Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 07:23, 2 October 2010 editMiszaBot II (talk | contribs)259,776 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 7d) to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 203.← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:04, 25 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,709 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 270) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}
⚫ {{info|This is '''not''' the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. '''To do so, please ].'''}}
{{Skip to bottom}}
⚫ {{info|This is '''not''' the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. '''To do so, please ].'''}}

{{RfA Navigation|WT:RFA}} {{RfA Navigation|WT:RFA}}
{{RFX report}}
{| style="float: right; background:none;"
<div style="float:right; text-align:right">''Current time is {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{FULLDATE|type=dmy}} (UTC)''. — {{purge|Purge this page}}
⚫ | {{User:X!/RfX Report}} <!-- {{User:ST47/RFA}} --> <!-- {{User:SQL/RfX Report}} --> <!-- {{User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report}} -->
</div>
⚫ |}
⚫ {{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Recent}} <!-- {{User:X!/RfX Report}} {{User:SQL/RfX Report}} {{User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report}} -->
{{archives
<div style="clear:both;"></div>
| auto = {{{auto|no}}}
| root = {{{root|}}}
| 1 = {{{1|] - ] - ] - ] - ] - ] - ] - ]}}}<br />
⚫ ----
<table style="font-size:88%; line-height:1.2em; margin:0; width:auto; text-align:center; background:none;">
<td>
<tr style="font-size: 111%; line-height: 1.25em;" colspan="10">Most recent</tr>
{{Archiveline|set=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_|number=19|next=200}}
{{Archiveline|set=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_|number=20|next=210}}
</table>
| image =
| style = {{#if:{{{box-width|253}}}|width:{{{box-width}}};}} {{{style|background-color:#f0f0ff}}}
| collapsible = {{{collapsible|no}}}
| collapsed = {{{collapsed|no}}}
| search = {{{search|yes}}}
| search-break = {{{search-break|}}}
| search-width = {{{search-width|22}}}
| search-button-label = {{{button-label|Search}}}
| index = {{{index|/Archives}}}
| editbox = {{{editbox|no}}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 204 |counter = 270
|minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadsleft = 2
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(31d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{archive box|
{{flatlist|
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
⚫ }}
⚫ ----
{{center|Most recent<br />{{Archive list|start={{#expr:{{#invoke:Archive list|count}}-9}}}}}}
⚫ }}__TOC__


== 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)
<big>Current time: {{FULLDATE|type=wiki}}<br>{{purge|Purge this page}}</big>
⚫ __TOC__

== Armbrust Closure ==

The user has 47000 edits and has been closed under ] in a non admin closure within hours of it being put.Clearly ] does not to editors with substantial edits and it does not apply here.It should have been withdrawn only with the candidate's consent and been given more time.] (]) 03:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
:I reverted it and left a note on Porchcrop's page. S/he has been doing a lot of this sort of thing lately. Reminds me of a long-departed user whose name I frustratingly cannot remember. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;04:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)</small>
::I'm sure a checkuser could jog your memory... :-) ] (]) 04:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
:::No.. if I'm right about who it is, they haven't edited in quite a long time and so a CU wouldn't have anything to compare to. Ugh, I wish I could remember the name. In some ways I am reminded of ], though the obsessions aren't the same. (Then again, everyone changes). The one I am really reminded of was a guy who kept trying to create these Byzantine organizational structures; I seem to recall he tried to put together some sort of 'Misplaced Pages CSI' for finding evidence for ArbCom cases? And there was something else, a whole raft of pages in his userspace devoted to some strange governmental thing on Misplaced Pages. It's possible I am conflating two users. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;04:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)</small>
:::: u so crazeh. ] 11:59, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
{{od}} Terrible use of ] and yet another example of people who link to essays they've either never read, or if they have, then have utterly failed to understand. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 19:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

== Edit request from Akilandy, 26 September 2010 ==


== Odd patterns ==
{{tl|edit semi-protected}}
<!-- Begin request -->


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)
This was just a copypaste of the RFA main page. What do you want changed?--] (]) 15:00, 26 September 2010 (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.
    Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
    Administrators Shortcut
    Bureaucrats
    AdE/RfX participants
    History & statistics
    Useful pages
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
    Current time is 23:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
    Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
    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)