User talk:LindsayH: Difference between revisions
→Ignore WP:CHEERS: new section |
|||
| Line 563: | Line 563: | ||
::::@[[User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz|Mr Serjeant Buzfuz]] I agree; and i certainly don't imagine that i'm the only person with that as a self-nom motivation. I'd urge you to make your points at talk:RfA (or wherever) when the community starts to review the new process. There have been some decrying it, and i think it's important that other voices are also heard. ~ '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''<sup>'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]]</sup> 18:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
::::@[[User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz|Mr Serjeant Buzfuz]] I agree; and i certainly don't imagine that i'm the only person with that as a self-nom motivation. I'd urge you to make your points at talk:RfA (or wherever) when the community starts to review the new process. There have been some decrying it, and i think it's important that other voices are also heard. ~ '''[[User:LindsayH|Lindsay]]'''<sup>'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|H]]'''[[User_talk:LindsayH|ello]]</sup> 18:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
||
:::::Good idea. I will keep an eye out for the debrief that they’re talking about. [[User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz|Mr Serjeant Buzfuz]] ([[User talk:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz|talk]]) 18:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
:::::Good idea. I will keep an eye out for the debrief that they’re talking about. [[User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz|Mr Serjeant Buzfuz]] ([[User talk:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz|talk]]) 18:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC) |
||
== Ignore [[WP:CHEERS]] == |
|||
Hello, |
|||
I wanted to encourage you to ignore the advice given by someone over at [[Wikipedia:Administrator Elections]] and by [[WP:CHEERS]]; who wants an encyclopedia devoid of happiness, of levity, of joy? I recall seeing your contributions on user talk pages and my day was invariably improved by the addition of the "Happy days." [[WP:IAR]]! (and all essays!) |
|||
[[User:JuxtaposedJacob|JuxtaposedJacob]] ([[User talk:JuxtaposedJacob|talk]]) | :) | he/him | 10:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 10:05, 28 October 2024
If you message me here, i will reply here, as that is the logical place, keeping the conversation in one place; in replying, i will ping you, in case you haven't watched this page.
- Clarification
If it happens that you have come here thinking you were going to talk with a user called Kahtar, you should know that i am also Kahtar; i use that account to make semi-automated edits, and don't watch the talk page. Feel free to write here, instead.
Archives
through 2009
2010 & 2011
2012 & 2013
2014 & 2015
2016 & 2017
2018 & 2019
2020 & 2021
2022 & 2023
Notification of administrators without tools
|
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Nomination of A. F. Blakemore for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. F. Blakemore until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.Signal Crayfish (talk) 19:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
William Marshal four/five kings
Hello LindsayH! I noticed you responded to a question regarding Young King Henry and his status as a king a few months ago. A similar debate has started and I opened up a discussion section on the Talk Page. I just wanted to invite you to give your two cents should you feel it useful. Best to you and yours. Vyselink (talk) 19:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Talk:UNRWA, Talk:2006 and Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on "All RFCs" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
CS1 error on Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers (film)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers (film), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
- A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 09:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Foreign Secretary on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
- Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
- Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
- Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
- Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
- Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
- Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
- Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
- Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
- Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
- Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
- Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
- Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
- Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
- Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
- Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
- Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
- Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Daniel Durant on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello LindsayH,
Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.
Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.
Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.
It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!
2023 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.
Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.
Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.
Reminders:
- You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
- Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:26, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:J. K. Rowling on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:2024 Iranian strikes in Israel on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive
| New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive |  |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:14, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of best-selling Sega Dreamcast games on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:31, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
- Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
- Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
- Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
- Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
- Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
- Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
- Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
- Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Mentoring process on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Light skin on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Approval for Draft:Aamir_Naik to Article
Hey, I have mentioned all valuable and authentic sources reliable according to Wikipedia - Policies so i hope it will better for Draft:Aamir_Naik to approve soon. Kamarrrr (talk) 15:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:2022 Alaska's at-large congressional district special election on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pretty Cure on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| Five years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Your edit summary question at "Augustus"
In your recent edit to "Augustus" you wrote this edit summary:
AD more normally goes in front of the year; reverting. Though, why aren't we using CE/BCE in this article?
The only real talk page discussion I found was at "Talk:Augustus/Archive 2". The substantial reason given in that discussion is that "Manual of Style/Dates and numbers" calls for consistency within an article and following the style used by the first editor to use era notation, unless there is a reason specific to the article to change. Mere preference for one style or the other is not a sufficient reason. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you. Yes, tbh, it wasn't an entirely serious question, that is, not one i intended pursuing at the time: I was and am aware of the MOS discussion ~ i closed an RfC once about which era to use in an article ~ i suppose my point was that there probably is an article-specific reason to use the Common Era dating, in that Augustus really has nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to drop by and answer me! Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 19:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
- Since the MOS regards both styles as equally valid, I don't think "has nothing to do with Jesus or Christianity" is a sufficient reason. If it were an article about a person who was a member of a group about a group that opposes AD notation, that would be an article-specific reason. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive
| New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive | |
| |
| You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. | |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Administrator Elections: Updates & Schedule
| Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule |  |
| |
| 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) 01:18, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
RfA
Hi Lindsay! I don’t think we’ve interacted much but I often notice your very constructive contributions to the project, so much so that when I saw you over at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period mentioning you’d considered standing for RfA, I was genuinely astonished to learn you weren’t already an admin! Whatever happens with RfA reform, I hope we land on something that can persuade you to pursue it! Meanwhile, thanks for all you already do—like I say I often notice how valuable it is. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Request for Your Expertise on Draft:Md Zillul Karim
Hi Lindsay
I hope you are well.
I am currently working on the draft article Draft:Md Zillul Karim and noticed your recent edits in repairing citation errors. Your expertise in this area is highly respected.
I would be grateful if you could take a moment to review the updated draft and provide any advice or suggestions you might have to further enhance it. Your insights would be invaluable in ensuring the article meets Wikipedia’s standards.
Thank you very much for your time and assistance. Bintyamin20248 (talk) 22:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Assassin's Creed Shadows on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review
Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates
Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates
The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.
Here is the schedule:
- October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
- October 22–24 - Discussion phase
- October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
Please note the following:
- The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
- Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
- The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
- The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
- Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.
Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.
To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Keys to the White House on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Administrator Elections: Candidate instructions
Thank you for choosing to run in the October 2024 administrator elections. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.
As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:
- October 15–21: SecurePoll setup phase
- October 22–24: Discussion phase
- October 25–31: SecurePoll voting phase
- November 1–?: Scrutineering phase
We are currently in the SecurePoll setup phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend the SecurePoll setup phase from October 15–21 getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.
The discussion phase will take place from October 22–24. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship (RfA). Please make sure you are around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.
On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see your tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RfA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, you must have received at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("'crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation as a candidate, and best of luck.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Administrator Elections: Discussion phase
The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:
- October 22–24 - Discussion phase
- October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
- November 1–? - Scrutineering phase
During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.
On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in a research
Hello,
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.
You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.
The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .
Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.
Kind Regards,
BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Notification of administrators without tools
|
|
Greetings, LindsayH. You are receiving this notification because you've agreed to consider endorsing prospective admin candidates identified by the process outlined at Administrators without tools. Recently, the following editor(s) received this distinction and the associated endearing title: |
| |
TolBot (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Administrator Elections: Voting phase
The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.
As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:
- October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
- November 1–? - Scrutineering phase
In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.
Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").
Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just voted for you. Good luck! 🤞 Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 04:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you :) ~ LindsayHello 06:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your candidate statement matched something I've long suspected: there are people on this project who want to contribute, to give back, and are willing to step forward, with just a general goal of "I want to help." I'm really excited by the new election option; I think RfA is a vicious process, and actually discourages volunteers. Best wishes! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- ETA: I think the huge take-up by candidates in the new process is itself a condemnation of RfA. All that untapped volunteerism, surging forth with the new process, is a very encouraging sign. There are 32 candidates; that's more than double the RfAs so far this year (14), and 13 more than in all of 2023, when there were 19. The last time there were more than 32 RfAs in one year was 7 years ago, in 2017, when there were 40. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship_by_year Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz I agree; and i certainly don't imagine that i'm the only person with that as a self-nom motivation. I'd urge you to make your points at talk:RfA (or wherever) when the community starts to review the new process. There have been some decrying it, and i think it's important that other voices are also heard. ~ LindsayHello 18:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea. I will keep an eye out for the debrief that they’re talking about. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 18:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Your candidate statement matched something I've long suspected: there are people on this project who want to contribute, to give back, and are willing to step forward, with just a general goal of "I want to help." I'm really excited by the new election option; I think RfA is a vicious process, and actually discourages volunteers. Best wishes! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you :) ~ LindsayHello 06:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Ignore WP:CHEERS
Hello,
I wanted to encourage you to ignore the advice given by someone over at Wikipedia:Administrator Elections and by WP:CHEERS; who wants an encyclopedia devoid of happiness, of levity, of joy? I recall seeing your contributions on user talk pages and my day was invariably improved by the addition of the "Happy days." WP:IAR! (and all essays!)
JuxtaposedJacob (talk) | :) | he/him | 10:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)