without needing a label. isaacl (talk) 00:08, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I agree with this. The certification is a legacy thing from back in the day when we had to tally using a script rather than SecurePoll's tallier, since it was buggy and sometimes just failed. That doesn't happen these days, and the results are logged in the interface for any electionadmin to read and confirm. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:12, 8 June 2026 (UTC)

I thought the point of this step was to check for any duplicate, ineligible, or sockpuppeteer votes (like, y'know, WP:AELECT#Scrutineering and tallying says), and the certification was each scrut saying "No, the election admins didn't post the final results before I got around to doing that"? —Cryptic 02:16, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I think we can tweak the instructions so that one of the scruts will be the one posting the results, not just any election admins. This takes out the need for certification. Based on the admin elections prior, the scruts had done their work before the results were posted. – robertsky (talk) 04:50, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Due to the separation of the responsibilities, election clerks who are key holders will tally the results first then scrutineers will certify the results. If we drop the certification of results, should there be an explicit record on the election page that the scrutineers have completed their scrutiny of the votes so that the results will not be questioned? Or we trust implicitly the election clerks and scruts that the tasks have been carried out in order when the results are published, with provision that scrutineers may object/challenge to the results? Personally, I prefer the second given how well the elections have been conducted thus far. – robertsky (talk) 15:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Other elections implicitly trust that everyone is doing what they should; I will again reference the U4C elections where I (on behalf of the election committee) posted the results after conferring with the scrutineers and Joe. I would endorse that for admin elections here as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Do we need this question? I'm afraid that this proposal would be snowballed with a hard "no" "yes". Indeed, like real-life elections, a non-disclosed vote gets more scrutiny than an open, transparent one. George Ho (talk) 19:10, 10 June 2026 (UTC); self-corrected, 20:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  I am confused by this response. "Yes" is the status quo, is that what you think will snowball? Or if you think this will snowball with No, that seems to support the discussion above by WMF staff and volunteers who have serve as election admin and scrutineers because this step does not do anything with openness or transparency, it just adds a step to the process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

  Oops. I totally misread the whole question and realized the "(current)" next to the "Yes" option. George Ho (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

• Hmm, well this is also sort of the scrutineers publicly saying they actually completed their task - as opposed to it just being skipped. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:03, 13 June 2026 (UTC)
• The idea behind scrutineer certification is to double check the election clerk. Without scrutineer certification, the election clerk can make copy paste errors, mathematical errors, or could (in an unlikely scenario) tamper with the results. Scrutineer certification is a check and balance. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:08, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Anyone can provide that check and balance. Literally anyone because the tallies are public. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:25, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  Are you sure? I do not believe the tally and dump pages are public. Example. In the past there was a a workaround/hack to get a dump even if you aren't an election administrator, but I think that is already patched or likely will be patched in the future, so shouldn't be relied on. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:12, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  I am sure they are accessible to everyone which is how for every election some people get early results. When I have brought up delaying that for 24 hours I have been told, by community members, it is designed that way and must be kept that way for transparency purposes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  When I view Special:SecurePoll, the only links I can access are "Translate" and "List". Is there somewhere else where the tally is visible? isaacl (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

  No, they are not public. The direct link is Special:SecurePoll/tallies/888, where the error message is clear. – SD0001 (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Q5 Process for removing snow-closes

Should AELECT have a process for removing candidacies that would have been snow closed at RfA?

• Yes
• No

I'm not sure, personally. Valereee (talk) 14:02, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

remove at which stage? – robertsky (talk) 04:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I can see construction of an appropriate process as being a potentially very contentious thing. Who or what group would have the power to decide? Would the deliberations be public? How would that affect candidates who were considered for removal but ultimately weren’t removed? — rsjaffe 🗣️ 05:04, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Your point about collateral damage is pretty compelling to me. Valereee (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I could see a secret process (e.g., via ArbCom) addressing some of my concerns, but I think that would kind of support the “secret cabal” view of Wikipedia administration. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 20:00, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

We should especially consider the optics of the reasons for a candidate being struck not necessarily being obvious, and the risks of it creeping into "ArbCom vets candidates in advance" (something that has been hotly criticized for the WMF Board elections). Chaotic Enby (in solidarity · talk · contribs) 13:10, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't think it's that bad to have more candidates on the ballot, even if they no chance, and, as mentioned, any means of doing the disqualification would be problematic. Either way, who has the power to decide should be included as individual options. Feeglgeef (talk) 19:12, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Same. I feel that this last election had too much community pressure on at least one candidate to withdraw who was never going to pass. They eventually did withdraw, but I feel like it would have been fine for them to see a 95%+ opposition to their candidacy. (Still, if this makes the RfC, then maybe the community would prefer this.) --Super Goku V (talk) 04:45, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

We don't see a lot of feedback unlike the !votes used in public discussions. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 12:05, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

If someone wants a lot of feedback on their suitability for adminship then they should stand at RFA, initiate a WP:ORCP and/or explicitly ask for it. The limited public commentary is one of the reasons some candidates choose elections over RFA. Thryduulf (talk) 12:15, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

Q5.1 Discussion about snow-closes

Should we explicitly discourage during the discussion phase asking questions/discussing any candidacy an editor believes would have been snow closed at RfA?

• Yes
• No

I'm wondering if it's explicitly discouraged, that may be an actual third option to what happened in the last election. Valereee (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I think I know what you're getting at here, but the question isn't very clear. I think you're trying to ask whether asking/suggesting/discussing whether a candidate should withdraw should be discouraged? As written the question could be interpreted to mean that if any editor thinks a candidacy would have been snow closed then asking them any questions at all is officially discouraged, which would lead to arguments if different editors have different opinions about a candidate. Thryduulf (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe? What I'm thinking is if it's very clear to everyone that the candidate cannot succeed, will there actually be arguments? If anyone thinks they have a chance, would a candidate be a snow close? I feel like most snow closes have zero support? Valereee (talk) 15:42, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Maybe a question along the lines of "Should you withdraw?" should be handled on the talk page (or even privately, in e-mail). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Typically there's already been discussion at their talk prior to the discussion phase, but maybe in this particular case a followup that "So, you're now seeing what kinds of questions and concerns people have with your lack of experience. If that satisfies your desire to understand, maybe withdraw now?" would be better. I don't know. Maybe this is just too much of an edge case to try to even come up with a solution for? In the last few elections, most people have actually taken the advice at their talk before the discussion phase starts. Valereee (talk) 11:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

If people have been given advice on their talk page before the discussion phase starts, and have chosen not to withdraw, then that should be the end of it imo. No more mention of withdrawing unless they bring it up. They can withdraw at any point if they want, if they don't want to then that's their choice and we should respect that, regardless of whether we would have made the same decision or not. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't agree that discussion should be completely discouraged. The community should be able to analyze all candidates and make a case for or against them. I agree that before adding more to existing analysis, users should consider if their planned commentary will make any difference to the end vote. If there has already been enough analysis to show that a candidate falls well short of the community's minimal norms for approval, then no further discussion points are needed. (Though in theory the same applies for the opposite case, it's less of a concern.) isaacl (talk) 16:27, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

Although an anecdote may not be data, during the most recent election, I asked a question to a candidate who I had a feeling might end up as being snow-closed, and who in fact did end up withdrawing, about something I hoped that the candidate could clear up. I think that was constructive, ultimately. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

I would support this if it helps avoid what happened in the most recent election, which I believe Tryptofish is referencing. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)