| Revision as of 15:06, 28 November 2024 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 270) (bot← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 15:04, 25 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,292,502 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 270) (bot | ||
| (19 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown) | |||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
| }}__TOC__ | }}__TOC__ | ||
| == Notification of RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation == | |||
| == why gender pronouns? == | |||
| Why, and since when {{tl|user and pronouns}}? What happened with {{tl|admin}}? —usernamekiran ] 03:49, 22 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| There is an RfC on seeking tools via a voluntary RfA after resignation at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)|RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation}}. ] (]/]) 21:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Context? –] <small>(])</small> 04:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :]. <span style="color:#1E90FF;">Charlotte</span> (] • ]) 04:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Is there a valid reason why this offends you? Everyone has pronouns. ] 01:06, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::hehe. It doesn't offend me, it was a question out of curiosity. But to be honest, generally speaking (not regarding to Misplaced Pages 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 ] 16:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Odd patterns == | |||
| == Administrator Elections: Voting phase == | |||
| The currently open RfA (]) has unanimous support votes (201/0/0 as of last check). I can observe that such unanimous supported RfAs are often for indviduals who have an ''exceptional'' track in copyright matters, if I remember correctly, since this area tends to be understaffed when it comes to admin capacity, as is the case with the subject of the RfA. Furthermore, for some reason, co nominations tend to be successful and self nominations tend to be unsuccessful (through means of withdrawal, ] e.g ], or ] e.g. ]). These are a few patterns that I could find at RfAs, but I do not see a reason for the latter (co noms better than self noms). ] (]) 20:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="border: 5px solid #ABCDEF ; padding:10px 15px"> | |||
| :All ill consider RfAs - i.e., someone ignoring all the guidance - are always self nominees. That alone would create a bias towards self nominations being less successful. The other reason is, perhaps, that !voters can't be bothered to review the track record of most candidates so for self noms will either tend to not !vote at all, or if they do !vote oppose, but will happily trust nominators and support. But without surveying !voters, who can say for sure. ] (]) 21:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="padding: 0 0 0.5em; vertical-align: middle; font-size:130%"> '''] | <span style="font-size:85%">Voting phase</span>''' | |||
| ::I'd say that when the person is qualified and happens to self-nom, they tend to pass. Some relatively recent examples include me, Spicy, and 0xDeadbeef. ] ] 06:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| </div> | |||
| :Why, self-noms are "prima facie evidence of power hunger", of course! /j ] (]) 11:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <div style="display:flex; align-items:center;"> | |||
| :Let me put it differently: If a respected user nominated someone for RfA and that RfA ended as NOTNOW, it means that something went seriously wrong, most likely the nominator did not make proper research. Most nominators do, or at least attempt to do proper research, this is why NOTNOW RfAs tend to be self-nom. ] (]) 11:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <div> | |||
| :Nominators also serve as coaches. They often tell the candidates if and when they should run or not run, and provide other very useful advice during the process, helping to avoid common missteps. A respected nominator can also provide a boost in supports, due to folks trusting the nominator. –] <small>(])</small> 17:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at ]. | |||
| As a reminder, the schedule of the election is: | |||
| *October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase | |||
| *November 1–? - Scrutineering phase | |||
| In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone ] will have a week to use the ] software to vote, which uses a ]. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies 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 tally during the election. The ] are different from those at RFA. | |||
| Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the ]. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no ] ("crat chats"). | |||
| Any questions or issues can be asked on the ]. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing. | |||
| </div> | |||
| <div>]</div> | |||
| </div> | |||
| <div style="font-size:85%; padding-top:15px;"> | |||
| You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please ].</div> | |||
| </div> | |||
| ] (]) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| <!-- Message sent by User:Robertsky@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrator_elections/Newsletter_list&oldid=1253182481 --> | |||
| :In order to vote on the candidates, you will now need to read more than 200 (printed) pages of content at ]. And, to help you along in your decision process you get the extra prizes of having the vast majority of nominations be self-noms, and voter guides are discouraged. Best of luck! --] (]) 00:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>Voter guides are no longer discouraged. –] <small>(])</small> 01:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::And that decision was made ''while this election was ongoing'' leaving precious little time for people to prepare anything. Unsurprisingly, there are no guides connected to these pages, though at least two exist (yours included). --] (]) 02:56, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::: Both ] and ] point towards other voting guides (there are 7 in total, in various states of completion). I hope to get more information summarized from the discussions, but that might not happen until Sunday/Monday. ] (]) 07:40, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::The correct measurement of too much text is {{t|tomats}}. There are roughly {{tomats|93800}} of text in the discussion phase. ] (]) 12:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| *As Hammersmith points out, this change was made while the election was ongoing. I note that elsewhere the was much hand-wringing when other things were proposed but supposedly couldn't be changed for the same reason. ]'']'' 10:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| My point in griping about this isn't to gripe. The point is this system was not thought through properly. Little or no consideration was paid to potential impacts of using this system, how nominations would really play out, the impact of the lack of voter guides, what would happen if 30, 40, 50 or more people signed up, etc. The whole thing is an unmitigated mess. The only takeaways that can really be taken from this steaming pile is how ''not'' to do this. As an evaluative tool on whether or not to do this in the future it's absolutely worthless. If any country were to run elections like this, there would be open revolt. I have spoken many times about proposed RfA processes in that people come up with brilliant solutions all the time that are looking for problems to solve, and that nobody does any ] to try to work through what ails RfA. Instead, we get this...another case of throw something super sticky at the wall and see if it sticks. --] (]) 12:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Your underlying point is not unreasonable, but frankly, this kind of thing was ''never'' going to be arranged perfectly or to everyone's satisfaction, and it's far far better to '''actually try something''' new (and get a bunch of new admins in the process) than spend countless more hours arguing about it. The ball is actually moving down the field - we have a number of highly qualified candidates who we can hope to see get the bit - and we have the potential to make things better next time. Wikipedians are conservative by nature, and making decisions by consensus is hard. I'm thrilled we're at the point where we're actually voting and we have a bunch of people I'd like to see become admins! That's enough to outweigh procedural squabbles, which can be fixed as we move forward. Why not wait for the point at which changes will be discussed and make your proposals there, rather than throwing mud at the process from the sidelines? —] (]) 12:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::<small>Hey, no one said we can't try something new ''and'' spend countless more hours arguing about it. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 13:15, 25 October 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
| :::Less flippantly, I think that the most salient concerns regarding how this has gone (and we should really reserve some judgment until we see the results) would be almost entirely addressed by just having limiting elections to 10 (or other small-ish N) candidates at a time. I do also wonder about the fact that we currently have (I believe, I may be misremembering or miscalculating) a longer voting period than discussion period, which seems a little backwards as far as our community priorities go. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 13:20, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::In the original 2021 proposal, the discussion period was chosen to be very short on purpose, to improve the candidate experience. That part of admin elections appears to have worked as intended, as the promise of only 3 days of discussion, spread out amongst many candidates, attracted an incredible amount of candidates. –] <small>(])</small> 21:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Ganesha, if you think I'm throwing mud from the sidelines, you're completely missing my point. I said above I'm not griping to gripe. As for results, we won't have any idea about how this idea has worked until at least a year after this is over. Admin performance is a thing, and simply electing people doesn't mean this system works. We won't know what to 'fix' until that analysis is done. I'm sure there will be 'fixes' just as this system was hatched out of a woeful misunderstanding of problem solving. But a reasoned approach won't attempt this fiasco again until well down the road when there's actually results to assess. --] (]) 13:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::I agree that a full analysis of success or failure will need to take into account the performance of any admins elected this month, and will probably take some time. But that's no reason not to move forward in the meantime. If (as I approximately suspect) we end up with 5-6 new admins who ''definitely'' would have passed RfA, and 5-6 new admins who might've passed RfA, and 1-2 new admins who probably wouldn't have passed and make some mistakes, that will be a significant net positive for the encyclopedia. We are not supposed to be a bureaucracy, but the fact is that Misplaced Pages in practice *is* highly bureaucratic and procedural issues end up wasting a lot of everyone's time. I look at this trial in the spirit of ] - let's try something new and see how it goes! I don't think you're wrong on the merits, I just think there's no point repeating criticisms you already substantially made when there's a pre-planned place for criticism and improvement coming up soon. —] (]) 14:38, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Honestly, I would unironically be still happy even if we end up electing 1-3 candidates "total", like I suspect. (I believe the secret voting without a threshold change will unfortunately tank lots of deserving candidates). But even if that results in barely an admin or two elected, I call it still a positive because the core idea (encouraging more editors to run) still worked fine, maybe even wildly well. And we know what didn't work about the process. | |||
| ::::I hope my prediction does not happen, which is why I was more liberal with my supports to counter the mass-opposers. But we're actually a ways off from even "How many new admins did we get" and figuring out the positives from that. ] (]) 14:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::That's my point of view as well. I feel like the number of candidates, and a couple of problems with the process itself (that we'll iron out), will cause some candidates to fail who might have otherwise had success. The next one, should there be consensus for it, seems like it'll be modified a fair bit and I'm excited for that version to run. ] (]) 16:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Honestly if the election process stayed as it was with all its current flaws with only 10 candidates we'd all be talking about it in a different light. '''] <sup>(] • ])</sup>''' 18:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::I'm inclined to wait and see. It seems likely to attract more votes than any recent RFA, perhaps any RFA by the time all is said and done. ] (]) 18:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::From The Department of Idle Speculation, I can see some editors who say that they are opposing a lot of candidates out of concerns about the process, and I can see some editors who say they are supporting a lot of candidates in order to counteract the opposers. I'll be curious to see whether one of those groups outnumbers the other, or whether they just cancel each other out. --] (]) 20:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::::Which makes the result basically random. ] <small>(])</small> 01:34, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::::The 70% threshold means that an oppose vote is worth two supports. So they won't cancel out. ] ] 02:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Admin elections could have been stuck in the consensus phase or the planning phase forever, and almost was. Sometimes you need to just get something started, then iterate to get results. Do it once, fix the biggest issues, do it again, fix the new biggest issues, etc. It's possible that not a single candidate will pass because people blanket oppose. That'd be a terrible outcome, but will tell us crystal clear what needs to be fixed if we do another cycle. And I guarantee the second cycle would be better than the first. etc. etc. until the process is polished and running very smoothly. –] <small>(])</small> 21:25, 25 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Exactly this. The problem with moving forward with all sorts of things here is that people tend to oppose the specific proposal rather than the general principle. We need to be more pro-active in trying stuff, and if there are problems, fix them. ] ] ] 09:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::This process is out of hand, it would have been much better to run it with a smaller number of people, with different experience levels. This would have guaged how people took to the format without causing harm to so many or risking the potential of bad admins getting the tools there are reasons why some of these people have failed at RFA before. Yes the system is broken and a new approach is needed but it needs to managed in meaningful way where the outcomes could be assessed before it was open slather. Rather than 2 or 3 being successful its more likely the opposite with just 2 or 3 being unsecessful and bunch of new admins which cant be monitored to see if the format created a good outcome for the community. With that no meaningful observations that can be used to craft a good balance for the future. ]] 15:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::While allowing only a picked selection of candidates to run might make it easier to evaluate the usefulness of holding elections, it would require some person or group be responsible for choosing who would get to run, and I suspect many in the community would object to one part or another of such a process. ] 18:06, 30 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == ] is now policy == | |||
| After ], ] is now a policy. The procedure is as adopted by the ]. Some questions remain, which may be discussed at the policy's talk page. ] (]) 18:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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. --] (]) 22:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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 ]. It seems that there's should be something about them given that the process has already started to be used. -- ] (]) 05:11, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::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. ] (]) 07:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::{{ping|AKAF}} See ] for a discussion of similar issues. – ] <small>(])</small> 08:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::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. --] (]) 19:24, 12 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :The recall process needs more visibility, including one ongoing. How about watchlists? And ]? ] (]) 18:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::I think that would be reasonable, considering that RfAs are advertised on both venues. ] ] 19:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::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. ] (]) 19:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::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". ] ] 19:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::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. -- ] (]) 21:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::As I said, {{tq|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 ]. Might as well do my part to make that more advertised. ] ] 21:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::{{ping|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. -- ] (]) 12:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::Okay, thanks for clearing that up. ] ] 17:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::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. –] <small>(])</small> 22:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::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. ] (]) 12:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == tally in admin elections == | |||
| 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 ] 15:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :{{yo|usernamekiran}} The votes are being scrutinised by the scrutineers, who will publish the tallies at ] once they are finished. --'']'' <small>] ]</small> 16:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Acronyms == | |||
| I would like to make a plea for acronyms to be either blue-linked or written in full (e.g. ] or Requests for Adminship) - preferably the latter. I am familiar with many of them, but many newer editors may find them off-putting. ] ] 13:36, 2 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :This is already best practice, but we get lazy. I'm as guilty as anyone else, and do try to pipe my {{nowrap|WP:/MOS:}} UPPERCASE to appropriate descriptive text at venues frequented by newcomers.{{pb}}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.{{pb}}Apologies if that stings, but the observation is genuine, and meant to be neutral. ] (]) 16:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Discussion at ]== | |||
| ] You are invited to join the discussion at ]. ] 17:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC)<!-- ] --> ] 17:27, 8 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == Support percentage and colors == | |||
| Graham87's ] 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? ] (] · ]) 15:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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. ] ] 15:28, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::Just checked and it was indeed implemented by ] a few hours ago at ] – missed it earlier, but Graham going back up to 55% makes it more visible. ] (] · ]) 15:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::Problem solved! ] ] 15:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Most of the credit goes to {{u|Theleekycauldron}} for implementing RRFA support in the template. I just adjusted the color range. – ] (]) 15:54, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Don't worry, it won't stay orange for long. ]'']'' 17:50, 18 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :<s>Told ya :) </s> ]'']'' 10:16, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::c'mon, man, too soon :( ] (] • she/her) 11:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::About ] :) but OK, I withdraw my colour analysis. ]'']'' 11:08, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| * while we are at it, what about adding it to "recent RfAs", or " RRFA"? —usernamekiran ] 12:43, 20 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == A slew of new administrators == | |||
| 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! <span style="font-weight:bold;color:darkblue">]</span>🍁 00:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Yet we have lost and are still losing vastly experienced admins at the same time! ]] 09:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :I sincerely hope that the new ones will be able to take the flak that some of us have been getting for years. ] (]) 09:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :Yes, so far I agree the "admin elections" trial was a success. Now we just need a next round of elections... —] (]) 09:47, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::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. ] (]) 10:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :::On the note of the next round, the ] 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 ] to avoid complex interdependencies. ] (]) 10:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::::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. --] (]) 21:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| :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 :) --] (]) 22:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ::There is actually some of that at ]. --] (]) 22:59, 23 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
| ==Admin project pages== | |||
| Hello. I was just wondering if ] and ] 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. <span style="font-family:Papyrus; color:#800080;">]</span> <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">] ]</sup> 02:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 15:04, 25 December 2024
 | This is not the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. To do so, please follow these instructions. |
| Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives | ||
|---|---|---|
| Administrators |
| Shortcut |
| Bureaucrats |
| |
| AdE/RfX participants | ||
| History & statistics | ||
| Useful pages | ||
| No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful) |
| Candidate | Type | Result | Date of close | Tally | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | O | N | % | ||||
| Sennecaster | RfA | Successful | 25 Dec 2024 | 230 | 0 | 0 | 100 |
| Hog Farm | RfA | Successful | 22 Dec 2024 | 179 | 14 | 12 | 93 |
| Graham87 | RRfA | Withdrawn by candidate | 20 Nov 2024 | 119 | 145 | 11 | 45 |
| Worm That Turned | RfA | Successful | 18 Nov 2024 | 275 | 5 | 9 | 98 |
| Voorts | RfA | Successful | 8 Nov 2024 | 156 | 15 | 4 | 91 |
 Archives |
|
Most recent 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270 |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present. |
Notification of RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation
There is an RfC on seeking tools via a voluntary RfA after resignation at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Odd patterns
The currently open RfA (Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Sennecaster) has unanimous support votes (201/0/0 as of last check). I can observe that such unanimous supported RfAs are often for indviduals who have an exceptional track in copyright matters, if I remember correctly, since this area tends to be understaffed when it comes to admin capacity, as is the case with the subject of the RfA. Furthermore, for some reason, co nominations tend to be successful and self nominations tend to be unsuccessful (through means of withdrawal, WP:NOTNOW e.g wp:Requests for adminship/ToadetteEdit, or wp:SNOW e.g. wp:Requests for adminship/Numberguy6). These are a few patterns that I could find at RfAs, but I do not see a reason for the latter (co noms better than self noms). ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- All ill consider RfAs - i.e., someone ignoring all the guidance - are always self nominees. That alone would create a bias towards self nominations being less successful. The other reason is, perhaps, that !voters can't be bothered to review the track record of most candidates so for self noms will either tend to not !vote at all, or if they do !vote oppose, but will happily trust nominators and support. But without surveying !voters, who can say for sure. MarcGarver (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say that when the person is qualified and happens to self-nom, they tend to pass. Some relatively recent examples include me, Spicy, and 0xDeadbeef. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Why, self-noms are "prima facie evidence of power hunger", of course! /j GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Let me put it differently: If a respected user nominated someone for RfA and that RfA ended as NOTNOW, it means that something went seriously wrong, most likely the nominator did not make proper research. Most nominators do, or at least attempt to do proper research, this is why NOTNOW RfAs tend to be self-nom. Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
- Nominators also serve as coaches. They often tell the candidates if and when they should run or not run, and provide other very useful advice during the process, helping to avoid common missteps. A respected nominator can also provide a boost in supports, due to folks trusting the nominator. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)