Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections#English Wikipedia test election

I know, what an important detail.{{jokes}} Currently, the name of this heading is "Who can vote" in the present tense and "Who could vote" in the past tense, as seen on ADE and the October 2024 subpage. I don't think we should be changing the name of this heading every time an election finishes, so could we settle on a name with some more permanence? I suggest "Voter eligibility". Aaron Liu (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

:In general, re-writing pages for past elections to be in the past tense should, in my view, not be done. With a clear indication of the status of the election at the top, there's no need to change the rest of the page as no one will be confused that the election is still ongoing. I think people coming to see the page in future would be more likely to want to see the state as it appeared during voting, and not a reworded page. isaacl (talk) 17:29, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

::I was the person who split the Oct '24 details into the separate subpage and turned everything past-tense - just wanted to say that I don't really have much preference on this, it just felt like it made grammatical sense at the time seeing as the page was created after the election had ran (when it run running, details of the trial were just on the main WP:AELECT page). I've got no opinion on what happens in future elections' subpages, and wouldn't object if someone made the Oct 2024 subpage present tense (I don't think it would be worth doing, but I also won't attempt to stop anyone). "Voter eligibility" sounds like a good header to me. BugGhost 🦗👻 00:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::I'll just change it to that, then. My main concern was with link stability. (As for the tense of page content... I have no preference, since it is virtually impossible to be tense-neutral in English.) Aaron Liu (talk) 03:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::::Do we really need to be this exclusionary? Let's keep it at a name everybody understands —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::Do you have a tense-neutral suggestion? Aaron Liu (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::Present tense feels sufficiently neutral for this, right? —Femke 🐦 (talk) 15:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No, because it is present tense and will be changed into the past tense, which breaks links. With ACE also changing content to the past tense I'm not sure if there's consensus to not rewrite into the past tense. This isn't any important enough for me to push it, though, so you're free to change it back if you wish. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't agree that a verb "will be changed into the past tense", and I don't think this should be a consideration in choosing a heading. That being said, I don't have a problem with using "Voter eligibility". isaacl (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The truth is, people are spontaneously changing verbs to the past tense, as seen at ACE. Aaron Liu (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::It happened in 2023 at the arbitration committee elections page, but not in 2024 (yet), and has not happened for all past elections (as of when I checked in 2023). It leads to very stilted language and doesn't bring any particular benefit. If a trend develops, I think determining a practice by consensus would be warranted, but I don't think it's necessary yet. (On a technical point, someone changing a heading could add an anchor to preserve older links. I didn't mention this before because I think the re-writing shouldn't be done anyway.) isaacl (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::special:Diff/1262010917. Nothing else was changed 2024 but that's more of an oversight. Anchors can be added, but the editors who spontaneously change the tense are unlikely to realize that. Aaron Liu (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::No, not an oversight. I didn't object to that brief change made in the lead sentence, but I will object if the rest of the page gets altered, after having posted my view on this matter in 2023. isaacl (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I have the same position you have, then. (Though I think that all headings should just be tense-neutral.) Aaron Liu (talk) 20:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:With little copy edits like this, probably best to just make the change, and anyone that doesn't like it can revert it. Will save us 650 words of discussion :) –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::I think it was worthwhile to mention the broader issue. I feel what best serves future readers is to preserve the appearance of the page as it was during the vote. Perhaps it would be helpful to have a status banner at the top, similar as with the arbitration committee elections, so the current state of the election is clearly identified. isaacl (talk) 17:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::We did have a status banner at the top; it was only removed this month. There was rough consensus to make it just an ombox, and I did make what is now {{tl|Administrator elections status}} based on the ACE status header, but I misconfigured it spectacularly during the trial election; while the misconfiguration has been fixed, I'm not sure if we'll get consensus to adopt that automatically-updating template instead of the manually-updated header template we had. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

::::I was referring to the individual election pages. When the next election page is created, it could have a status banner to highlight the current state of that specific election and eventually its results. It wouldn't be a lot different than the current lead sentence at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024, but some editors like to have that info given additional emphasis. isaacl (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::The header is the header for the election pages. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

::::::That header currently solicits participation in the past RfCs. My suggestion is for a header that just describes the state of the election and which never gets modified again after the election is closed and the results are announced. isaacl (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

• I'd got with Voter eligibility or Voter suffrage. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

:::::::It seems I read a viable solution: Change it to Voter eligibility and any objections, if any, could be handled at that time. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_elections&diff=1277174519&oldid=1276862538| This change has already been made] fanfanboy (block_talk) 15:49, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello all. I got a question offwiki about when the next election date would be. Right now the next election is blocked on two things:

• renewal RFC outcome
• phab:T384302 SecurePoll: Restrict creation of foreign and global elections

If the renewal RFC closes as option C, I think the date of the 2nd election will be a bit off the 5 month schedule (a bit random and depends on when the blockers are resolved, setup time, etc.), then elections after that will be on the 5 month schedule.

If the renewal RFC closes as option B, same thing, except the potential 3rd election will probably also be off the 5 month schedule.

Hope that helps with advising candidates on whether to wait for AELECT or choose RFA. Happy electing! –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:Update: The RFC is now closed. If there aren't any forthcoming close challenges, the remaining blocker is now phab:T384302 SecurePoll: Restrict creation of foreign and global elections. I have written [https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1134659 two] [https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/1134660 patches] that should resolve this ticket. Might take a couple weeks to go through the code review and deployment process, and get signoff from WMF leadership. Getting SecurePoll approved for local use (what this ticket is about) isn't a total blocker, but it allows SecurePoll elections to be held without having to bug WMF Trust & Safety, who are busy. It makes the entire process quicker, more scalable, and able to handle the recommended 5 month cadence. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

::When those tickets are fully dealt with, we should probably wait a few weeks before having another election. I also think that after the next election is when we start counting the 5 month schedule. fanfanboy (block_talk) 01:38, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::Yeap. Agreed. I think the steps after securepoll local elections being ready on the technical side is picking some English Wikipedia election admins (scrutineers). This will be our first time doing that so may require some extra time. Then proposing a schedule on this talk page and getting it approved. Then doing a call for candidates. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Would eyeing something like June-July 2025 be feasible for AELECT 2? Or is it too soon to consider without more info on the other blockers? Soni (talk) 11:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Sounds about right. If I had to guess, I think we can get the software stuff wrapped up in one month, then another month for picking scrutineers and planning. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::I hope I'm not re-litigating an RfC outcome that took months of time and thousands of words but ... why five months, not six to make it twice a year? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:41, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I think the idea behind the 5 month RFC close was to stagger the elections so that if someone is always busy during certain months, that eventually AELECT would occur in a month where they are not busy. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:50, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::So that they will drift seasonally, rather than always being at the same times each year. —Ganesha811 (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Fair enough. Thanks for the answers. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:55, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::We should probably have an FAQ or similar about the admin elections that prominently includes the answer to this question. Thryduulf (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks for all the work put in @Novem Linguae! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{+1}} fanfanboy (block_talk) 14:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::absolutely ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, a huge thanks to Novem for all your work! Perfect4th (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

::absolute {{+1}} charlotte ^👸♥ 21:07, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

:Update: My software patches in phab:T384302 were merged and deployed very quickly thanks to {{u|Dreamy Jazz}}. Thanks so much for the quick code reviews. Next step now will be to get sign off from the WMF TSP team (maybe via a post in phab:T301180), and WMF leadership. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::Excellent, nice work team. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

::No problem on the code review. Good to see this moving along. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 21:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:Congratulations, all AELECT supporters and commenters! Many users, especially User:Novem Linguae & User:theleekycauldron deserve wide praise for demonstrating how an engaged community may adapt to broad input and make informed AND complex decisions about its future. We went to the well of consensus over and over, and those who supported individual elements of the surveys became broader supporters of the entire movement. The model used for acquiring a neutral consensus moving the process forward was well founded and might be used for other longterm issues moving forward. Bravo! For my part, I fully believe in this election process and the steps made to enshrine elections as policy. I thank everyone who participated. BusterD (talk) 13:53, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

I've drafted an RFC at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/SecurePoll permissions RFC. It is not open yet. Please feel free to give feedback here. Basically we already had an RFC that approved creating an "Election Administrator" user group, but after thinking about it more I think it'd be less messy to just give all the SecurePoll create/edit/scrutinize permissions to the existing CheckUser group. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:It feels to me that creating and editing should be one group, and scrutineering should be another. I'm not sure on the technical side of this, but can we not append scrutineering rights to checkusers, and allow the new electionadmin group to just create/edit (but not scrutineer) elections? BugGhost 🦗👻 00:11, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:When will these RFCs come to an end! But yeah I agree with BugGhost on this one. fanfanboy (block_talk) 00:21, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq|When will these RFCs come to an end?}} Hopefully soon :) If this change is small enough, maybe I can just post at WP:VPPR with a "does anybody object?" type message. Will give this some more thought, and hopefully some others will chime in too. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::We've had a quite a few RFCs, and as there may still be (a rather important) one to come about WP:RECALL, I think there's good merit in the simple message option instead. It still provides an opportunity to raise concerns or even request using an RFC after all if people do want that. Also agree with BugGhost on the scrutineer aspect but I'm really not bothered either way. Perfect4th (talk) 01:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::+1. It seems like a problem solvable by a simple well notified discussion than a full RFC. We're fairly deep in implementation land Soni (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::+2 agreed, I see no need for a full RfC. —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

:Adding a new role would indeed create needless process / procedure. Bundling it into an existing position is probably the best option. But why checkuser? Checkuser makes perfect sense for scrutineering since they can already view that data. But the task here is more like admin election clerking. To me, it feels more intuitive to give this right to the bureaucrats? Leijurv (talk) 07:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::There are only 16 crats - assigning a role to them is likely to put a bottleneck on the process, and we don't have any indication that they want to take on this additional set of tasks, especially if it is working with something complex and niche like securepoll. I think a specialised self-nominating group would be best for setting up elections, even if it means more legwork right now to organise that group. BugGhost 🦗👻 10:04, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:::That is a fair point.

:::Why not give the right to all sysops? Leijurv (talk) 13:40, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Something that is {{tpq|complex and niche}} shouldn't be handed out broadly to people with no need for it and no guaranteed aptitude for it. Rights like this are the entire reason that small usergroups exist, and while there will of necessity be some process and procedure associated with the right, absolutely none of that will be needless and there is no reason it for it to be lightweight. The process and requirements for Wikipedia:Interface administrators seem like a good model for this, although I don't see a need to require 2FA or CSS/JS knowledge. Thryduulf (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:The previous RfC to which you linked found consensus to enable the electionadmin right, but did not specify that a specific user group had to be created ({{tq|An RFC to determine how the new right should be distributed can be launched at any time...}}). I think there should be more discussion about the details of other potential processes for granting the right than just granting it to the checkusers group (the three basic ways being by consensus agreement on request, by appointment from some group, or by election). Also, given the resolution of Phabricator ticket T377531, there is the ability to separate poll administration tasks from scrutineering tasks, so that's something to consider when deciding how to manage the election admin role. isaacl (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

:I don't think it would be controversial for CU's to get electionadmin rights in addition to the scrutineering right which was decided in the previous RfC.

:I'd say this can be devised as similar to the edit filter manager group, which has rights not included in sysop group by default but can be self-granted by sysops. Reusing the IA requirements seems slightly too restrictive. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:10, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::Though upon further thought, config editing seems outside the job descriptions of CUs.. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:15, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:I think that the best choice is between the model of Wikipedia:Interface administrators and Wikipedia:Edit filter manager. A separate user group makes sense in the absence of explicit consensus to bundle it, but we don't need a heavy-weight process to assign membership. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:27, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Moved to|Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections/SecurePoll permissions proposal#Second draft|–Novem Linguae (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2025 (UTC)}}

:The second draft is currently stuck. Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections/SecurePoll permissions proposal#Stuck. Help and new participants in the discussion would be appreciated. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

::Looks like it's getting unstuck! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:34, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

:::We've made some changes and I think the current version is ready for final sign off. Please feel free to give your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections/SecurePoll permissions proposal#Survey %2F Motion to close –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi all,

Based on the discussions over at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections/SecurePoll permissions proposal, I realised that there's not a lot of certainty in the community about how SecurePoll's config really works, so I've done some local testing and tried to collate a basic summary of what I've found about it in the hopes to get a bit more community clarity on this. It's available at User:Bugghost/Securepoll notes. It is still a work-in-progress and I plan to add more to it over the coming days. Anyone is free to edit it if they've found anything incorrect, and please let me know if there's anything in particular you'd like me (or anyone else) to test and I'll try to add it to the page. BugGhost 🦗👻 20:17, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:Fantastic, thank you so much! Assuming we will use an encrypted poll, my question is about the period after the poll is over. Is it possible for a scrutineer who possesses the private key to see who voted for who? For instance, could they view the total tally, then strike someone's vote, then view the tally again to see whose count was decremented, thus learning who that user voted for? Leijurv (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

::Very good question - from my testing it looks like yes an election clerk or scrutineer can look at the tally, then strike a particular user's vote, compare the tally to see who that user voted for, and then unstrike the vote again to cover their tracks. This can be done on an encrypted poll as long as the election clerk/scrutineer has the correct encryption keys to examine the tallies. There is a public log at Special:SecurePollLog (if logging is turned on), but it looks like it only tracks when tallies are requested (so in this scenario would be twice - before and after the vote strike) - but surprisingly this log doesn't show when a vote gets struck or unstruck. Election clerks/scrutineers can see if a particular vote has been struck/unstruck, but that information is not easily visible, and it is not accessible at all to the general public. Seems like a bit of an oversight here. BugGhost 🦗👻 17:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::: That's probably a bug that should be reported on Phabricator, although I'm not sure what could be done about it and even without revealing whose vote was struck/unstruck the multiple unauthorized tallies will leave an audit trail a mile long. {{pb}} Finally Special:SecurePollLog is not public - only election clerks can access it (it's gated on securepoll-create-poll which is strange). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:49, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::: Looks like you're right about SecurePollLog not being public - sorry about that, I've struck the above. I agree that it's not obvious what could/should be done to mitigate this. Maybe a new poll option to specifically only allow one tally to ever be generated? BugGhost 🦗👻 17:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::Or possibly a log entry for votes being struck or unstruck, so the log would read something like:

:::::*18:57 30 April 2025 (UTC) Example requested tally for poll #42

:::::*18:58 30 April 2025 (UTC) Example struck 1 vote on poll #42

:::::*18:58 30 April 2025 (UTC) Example requested tally for poll #42

:::::*18:59 30 April 2025 (UTC) Example unstruck 1 vote on poll #42

:::::At the very least that would be cause to ask Example what they were doing and why. If it is possible to leave edit summaries when striking votes then they could be displayed in this log too (if the log is restricted to the same people who can strike and unstrike votes then I don't think that would have any security implications?). Thryduulf (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::In the meantime we could put a policy that no one shall click Tally until all scrutineers have publicly declared (ratified) that they are done scrutineering. This is verifiable, and if everyone can be seen to have followed this policy, it is certain none of them used this trick. Leijurv (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::: Does it ever make sense to strike votes after tallying? Is there some reason SecurePoll couldn't prohibit that operation entirely? * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:12, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I don't think striking votes after tallying should happen in usual course of action. I think that operation could be prohibited, but it would require changing the code. The only downside I could think of is accidentally or maliciously tallying early. If there was no way to strike votes after that, it would spoil the election and I guess everyone would have to re-vote (with new scrutineers). I guess a more ideal solution would be that all (or a majority?) of scrutineers must request a tally before the code actually does it? (Instead of just 1 scrutineer saying they're done, most, or all of them would have to). But this is overcomplicated and shouldn't be considered a blocker for AELECT, because we can just have the scrutineers agree not to tally until everyone has ratified. Leijurv (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::: Filed phab:T393057. And I agree none of these are blockers for local elections - they're paranoid nice-to-haves. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:35, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::: Strikes are logged. The fact that they're logged in a different place than anything else is weird, and may make that sort of chichanery harder to find, but ultimately harmless. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:48, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Where are they logged at? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::: (from looking at the code, not tested locally) If you go to the details page for a specific vote it should show the log of any strike/unstrike actions affecting that vote. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::This aligns with what I've been seeing. I've added a screenshot to the notes page to illustrate. BugGhost 🦗👻 08:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::This sounds like a reason for the encryption key not to be shared with the scrutineers, and thus to have a non-scrutineer electionadmin to be a backup to the electionadmin who created the poll. isaacl (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Just to clarify: any election clerk is able to do the above, regardless of if they are scrutineers - any election clerk is able to request tallies and strike/unstrike votes. From my testing, the only difference between and election clerk and a scrutineer is that a scrutineer can see IP addresses and user agents (ie. browser versions) of voters and an election clerk cannot. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:45, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Thanks for the clarification. This means that electionadmins must also be trusted to only strike votes in accordance with community guidance. isaacl (talk) 22:05, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::: They have to be added to the election to do anything with it, though. Typically for past Arbcom elections the election comission has been removed from the election on votewiki when it starts, leaving only the scrutineers (and WMF staff) able to strike votes, and we could do the same for local elections * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:31, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::At least one electionadmin has to remain in order to tally the results, and for redundancy, there should be at least two. When the vote is run on the WMF voting server, it makes sense to add electionadmins from English Wikipedia in order to manage the poll until voting time, to avoid taking up the time of WMF staff. But when running the poll on the English Wikipedia server, I don't think additional electionadmins need to be added beyond those who must be there to do the tallying. isaacl (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::You could also revoke the right just during the election ? (Basically two people get the right, setup securepoll and then have their permissions revoked. The election then runs and once it is over the right is regranted, the votes and struck, counted and the rights are revoked again). It might be a fair bit of bureaucracy but it would sidestep the problem of peeps tallying the vote before the end. Sohom (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::The issue is with someone having the ability to strike votes and tally them after the poll ends. (I still don't see a need for extra electionadmins to be assigned who won't be part of the process to tally votes.) isaacl (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Right, my personal opinion is that we should have only two folks with electionadmin at a time (one to actually do the sensitive work and one to perform a oversight/contingency role). We can always assign more folks if we see that there is a need for other contingency folks. Sohom (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Personally I'm OK with users only holding the electionadmin right for the period when they are using it for a specific poll, and with the self-assignment process this is workable with minimal overhead. I appreciate, though, that others don't think it's necessary to be that strict with who currently holds the electionadmin right, as long as the number of users assigned to manage a given poll is tightly managed. isaacl (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::I think we don't need to worry too much about who actually has the election clerk rights and when. Personally I would like the election clerk role to be widely adopted so that Special:SecurePollLogs can be watched by a sizable number of people to see if there's any unnecessary tally-generations. I agree the more important issue is deciding who is actually added to a poll at a given time. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::This all sounds a bit complicated. Would recommend copying what WMF does and what we did for the first admin election, and have one electionclerk and three scrutineers. The three scrutineers have the same perms as electionclerks, so in theory this gives us four election clerks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::I think there should be at least one backup election clerk who is not a scrutineer with whom the encryption key is shared, so they can trigger a vote tally if necessary. isaacl (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

It looks as though the final technical changes to enable AELECT to run smoothly on English Wikipedia are moving forward and should be implemented soon. With that major task near-complete, it's time to think about scheduling our first non-trial elections. For simplicity's sake, we can wait out May to make sure everything is 100% ready, and aim for a June election. Proposed calendar:

• June 3-10: Call for candidates, Tuesday to Tuesday to include a full weekend
• June 11-15: Discussion phase, again including a full weekend
• June 16-22: Voting phase, including a full weekend
• June 23 to close - scrutineering and tallying, promote successful candidates.

With this schedule, we'd want to have a few election clerks volunteer in the first few days of June, though technically they wouldn't be needed until the voting phase begins on June 16th. Scrutineers could also be asked to volunteer ahead of time. Thoughts? —Ganesha811 (talk) 16:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:My only thought is that this would put the voting period for the following elections at the same time as the voting period for the ArbCom elections (based on it being similar to the 2024 dates). I think it would be ideal to avoid that until admin elections are more established to reduce potential confusion, etc. Moving it circa 2 weeks forwards or backwards would resolve this I think. Thryduulf (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Personally, I'd rather adjust the dates for any election in November/December if desired, than the one happening five months earlier. The rotating through the year approach means that eventually the problem will be encountered again, so I think it's sufficient to be flexible for the dates of the actual election in conflict. (The arbitration committee election dates could shift, for all we know at this time.) isaacl (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::If the technical changes are resolved fairly promptly, we could have a May/June election that runs from May 20th to June 9th, which would enable a October/November election ahead of Arbcom elections this fall. We could also use the June 3-23rd dates and then hold the fall election October 20th-November 9th anyway. I don't think we need to be super strict on the 5-month period between elections (after all, each election takes a few weeks) as long as we're close. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::For the technical reasons you discussed with Novem below, I recognize that a May 20th to June 9th admin election is definitely not happening, but I still want to oppose the first election after the renewal RfC running across two calendar months because it will spawn needless debate over whether the five-month timer is meant to go start-to-start or from the end of the prior election to the start of the next one. This upcoming election should be within a calendar month to set an expectation that the next one will occur in the fifth calendar month after. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 00:27, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:::A thought: if we design this election cycle to not conflict with the same month as ACE, it'll end up conflicting some time in the future because of the odd # of months. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Obviously, my thinking was just that it would be better to not conflict when AELECT is still a relatively new process. When it's established and routine, there should be fewer potential issues. If my maths is correct (and it might not be) if we delay this two weeks from the above suggested dates then the first clash will be the thirteenth election rather than the second and by that time any bugs in processes will likely have been ironed out, many unknown unknowns will have made themself known, we'll have experience of dealing with them and people will be familiar with both types of election. Thryduulf (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Yes, that's what I said ("eventually the problem will be encountered again"). All I'm saying is we can defer worrying about this until the arbitration committee election RfC is over and the dates are known. There is enough flexibility in the administrator election process to allow for adjustments. isaacl (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Election clerks will be needed before the start of the voting period in order to complete preparations and setup, particularly for the first time an election is run on the English Wikipedia server. Personally I think we'd want clerks and scrutineers in place before the call for candidates, and even the poll initially created (though not finalized for voting), so all resources are ready to run through the election process. isaacl (talk) 17:17, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Whichever date we set, we could put out a request for election clerks and scrutineers say a week ahead of time. I agree it would be preferable to have volunteers and the poll in place ahead of the call for candidates, even if not strictly required. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:Fine by me. I take it the secure poll setup phase was for the trail only? fanfanboy (block_talk) 18:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes, it was more complicated then because it required the WMF to help set it up - in addition, because the suffrage requirements were complicated, a whitelist of eligible voters had to be manually generated and fed into SecurePoll. Neither should be true for future elections. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:26, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::I would be in favor of doing some localhost and enwiki test elections. During that testing I will write a work instruction, and that will shorten the SecurePoll setup phase, but probably won't eliminate it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:I personally think this might be too early to schedule this. We do not have SecurePoll installed and working on en.wikipedia. Queuing up an election before we are 100% certain we can actually run it on that date is not a good idea, and puts undue pressure on us. We don't know if more software patches are required, and we haven't got a concrete decision on several key implementation details (eg. encryption) BugGhost 🦗👻 18:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::We certainly don't have to finalize any dates until those things have been taken care of, but it's good to start discussing it. From my understanding WMF has signed off and the technical changes will be implementable quite quickly. June is still a full month away. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:10, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:::True, but it's worth remembering that the last RFC about AELECT ended up taking nearly 2 months to run its course. I agree with Novem that a June election isn't completely unrealistic and hopefully we'll be able to get it all working by that point, I'm just worried that we have several unknowns to deal with before we can be certain. BugGhost 🦗👻 01:46, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:It might be a bit early to pick dates. I have a sequential todo list that is something like 1) deploy config patch, 2) create the 3 MediaWiki pages and update the 3 documentation pages mentioned in Wikipedia:Administrator elections/SecurePoll permissions proposal, 3) ask WT:AELECT who the electionclerk(s) should be, 4) do a test election on localhost wiki, 5) do a test election on enwiki, 6) recruit 3 scrutineer volunteers from among the CheckUsers. Once that is complete, I think that'd be a good time to set the exact dates for the next election (because at that point it will have no blockers remaining). I do think June is realistic but I am not sure we should commit to exact dates yet. Hope that makes sense. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sounds reasonable. As mentioned above there's definitely no need to finalize anything until we're all set. —Ganesha811 (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

:phab:T378287 is probably blocked for another week on a security ticket. WMF is making good progress on the ticket and is on like step 4 of 5. The idea is they want to patch the security bugs before deploying SecurePoll more widely.

:Revised estimate for next election is July or August. The gap in time is to allow some time for discussions of details, practicing with test polls, picking electionclerks and scrutineers, things like that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::Update: the security ticket is on step 5 of 5. Should be unblocked in a week or so, and then will need another week to deploy [https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/mediawiki-config/+/1083870 enwiki config changes]. Once that's done, we won't be reliant on anything outside our control, and we can pick dates for the election. The election dates will probably be around 1-2 months out from the unblocked/ready date, to give plenty of time to prepare. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:::https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/c/operations/mediawiki-config/+/1083870 is scheduled for backport. Once the backport is done, everything else will become unblocked, and we can move on to the next step, which is me doing test polls in localhost and on enwiki and writing work instructions for how to be an election clerk. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:36, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::::And there it is! Special:ListGroupRights Special:ListUsers/electionclerk 🎉🥳🎉🥳🎉🥳 Leijurv (talk) 18:02, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Nice! I know we've got more to do but this feels like a big step - good job to those involved for us to get to this point. BugGhost 🦗👻 18:07, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Agreed, great work from @Novem Linguae and others! —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:12, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:Update: The next administrator election will very likely be in July. Let me do a test poll on my local computer, then a test poll on English Wikipedia using some volunteer test voters. I'll use that to write a work instruction for election clerks and gain confidence that we won't mess up the actual poll. Then once that's complete, let's set the dates. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

What are our current thoughts on who the election clerk(s) for the next election should be?

As a reminder, these are the technical folks who set up the poll, hold the encryption key, configure the eligible voter criteria, things like that. This role is not able to see any confidential data like IP addresses (unless they are also a checkuser). The 3 scrutineers that we pick will also be de facto election clerks (they'll have access to everything an election clerk does) but I do not envision election clerking being the scrutineer's main role.

I'd like to propose myself as the next poll's election clerk. Happy to follow the community's lead though. If selected for this role, I plan to load up SecurePoll on my localhost wiki and set up a test election there, then write a thorough work instruction on how to do it. Then create an enwiki test election and have a couple volunteers vote, and refine the work instruction. Then do it for real the third time. Writing a good work instruction will help someone else be able to take over this role in the future, and practicing a couple times will make sure that the election clerk is experienced enough to avoid something like messing up an encryption key or a voter eligibility configuration during the real poll. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:I believe the best way to handle this is by a simple notified discussion on this page. I believe it's best you are election clerk for this election, but will prefer a neutral discussion, just in case. Something as simple as "Who will election clerk for next election" and allow anyone to discuss options. And then crosspost the same/notify the same on WP:RFA and two three other pertinent venues.

:Basically I'd like to dot all Ts and crossed all Is, even when I believe you're the best option for facilitating this election. Soni (talk) 05:25, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

::While I am a bit hesitant to bother noticeboards about AELECT stuff yet again (I feel like I'm asking for their input on the small details of AELECT perhaps a little more than I should), there's been very little participation in this section, so we might have to. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:43, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::You being the election clerk makes the most sense, as there isn't documentation yet. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::The noticeboards see "There is a pertinent discussion at X place about Y" all the time. It doesn't have to be fancy or all over the place, as long as we inform the main places it would be fine Soni (talk) 19:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:Novem is a very good choice for being an election clerk for this election. I think we would need at least one more just for redundancy and to increase our bus factor a bit. BugGhost 🦗👻 07:05, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::I can be a backup clerk if need be. – robertsky (talk) 10:36, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::Likewise, though I suspect admin clerks only might be a better solution for the time being. Soni (talk) 11:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::Robertsky is an admin. By the way, what do we envision the second clerk doing exactly? Technically the second clerk is actually the 5th clerk because the scrutineers are also election clerks. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::Mainly just for redundancy, for example having a copy of the encryption key in case the "primary" election clerk goes missing, and to double check config etc before the election goes live. I agree it's not the most essential role but at the moment having one person responsible for the setup is a single-point-of-failure. I'm happy with any of the scrutineers volunteering to act as an election clerk - I know they technically will have the user right either way, but I assumed scrutineers would be added to the poll after it was configured, and only carry out their roles after the ballot closed. (If people think having extra election clerks is unhelpful I'm happy to back down on this.) BugGhost 🦗👻 16:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::As I stated earlier, I think there should be at least one backup election clerk who is not a scrutineer with whom the encryption key is shared, so they can trigger a vote tally if necessary. isaacl (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Sounds good to me. Sounds like through discussion this proposal has crystallized as me as lead election clerk and Robertsky as election clerk #2, and the idea is to share the encryption key between both of us. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

{{block indent|em=1.6|1=Notified: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard.}}

:FWIW I'm happy to serve as a clerk or to test anything/be a test dummy. Giraffer (talk) 11:04, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also happy to be an election clerk in support of Novem & Robert as needed, or just as backup. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:52, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:::{{smalldiv|1=I suspect we have enough volunteers, but... charlotte ^👸♥ 12:04, 22 May 2025 (UTC)}}

::::I suspect the same, but I'll be happy to help as well (especially on the techy side of things) Sohom (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I marked myself as the main election clerk and Robertsky as the backup election clerk for now. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/2025&diff=prev&oldid=1292431370 Diff.] Thank you to everyone who volunteered. If something happens and more election clerk volunteers are needed, we will be sure to reach out to the folks that volunteered here. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:29, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::It looks like our local page says that election clerks should only be added to administrators, however there appears to be one non-administrator in the list. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:54, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Turns out that was temporary and had to do with publishing the patch - I asked @SD0001 about it on their talk. —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I can attest to the fact that DreamRimmer was indeed involved in deploying the patch. While technically out of process, it is fine since to my understanding the right was only used to test if a admin was able to make a grant. (which was what the patch was for). Sohom (talk) 20:40, 10 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello page watchers. Are any of you English Wikipedia CheckUsers that would like to scrutineer the next election in July or August? Looking for 3 English Wikipedia CheckUsers to volunteer. Will start by asking on this talk page, and will post more widely if we need more people.

A steward might be OK too, but we'd need to ask ArbCom if they're willing to grant temporary English Wikipedia CheckUser to facilitate this. Last election I think ArbCom did this but felt a bit surprised and pressured, so this time around we'd need to ask them early and wait for their approval. –Novem Linguae (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:We have a pretty large pool of CUs, so I'd wait and see if you get volunteers before getting ArbCom to make special appointments again. I'll post to the list and see if anyone is interested. Primefac (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'm expecting to have a lot of time by then, so I'd be interested in volunteering as a scrutineer. beef [talk] 13:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:If needed, I can help. I would be a bit busier, but probably would have space to do it. Would defer to others if there are other volunteers. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 14:23, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::I've been pretty much out of the CU game lately, so I'll be happy to pitch in with the scrutinizing (scrutinization? scrutineering?) if you need me. Now that we've spun up AELECT for real, we really should aim to be self-sufficient and not have to impose on the stewards. RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:I'll put myself forward. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

::Sounds like we've got our three then: 0xDEADBEEF, RoySmith, and Zzuuzz. Thank you very much for volunteering. Dreamy Jazz can be the "alternate" in case anyone is busy. {{Done}}. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:::I can likely serve as an alternate as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

:I think a good time to ask this in the future would be when there is a date set for the election, to ask specifically for CUs who can be available at the scheduled end time ("00:00, 32 July 2025 (UTC)") to start checking. I imagine that many candidates will be eager (as was I) to get the result as soon as possible. – JensonSL (SilverLocust) 05:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

::{{+1}} To that. Making the process as painless as possible means making it as short as possible (suspense is not fun). Obviously, that shouldn't come at the expense of allowing for scrutiny of the candidates, but ensuring the CUs we choose will be available to scrutinize the votes in an expeditious manner is an easy win.{{pb}}And before anyone goes there: Being an admin is hard, but "letting candidates feel a taste of hardship" is not kind to the people going through the process. I've been an admin for almost a year, and I have experienced nothing on Wikipedia even coming close to the stress of RfA; my activities in that time included clerking WP:PIA5. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:42, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

:It may be useful to have some standing documentation on scrutineering. Instructions are available for arbcom elections 2010 - 2024 and maybe other places. WMF elections also have an adequate description page. I guess if securepoll is going to be used more often for other things, a generalised page might make more sense, with specific criteria listed in each election page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:51, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

::For my part, I'm mostly interested in the community expectations for what justifies a check. My experience is mostly at SPI, where cases are brought with behavioral history which informs a CUs decision to check or not. We won't have that when scrutinizing an election, so guidance along those lines would be a good thing. RoySmith (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad to see Novem's comment above that a July election would be feasible and that Wikipedia:Administrator elections/2025 has been created. July, though, is in two weeks. Ideally we figure out the dates and announce them before then, so that potential candidates can look for nominators and prepare. Adapting Ganesha's proposed June timeline from above for July, we'd get something like:

• July 9–16: Call for candidates, Wednesday to Wednesday to include a full weekend. (This can also be longer; afaict the length of the nomination window was not decided by the commmunity.)
• July 17–21: Discussion phase (5 days), again including a full weekend
• July 22–28: Voting phase (7 days), including a full weekend
• July 29 to close - scrutineering and tallying, promote successful candidates.

I don't mean to pressure the folks running the election, so if anything is not ready and this would be too soon, that's okay and we can postpone slightly. I deliberately moved Ganesha's schedule to the second week of July, rather than the first, because July is fast approaching and ideally we have the dates set at least a week in advance. I've also shifting the entire schedule back a weekday, since I think the aim of including a "full weekend" for discussion is better served by doing Thu–Mon rather than Wed–Sun (which is the workweek of many in the restaurant business and would also end before the weekend is over in time zones behind UTC). Toadspike [Talk] 14:37, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::facepalm: I missed the part of Novem's message that says "once that's complete, let's set the dates". Apologies for seriously jumping the gun here. I'll leave this up for others to comment, though, in the hope that Novem's tests have gone okay and we do start workshopping a July schedule. Toadspike [Talk] 14:39, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::I wonder if late July or start of August would be better, would let the community (read candidates, nominators) have some time to get ready and think things through (Also for the election commission to test and re-test until they are sure of the process). (On a different note, I'm open to volunteering to be a dummy to be tested around if Novem's polls need test voters:) Sohom (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That's fair. I'm hoping candidates will be more prepared this time around and more of them have nominators. Pushing this back two weeks (or more) might help with that. To maximize preparedness we should try to have the dates set and widely announced a few weeks before the call for candidates opens. Toadspike [Talk] 16:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm all for making sure the technology works as planned and not be hasty, but I don't think people would be more prepared if we push the date further back really, as they have had months to find nominators and think about the elections since the last RfC. (my email is always open to talk for people seeking advice or a nominator). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:19, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::For better or worse, there seems to be a number of Wikipedia editors who wait to engage when deadlines are at hand. Taking the arbitration committee elections as an example, even though the approximate dates are known well in advance so potential candidates have a year to prepare and decide, the community of editors participating in the annual RfC still felt that the nomination period shouldn't be shortened from 10 to 7 days, to give editors more time to decide within the actual nomination period. isaacl (talk) 16:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::While I agree that folks will probably be better prepared, I think giving folks a week or two of notice is good to have a back and forth on the availability of noms and find noms if their existing noms are going to busy. (also note that noms don't really when the elections are going to happen, you or I will pre-emptively clear our calendar cause we are involved in this discussion, others might not be able to do that on a shorter notice) Sohom (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::That's fair. We also no longer have a gap between nominations and discussion, so there's less leeway there now compared to the trial. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 16:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Yep – I believe that gap only existed for technical reasons and is no longer necessary. Toadspike [Talk] 17:06, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I personally quite liked the week gap between candidacy signups and discussion phase during the trial, as it gave some time to research the candidates. With the huge number of candidates last election, without that gap we wouldn't have had any decent voting guides, and voter research would have been even more sparse. BugGhost 🦗👻 22:08, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::I have mixed feelings; scrutiny is good, but the point of having a shorter discussion period is so AELECT is less intense than RfA. Without the technical reason, the only remaining reason for a delay would be vetting/preparation, which might contradict the AELECT philosophy. Maybe we can make the signup period longer (two weeks?) as a compromise? Though, given 20 people signed up in the last two days last time, I'm not sure how much that would help. Toadspike [Talk] 10:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Sohom Datta Start of August for the actual elections will be generally a bad time, I think. Editors will go to Wikimania IRL. Having admin elections concurrently may be a hassle if any of them also are involved in AELECT in any way. Soni (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Soni, yeah forgot about that cause I personally can't make it, good point that we should try to finish before Wikimania then. Sohom (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:I haven't been able to do my tests yet. Been a bit busy. Will probably get to it this week though.

:I agree that having it all done in July would be best. Early August is Wikimania and I'll be a bit busy with that.

:I am not sold on deleting the SecurePoll setup phase yet, although I think we can probably shorten it. Maybe we can re-draft the above schedule to add a 2 day SecurePoll setup phase?

:I think page watchers know AELECT is coming since we've mentioned July in a couple places now. For candidates that don't want to wait for the mass message and other announcements and want extra prep time, the time to start preparing is now. I'm like 90% confident the next election will be in July. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

::I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/2025&diff=prev&oldid=1296035981 added some dates] as a placeholder / rough draft. I mostly copied the above, but shortened the call for candidates from 8 days to 7, added a 2 day SecurePoll setup phase, and penciled in scrutineering as taking 5 days since that's how long it took last time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Awesome, thank you Novem! Toadspike [Talk] 11:45, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Work on the election clerk work instruction and localhost test polls has begun. Folks can follow along at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/SecurePoll setup. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:44, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

:Localhost testing is complete. I've got my head wrapped around everything and I think the chosen settings are good.

:The work instruction is now written. It's located at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/SecurePoll setup. I think it's detailed enough that an electionclerk that isn't me (such as in the future, or if I get hit by a bus) could follow the steps and figure things out.

:One tiny issue I saw is that the de facto voter eligibility criteria will be slightly different than the RFC'd voter eligibility criteria. For example I don't think there's a way to program in "only allow extendedconfirmed and sysop user groups", so I had to program in "only allow users with 500 or more edits". Also SecurePoll has a hard-coded, unchangeable thing where your account needs to have been made the day before the poll started, UTC time. My thought is that these are small enough differences that we can move forward, then post-election we can RFC these voter eligibility changes to make it official.

:Next step will be to hold an enwiki test election. Will give that some more thought then post details soon. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:57, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::Could scrutineers enforce the remaining parts of XCON (30 days, XCON not revoked)? Toadspike [Talk] 23:15, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

:::@Novem Linguae Could you try setting the edits to a 0/null value (or a impossibly high number) and then using the include users in X group field ? Sohom (talk) 23:21, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I think I tried blank/0 already and it didn't work. It'd be hacky, but I'll bet setting it to 10,000,000 would probably work. Will try both and report back. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::@Sohom Datta. 1) Blanking the minimum number of edits gives a form validation error. 2) Setting the minimum number of edits to 0 lets everyone vote. 3) Setting the minimum number of edits to 10,000,000 and trying to add sysop and extendedconfirmed as "always allowed" groups didn't work, because implicit groups such as extendedconfirmed cannot be added, only explicit groups. I filed phab:T397587. After the patch for that task is merged, this workaround will work, but will show confusing error messages to non-extendedconfirmed folks on the vote screen, such as "Sorry, you cannot vote. You need to have made at least 10,000,000 edits to vote in this election, you have made 0."

::::I guess we keep the minimum at 500 for now if folks are OK with it. I'll start a section below to discuss this in more detail. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::That's not really desirable to do manually. To do this check at voting time, it would probably be better to go back to generating an electoral roll, but of course part of the intent behind the new criteria was to avoid this and let the SecurePoll software check the criteria automatically. isaacl (talk) 02:10, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I forgot about the 30 days aspect of XCON. That makes this issue a bit more out of alignment with the voter eligibility criteria than I thought. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:05, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Is it possible to change the de facto eligibility criteria via config change for future polls? Or this is something best handle as a feature request? – robertsky (talk) 11:42, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Probably feature request. I think SecurePoll on-the-fly voter eligibility calculations are unrelated to config ($wg variables). –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:52, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::Other wikis that have more complicated voting criteria generate a voter list before each election - they essentially run a database query/script that enumerates all people who meet the criteria.

::Though this leaves out people who become eligible during voting - they could complain and electionadmins can add them to the voter list manually. dbeef [talk] 12:14, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Yes, this was done for the first election, with the criteria for the arbitration committee elections used (as per consensus at the time). (I don't remember if any voters were added manually after the electoral roll was generated, but I believe it has been done for arbitration committee elections in the past when eligible voters have been missed.) The intent discussed during the followup discussions was to try to avoid this extra overhead cost, as well as provide a better user experience, by using criteria that could be enforced by the SecurePoll extension. If administrator elections become a more frequent occurrence, minimizing the cost of managing them will be helpful. isaacl (talk) 16:06, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

::::This should definitely be a feature request, but if Novem is able to hack their way to the same result by using a absurdly high edit count (as I mentioned above), I don't think it should be a blocker for the election. Sohom (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

As a recap, our voter eligibility criteria is that the voter has to be extendedconfirmed, not blocked, and not a bot. Extendedconfirmed means the account age is >=30 and the account edit count is >=500. Due to some limitations in SecurePoll, it looks difficult to enforce the 30 day thing. A) I would like to drop the 30 day requirement for the July 2025 election, then we can look into patching SecurePoll for future elections. Is this OK? Alternatives are B) to generate the voter eligibility list manually (more work but could be done, I could do a quarry query), or C) to postpone the election to give time for a patch to be written. I prefer A but want to double check consensus. Thoughts? –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Yes, I think having a cutoff at 500 edits is fine for this round, no need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:Isn't this supposed to be using the RFA suffrage requirements? That RFA suffrage requirements are that voters are extendedconfirmed, not that they have any specific number of edits or tenure days. That seems to have been erroneously made a requirement for elections. (Perhaps in attempting to explain what extendedconfirmed typically means). — xaosflux ^Talk 23:42, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Important note: if you are going to use a whitelist of the members of extendedconfirmed, also append the members of sysop. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:49, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::May want to test using the 'Include users in these groups, regardless of edits or other groups' votereligibitily parameter, coupled with some very high edit count as the setting (like 10000). — xaosflux ^Talk 23:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Important note, you have a bunch of former admins who are within 500/30 but not in extendedconfirmed or sysop, because of how EC is granted, among other things. Soni (talk) 05:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Is extendedconfirmed added back automatically when they make an edit? I forget. Maybe not since it was "removed" when they became an admin? Some of this group could be quarried with something like ...

::::SELECT DISTINCT REPLACE(log_title, '_', ' ') AS promoted_to_admin

::::FROM logging

::::WHERE log_type = 'rights'

:::: AND log_action = 'rights'

:::: AND log_params LIKE '%sysop%'

::::ORDER BY log_title ASC;

::::... and added to the eligibility list, if there's consensus to do so. However the above query would get confused by renames, and isn't all-inclusive. Maybe this is kind of complex and should just be handled on a case-by-case basis. Folks that aren't eligible and should be can post on this talk page and, if needed, be added to the "override list" mid-election by an election clerk. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Checking user_former_groups is a lot easier than trying to parse logging. Users desysopped before that table was added in mid-2011 won't be in it, but if those users still haven't gotten extendedconfirmed back, I'd not worry about disenfranchising them. —Cryptic 07:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Side note: EC can be revoked (which should remove suffrage). — xaosflux ^Talk 23:52, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:(I'd thought it was only *, user, and autoconfirmed that were implicit.) How much effort is it to import an eligibility list? The query for just sysop/extendedconfirmed isn't just easy, it's a trivial oneliner; nothing like supporting the agglomerated mess that's the arbcom eligibility reqs. —Cryptic 23:56, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::It isn't very hard to upload a list. It will not be dynamic of course, so those who gain or lose EX status during the election will be in the wrong eligibility, which may be solvable with the group whitelist option I mentioned above. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Election admins can manually add someone missing during the election if needed. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:49, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you for the callout. I appear to be conflating "implicit user groups" with "autopromoted user groups". I tried to do my localhost testing with autoconfirmed rather than extendedconfirmed, thus the confusion. Perhaps setting the max edits really high + adding extendedconfirmed to the whitelist would actually work after all, but as mentioned above, has the downside of giving a confusing error message to folks that aren't extendedconfirmed: "Sorry, you cannot vote. You need to have made at least 10,000,000 edits to vote in this election, you have made 0." Because of this, I think voter rolls (option B) are the way to go for this particular election. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:47, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::We can temporarily customise MediaWiki:Securepoll-too-few-edits to get rid of that message and instead link to the eligibility criteria. And yes, extendedconfirmed is not an implicit group. – SD0001 (talk) 15:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::That, I think we can hack our way to the end result wrt to modifying on-wiki messages if needed. But it's your call :) Sohom (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Actually, scratch that. It looks like blocked users and bots can vote as well by being in one of the user groups listed in "Include users in these groups". – SD0001 (talk) 16:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::@SD0001 Even when must not be sitewide blocked = true is set ? Oh god. Sohom (talk) 16:26, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Yes. I've fixed these issues in gerrit:1162995. The eligibility requirements can be implemented without any hacks or externally generated lists, if merged before the election. – SD0001 (talk) 18:16, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks for the quick work – it's appreciated! isaacl (talk) 21:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Perhaps it would be better to go back to generating an electoral roll for the July election. This would allow for either new features to be added to the SecurePoll extension to meet our needs, or for the community to be consulted on changes to the voter eligibility criteria. Personally, I don't like diverting from community consensus about the criteria without a broad village pump discussion, and that would delay the timetable. isaacl (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::I agree with {{u|isaacl}}. I empathize with {{tq|no need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good enough}}, however, the mechanics of administrator selection is one of, if not the, most high-profile and high-sensitivity subjects on-wiki. Adjusting voter eligibility criteria without broader consensus is likely to go over poorly. —Sirdog (talk) 03:25, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Thanks everyone for your feedback. Option B (uploading a voter roll) should allow us to have the election on time and stay faithful to the voter eligibility criteria, so let's just go with that for now. That is hard to test in localhost (localhost lacks tens of thousands of users to test the voter eligibility upload system at scale), but I can give this a proper test in the enwiki test election I plan on having soon. –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Here's the voter eligibility quarry query if anyone wants to double check it: quarry:query/94828. I don't think we need to do any block checking in this query since it looks like SecurePoll handles that. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::User:Dennis Brown and User:Zero0000 are in both groups, so they each show up twice in that query. Does that matter for anything? And does this work with the other SecurePoll options - I mean, are you sure that if it's set to forbid bots and blocked users, that takes precedence over the user whitelist? That "regardless of edits or other groups" in the screenshots on phab is concerning. —Cryptic 05:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Thanks. I changed the SQL query to SELECT DISTINCT and now there are 2 less in the results, probably solving the two duplicates you mentioned. Since we are using the SecurePoll eligibility list, I plan to leave the "regardless of edits in other groups" thing blank, so I think the "no sitewide blocks" thing will work. We can double check this during the English Wikipedia test election. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Note, for the upload, format the names as USERNAME@enwiki — xaosflux ^Talk 10:31, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::(since this is a local election) — xaosflux ^Talk 10:32, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Is everyone OK with adding around 377 former admins who are not technically extended confirmed? quarry:query/94838

Can folks also help me double check that the following Quarry query is accurate and fetches the 3 user groups we want? The 3 user groups this query should be listing are extendedconfirmed, sysop, and former sysops since 2011: quarry:query/94837. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:Suffrage says is extendedconfirmed. That is included with current admins, but is not with former admins. I suspect this is an edge case of former admins that are also very long term inactive, who can cure this themselves by making an edit or requesting at PERM in the worst case. That report also has accounts such as 'EyeEightDestroyerBot' that shouldn't be manually added. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:37, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah I agree with xaosflux - from spot checking some of the users on that list, they look to be admins who haven't edited since being desyssopped. I don't know how auto-granting EC works, but I agree that it's something those users can likely resolve themselves by simply editing. I don't oppose them being added, but I think we don't really need to worry about the former admins in this case. BugGhost 🦗👻 17:18, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Sounds good. Will go back to the simple query without former admins then: quarry:query/94828. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::If they never had EC, it will be autogranted on their next edit. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:54, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::If it isn't auto-re-granted, then the core problem is probably that bureaucrats forget to add it back when they remove sysop from folks. The fix is probably to get bureaucrats in the habit of adding extendedconfirmed whenever they remove sysop. Perhaps a reminder message to WP:BN could help with this. There appears to be at least 377 of these folks: quarry:query/94838. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Something seems a bit off here. Example from your list: User:Amalthea. This user never appears to have EC revoked, so it never needed to be "added back". Should this user ever make an edit, they should become EC for the first time. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:29, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) § Adding a SecurePoll namespace. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:05, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused by this criterion: "not be sitewide blocked during the election". This sounds like any block, even if removed before voting but after the poll starts, or applied after voting but before the poll ends, will make the vote ineligible. Is that really the intention? Should it be, "not be sitewide blocked at the time of voting"? Can blocked users actually vote? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:40, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:From a technical control, it would be at the instance of voting. The larger question would be: If you are blocked after you vote (or even if you were blocked, then it expires), should your vote be striken? I think the technical control is sufficient alone. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

::Sockpuppets aside, I've never heard of anything being struck simply because someone got blocked a few days either side of a thing (technically, self-requested blocks and rapidly-undone mistakes would also be caught up in this). I propose then that the wording is changed to what I said above. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:59, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Arbcom elections use the wording "not currently sitewide blocked at the time of voting." Sockmasters who are not blocked can cast a vote, but if they cast a vote from more than one account then all of them are struck. No other blocks cause votes to be struck.

:::I don't see any reason for admin elections to differ in this regard. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::I think it's implicit that all the voter eligibility criteria are "at the time of voting". I think just removing "during the election" is the simplest fix here. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/July_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1296929140 How's this look?] –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::That works for me, thanks. Out of curiosity I'd like to just return to my original question - can blocked users actually (technically) vote? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 09:58, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::I don't think so. We'll test it in the next round of testing (enwiki test election) to be sure. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:11, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::No, it can be alwasy retested of course. The software looks up active blocks and will stop you if you are. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:38, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello friends. I've created an English Wikipedia test election. It will run for approximately 3 days, until 2025-06-28 23:59:59 UTC. Please go ahead and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/821 vote in it] to help us test.

There are 5 candidates, and it tells you how to vote for each candidate. For example, the first candidate's name is "Candidate A - everyone vote support for this one". Please everyone follow the directions so that we can test that the encrypted tallier is working.

Please report back here with any feedback.

Note that your IP address, user agent, and XFF info will be visible to the 3 scrutineers (Dbeef, RoySmith, and Zzuuzz) for 60 days from the end of the test poll, after which this private info will be automatically deleted.

Ideas for things to test / call out:

• per the RFC, we will be alphabetizing candidate names
• make sure you're OK with the order of the columns (oppose, abstain, support. default is abstain filled in.)
• try voting with an administrator account. should be able to vote
• try voting with an extended confirmed account. should be able to vote
• try voting with a non extended confirmed account (<500 edits). should not be able to vote.
• try voting with a blocked account. should not be able to vote
• try voting with a bot account. should not be able to vote
• double check the instructions text and wikilinks at the top of the vote.
• double check the text that you get when you're not eligible to vote
• anything else?

@Robertsky, @Dbeef, @RoySmith, @Zzuuzz. You are set as election clerks / election administrators for this poll, so you get some extra buttons. Please feel free to visit Special:SecurePoll and click on the pages in the "links" column. I'd recommend viewing only for now and not editing, with the exception of striking and unstriking your own votes.

I'll re-ping the scrutineers at the end of the poll and give them a day or two to pretend to "scrutineer" the poll, where we can hash out if we need to write a work instruction for that, if there's anything confusing about it, etc. Once they're done, I'll decrypt and tally the poll and post the results. I know everyone is on the edge of their seats for the results of this very important election ;-) –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:33, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

: Many thanks for pulling this together! After voting, I saw it said {{tq|Thank you. Your vote has been recorded. If you wish, you may replace this vote with a new one by returning to the voting page any time before the close of voting. If you do so, you will have to start over from scratch.}} - is it possible to make that link go direct to Special:SecurePoll/vote/821 (or whatever the page for that election is)? I hadn't realised we'd be able to see Special:SecurePoll/list/821 to see who has voted, though can't see how they voted, which is the important thing. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:56, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::(Shoot, I guess I didn't need to double vote. Ah well, hopefully more test data.) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::I don't think we can make it specific to this election. It is loading MediaWiki:Securepoll-thanks which is generic for all elections. Good idea though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:I can confirm that I could vote as an admin.

:I also created a brand new account, and tried with that, but couldn't vote (got {{tq|"Sorry, you are not in the predetermined list of users authorized to vote in this election."}}).

:I then made the new account extended confirmed, but still couldn't vote – is that as intended? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::We had to use a "voter roll", which means I ran a quarry query and uploaded a whitelist right before I opened the poll. Anyone extendedconfirmed after the whitelist is uploaded will need to post a special request on this talk page in order to get added. This is a good opportunity to test that workflow. I've added {{Noping|DGrazing tester}} to the "override list" if you'd like to try voting again. (Technically I could have added them to the "eligibility list", but that list has tens of thousands of entries and takes a minute to save, so safer and easier to add them to the "override list"). –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::P.S. I just now hit save. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Gotcha. Yes, this time DGrazing tester could vote. Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I blocked DGrazing tester, and tried to vote. It correctly said I've already voted, but by the looks of things, it would have let me vote again. Is it meant to be like that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::Try logging out and back in. When I was testing the on-the-fly voter eligibility stuff, I had to do that to get it to recalculate. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::Done that, but it still let the blocked account vote. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::Did your 10 minute block expire? Maybe try an infinite block and try voting again? –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:54, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::No, it hadn't expired, it was still blocked after I posted the above. But sure, I can try again with indef.

:::::::I don't think this matters, but just in case it does: I didn't actually log out of that account, per se. I was working in a private browser session, and closed down the browser and restarted it, which meant that I had to log in again. I'm assuming that serves the same purpose as explicitly logging out/in. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I couldn't reproduce this on localhost. I blocked an account and tried to vote and it was not able to vote. Is anyone else able to vote with a blocked account? Or maybe if you've voted once already, you're always able to vote again to change your vote? Strikethrough incorrect hypothesis. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::How do you know that's incorrect? It would seem to fit the symptoms. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::I tested it on localhost by voting with an unblocked account, blocking it, and seeing if I could still vote. I could not. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::@Novem Linguae if you add Awkward42 to the voter roll I'll give it a try. Thryduulf (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::Okay, now my test account is indeffed, so I tried again from a private browser session, and same result = could vote. I then switched to a different browser (from which I've never logged into WP before), and tried from a regular (non-private) session, and same thing, it recognised me as a returning voter, and let me vote again. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::Doesn't this mean that the override list allows a user to vote even though they are blocked? dbeef [talk] 14:41, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::Oh duh. Of course the one account I put on the override list is the one that is testing the on-the-fly block detection. The override list can always vote. Lol. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::OK, I moved {{Noping|DGrazing tester}} from the override list to the eligibility list, and I added {{Noping|Awkward42}} to the eligibility list. Those two accounts should be able to properly test voting while blocked now. I think both will be unable to do so. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Awkward42 is indeed unable to vote while blocked "Sorry, but editors who are currently blocked may not vote in this election." I also got the "Your account does not meet the requirements to vote..." message, despite being on the eligibility list. When I tried after unblocking I was able to vote successfully, so it seems that being blocked was the reason for not being eligible - seeing both messages was confusing as it implied that I would not be able to vote even after being unblocked. Thryduulf (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::This is the same issue I pointed below, here. The latter one should be unbulleted, ideally implying that one can't vote due to the list of bulleted reason(s) above, and what they can do (complain here) is in the last message set per election in the config. (I hope I am conveying the same rationale as Novem below). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 15:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::Yes being unbulleted would help, it could also be made explicit by adding "for the reason(s) above" at the end of the first sentence. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::{{Done}}. Thanks for the idea. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:06, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::I tried reblocking to see whether it would let me revote and the results were mixed: I'd left myself logged in and viewing the vote confirmation screen, from there I clicked the link to revote which too me to Special:SecurePoll. I clicked the link for the test election and, despite being blocked, was able to vote again. I then tried logging out and back in (in the same browser window), followed the direct link to the test election but was not able to vote (same messages as when I first tried). Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::That sounds like a bug that should be filed. Can an election admin/scrutineer get the exact timestamps of the vote, along with the block log, so we can open a bug. Sounds like SP is using a cache that it shouldn't. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:14, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::I wouldn't call that a showstopper, as this seems to be an existing condition - not something specific to the local implementation. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:15, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::If it helps, the ID of the revote was 6419, the ID of the initial vote is not in my browser cache and I didn't think to record it. Thryduulf (talk) 15:17, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::The relevant votes were at 14:58:16 and 15:02:47. The relevant block was at 15:02:18 -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::After the block expired I clicked the link to securepoll on the editors who are blocked can't vote screen, following the link to the test election it took me to the voting page as it should (although I didn't save that vote) so that at least is working correctly.

::::::::::::::I blocked again while I had the voting page open, refreshed and then hard refreshed the page, and it still would allow me to vote (although I didn't attempt to submit one). I navigated away from the voting page (clicking the link on Candidate A), then followed links back to the voting page and again would have been able to vote. I then logged out and back in, followed the link from this page to the test election and got the error as I should. I then explicitly unblocked, refreshed on the error page and was taken to the voting page.

::::::::::::::In conclusion it appears to be correctly detecting when accounts are not blocked but not always correctly detecting when they are. Thryduulf (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::OK, it looks like it is checking "are you blocked" when you enter the poll, not when you exit the poll. So not necessarily a bug, and a very unlikely race condition. Thanks for the details. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::::::Except it isn't always getting the correct result when I enter the poll while blocked unless I've logged out between being blocked and opening the poll. On my main account I very rarely log out (I don't know how common this is, but comments on phab:T372702 suggest it's not just me). Thryduulf (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::::::::Thanks everyone for exploring this. I've filed phab:T397880 ("Don't cache voter eligibility check") to discuss further. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::Yes, this time DGrazing tester couldn't vote, and got instead the "Sorry, editors who are blocked" reason. (Good catch, Beef!) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:26, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Just reporting that the scrutineer data is coming through as expected. I'll probably strike one of my own votes sooner rather than later. I am curious about the column marked 'Duplicate', which remains empty at this time. Let's hope it remains unused. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:53, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::I found that "duplicate" column to be pretty confusing. I filed phab:T397819 about it. It has something to do with duplicate cookies, and is perhaps only relevant in global elections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:58, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Everything looked good from my perspective. It let me vote using this account, it didn't let me vote using my alt (Awkward42) which is not extended-confirmed. Thryduulf (talk) 11:49, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:File:English Wikipedia Special-SecurePoll-vote-821 2025-06-25 12-04-16.pngOne opening the page from my bot account, BunnysBot, I can see three different reasons (image added) for why the account is not eligible to vote; it's a bot, it's not in the eligibility list (the big list from quarry), it does not meet requirements (editcount/age). The first may not be there if it is not a bot, but is there any way to show only one of the latter two, with the link to post here in case of any issues? From [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/821?uselang=qqx ?uselang=qqx] I think the last is set manually, so maybe the other can be modified (temporarily should work) for making the voters life easier in understanding why they can't vote. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 12:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::The third bullet isn't a reason for lack of eligibility (it's not an "insufficient edit count / insufficient age" message), it is just the generic message that everyone sees if they are not eligible. Perhaps it'd be less confusing if the third bullet didn't have a bullet. I've filed phab:T397835 –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

• As this is going to be new for contributors, we should probably add a section on Wikipedia:Administrator_elections about privacy, and link to it from election descriptions for a while. Most people are used to the central securepoll and may not realize the differences now. Some voters had expressed apprehension with the enhanced info collection, which should be able to be overcome as less information about voters is being collected now. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)
• :{{Done}}. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/July_2025&diff=prev&oldid=1297322016 Diff1.] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/July_2025/SecurePoll_setup&diff=prev&oldid=1297322260 Diff2.] –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:I am able to access the translate page for the poll, [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/translate/821/en here], which exposes changing the labels for English (eg changing "Oppose" to "Against" or whatever). The text boxes are editable but I can't hit "update" thankfully - so I assume there's some sort of missing permission blocking this - but I wanted to ask who this functionality is available to, in case we need to worry about unauthorised label changes. BugGhost 🦗👻 16:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::Should be OK to view translations. All of that is public. Only election administrators can press the "Update" button. Thank you for mentioning it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:01, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I thought it would be something like that, thank you for clarifying! BugGhost 🦗👻 22:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Don't know if you still need data but I voted with my (extended confirmed) account and was not able to with my 0-edit testalt and everything behaved as expected. Perfect4th (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Can you change the order of the columns to Support, Abstain, Oppose? I got confused with this one. Mox Eden (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:Needs additional discussion, so I've spun this off into its own subsection. Others should feel free to weigh in. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:07, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:The order mirrors that of the arbitration committee election. There was some discussion of this during the 2022 arbitration committee election; my view then was that it would be desirable to maintain that order for continuity. Now the administrator election ballot could go its own way and change the order. I think we should consider though the synergy benefits in keeping the order the same across the two types of elections. isaacl (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::I don't have a strong opinion about which order the options should be in but I do think the order should remain the same from one election to the next, and that elections happening concurrently (as arbcom and aelect will if the schedules stay the same) should use the same order. Thryduulf (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:FWIW, I feel (and I can't really explain why) that oppose should be on the left, and support on the right. Maybe this comes from the typical rating scale in a survey, where it might go from 0 to 10 or -3 to +3 or whatever, ie. the 'positive' is on the right. (And no, it's not a Tinder 'swipe left' thing, honest guv!)

:But I definitely do think that abstain (= 'neutral') should be in the centre column.

:I vaguely remember some voters last time saying that they got the columns confused, so we're right to discuss this to minimise that risk. Would it be possible to add colour to the columns as extra visual clue; say, oppose = red / support = green (although that won't help some colourblind users, of course)? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::I was just about to say I feel support should be on the left and oppose on the right, also for no specific discernable reason. Perfect4th (talk) 17:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::In the discussion to which I linked, I commented on the potential influence of a rating scale. Since "abstain" isn't a "neutral" vote, there is an argument for moving it out of the scale. However, my impression is that the SecurePoll software controls the formatting of the options, and doesn't allow for one to be placed some distance away from the other. Thus I think having the support and oppose options at the two extremities makes it easier for voters to review their selections. isaacl (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

The text instructions say {{tq|"Support", "Oppose", or "Abstain"}}. I have no preference as to the order, but the text matching the order on the voting would make sense to me. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:12, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:That. Regardless of order, make those match. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::{{Done}}. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:16, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:I think the natural speaking order for someone discussing the options is to put "Abstain" last, but I appreciate that the written order doesn't necessarily have to follow the usual speaking order (which of course the actual ballot didn't, in the first election). isaacl (talk) 16:03, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Can someone help me? Would love for someone to go through the subpages of the last election (Wikipedia:Administrator_elections/October_2024/Subpages) and copy them all over to the July election. For example, copy paste Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/MMS/Call for candidates to Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/MMS/Call for candidates, with the appropriate WP:CWW edit summary ("copied content from X, please see that page's history for attribution"). –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:All done! Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Subpages – DreamRimmer ■ 11:45, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

::Thank you very much. You or anyone else should feel free to start updating these newly created subpages. The wikilinks may need to be changed from /October 2024/ to /July 2025/, schedules/dates may need updating, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:::I have already updated everything, though a few adjustments might still be needed to align fully with the current guidelines. – DreamRimmer ■ 11:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

:If the subpages are going to be the same or similar election to election, it might be worthwhile creating preload templates to auto populate pages and make adjustments from there. – robertsky (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2025 (UTC)