Archives

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 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.

Administrator Elections | Renewal RFC phase

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of prose has been messed up since Giraffer added their request. Don't know how to fix it, or even if I would be allowed to. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the issue? I'm not seeing anything, but it might be device specific? FozzieHey (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have "Requests for" to the left of the search box, then the requests table. Below the requests table, the prose continues as normal from "adminship (RfA) is the process...". Windows and Firefox, if it matters. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, yeah I think that depends on things like display size, font size and what kind of Wikipedia styling you are using. It's not that bad for me on Small text, but gets a bit squashed on Standard text. I don't think it's related to this RfA specifically (the time and vote numbers might just be a specific width right now to cause it) as I have noticed that since the recent UI changes, the text has gotten a bit squashed on the left side. I'm not entirely sure how we would fix it, I think the table would look out of place above the first paragraph, and would be too far down below the lead. FozzieHey (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked to this discussion on WP:VPT to see if anyone there has any knowledge on this. FozzieHey (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your issue occurs because a wide thing has been floated on whatever your specific resolution and font sizing are. There is effectively nothing to be done to fix that which doesn't break the behavior for someone else. It probably happens for some other people as well, but the resolution it required my screen to be at was at least half of my monitor's screen width, which is at-best rare these days for a desktop resolution. (There are other issues with the table at even smaller resolutions that are unrelated.)

The only solution would be to remove the float of the table, which would have uniformly negative behavior for most other people. Izno (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions for adding optional questions are wrong, because there is a comment that says, "Add your questions above this comment". That would add the question at the top of the list of questions. It should say to add the questions at the bottom. Evidently the questioners figured that out. I tried the preview feature, to see whether the macro would add the question at the bottom, and saw that the instructions are wrong, so I added my question at the bottom. Change the instruction. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe the first person didn’t follow the instruction, and everyone else just posted at the bottom? That’s not really the instruction’s fault. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; people have trouble reading directions; you should see how many hidden comments I had to add to the end of the RFA code so that people would stop putting things in the wrong places. Primefac (talk) 13:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to understand the level and force with which oppose votes are often jumped upon, and support votes are not. It's something which puts me off voting either way, even though I am interested in the process and the candidates. I mean, it's not as though one oppose !vote is worth 20 support !votes, is it...? Tony Holkham (Talk) 19:42, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for responses to opposes is that oppose voters are usually expected to give a rationale, and if that rationale is dumb, based on a wrong assumption or misleading, this needs to be pointed out for the benefit of future voters. Also, an oppose vote is worth two support votes, so they are not equal. —Kusma (talk) 19:48, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kusma: No one claimed they were equal; the OP merely stated—with perfect accuracy—that it's not as though one oppose !vote is worth 20 support !votes. Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 20:00, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An oppose vote is worth two supports due to the weighted voting system. But then the crats have repeatedly given more weight to opposes over and above that, for example, weighting a "Strong oppose" vote as worth more than several supports. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:17, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have never known a crat to weigh a "Strong oppose" higher than several supports. I have, however weighed "an oppose with a strong rationale" over "empty supports" Worm^TT(talk) 09:00, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I usually give less weight to votes marked "Weak" by the !voter, whether support or oppose. Sometimes that doesn't change the balance, but othertimes one side has a markedly higher proportion of "weak" !votes than the other. I don't consciously give less weight to votes marked "strong", but it is a discussion and I suspect there is a tendency for such !votes to be less well evidenced and therefore have less influence on the subsequent discussion than the average. I try not to make a point of this in cratchats etc because I see marking !votes as strong as a phase that some newish RFA voters go through as part of their RFA learning process. ϢereSpielChequers 11:17, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't really like replies to !votes. I do think an external message of "could you clarify" or "this is why I disagree" is a lot better than a response after a !vote stating why it is silly.

You are incredibly unlikely to change someone's mind, and it isn't likely that - in the action of a cratchat - that the original !opposes rationale is going to weakened by a response. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your low opinion of the crats' is noted, but rebuttal is the only avenue we have. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A response isn't there to change the opposer's mind, it is there to mitigate its bad effects on people who have not yet voted. Anyway, there are plenty of people who say RfA is a discussion, not a vote. Responding to oppose rationales seems like the most natural way to enter a discussion. —Kusma (talk) 21:01, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To some extent it's also a numbers game: if editors have a roughly 1% chance of being motivated to rebut someone's vote, and the average RfA has 100 yes votes and 5 no votes, on average we'll see 1 rebuttal to a no vote every time (and each no vote has a 20% chance of being directly rebutted), and see a rebuttal to a yes vote once every 20 RfAs (and any given yes vote has a .0005% chance of being rebutted). If we let the WP:SNOW, zero hope of ever passing RfAs run longer, we'd see more discussions where the nos decisively outnumber the yeses and thus more rebutting of yes votes. But because we (correctly) close those off early, the only RfAs that we really engage with as a community are the high-quality candidates that very few people are going to take issue with. Even the RfAs that we think of as disastrous typically have 50-60% support, and it's not unheard of for candidates to throw in the towel when their support level is still in the 70% range. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 21:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A support assertion by itself rarely causes others to rethink their position. On the other hand, even a single good faith oppose assertion sometimes reveals an unknown factor to the community which may impact negatively on all later !voters. This sort of !vote may and often does tend to tip scales disproportionately. In these cases supporters may attempt to disprove or otherwise negate the opposer's point. This sort of dispute may be subjective and/or rancorous. In such cases everybody might be doing the right thing by disagreeing in the AfD. And that's a good faith oppose. Bad faith opposes often draw a greater dispute, and then get moved to talk. BusterD (talk) 21:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[edit conflict] And then we have good faith POINTY opposes, like some of those in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hog Farm 2. In this process we see oppose !votes not because User:Hog Farm was a bad candidate, but because wikipedians felt the reconfirmation process was a resource-inefficient way of resolving the permissions issue (and wanted to make that point). Most neutral and oppose assertions went out of their way to compliment the candidate on the merits, but (although the outcome was always a clear acceptance) felt the RfA choice itself tarnished the candidate's otherwise good judgment, in the good faith opinion of those protest !votes. BusterD (talk) 22:21, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's always some opposes from people who oppose the process, and often one or two from people who believe we have enough admins. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 17:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My perspective is that it's important to understand why people are voting oppose so that voters can make a more informed vote. If there's something disqualifying, or that should seriously be considered before placing a vote, it's important to have all the facts to make a vote. That's why opposers are often asked for more information, so that voters can be more informed before giving someone the tools. Additionally, some people may point out a flaw in the rationale of someone's oppose for, not to necessarily try to convince the person who opposed, but for context for people who are considering voting themselves. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments - interesting and enlightening. Best wishes, Tony Holkham (Talk) 22:05, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May I round this off by saying "thank you" for the discussion, which has helped me to understand the system for deciding candidates' success or failure at RfA. It does not, though, encourage me to participate in future, and I hope a less combative system will eventually emerge (the elections were an interesting alternative). Neither does it surprise me that so few editors (fewer than 250 in most cases) actually respond to RfAs (it may be the same few; I don't know!). Best wishes, Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:48, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even though (by some measures) we have fewer active editors than we did 18 years ago, 80 was considered a good turnout on my RfA then. Maybe it really wasn't seen as a "big deal" then. FWIW. Donald Albury 14:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of 20 RfAs with 200 editors each, we used to have 800+ RfAs per year with around 50-100 people voting in each (not always the same people). 100 supporters were considered a lot, that is why WP:RFX100 was created. My own RfA passed 81/0/0, which was only good enough for a slight mention at the stats page User:NoSeptember/RfA voting records that has all of the early RfA records. —Kusma (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I remember on last several years, anyone including newer editors are allowed to vote in RfAs no matter if it’s support, oppose, or neutral, but after 2024, all of this changed. Now you need to be extended confirmed, requiring 500 edits and 30 days longer. Somehow, there is nothing wrong with voting in RfA while having different interests and likes. Could you please explain why did Wikipedia decided to create a new policy on voting, meaning that you have to be extended confirmed in order to vote in RfAs? Additionally, IPs were disallowed on voting RfA before registered users come along in 2025. Thanks to editors, who answered my question. - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 23:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ParticularEvent318: I've posted a reply to this on the current RfA after this post, but see the arguments and closure at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements. This discussion is already linked at a footnote on the RfA information page. ObserveOwl (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]