Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
    Sennecaster 157 0 0 100 Open 17:20, 25 December 2024 4 days, 21 hours no report
    Hog Farm 169 13 10 93 Open 02:47, 22 December 2024 1 day, 7 hours no report
    Current time is 19:21, 20 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    Graham872 RRfA Withdrawn by candidate 20 Nov 2024 119 145 11 45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

    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]

    Notification of RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation

    [edit]

    There is an RfC on seeking tools via a voluntary RfA after resignation at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1263417087"