Commons talk:Administrators/Requests

Edit summary

I would appreciate if the closing bureaucrat could either link the subpage (example) or state the result (e.g. rm Xyz, RfA successful) in the edit summary when removing a closed RfA. Otherwise the 130 − 1 watchers have to look at an old version in order to get to know the result of the RfA. Thank you. --Leyo 16:10, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Jafeluv (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support. Rehman 03:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support --Captain-tucker (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

 Support –BruTe ^Talk 13:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Dunno why we're voting on this... seems like a straightforward enough request. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:10, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, you're right. Perhaps mentioning this on some guideline/policy/etc (or some "closing instructions" on the RFA page) page would do. ;) Rehman 14:15, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the (x%). It wasnt suggested above. I was surprised by the % number on my watchlist following Saibos edit, surprises is nothing people want to have on their watchlist - especially if they can not unwatch the page. The calculation can be wrong by 1 or 2% (happened in the past) and corrected short after the closure, no need to announce an harmless calculation mistake to >100 watchers. The percent number is for the record and for the policy, if the vote was sucessfull it will be meaningless if it was 75% or 100% of support, the user will be an admin and will have our support. --Martin H. (talk) 17:33, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure - fine. I just thought it might be useful to directly see them, too. However, your concerns seem valid. Except the thing that I do not really understand what is "surprising" on seeing percentage numbers. ;-) Cheers --Saibo (Δ) 19:43, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, people seem to have forgotten about it. --Leyo 15:22, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry of that, but this is proof that I'm mere mortal :-) --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:04, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

You are not the only one. --Leyo 13:32, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

<Ratinghistory-table-votes>

Does anyone know a workaround for the (now) missing MediaWiki:Ratinghistory-table-votes. It's still at https://translatewiki.net/wiki/MediaWiki:Ratinghistory-table-votes/en but vanished from Commons. -- Rillke^(q?) 12:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

RFA should enable xtools, via OptIn

I think some of us might be quite buisy and deciding on RFA might takes some time to make a good research. I can look at recent files/edits, their talkpage, but it is always just a pinprick. I personally think for a good admin it is a bit the know-how, the number of edits/uploads, but I think for an admin it is more important to know when (s)he might be wrong, and beeing polite, positive and constructive to newbies/people who think they know everything better/get angry/... . And that's in my opion difficult to check within one hour. I personally think e.g. https://xtools.wmflabs.org/topedits/commons.wikimedia.org/JoKalliauer can make it easier to find mistakes/fields of inexperiences, and how someone handeled their mistakes. I would suggest, for the time of RFA, the Person requested Adminship should enable "Top edits per namespace" in xtools, per Special:MyPage/EditCounterOptIn.js. Do you think similar?
 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 22:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

What did I do incorrect?

It looks like I have submitted my request but for some reasons it is not transcluded into the main page. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

The transclusion should be done manually by yourself like this. 4nn1l2 (talk) 02:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: How to handle RfAs between 70 to 75 percent

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

RfC withdrawn. Multichill (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

---

This year, Commons has had two occurrences where bureaucrats have had to extend RfA nominationsto two weeks: Notably, Commons:Administrators/Requests/Minorax and now Commons:Administrators/Requests/Martin Urbanec. There is no current policy or guideline in Commons:Administrators in regards to how RfA between 70 to 75 percent should be handled. RfA extensions are being done on a bureaucrat's own discretion. Because of this, I would like a community discussion to how to handle RfAs like this, as something like this should be made a guideline for the bureaucrats.

So, I propose three options on how it should be handled:

• Option 1: Extend to another week for more community input.
• Option 2: Introduce bureaucrat chats to determine if there's consensus or not.
• Option 3: End the RfA just the way it is.

Whichever one succeeds will be added to the existing guideline: Commons:Administrators.

Survey

• I prefer Option 2. The bureaucrats IMO rarely form decisions as a group, and for situations like this, their input for how requests should be handled would be great. 1989_talk 17:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

• Status Quo please, I trust Bureaucrats judgment. [1]: the waste of time is more this kind of discussion, which has for potential result only more bureaucracy. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:49, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  If that's the case, what's the point of having bureaucrats here at all? 1989_talk 17:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  ???? did you read my comment? Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, Did you read mine? 1989_talk 18:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

• There is no current policy or guideline that advises this - No, COM:CRAT already says "Bureaucrats also have discretion to extend the period of a discussion or vote where they feel that would lead to a clearer consensus or otherwise improve the outcome." If we do not trust crats to exercise that discretion, we should not elect them to that role in the first place. Notwithstanding it is already explicitly addressed in COM:CRAT, there is no actual problem mentioned, let alone demonstrated. This is instruction creep. Эlcobbola _talk 17:52, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  That particular line could apply to anything. As I said, on Commons:Administrators, the line you quoted is not present there. It could be added on there, but I feel community input should be sufficient before doing so. 1989_talk 18:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  No, I quoted you verbatim. You said "There is no current policy or guideline that advises this," which is quite different than, say, "Commons:Administrators does not currently advise this." No reasonable would understand the quoted COM:CRAT line not to apply to RfAs. Эlcobbola _talk 18:09, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  Yes, I admit my error on that and will fix the wording, however, my previous comment still stands. 1989_talk 18:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  That error is the underlying premise of the entire proposal. The omission of even a reference to the COM:CRAT line in the initial proposal is glaring, and telling. That notwithstanding, we now seem to be here: you believe community input is necessary merely to repeat on COM:A a line that already exists on COM:CRAT. That's overwrought. Just be bold and add it. Эlcobbola _talk 18:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

  Sorry, I can't do that. Commons no longer allows administrators to resign and come back after 24 hours. With times changing, discussions like this are necessary. 1989_talk 18:24, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sorry!

Seem to have far-fingered a rollback. It's been reverted. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)