| Revision as of 15:09, 16 December 2024 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,063 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 editors2,293,063 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 270) (bot | ||
| (12 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
| Line 45: | Line 45: | ||
| }}__TOC__ | }}__TOC__ | ||
| ⚫ | == Notification of RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation == | ||
| == Support percentage and colors == | |||
| ⚫ | 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) | ||
| 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) | |||
| == Odd patterns == | |||
| :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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| == A slew of new administrators == | |||
| :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) | |||
| 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) | |||
| :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) | |||
| :Yet we have lost and are still losing vastly experienced admins at the same time! ]] 09:22, 23 November 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) | |||
| :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 == | ||
| ⚫ | 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) | ||
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)