This isnot the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator.To do so, pleasefollow these instructions.

Archives

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Most recent 261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,270

This page has archives. Sections older than31 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 2.

Administrator Elections |Schedule

• The December 2025 administrator elections are set to proceed.
• We plan to use the following schedule:
  • Nov 25 – Dec 1: Candidate sign-up
  • Dec 4 – Dec 8: Discussion phase
  • Dec 9 – Dec 15: SecurePoll voting phase
• If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please ask atWikipedia talk:Administrator elections.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)08:47, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One of the scariest parts of launching an RfA, at least it has been for me, is getting the transclusion stuff right. I have created ascript designed to help successfully launch RfAs and RfBs by substituting the timer and transcluding the page. I hope it is of use to people. Best,Barkeep49 (talk)17:28, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to think the the RfA process shouldn't be prettified, and it being technically hard to do is the point - if you can't figure that out you aren't qualified to be an admin.* Pppery *_{it has begun...}18:20, 17 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I could do it, but it's such a visible place that it does make me nervous to make a mistake. Happy this script exists now.—Femke 🐦 (talk)11:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: my nominator transcluded my RfA. I know somewhere between some and many editors think all admins must be technically proficient, but I think it's much more important to simply know what you don't know.Valereee (talk)13:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery, I'm going to follow up. Why do you think all admins must be able to perform this particular edit? I'm not trying to get in your face, here -- I remember reading somewhere years ago that being able to explain subst and transclude was a requirement for admins, so it's definitely not just you -- but I realize I'd never actually heard anyone give this opinion in a recent discussion, so wanted to discuss why for you this is a minimum standard.Valereee (talk)14:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I do think that because admin candidates aren't expected to know everything already, their ability to learn new procedures in order to complete administrative tasks is important to consider. I'm not sure if, in my opinion, initiating a request for administrative privileges using the open viewpoint process is a good representative procedure for this purpose, but I can understand if some editors do.isaacl (talk)19:37, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of "being able to explain subst and transclude" - it's a matter of being able to follow instructions. Wikipedia has numerous procedures admins have to follow that are much more baroque than that. Although admittedly the instructions were more confusing than I remembered, so I made some edits clarifying them.* Pppery *_{it has begun...}21:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The RFA template is a fiddly one because you are both transcluding the page and starting the timer. It doesn't require deep knowledge of wiki markup, but it is trickier than the large majority of actions that the large majority of admins will take. Which is why, I presume, even technically skilled editors have asked their nominators to transclude for them. I don't see a purpose in making it difficult as an initiation ritual, so Barkeep49 has my thanks. If an editor lacks even the basic markup skills needed to be an admin, the RFA will make that clear enough.Vanamonde93 (talk)19:50, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While I agree that starting the timer is fiddly, it's a relatively new addition to the procedure. Candidates have been getting the transclusion step wrong for a while before that was added. I don't agree that it's trickier than the large majority of admin actions: it's purely mechanical, not requiring interpreting guidance and using judgment. I think I lean towards the view, though, that it shouldn't be a litmus test.isaacl (talk)20:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  These days the large majority of admin tasks have scripts or gadgets that obviate any mucking around with template syntax. Even the ones that don'tusually allow you to use preview to check your work. And I can't think of a non-technical task where you don't have the opportunity to fix your syntax in a second edit. None of these is true (until now) for transcluding.Vanamonde93 (talk)22:07, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's no problem in making a second edit (or even multiple ones) to fix an error in transcluding an RfA. Leaving the error in place does make it look like the candidate didn't check the resulting output, but as far as can tell, it's never had any effect on the RfA result after someone else fixed it.isaacl (talk)23:03, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with this, and I think the security-by-obscurity function is a lot less important now thatWP:RFA is ECP'd. Candidates shouldn't have to worry about this. As someone who transcluded myself ("how hard can it be!") and thenended up with an RfA that looked like this (not my fault!), I now have a lot more understanding of why many people find it stressful!Extraordinary Writ (talk)20:09, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• FWIW, transcluding an RfA isn't something that we do every day, so I don't know why we'd expect even an experienced editor to be well versed in it. The last thing an editor about to do RfA needs is stress about getting a process right, especially one that if done wrong might make you look a bit silly. I'd support something making this process easier.Lee Vilenski^{(talk •contribs)}22:38, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And in fact transcluding an RfA is something most admins willnever actually do as an admin. Only admins nominating candidates who are nervous about transcluding it themselves will ever need to do this. Having this script available probably makes me -- and possibly others -- more likely to nominate.Valereee (talk)13:36, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions atWikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• November 25 – December 1 - Call for candidates
• December 4–8 - Discussion phase
• December 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical toRFA—a prospective candidate must beextended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewingsuccessful andunsuccessful RFAs, reading the essayWikipedia:Advice for admin elections candidates, and possibly requesting anoptional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
• The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There isno official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also avalid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at thetalk page. Later, a user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)00:49, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion phase of the December 2025 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• Dec 4–8 - Discussion phase (we are here)
• Dec 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages are open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as arequest for adminship. You may discuss the candidates atWikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Discussion phase.

On December 9, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use theSecurePoll software to vote, which uses asecret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's totals during the election. You must beextended confirmed to vote.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which typically lasts between a couple days and a week. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on theresults page (you may want to watchlist this page) and transcluded to themain election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate who has not beenrecalled must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and must also have received a minimum of 20 support votes. A candidate that has been recalled must have at least55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are nobureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:47, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The voting phase of the December 2025 administrator elections has started and will continue until Dec 15 at 23:59 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase atWikipedia:Administrator elections/December 2025/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• Dec 9–15 - SecurePoll voting phase
• Scrutineering phase

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

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on theresults page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to themain election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes.Recall candidates must achieve55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are nobureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk)01:06, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia move-protected talk pages