Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Pickersgill-Cunliffe

This is an RfA talk page.

While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.

Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.
Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.
Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed.
Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

Voter suffrage[edit]

Since April this year, !Votes in RFAs have been restricted to only editors with Extended Confirmed permission - See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Expressing opinions and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 14: Suffrage requirements.

So the vote by User:Swoonfed should be discarded. Soni (talk) 11:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Soni: I saw your similar comment in the previous RFA as well. How are you confirming these editors' status ... by looking at their user permissions one-by-one? Steel1943 (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steel1943: User:Novem Linguae/Scripts/UserHighlighterSimple highlights users who are not EC in a specific fashion, which makes it easy to check. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) What Josh said. I just browse from top to bottom, and anyone with <500 edits is highlighted different. It's not exhaustive - someone with >500 edits and <30 days account age could be missed; but there's no false positives. There should be a simpler way to do this, I just don't yet know.

(Also EC) @Hurricane Noah: Also what Josh said. I personally do not care what threshold we enforce. But while we still have consensus on it, we should enforce it. If we decide to scrap suffrage, I'm happy with that. Soni (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it matters much in an RfA with 100% support. To be fair though, that account only has 79 edits and was created less than a month ago. Noah, BSBA^Talk 20:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hurricane Noah: It's about the principle of the matter from my point of view. A new requirement was voted on and those moderating rfas should honour and adhere to said requirement. Sure it'd be nice to have the extra support, and it makes no REAL difference, but we should still follow it. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I do not have the time to check suffrage. If someone's not supposed to be voting, then by all means feel free to strike, but please make sure they get a talk page note (either on their talk or here) indicating as such so they know why their opinion has been struck. Primefac (talk) 21:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, if you don't want to strike yourself, drop me a line and I'll strike it. I can't see it being tennable for me to check the status of every user in the !vote, but if we find one that isn't suitable, we should indeed strike that !vote. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; if I had seen this post and the vote hadn't been struck yet, I would have. Primefac (talk) 21:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]