Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections/October 2024/Results

Total number of votes

It was 616 right? Might be worth noting somewhere. CNC (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

There were 616 valid votes cast, and yes it is probably worth noting that somewhere. Thryduulf (talk) 20:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. https://vote.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/list/1691 –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I added this right below the first line; feel free to change it at will or message me; I'm not married to it, but did want to respond to @CNC's concern.

Have a good evening!

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 03:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

This is unusually high compared to a typical RFA, and it seems that many people simply don’t want to get involved in the intense RFA atmosphere. GrabUp - Talk 03:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if it also has something to do with lower barriers for participation, i.e., it is easier to vote than make a comment. Then again, it took significantly longer to read the 40 million candidate statements, questions, etc., so I'm not sure.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 03:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Inability to see how others have responded to a question can also increase participation. There isn't much need to pile on when the outcome of an RFA is already clear. We'd probably also see more responses to deletion discussions, RFCs, etc. if the responses of other editors were hidden. For that matter, 20%-48% of the votes on each candidacy were to abstain (only the top listing on the page was under 25%), which in a normal RFA would be something similar to reading the discussion and not !voting. Dekimasuよ! 03:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Interesting points, especially about abstention.

JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 06:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

The most recent concluded RFA that ran the full 7 days was Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Significa liberdade. During the period it was open 227 editors contributed to the page, 205 of them leaving !votes. It received 13,944 views during that time. If everyone who viewed the page edited it, that would mean an average of 61.4 views per person, which is not realistic, so there must be more than just 22 people who read the page but didn't vote, the equivalent of abstaining in an election. If I've never heard of and/or don't hold strong views about, a candidate and the RFA is one sided then it is extremely rarely that I'll do more than skim read the nomination and a few support or oppose votes. Thryduulf (talk) 10:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Anecdotes aren't necessarily helpful in establishing facts but I can say that I read every RFA but I will only !vote or comment if 1) I disagree with the weight of the discussion (e.g., it is tending towards support or oppose and I have the opposite view) or 2) I feel a key point has not been raised in the conversation or 3) in rare circumstances, if I feel the candidate is being unfairly treated and want to express support. My reading but not !voting can be interpreted not as abstaining but in agreeing with the majority and not feeling the need to pile on. MarcGarver (talk) 11:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Put me down as one who clicks on procedures 61.4 times each. I read the questions and the first few days votes, check back for any neutrals or opposes. I click on such procedures a lot. And usually !vote late. BusterD (talk) 13:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That's me, even during times I've been a lurker I read most RFAs, but I've never commented, because I rarely know the users well enough to feel I have anything to add, and even if I'm familiar with them, I'm not usually familiar with their area of focus, so don't feel my input is as useful as those who are already engaging. Whereas with this election, I would have voted if I'd been eligible, and because I didn't realize I was narrowly ineligible, i did read and engage with all the candidates fully, and decided who to support. — penultimate_supper 🚀 ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Probably doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but...

Weren't there 3 scrutineers? Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I'm pretty sure we're waiting for Johannnes89 to sign before crats flip bits. charlotte ^👸♥ 21:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yep, the third is Johannnes89. I believe the stewards are signing off when they become available. Perfect4th (talk) 21:08, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Good on the Crats for waiting, but everywhere else seems to be treating this as a done deal (the user talk pages, Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Header, to name two). I guess if JSoutherland posted them and 2 scrutineers have signed on, I'm picking at nits. It just seems odd. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The fact the results are posted means that all scrutineers must be happy with them; it's just a matter of them publicly declaring so. Giraffer (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Yahya indicated at meta that they [all scrutineers] were finished, which I figure is probably just unofficial enough for official crat action and just official enough for everything 'unofficial'. Perfectly balanced, as all things should be... Perfect4th (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Complete and utter addiction to bureaucracy, just as things should be :) SerialNumber54129 21:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

My plan is to wait for Johannes to sign, then I (or anyone if I am slow) make a post at BN. If someone thinks the process should go faster than that, I do not object. But it would be nice to give the crats something that is fully certified so that it's easy and orthodox for them. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

A fine plan. There is absolutely no reason to rush ahead. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 22:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

With Johannes' signoff, I've gone ahead and made the request at WP:BN. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Percent?

@Floquenbeam, Novem Linguae, Red-tailed hawk, Hey man im josh, and Renerpho: I'm thinking of adding this to WP:LAME#Numbers and statistics. RoySmith (talk) 02:46, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

This is just perfect to add lol Hey man im josh (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely! By the way, everyone so far has been wrong. It should be " (Support / (Support + Oppose)) expressed as percent, rounded to the nearest 1/100th percent".

That's a hill I'm prepared to die on. — rsjaffe 🗣️ 02:57, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Like charlotte ^👸♥ 03:01, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Please don't take your edit war to the arbitration committee election pages – tomfoolery is not appreciated there ;-) isaacl (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

What have I done?! I was content with josh's revert, no matter if mathematically correct or not. I didn't expect you to start a war over it! Renerpho (talk) 03:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

And yes, I think this does qualify for WP:LAME. Renerpho (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I mean... we don't appear to really be going back and forth in an edit-warry way. Just small incremental stuff, with one or two reverts in there. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't see the original edit and revert. Oops. But anyway, the less altering of WMF T&S's official results we do, the better. JSutherland (WMF) probably went to the trouble to type that out the way he did for a reason. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)