Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:RFA)
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
    Current time is 05:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
    Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
    Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
    S O N %
    Graham872 RRfA Withdrawn by candidate 20 Nov 2024 119 145 11 45
    Worm That Turned2 RfA Successful 18 Nov 2024 275 5 9 98
    Voorts RfA Successful 8 Nov 2024 156 15 4 91
    FOARP AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 268 106 242 72
    Peaceray AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 270 107 239 72
    Sohom Datta AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 298 108 210 73
    DoubleGrazing AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 306 104 206 75
    SD0001 AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 306 101 209 75
    Ahecht AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 303 94 219 76
    Dr vulpes AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 322 99 195 76
    Rsjaffe AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 319 89 208 78
    ThadeusOfNazereth AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 321 88 207 78
    SilverLocust AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 347 74 195 82
    Queen of Hearts AE Successful 4 Nov 2024 389 105 122 79

    why gender pronouns?

    [edit]

    Why, and since when {{user and pronouns}}? What happened with {{admin}}? —usernamekiran (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Context? –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Template talk:RfA#Pronouns. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 04:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there a valid reason why this offends you? Everyone has pronouns. Acalamari 01:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    hehe. It doesn't offend me, it was a question out of curiosity. But to be honest, generally speaking (not regarding to Wikipedia particularly), sometimes I feel genders/sexuality should not be disclosed, I mean, it's better than later saying "I'm not being treated equally". —usernamekiran (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RECALL is now policy

    [edit]

    After a request for comments, Wikipedia:Administrator recall is now a policy. The procedure is as adopted by the 2024 RfA review. Some questions remain, which may be discussed at the policy's talk page. Soni (talk) 18:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    And we already have the first petition. In one fish's opinion, it is evidence that I was right to oppose this becoming policy, and it's too bad that consensus was against me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Shouldn't there be something about RECALL and RRFA added to the main RFA page? I don't even think there are links to those pages in WP:RFA#Related pages. It seems that there's should be something about them given that the process has already started to be used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, looking at it from a critical position: This "Policy" was enacted by a very quiet RFA, which was not well publicized, with a maximum of 37 support votes. That's too few to elect a single admin. The linking is now not very good, in keeping with submarining a policy into the wikipedia core. I'm not suggesting that this was the intention, but this is how it can look. I have a concrete suggestion: Let this "policy" stand for RFA, and be !voted on, plus or minus. If it reaches at least 70%, with at least 100 !votes, it will have a solid standing. AKAF (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AKAF: See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Is_WP:RECALL_a_policy? for a discussion of similar issues. – Joe (talk) 08:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Realistically at this point, I think we are stuck with this for a while. We will need to see how the initial implementation of the process works out. And then, rather than relitigating whether or not this should have been enacted, will will likely have an RfC on whether to revoke it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The recall process needs more visibility, including one ongoing. How about watchlists? And WP:CENT? George Ho (talk) 18:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be reasonable, considering that RfAs are advertised on both venues. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is something that should be discussed and figured out prior to another recall, not during an ongoing one. But that also leads me back to the idea that 25 is too few signatories since so many more people will become aware if it's advertised at those locations. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying go do this now, but it's probably something that should be discussed at the reworkshop if it hasn't been already. Even in my RfC, there have been recurring comments of "only if it's more well advertised". Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether this is "policy" or "process", it's something already in play; so, trying to change it in some significant way while there are active recall petitions playing out seems like a really bad idea, and might also be seen as being unfair. The possibility that there will always be at least one recall position active at any given time or which can be started at any given time should be assumed, which means a moratorium on new ones should be enacted if and when it's determined things need to be changed. You don't need to go back and retroactively apply any said changes to petitions that have already run their course, but you shouldn't by trying to significantly change things mid-stream. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, I'm not saying go do this now. One RfC is all the stomach I have for trying to change things as they happen. Anyways, since I didn't link it in my previous comment, I was talking about Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop. Might as well do my part to make that more advertised. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Clovermoss: FWIW, my post wasn't specifically directed at you as in "I think you need to do this"; it was intended to be taken in a more general sense as in "I think this should be done". When I used "you", I didn't mean you specifically but rather you collectively. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, thanks for clearing that up. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the re-confirmation RFAs will be advertised using watchlist notices and T:CENT. I don't think it's a good idea to also advertise the recall petitions. The drama and stress for the candidates at these recall petitions is already way past what I would consider comfortable. Further marketing would only make it worse. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. A recall petition doesn't need more attention from editors who wouldn't have found it on their own in the course of an entire month. That's just asking for participation from people who have zero clue what's actually happening but think pile-ons are fun. Valereee (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    tally in admin elections

    [edit]

    I'm currently on mobile, and couldn't find it. After the election results, are we going to publish the tallies of all candidates? —usernamekiran (talk) 15:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Usernamekiran: The votes are being scrutinised by the scrutineers, who will publish the tallies at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Results once they are finished. --bonadea contributions talk 16:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Acronyms

    [edit]

    I would like to make a plea for acronyms to be either blue-linked or written in full (e.g. WP:RfA or Requests for Adminship) - preferably the latter. I am familiar with many of them, but many newer editors may find them off-putting. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is already best practice, but we get lazy. I'm as guilty as anyone else, and do try to pipe my WP:/MOS: UPPERCASE to appropriate descriptive text at venues frequented by newcomers.
    If people at this venue are not experienced enough to 1. recognise the acronym, nor 2. know to prepend "WP:" to it in the search bar to navigate to it— they probably lack sufficient tenure and understanding of community expec­tations, norms, and dynamics to express an informed opinion.
    Apologies if that stings, but the observation is genuine, and meant to be neutral. Folly Mox (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop

    [edit]

     You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrator recall/Reworkshop. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC) Sincerely, Dilettante 17:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Support percentage and colors

    [edit]

    Graham87's RRfA support currently stands at 54%, which would, under the RRfA criterion, put it in the middle of the discretionary threshold. However, it is shown in bright orange (and has been since coming below the regular RfA discretionary threshold). Should the colors be adjusted for RRfA, to match the different threshold? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say yes, that would make sense and I can't see any reason we wouldn't do that. No clue how easy to impliment that would be, however. CoconutOctopus talk 15:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just checked and it was indeed implemented by User:SD0001 a few hours ago at Module:RFX report/colour – missed it earlier, but Graham going back up to 55% makes it more visible. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Problem solved! CoconutOctopus talk 15:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the credit goes to Theleekycauldron for implementing RRFA support in the template. I just adjusted the color range. – SD0001 (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't worry, it won't stay orange for long. SerialNumber54129 17:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Told ya  :) SerialNumber54129 10:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    c'mon, man, too soon :( theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    About 45' early  :) but OK, I withdraw my colour analysis. SerialNumber54129 11:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    A slew of new administrators

    [edit]

    Wonderful to see the process that has been implemented recently has resulted in a bunch of editors volunteering or being nominated for adminship and that process resulting in success. Great to see progress on a point that has been of contention for years. Wish I could issue a group Barnstar! Moxy🍁 00:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yet we have lost and are still losing vastly experienced admins at the same time! GiantSnowman 09:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I sincerely hope that the new ones will be able to take the flak that some of us have been getting for years. Deb (talk) 09:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, so far I agree the "admin elections" trial was a success. Now we just need a next round of elections... —Kusma (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend that some of the candidates who didn't quite make it in the first round of group elections to try again. I congratulate and welcome this new batch. I think that there were just too many candidates for anyone but the most dedicated nerds among us to evaluate thoroughly. A group of ten to 12 seems manageable to me. Thirty plus? Not so much. Cullen328 (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    On the note of the next round, the workshop for a slate of RfCs to tweak the rules is slowing down, and while the wording for most is becoming clear, some could use more input. For instance, I've not had feedback on my suggestion to sequence some of the questions to avoid complex interdependencies. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 10:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I, too, see this as a very good thing, one of the few bright spots to come out of RfA 2024. I just hope that it doesn't get negated by administrator recall. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, maybe we should reserve judgement on that until we hear from the people who were just below the cutoff, let's not presume that this is so wonderful for them :) --Joy (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is actually some of that at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Debrief. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin project pages

    [edit]

    Hello. I was just wondering if Wikipedia:Successful adminship candidacies and Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies should include admin candidates who went through the election system. The page doesn't specify that it's for RfA only and it would make sense to include all successful and unsuccessful admin candidates here and in the chronological lists as well. However, since the main pages are not edited frequently, I assume that they are populated by a template so we'd have to make sure that it was plugged into the administrative election list. Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1260577835"