If I ask something of you on your talk page, I'll watch it so I see any replies there. If you want me to
ping you with each reply, please say so.
(If you're another admin coming here to see if it's ok to undo something I did, I won't be offended if you don't ask me first. But I may be aware of some context that you aren't.)
Request for help with a query
Last year, you helped me by creating
this query. I tried to copy it and run it myself to get an updated report, but it appears that the database schema (or whatever the lingo is) has changed, making your query fail to run. I tried to use the documentation and
T299417 and a bit of logical thinking to
create an updated query, and I got a query that doesn't give error messages, but it never finishes running. I know very little about SQL, so parsing exactly what the query is doing and how to update it is beyond my skills. I have left my new query running for hours with no results. If you have a minute, could you please take a look at the two queries and try to figure out how to update your query from last year to account for the database table changes? Thanks. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 14:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)reply
JOIN linktarget ON lt_id = tl_target_idAlso, the "fork" button works more cleanly than cutting-and-pasting the query. —
Cryptic 14:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks, that worked well. I wasn't sure about using "Fork"; I thought it might create a query in "your" space or modify your query in some way, which I wanted to avoid. I will use it in the future. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 15:51, 18 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I am already trying to resolve this issue
here. The block is unnecessary and you should overturn it. Aman Kumar Goel(Talk) 18:16, 18 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Because your talk page is a fucking mess that actually managed to crash my browser when I tried to edit it - archive it already - and because I wasted time trying to find a block template that works cleanly with multiple-page partial blocks.I'm not going to unblock you. There was and never will be a time when it would be appropriate for you to make the edits you did to either page. —
Cryptic 18:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I’m sorry you got dragged into the
Kalki Avatar and Muhammad mess I’ve been dealing with this month. It’s unpleasant. You made a very reasonable block and should not have to defend yourself against big walls of text from a clique of editors. At the same time, it’s clear you have broad support from other admins and the broader community.
I'd ask on
WT:WPDIS. I don't actually work with disambigs much. —
Cryptic 11:20, 17 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Regex search queries
Hi, I've been trying to figure out how to use complex wildcards in my Wikipedia searches without breaking things and thought you might have some insight. For example, I want to return pages that have words ending in "pillai" (because I stumbled across several Indian surnames ending in "pillai" that were prepended with Catholic given names, and what is that all about!) where the 4 characters immediately preceding that string cannot be a non-letter... I came up with insource:/[a-zA-Z]{4}pillai/ but that is throwing the "timed out, only partial results" error that instructs me to simplify my regex. Thoughts?
Thanks,
JoelleJay (
talk) 08:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I don't use Wikipedia's search, so I've got negligible first-hand experience. That said, the received wisdom from
Help:Searching/Regex#Use regexes responsibly is that insource:// shouldn't be used by itself. —
Cryptic 12:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Oooh that makes sense! I guess I was thrown off by the instruction to simplify the regex. Maybe one day Wikipedia's search function will accept my scribbled FSA directed graphs as input and I won't have to learn occult symbology or hope an obscure DAB page exists to find things...
JoelleJay (
talk) 17:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Senator Feinstein
The rule regarding deaths of prominent persons clearly states "Exceptions to this rule are made for prominent persons who died in office (such as Pope John Paul II and Omar Bongo) or other instances where the death in itself has a major impact." (see here:
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:How_the_Current_events_page_works#Other_guidelines)
There are two exceptions provided: Prominent person who died in office, or prominent person whose death in itself has a major impact. Senator Feinstein clearly falls under the first exception.
2603:6080:B207:AE70:A867:DDB2:96A4:B832 (
talk) 16:25, 30 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Feinstein was neither a pope nor a decades-long head of state. Being a legislator for an extended period is not unusual, neither in the US nor elsewhere in the world. Dying in any office is plainly insufficient. —
Cryptic 16:30, 30 September 2023 (UTC)reply
RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles
I never do WikiLove, but this just seemed fitting since we both need it per our DRV comments this morning. ;-) StarMississippi 15:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)reply
The article counts in CSD categories are often off by 1 or more pages and in this case, you restored and then redeleted this draft. But we delete hundreds of expired drafts each day, how did you discover it was this one causing the problem? Just wondering what you can see that I can't. Thank you. LizRead!Talk! 02:08, 14 October 2023 (UTC)reply
So the question is, why the speedy deletion in mainspace and why not restoring the draft after it.
Mark21K (
talk) 20:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
I deleted the mainspace page because you moved it there with only trivial changes immediately after a DRV endorsed its previous deletion. Nothing was deleted in draftspace except the broken redirect left from moving it. I chose not to exercise discretion by moving it back to draft because it's clear that your purpose isn't to improve the article, but to solely to get it back into the main namespace by any method you can. You're welcome to bring my G4 up at DRV again. Don't expect as much sympathy there as you got last time. —
Cryptic 20:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you for this clarification. However I reviewed the changes made during the deletion process and there were 4 request to add reliable sources which have all been followed and done. I therefore am of the opinion that all requests for reliable sources (there are now 21 reliable sources in total) have been fulfilled and notability is clearly given. It would therefore be great if you could restore the draft and indicate which other changes you would see as required so that I can work on that. Going through another DRV is the last thing i am in mood for.
Mark21K (
talk) 21:08, 21 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Dear Cryptic, I would like to ask for your advice as you might have seen me participate in the deletion discussion in this case. I am unfortunately not a well-versed editor yet and a lot of these processes are new to me. However I was aiming to make the article better during the deletion process by adding sources where this was requested by some contributors. To my mind the article meets the criteria of notability and also reliable sources but you seem to see that differently which I fully respect. Could you therefore kindly give a hint what you would expect so that an article can be published as I would like to put some effort into that. And would this have to be done based on the existing draft or in entirely new attempt, which of course would also override previous contributors? Best,
Verify.now (
talk) 20:17, 22 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Declined deletion
Hi, I hope you're doing well. I noticed your recent edits on the article
Rylan Brownlie. The issue isn't limited to today; the article was created just three days ago with two unreliable citations, and it didn't adhere to
WP:ATHLETE. During the curation process, I moved it to the draft at
Draft:Rylan Brownlie following
WP:DRAFTIFY, and the mainspace page was promptly deleted. However, the creator of the article then made a new one in the mainspace for the same player, adding some more citations that still weren't significant. Most of these citations appear to be profiles and entries. I tagged the page for speedy deletion and added a redirect to the draft. In cases where a user isn't following the AfC process and adds the article again while ignoring the draft, it's important to maintain a consistent approach to uphold Wikipedia's content quality standards.❯❯❯ Chunky aka Al Kashmiri (
✍️) 14:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Dear Cryptic. I'm writing in regards to the following draft that was recently deleted by you
/info/en/?search=Draft:Ira_Vouk
I believe the reason for deletion was Unambiguous advertising or promotion.
Is it possible to undelete the article and place it back into the Draft space for further enhancement to meet the wiki requirements?
I previously submitted it for a review and it's been declined a couple times. Reasons stated:
first: not adequately supported, not formal tone
resubmitted with corrections, declined again: no more issues with the tone but not enough sources with significant coverage
resubmitted adding secondary sources with coverage, now declined with the reason: not formal again, deleted
This person meets the notability requirements, based on the existence of media coverage of her life and work that is independent of the subject. She also has published books and research papers. There are reviews and citations of those works that were also cited in the article.
Those were all added yesterday to the latest version, which got it declined and deleted for being too promotional. Perhaps I overdid it with the sources. So I'm requesting another chance to review it with wiki experts in the help channel before re-submission.
To address the "advertising and promotion" concern: I didn't write the article for myself. I used to work with this person a while back and I have been admiring her work for over a decade, along with thousands of people in our industry. I feel she deserves a wiki page and that probably shows in the language I use when describing her. She is a notable figure in our space with a large following. I just need to understand how to phrase it to make it sound non-promotional.
I'm still hoping to be able to publish it as I've put a lot of effort into it.
I would appreciate it if you allowed another chance to fine-tune the article to meet wiki standards.
Please ping me when responding, if you can. Thank you for your consideration.
Faminalizblr (
talk) 18:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Faminalizblr:Jimfbleak already
gave you specific advice and restored it for you once on October 14. It had already been so promotional in tone that Wikipedia would not host it, even as a draft, and individual administrators are authorized to delete similar pages on sight. Your edits after his undeletion only incrementally improved the draft at best, and in some ways made it even more promotional; I think it's clear that you're unable to
write neutrally about this person. (That's not a value judgment; most people in situations like yours cannot do so either.)Under these circumstances, I don't think it's in anybody's best interests to restore this again for you to attempt to work on it more - not yours, not Wikipedia's, not Ms. Vouk's - and I'm not going to do so. You can formally appeal at
Deletion review. —
Cryptic 20:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I understand your argument and respect your opinion.
May I ask for advice then? I would appreciate it if you could help me understand how to proceed in this situation, rather than simply appealing the deletion, which may result in the same outcome.
When Jimfbleak restored the article, I rephrased and restructured it with his help and to his satisfaction. He encouraged me to resubmit it for review because he was OK with the result (you can see our correspondence in my talk page).
The next reviewer didn't find the article promotional but asked for more relevant secondary sources that contain significant coverage of the subject.
I searched for those and added them, which resulted in your decision to delete the article.
So it appears that there's some level of subjectivity in the decisions, which makes it hard to pinpoint what exactly prevents this article from meeting Wikipedia standards.
Would you be able to help me identify what specific phrases in the article appear to be promotional? Or is it more of the sources used to support the material? If the latter, which of those sources are not considered reliable?
I have read all the related FAQ articles about the language/tone and types of sources that need to be used and I did my best to meet those standards and address reviewers comments but they seem to contradict each other.
I would greatly appreciate your help, if you could.
My advice is the same as I gave above - I don't think you should be working on an article about this person. Creating new articles is hard enough already - we generally don't advise new editors to do so, but instead to work on existing ones - and people are almost universally terrible at writing about subjects they're personally connected to. —
Cryptic 18:32, 10 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Sorry, one more question. Something that I'm not grasping as a concept (I apologize if it's a stupid question). Wouldn't it make sense for a person to have some interest in the subject they're writing an article about? For example, I'd like to create more articles about people and organizations in hospitality as I believe our industry is under-represented on wikipedia. I'd prefer writing about that, vs biology for example. But what you mentioned above technically makes me disqualified from writing about the subject I care about.
I'm not sure I get the logic. Is there something I'm missing?
Faminalizblr (
talk) 16:25, 13 November 2023 (UTC)reply
There's a wide difference between writing about a subject you're interested in and about a subject you have a conflict of interest in. —
Cryptic 19:11, 13 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Yeah that makes sense.
I don't feel that I have a conflict of interest though. Perhaps I just need more practice writing in a more neutral tone.
Thank you for your advice. I appreciate your time and your responsiveness.
Faminalizblr (
talk) 22:14, 13 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Dear Cryptic, I am contacting you regarding the article:
Draft:Immigrant Invest. I ask you to do a favor and restore the article in the Drafts zone. I'll rework the article. Thank you!
MazzDak (
talk) 12:53, 14 November 2023 (UTC)reply
This wasn't at all a close call, and it would need to change very drastically to no longer be deletable-on-sight. To even come close to borderline - and that's the borderline between being immediately deleted and merely rejected as a draft, not the borderline to being accepted as an article - I'd think half of the lead and the History sections would need to go, the Services section reduced to two or three sentences at most, and the Publications, Conferences, and Memberships sections removed entirely. (And another administrator still might legitimately delete it then.) I'm reluctant to restore. I'd be willing to mail it, if you enable an email address in
Special:Preferences, but be aware reposting anything resembling this version will just get deleted again and increase scrutiny of any later versions. —
Cryptic 22:41, 14 November 2023 (UTC)reply
That's a pretty one-sided afd. Someone at
Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion might... maybe... possibly be willing to email it to you, if you make it clear that you want it emailed - not restored - and promise not to attempt to put it back on Wikipedia. I'm not. The time to start thinking about an article is after something becomes notable, not as a vehicle to get it there. —
Cryptic 11:18, 19 November 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:PERM?
In
your edit summary you mentioned
WP:PERM. Did you mean to say I posted in the wrong place? Because WP:PERM says "This is not the place to request review of another user's rights. If you believe someone's actions merit removal of a permission flag, you should raise your concern at the incidents noticeboard." So it's unclear for me why you linked WP:PERM? Or was that meant as a hint for the user as to where to request the right in the future? — Alexis Jazz (
talk or ping me) 06:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I was directing them there to regain it; I gave the full name of the page in the edit itself. —
Cryptic 06:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I had opened the page history and assumed the last edit (by you) was the "yanked" comment, but between loading the page and opening the history the discussion developed further. I'm not paying sufficient attention it seems, sorry for the confusion. — Alexis Jazz (
talk or ping me) 06:48, 21 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Question
Regarding this comment
[1]. He's reverted 3 separate edits of mine I've edited Wikipedia since 2007 and were the situation reversed I wouldn't argue that wasn't a violation. You appear to imply that if I were to undo his edits in 3 consecutive edits that would be OK. Can I just check that is your implication and the intention of the restriction? I ask because it overturns all of my understanding of 3RR, so much so I'm considering requesting a clarification at
WP:AEWCMemail 10:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)reply
It's right out of
WP:3RR: "A series of consecutively saved reverting edits by one user, with no intervening edits by another user, counts as one revert."
WP:1RR incorporates that language by reference.I wouldn't necessarily say it's OK to revert them back, but it's no worse than reverting all of their edits in a single one of yours. Does pose a risk of someone editing another part of the article in between, though. —
Cryptic 10:08, 21 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Thank you. WCMemail 11:02, 21 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your commentary this morning, I appreciate the redirection of my mistaken understanding of policy. Could I beg a favour and ask if you wouldn't mind keeping an eye on my talk page for a while. I suspect some false accusations are headed my way. WCMemail 16:06, 21 November 2023 (UTC)reply
I didn't notify any of the other participants in the DRV because I didn't want to be accused of
canvassing, and I don't think that I have ever reported a user at
Arbitration Enforcement, because often I am trying to mediate a dispute in these areas. I agree that leniency, as in a logged warning, is in order.
Robert McClenon (
talk) 14:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Infobox company change
Hi Cryptic! Thanks for the response
here—do you know when/how the imagestyle parameter addition can be merged into {{
Infobox company}} so it can be used in that article? —
Bilorv (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)reply
It's actually still live in
Template:Infobox company/sandbox; I had meant to revert it from there by now. I think making an image with a non-transparent background is the better solution, and not just because of the poor margins - imagestyle isn't really meant for top-level infobox templates. (At least, that's how I understand it. I don't work with infoboxes much; I've always thought them an eyesore whose primary purpose was to make it easier for Google to profit off our work. Though I guess Wikidata's their preferred method these days.)If you really want the parameter merged in, though, make an edit request on
Template talk:Infobox company. I'm not going to edit the live template myself. —
Cryptic 18:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Okay, got it. Thanks. —
Bilorv (talk) 19:05, 26 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Concerns Regarding Unsubstantiated Edits by User '79a' on Arlyzinho BR Article
Greetings Críptico,
I would like to report that the user "79a" is editing the article
Arlyzinho BR, adding non-factual information without supporting references. As the original author of the article, based on research, I am concerned about the user "79a" attempting to link information without specific reference data to substantiate their claims. I kindly request a review of the situation, as this is notably compromising the quality of the content. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Zp124 (
talk) 19:11, 27 November 2023 (UTC)reply
You came to me, specifically, about this - why? —
Cryptic 22:59, 27 November 2023 (UTC)reply
This article was deleted repeatedly, recreated multiple times under multiple titles to avoid the deletion, deleted and s
saltethen d, grudgingly and baselessly allowed back into draft space, moved into mainspace without review or approval under a new title to avoid the salting. Why did you unsalt?it. You should resathisinonsense non-notable, unreliably sourced fancruft. t.
Banks Irk (
talk) 04:03, 29 November 2023 (UTC)reply
It already existed when I unblacklisted it; all my edit did was make it possible to create the talk page. AFD is ---> over there. —
Cryptic 04:28, 29 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the explanation. What a mess.
Banks Irk (
talk) 11:55, 29 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Already aware of that (and had commented there previously). Let's keep it in the one place. —
Cryptic 02:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Some baklava for you!
Would have sent a beer but it's only 9am where I am, so a tad early for that. ;)
Thanks for dealing with the music academy mess, appreciate it! --
DoubleGrazing (
talk) 09:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Hunh. I've never had, or even heard of. (Confused it with
baccarat between seeing the summary and the image, and was wondering why someone would put that in wikilove.) Looks unhealthy, so must be good. —
Cryptic 09:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Oh, it's good, alright. Maybe not the stale stuff you usually get in shops, but if you're ever in Turkey, they have pastry shops specialising in this stuff, and it's to die for (and I don't even like sweet stuff, especially). You do need something to cut through the sweetness, though, such as tea... or indeed my personal favourite, the aforementioned beer. :) --
DoubleGrazing (
talk) 10:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Hi Cryptic, today I wanted to reach out to you and clear the air a bit. I note that you had asked me a question on my unsuccessful RfA. This was not an honest, acceptable answer and now, I wanted to explain why. In my userpage's (deleted) page history, there was content which I had wanted people to not see, as it could have led me to being doxxed/my IRL, personal identity being found out. At that time, I had considered a variety of answers which I had thought, "Would this be a good, acceptable answer?" and "Would this answer be problematic?". But ultimately I just went ahead with the lie and it turned out to be a very bad idea put forth by myself. Sure, I would've gone with another answer (that I now realize that it's acceptable) but I just didn't think it would be a good idea at that time to say answers such as, "Yeah, I had bad, weird stuff in my deleted userpage history". That's why I lied about this per those reasons; I'm sorry I had done so; I will definitely try not to do so again. At that point, the opposes kept coming and I realized per the lie and the other concerns pointed out on my RfA that I wouldn't be a trustworthy, competent administrator. I understand that you think I'm untrustworthy with the additional advanced tools at that time and currently, but I have felt the need to reach out and explain myself and this for a while now. I, however, do appreciate that you had asked this question because I'd taken some time to self-reflect thereafter on that situation and how to deal with similar situations. If I can't be honest, I'm truly not ready to run. ~
TailsWx (he/him,
aroace,
🐾) 00:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)reply
If as you say there's identifying content in your userpage that's just deleted, you should get it suppressed -
explain your position to oversight and they'll likely comply. I can email you the deleted history to facilitate this if you wish. It's not primarily an issue of administrators being untrustworthy; it's the risk that one won't realize that the content has privacy implications.As I said in my oppose, leaving the question unanswered would've been fine. So would've been contacting me privately and explaining (not straightforward since I don't leave email enabled, but I'd have responded to a "Hey, can I mail you?" message here). Answering with what looked like a transparent lie - and it almost doesn't matter that it turned out to actually be one - was never going to be the right call, though. —
Cryptic 12:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your response. Yes, feel free to email me the deleted history of my userpage; I'll include that in my email to Oversight.
I understand about the fact that I could've left the question unanswered, but much to the approval of other users I just decided to answer it. I also decided to post here; and although I didn't think of asking to email you (as you noted above, I could've done so) admitting to lying on-Wiki would be, in my opinion, a more suitable idea. I agree with you that it was not–and never– a good idea to lie, especially on an RfA. As such, I'm clearly, undoubtly disappointed in myself for doing so, and I realize: I threw away my chances at passing and lost a substantial amount trust in the community. ~
TailsWx (he/him,
aroace,
🐾) 15:42, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Sent, split over two messages. That was rather longer than I'd expected; the last entry in the first message should have timestamp "2021-12-20T21:59:45Z" and edit summary "/* Storms tracked */ Spacing". It would probably be easiest for Oversight if you gave them ranges of timestamps (like "everything between 2021-02-23T12:29:18Z and 2021-10-20T21:13:56Z"), but they can work with revids too, or "please suppress all the revisions that mention my name, Jim Smith" if they have to. —
Cryptic 16:09, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
And if there are edit summaries that are problematic too, not just revision text, you should mention that specifically. —
Cryptic 16:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Thanks, I'll sort these out and send them via email to Oversight as soon as I can. ~
TailsWx (he/him,
aroace,
🐾) 17:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Valeria Kogan Page deletion
Could you tell me why you deleted "Valeria Kogan"? Was it the language I used or the content or something else?
Oirish baguette (
talk) 17:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Both. It was unredeemably promotional and bore no resemblance to an encyclopedia article. —
Cryptic 17:39, 30 January 2024 (UTC)reply
A barnstar for you!
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for patiently correcting my errors and misunderstandings. It's a relief to know that you are willing to tell me what I've got wrong. I hate being wrong, and I love that you help me fix my mistakes. Thank you so much.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 02:23, 7 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Deletion of Basudev Sunani
I don't understand why it was deleted, if the objection was phrases like "for his insightful poetry, thought-provoking essays, and impactful activism." - these were part of the sources and could have been removed. Basudev Sunani is an influential poet writing about oft-ignored subjects in a language that doesn't see much presence on wikipedia anyway.
Miximon (
talk) 21:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
This was not a matter of isolated phrases; there was not a single sentence that was not promotionally-written. Removing them would have left the article blank. Part of the job of an encyclopedist is converting biased sources into neutral prose; if you are unable to understand that, you should not be editing in mainspace at all, let alone creating new articles. —
Cryptic 21:49, 11 February 2024 (UTC)reply
For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (
talk) 20:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)reply
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:
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 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.
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:
Hey there, I was looking at your user rights page and it seems for some reason a click was registered to change your rights, and I have no idea why that happened. Just wanted to let you know, as everything should be changed back to what it was before. Sorry about that, it may have been a misclick of something odd. -
Fuzheado |
Talk 17:30, 21 April 2024 (UTC)reply