Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The administrator elections process has officially started! Qualified editors are encouraged to find at least one experienced nominator. Self-nominations are also allowed. Please review instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2026/Candidates.
Here is the schedule:
September 29–October 5: Nominations phase (we are here)
October 8–12: Discussion phase
October 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase
Please note the following:
The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed. However, in practice, few candidates succeed without ~10K edits, some content creation, no recent behavioral issues, and a nominator.
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 is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk 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, please remove yourself from the list.
Who are/were the leaders of national organizations in your field? How about national award winners? That's a great place to start looking for article subjects you'd be well-suited to work on.
On 13 Oct, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for.
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
October 13–19: SecurePoll voting phase (we are here)
Scrutineering phase
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies to vote has a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote totals cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's vote total during the election. The suffrage requirements are similar to those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for a few days, perhaps longer. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the results page (this is a good page to watchlist), and transcluded to the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a non-recall candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose), and a minimum of 20 support votes. Recall candidates must achieve 55.0% support. Because this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
Latest comment: 10 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I have a question about your close of Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) §RfC: Name of the "Discussion" button. You say As an alternative, over a dozen supporters and opposers (to changing to "Discussion") supported "Talk page", but this wasn't enough to sway the naysayers, otherwise known as the overall sentiment for consensus to not change the button name at present. However, looking at it, most opposers who did not already support "talk page" seemed mostly concerned about "Discussion" not being adequate, with a major concern being the confusion of a button saying "Discussion" leading to a page called "Talk" (which obviously wouldn't be an issue with "Talk page"). There was only one comment I found that seemed like they didn't want any change at all per WP:AINTBROKE (which is arguably not applicable since people did seem to supply reasons why the current situation could be seen as "broken"). So I'm wondering about this closure, as it seems like there is consensus for the change to "Talk page". Let me know what you think. Axolitl(talk|contribs)17:55, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi Axolitl, thanks your your analysis. Per the closing rationale, the arguments against changing the button name varied widely, but a focal point was lack of evidence/belief over how this would be beneficial. These !votes were translated into the broader opposition to change, based on lack of evidence of how this would be an improvement. There were otherwise numerous comments that outright opposed change, without having to explicitly list every alternative proposal listed as being opposed to. To otherwise extend on the closing rationale, the RfC was effectively based on major changes to the encyclopedia, I therefore treated this the same as changes to policies and guidelines (noting it was at VP proposals), hence this was based on Consensus for guidelines and policies should be reasonably strong, though unanimity is not required, among other things. I acknowledge that others may not see it this way, but this is the framework I used to undertake the close, given the venue and gravity of proposed changes. Were this an RM or other type of discussion, I may have considered closing as "consensus within" (as I have done in the past, regardless of the pushback, or otherwise this RM), but this did not appear applicable or appropriate for this RfC. Had I had closed with "consensus within" based on your suggestion, it's highly likely this would have resulted in being overturned at AN based on the raw consensus for lack of change, whereas I'm confident that the current close was accurate based on the discussion and closing rationale, and wouldn't be overturned at AN upon review. Often the final thoughts are based on what the community would most likely agree with, as ultimately that would be the review of the consensus. Not that you were suggesting I revert or otherwise that an AN review would be appropriate at this time, but you are nonetheless welcome to take it there, without further discussion, if you feel it's appropriate. CNCin solidarity (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi FaviFake, thanks your feedback. Ironically I thought this might come up. Whether MERGE or MFD are considered guidelines or not is somewhat besides the point. This is the threshold I followed for making a substantial change to procedures, not so dissimilar to the talk page discussion above really (that also wasn't a P&G discussion either). On a side note I've seen your suggestions for certain pages to be categorised more accurately, and while I agree they should be, I also feel that certain things (whether info pages, essays, or uncategorised) have risen to a status to be accepted to be as good as P&G, even if they are neither policy nor guidelines, in the sense that they are now universally accepted concepts or processes on WP (like merging and MfD). I hope that helps elaborate things for you, I'm otherwise glad you approved of my close. Personally I didn't want it to be closed as "no consensus" with a single paragraph, I believe the discussion deserved more than that, as it was both enlightening and intriguing for me. Kind regards, CNCin solidarity (talk) 18:26, 27 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi ғѳmɑɭʱɑυե, thanks for your consideration. I'm not sure if you have seen, the ADL published "Damage Done: Wikipedia Leaves Biased Edits Unchecked Despite Editor Bans" on 15 October 2026. I would link it, but haven't finished reading it all yet to check for any doxxing. There is also a chart with editors the org currently have their sights on, which includes at least one administrator, something I find quite intimidating. This is likely only the shortlist that includes deeper analysis, rather that the full list of editors the ADL is monitoring.
As someone who "didn't make the cut", I assume this is because I didn't !vote in the Gaza genocide debates as far as I can remember, which probably excluded me from further analysis after initial review. I was otherwise responsible for updating WP:RSP with WP:ADLPIA and WP:ADLAS, so there has been a good reason to keep my head down given the aftermath of that RfC and update.
Personally, the actions from the ADL in the past has been the primary reason I have stepped away from editing that topic area, as someone who used to be a lot more active in PIA. I have been doxxed before some years ago now, nothing to do with WP, so have no interest in risking getting doxxed again knowing the psychological harm it has caused in the past. I also think whether editors are geting doxxed or not is also secondary; the intimidation alone is enough to have an effect on dissuading editors from editing that topic area. I'm otherwise keeping an eye on the RSN and and VPP topics. If there is an ArbCom case request then I'd probably provide a statement. Kind regards, CNCin solidarity (talk) 11:23, 29 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 1 day ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi CNC, long time no talk! I still remember when your account was only a few months old (not sure if you already had an account before, but this account was new) and we first crossed paths on the Twitter/X situation... It's great to see that you're still around and doing well!
Thanks for closing the RfC at WP:VPR §RfC: Name of the "Discussion" button. I appreciate that you took an interest in my proposal (that admittedly came too late, as I have not been very active on Wikipedia lately and was only alerted to this RfC from an unrelated discussion). While I certainly (and sadly) do not have the time myself to pursue this, if you are ever interested in looking further into this proposal, or if the topic ever comes up again in the future, please do let me know. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2026 (UTC)Reply
Hi InfiniteNexus, good to hear from you again! Yeh I remember you when I was still very rough around the edges (to say the least) and wet behind the ears. It was good to learn from editors such as yourself on the Twitter topics, even if I didn't show it at the time. These days I try and stick to quieter areas of the project, or otherwise attend to backlogs. Try and spend more time learning than creating as this project never ceases to fascinate me. You might not remember but you helped teach me (in the long run) to stay away from disruption and due-to-be-banned-editors instead of becoming part of the problem. Recognise my strength and weaknesses as it were. To be honest it feels like a lifetime ago since I started, based on how much I've changed here. Wiki-assimilation is a very real thing.
Anyway. Indeed I found your proposal interesting, from a closing perspective at least, based on the potential for a compromise that might suit more of those opposing change. At least from my perspective that I didn't share, I could understand the logic of the proposal, as well as potential benefits; it would remind editors on pages whether they are logged or not when, or for example using a VPN and can't make comments, along with clarifying the supposed linguistic aspect of "Talk" being a place to discuss and "Discussion" being, well, a discussion (page).
I don't think I can explain well why it was interesting, other than it being a proposal that could have gained more support had it had been proposed earlier, as a pretty obvious compromise of using both terms rather one or the other exclusively. The alternative of "Talk page" looked like a nothingburger by comparison. I'd take that opinion with a dose of salt though, as there were enough editors arguments orientated around not wanting to make any change, somewhat regardless of what the change might actually be, purely based on the titling not being broken (per above discussion). It's fair to analyse that a lot of things here have become so entrenched over the decades that it's becoming more difficult to change anything anymore. I also found it ironic that the reason for no change or change were effectively weakened by the same lack of evidence-based arguments; ultimately this is why a lot of discussion fail to gain consensus, because then it boils down to perspectives and speculation rather than concrete reasons why something would be an obvious improvement, or at least worth trying.
Otherwise per my clean start on userpage, I did some editing 15+ years ago in different areas in the early stages of the project, but nothing substantial, so I imagine we never crossed paths back then. I should probably remove that userbox as doesn't serve the intended purpose anymore; it was only added due to being asked if I was a sock once or twice, because I had some experience with formatting and procedures, as someone relatively fluent in markup already. That and I spent twice as much time reading than I did writing, to you know, learn how things work *rolls eyes*. It still annoys me seeing leading questions against new accounts that are spending considerable effort to learn how WP works, then get accused on being a sock. As if there aren't new people born every minute that years later become competent editors. Anyway, I digress.
Very thoughtful words, CNC. Thank you. As collaborators on this wiki, we are all constantly learning from each other, from accounts big or small. I myself have evolved greatly throughout my years of editing after working with and learning from all sorts of editors — yes, including you! I didn't notice the clean-start userbox on your userpage, but I figured you may have previously had an account because you seemed to already be somewhat well-versed in how Wikipedia worked when we crossed paths years ago, so I deduced you were either a very fast learner or had an account before. Sockpuppetry didn't cross my mind because you weren't engaging in disruptive behavior and I tend to AGF — which has sometimes proven to be naïve on my part, but it's still good practice and I wish more editors would keep that in mind, even veteran editors who are "fed up" with dealing with disruptive users. Anyway, regarding my proposal, I've always been an advocate for compromise whenever possible (except in situations where a change from the status quo would be catastrophic), which I guess reflects my real-world views, because I see value in all perspectives and a middle-of-the-road approach that incorporates "the best of both worlds" is usually the best approach. I'm not going to lose any sleep if the "Talk" button ends up never getting changed, but I think there's a good argument that a change would indeed help solve the ongoing, demonstrated problem. It's a shame we can't even A/B-test this to see if it would make a difference before making an informed decision. Happy editing, InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
I didn't notice the clean-start userbox on your userpage, but I figured you may have previously had an account because you seemed to already be somewhat well-versed in how Wikipedia worked when we crossed paths years ago, so I deduced you were either a very fast learner or had an account before. Sockpuppetry didn't cross my mind because you weren't engaging in disruptive behavior and I tend to AGF — which has sometimes proven to be naïve on my part, but it's still good practice and I wish more editors would keep that in mind, even veteran editors who are "fed up" with dealing with disruptive users. Anyway, regarding my proposal, I've always been an advocate for compromise whenever possible (except in situations where a change from the status quo would be catastrophic), which I guess reflects my real-world views, because I see value in all perspectives and a middle-of-the-road approach that incorporates "the best of both worlds" is usually the best approach. I'm not going to lose any sleep if the "Talk" button ends up never getting changed, but I think there's a good argument that a change would indeed help solve the ongoing, demonstrated problem. It's a shame we can't even A/B-test this to see if it would make a difference before making an informed decision. Happy editing, InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:56, 1 November 2026 (UTC)Reply
