Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Pickersgill-Cunliffe

Voter suffrage
Since April this year, !Votes in RFAs have been restricted to only editors with Extended Confirmed permission - See Requests for adminship and Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I.

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


 * 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, BSBATalk 20:22, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)