Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:34, 22 December 2024 editToadetteEdit (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers15,926 edits →Odd patterns: new sectionTag: New topic ← 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
(8 intermediate revisions by 7 users not shown)
Line 44:		Line 44:
	{{center\|Most recent<br />{{Archive list\|start={{#expr:{{#invoke:Archive list\|count}}-9}}}}}}		{{center\|Most recent<br />{{Archive list\|start={{#expr:{{#invoke:Archive list\|count}}-9}}}}}}
	}}__TOC__		}}__TOC__

	== 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)

	== Notification of RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation ==		== Notification of RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation ==
Line 68:		Line 52:

	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)		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)
			: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)
			::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)
			:Why, self-noms are "prima facie evidence of power hunger", of course! /j ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. –] <small>(])</small> 17:37, 23 December 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.

v t e Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
Administrators	Noticeboard Requests for adminship watch talk talk archives Administrator elections watch talk De-adminship Recall Adminship reform unbundling Successful candidacies Alphabetical AdE Alphabetical RFA Chronological Unsuccessful candidacies Alphabetical AdE Alphabetical RFA Chronological Resysopped administrators Inactive administrators Former administrators	Shortcut WT:RFA
Bureaucrats	Noticeboard Requests for bureaucratship Bureaucrat discussion Bureaucrat activity Successful RfBs Alphabetical Chronological Unsuccessful RfBs Alphabetical Chronological
AdE/RfX participants	Advice for RfA candidates Guide Miniguide Optional RfA candidate poll RfA nominations Request nom Self-nomination Advice for voters Asking questions Arguments to avoid Debriefs
History & statistics	RFA reform RFA by year RFA by month Desysoppings by month
Useful pages	Searchbox RFX report Logs User rights log Old log Meta log Meta old log AdE category RFA category
Current admin count: 848 (list all) Current bureaucrat count: 15 (list all)

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Current time is 08:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page

Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	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)