Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

This is not the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. To do so, please follow these instructions.

Archives

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Most recent 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270

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

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Not now § "it is acceptable for a candidate to request their RfA to run for the full amount of time". HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 07:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator Elections | Renewal RFC phase

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections.

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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first sentence of prose has been messed up since Giraffer added their request. Don't know how to fix it, or even if I would be allowed to. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What's the issue? I'm not seeing anything, but it might be device specific? FozzieHey (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have "Requests for" to the left of the search box, then the requests table. Below the requests table, the prose continues as normal from "adminship (RfA) is the process...". Windows and Firefox, if it matters. ―Mandruss ☎ IMO. 18:39, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah right, yeah I think that depends on things like display size, font size and what kind of Wikipedia styling you are using. It's not that bad for me on Small text, but gets a bit squashed on Standard text. I don't think it's related to this RfA specifically (the time and vote numbers might just be a specific width right now to cause it) as I have noticed that since the recent UI changes, the text has gotten a bit squashed on the left side. I'm not entirely sure how we would fix it, I think the table would look out of place above the first paragraph, and would be too far down below the lead. FozzieHey (talk) 18:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked to this discussion on WP:VPT to see if anyone there has any knowledge on this. FozzieHey (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your issue occurs because a wide thing has been floated on whatever your specific resolution and font sizing are. There is effectively nothing to be done to fix that which doesn't break the behavior for someone else. It probably happens for some other people as well, but the resolution it required my screen to be at was at least half of my monitor's screen width, which is at-best rare these days for a desktop resolution. (There are other issues with the table at even smaller resolutions that are unrelated.)

The only solution would be to remove the float of the table, which would have uniformly negative behavior for most other people. Izno (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions for adding optional questions are wrong, because there is a comment that says, "Add your questions above this comment". That would add the question at the top of the list of questions. It should say to add the questions at the bottom. Evidently the questioners figured that out. I tried the preview feature, to see whether the macro would add the question at the bottom, and saw that the instructions are wrong, so I added my question at the bottom. Change the instruction. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe the first person didn’t follow the instruction, and everyone else just posted at the bottom? That’s not really the instruction’s fault. Floquenbeam (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]