This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the
Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}} to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Andrybak, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable
New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (
talk) 13:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Ah, I was wondering for a while how I would go add categories in a Sandbox type of environment, like you did at
User:Qwertyxp2000/Template:Auckland, New Zealand, but now that you stated the colons behind the category stuff, that makes a lot of sense.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk |
contribs) 19:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
I have seen this colon trick before, but hadn't known that I could do this in the context of sandboxed templates. Thanks for letting me know that page.
Qwertyxp2000 (
talk |
contribs) 23:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)reply
Done. Thank you for the suggestion. —
andrybak (
talk) 00:45, 4 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:
Should I be moving the cats to the doc pages when Im making them? I still have hundreds of pages left to create.
Noah,
AATalk 23:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Hurricane Noah, look good to me. Thank you for working on documenting these templates. —
andrybak (
talk) 01:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply
Minor simplification is possible in your approach: the subpage /doc is not needed if the whole documentation is done with a single template. Example:
Special:Diff/1214112762. —
andrybak (
talk) 01:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)reply