Archives

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Most recent 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Why is Asilvering's tally showing ">99" instead of the precedent 99? —usernamekiran (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like that's how Template:Recent RfX is coded. {{#ifexpr:{{#expr:100*{{{5|0}}}/({{{5|0}}}+{{{6|0}}}) round 0}} = 100 and {{{6}}} > 0 | >99 | {{#expr:100*{{{5|0}}}/({{{5|0}}}+{{{6|0}}}) round 0}} In layman's terms, I think that means "If support percentage rounds up to 100 but there is an oppose, display >99". I think this makes logical sense... it's not really a 100% RFA if there are opposes. So I think I'd be in favor of keeping it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself surprisingly opposed to this recent change (and by "recent" I mean "two months ago"); if we want decimal places we should code in decimal places, not put in an exception for a specific case where we want someone to feel better about receiving one or two protest opposes. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Primefac. Let it be what it is. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note, I read (after posting here) the relevant posts where this issue was first proposed; the intention was not to provide feel-good feelings as I cynically posted earlier (so I have struck that) but rather because the module used to round >99.5% to 100% which is not necessarily correct. I think simply adding a single decimal point will more than suffice. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i kinda like it better as is – i don't i really want people parsing down to the decimals on tough RfAs. It's a minor thing, but I think it only accentuates the importance of the percentage. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with leeky. >99 is good for "rounds to 100, but not quite there", and for the most part, we really don't want to deal with decimals in a !vote. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts here align with TLC and SOV. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the [[>]] is particularly helpful, to be honest; it's too vague to be accurate. The status quo ante was sufficient and easy enough for anyone to understand: that if someone passes unopposed, that's 100%. Anything else will always be above and below something else. SerialNumber54129 18:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, say we have an RFA with 249 supports and one oppose. 249/250 = .996, which rounds up to 100% - which is incorrect. ">99" is a good way to indicate the lack of unanimity without mis-rounding the result or using fractions of a percent which, as I said before, are not terribly useful in a discussion that's not supposed to be a vote. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. So, anything other than unanimity = 99%. No mis-rounding, no fractions, no problem. SerialNumber54129 19:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, rounding 99.6 down to 99 while rounding 98.9 up to 99 is mis-rounding. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds more like we should be flooring (i.e. rounding down). Primefac (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a joke here about intrinsic whole number bias but I can't think of it. Levivich (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule
Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed. We plan to use the following schedule: Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections. If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
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.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are, of course, super important matters for the community's attention:

• Bikeshed Proposal #9487209: All RFA pages says Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. I always laughed at that, imagining somebody putting two questions into a single trenchcoat in order to disguise it as one question with the intention of evading the limit. Does anybody besides me think this is a weirdly-hostile way of saying "multi-part questions are not allowed"? Or do the multi-part questions truly have to be disguised in order to be not allowed? Are blatantly-obvious multi-part questions allowed?
• Bikeshed Proposal #9487210: The edit notice for this page says This is NOT the place to ask for advice on your chances at adminship; for that there really is a plethora of advice pages. If there really is a plethora, maybe we should link to some? Seems kind of like a jerk thing to say "this is NOT the right page! there are really lots of other pages! we're not going to specifically mention any though." This is particularly funny given the last bullet point in the edit notice is "Please remain calm and civil..." yeah, unlike this edit notice.

Anyway, as is typical, we will have a three-stage RFC process to answer these questions, followed by a confirmatory SecurePoll vote, at which point it'll be submitted to the Board of Trustees for approval. Levivich (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've cut the Gordian Knot and added a link to WP:RFAADVICE, which links to other advice and WP:ORCP. I think the original point is that if you don't know what ORCP is, you are almost certainly not ready to go there. As for 9487209, I tried. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea about making the two-part question text less aggresive & more concise. I've changed the text at Template:RfA/readyToSubmit to Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both! Levivich (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned up WP:RFAADVICE, as it was surprisingly full of WP:ABF and offputting commentary. Might benefit from another read. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken it to User:Houseblaster/Advice for RfA candidates, in the hopes it can be cleaned up. If others wish to help out, please do so. We did a similar thing to revamp Help:Your first article, and it was (in my very biased opinion) very successful. In a few moments of looking closely, it definitely seems like it was written piece by piece, with small parts being updated as the years go on. There is a lot of WP:BITE which can be transformed into gentle "this is probably not for you" wording. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was largely written by one editor, and so changes have hewed closely to that original viewpoint and writing style. But as that editor has stepped back from editing, there is more opportunity to incorporate other perspectives and alter the writing style. isaacl (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to just modify WP:RFAADVICE directly instead of forking. Advantages include preventing merge conflicts, not having to copy paste / WP:HISTMERGE later, and letting more people get involved in the process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should we create a page about the new administrator recall process? Just a random Wikipedian 08:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You mean Wikipedia:Administrator reconfirmation? – Joe (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant discussion here, could have done with more eyes. It was an interesting proposal, although rather begs the question of when to use <  :) SerialNumber54129 13:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to suggest a new site-wide rule: for the next 3 months, no new threads anywhere in project space on topics that are not one of the, say, 500 most important issues we face. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one's stopping you; although this is not, as you know, the place for such a proposal. SerialNumber54129 14:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting this is already under discussion at #percentage in tally above. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, Primefac, I hadn't noticed. SerialNumber54129 18:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]