Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Oversight permission restored to Beeblebrox

: Original announcement

• I recognize there may be things you can't discuss in public, but I'm really wondering what prompted the talk of a full project ban. Looking at the most recent admin COI editing case (Nihonjoe), there was never any talk of anything beyond removal of the admin and crat bits. What makes this case so different that a full site ban is on the table? RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• :Perhaps a question better left at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions#Community discussion. Izno (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2025 (UTC)
• ::Good idea, so moved. RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

: Original announcement

As a nit (and I hope I've managed to pick the right page this time), the "may regain the administrative tools at any time via a successful request for adminship" wording is anacronistic now that WP:AELECT is a thing; I assume either process could be used to regain the bit. RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:Should probably update that to "through any community approved process." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:30, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:It's not clear to me that admin elections are not a request for adminship just through a different style. For instance Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/EggRoll97_2 is a 2 even though the first request was through admin elections. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Perhaps clarifying at WP:RFA that {{tq|Wikipedia:Administrator elections are an alternative type of RfA...}} or something to that effect might work. That way there's little ambiguity whether they count as an RfA for the purposes of motions like this while keeping prior motions with the same verbiage accurate. - Aoidh (talk) 21:00, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I've clarified this at both WP:RFA and WP:AELECT. Anyone is free to adjust the wording, of course. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:05, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ec}} When this was last brought up, shortly before the trial elections, the conclusion was that nothing needed to be done as it was just a trial. However it is now a process with a full consensus to be used going forwards, so the rationale for doing nothing doesn't apply. Rather than get into semantics as Barkeep's comment does, or find and amend every relevant motion, I think all that needs to be done is to pass a single motion stating that for the purposes of arbcom motions "a successful request for adminship" or similar wording includes any community-approved process where editors may request adminship. Thryduulf (talk) 21:06, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::That makes perfect sense to me. RoySmith (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::Agreed. I think these two edits 1 2 are jumping the gun, renaming "RfA" -> "traditional RfA" is a big semantic change. Would we move WP:RFA to WP:TRFA, while WP:RFA becomes a disambig between WP:TRFA and WP:AELECT? Leijurv (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:::@Leijurv you're welcome to revert if you disagree; I don't care strongly about this and would be fine with the motion as well (though I do think it makes some sense to consider AELECT candidacies as a type of RfA). "traditional" was just meant to be descriptive, not a rename of the process. Elli (talk | contribs) 22:42, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

::::Right I don't actually think you were trying to actually rename RfA, rather that was a unintended side effect where you needed some phrase to differentiate RFA (the existing process) vs RFA (the category of processes of which we now have two). I don't have a good answer to this. :( Leijurv (talk) 23:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

:As a reverse bit of pedantry, I would argue that "a successful request for adminship" is different entirely from "a successful Request for Adminship". The latter is a specific process, the former is a general statement. Someone running for election is still requesting adminship.{{pb}}In other words, I do not see any need to change the wording. Primefac (talk) 13:32, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::Makes sense, but there might be prudential reasons to actually limit the method to the more singularly focused Request for Adminship, or to reference the two processes, a Consensus is looked for, instead of a supermajority. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I agree that there will be occasions when it is desirable to explicitly refer to one or the other process, and times when it is desirable to explicitly refer to either process. Capitalisation could do that, but unless everybody is always meticulous about which they mean it is likely to result in confusion or miscommunication. To help with this I've just written Wikipedia:Adminship request processes as a high-level summary, but it needs work (and I've run out of time to do more now). Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::::This edit by {{u|isaacl}} seems to me to be a good solution: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrator_elections&diff=1286298171&oldid=1286275564]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

::Indeed. There once was a man who learned a hard lesson about the importance of case sensitivity when he texted his mother to let her know that his Uncle Jack just rode into town. Kurtis ^(talk) 19:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks for your (relatively...!) quick work here, Arbcom. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 17:58, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• I don't know why, but I think that a link to ADMINCOND should be somewhere in the first motion. Nobody (talk) 07:42, 22 April 2025 (UTC)