Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:RFA)
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    RfA candidate S O N S % Status Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
    ToadetteEdit 0 0 0 0 Open 12:21, 6 May 2024 5 days, 22 hours no report
    Current time is 13:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
    Recently closed RfAs and RfBs (update)
    Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
    S O N %
    Sdkb RfA Successful 16 Feb 2024 265 2 0 99
    The Night Watch RfA Successful 11 Feb 2024 215 63 13 77
    Red-tailed hawk RfA Successful 5 Jan 2024 207 6 8 97

    Voting limited to Extended Confirmed users[edit]

    Per Proposal 14 of RFA Review 2024 being closed as successful, voting in RFA is now limited to only editors with Extended Confirmed user-right. Other users and IPs can still participate in the rest of RFA. Soni (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Soni what is the #of RFA/time limit for this? — xaosflux Talk 19:56, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't believe this is an experiment. Best I can read the proposal and close, it seems to be a change for RFA as an entire process. Soni (talk) 20:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    question[edit]

    Can i apply for administrator simply because of the score on my wikipediholism? [April Fools!] Sebbers10 Your bisexual friend! 20:41, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes @Sebbers10, but be carefulof the tools or you will certainly be a jerk. [April Fools!] Toadette (April Fools Day!) 20:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood [April Fools!] Sebbers10 Your bisexual friend! 20:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal as a consequence of RFA2024[edit]

    So Proposal 14 of WP:RFA2024 passed that states that voting is restricted to extended confirmed users, but another proposal passed, albeit on trial basis, that voting starts after 48hr from the opening of an RfA. To *enforce* this, I am proposing that RfAs be ECPed after 2d and forward any potential discussion/questions from non EC users to the talk page, also on trial basis because of the secomd proposal. Toadette (Let's talk together!) 23:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Presumably this and any other suggestions should be discussed at WP:RFA2024#Phase II rather than here. Dekimasuよ! 00:12, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToadetteEdit the "voting" restriction is not a restriction on "discussing", only creating numbered !votes. — xaosflux Talk 01:06, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Nomination limited to Extended Confirmed users[edit]

    Per Proposal 25 of RFA Review 2024 being closed as successful, nominees are required to have Extended Confirmed user-right. Soni (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • While we're here, we probably should discuss Nomination standards section of the RFA page. I think it might be good to give an indication that XC is necessary but not sufficient. Probably something like The formal prerequisite for adminship is Extended Confirmed userright. However, in practice, successful RFA candidates are often significantly more experienced. Soni (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That sounds reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I've made a go at it: diff. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal 9b of RFA2024[edit]

    Per Proposal 9b of RFA 2024 passing, any claims of specific policy violation during an RFA should be backed by links or can be removed. Soni (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's not clear to me if we'll have another set of !votes to decide who can remove said specific policy claims. By default I assume any bureaucrat can, but pinging @ToadetteEdit to ask. Soni (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This might help crats feel that they have a little more license, but really all it seems to be saying is "you must abide by the casting aspersions provision of Wikipedia:No personal attacks at RfA," which...was already the case. Sdkb talk 01:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      While this might have technically been the case, several examples immediately come to mind of aspersions being cast at RfA. I think this proposal passing is one of the best things that could've happened in regards to RfA reform. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      As discussed on the proposals talk page, there will still need to be discussion of what exactly needs to be stated as the implementation of Proposals 2 and 9b, during Phase 2 of the process. It's not like the closes of those two proposals make them ready for immediate implementation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Still, it's progress. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Indeed. I just want to make sure that we don't skip any necessary steps. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Relatedly, this closes all the proposals in RFA2024. Some proposals will go through a Phase II process of refining and editing, but the first set of changes are all done. You can find all of them at the RFA2024 page. Soni (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Toadette RFA[edit]

    Are we allowed to ask questions now? — ♠ Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 13:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, Ixtal, confirmed. ——Serial Number 54129 13:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Question that I uhhh don't know where to put ... where would we give feedback about the RFA process test proposal thing - given that the discussion phase is new. Is this a one and done attempt? Turini2 (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think here is the best place to do so (assuming you mean feedback on "Is this trial working?").
    WT:RFA2024 also exists, but it's mostly focused on the procedure and specific implementation discussions (More like "When should Phase 2 for this proposal happen?") Soni (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I do mean "Is this trial working?" - I'll start a new little section. Turini2 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:RFA page main table colors[edit]

    If this could be addressed ASAP it would smooth things over I think. At the moment, it's showing red because it has zero supports. Can this be changed to a so-far unused colour (blue, perhaps?) so that one glance at the table does not imply that there are no votes due to a lack of support, but rather because the 'neutral' discussion period is taking place. The blue can be turned off, I guess, in a couple of days? ——Serial Number 54129 13:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Noting that this change would take place at Module:RFX report, which tracks these sorts of things. Not an unreasonable request, will see about doing something unless someone beats me to it or vociferously objects. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, I've just changed it to show   if the % is 0. Will probably need an "if S/O/N = 0/0/0 then blue" check at some point but this should get us through for now. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it looks much gentler on the eye Primefac, thanks. The scary old 'Red-for-danger' might be fair in a tanking RfA, but not when no !votes have even been cast yet, was my thinking. ——Serial Number 54129 13:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this. If we keep using this "discussion-first" approach, I think it would be helpful to also add some kind of hover text or something that says "the voting period has not yet begun" (or whatever), to make the meaning clearer. -- asilvering (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Should remain blue even if N is 1+ but S and O is still 0, I think ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it seems to have disappeared from watchlist alerts. Mine anyway. Did anyone else notice it? ——Serial Number 54129 14:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      New RFA's only get loaded to the WLN manually, typically after they have been up for a few hours to help avoid wasting people's time for SNOW closes. — xaosflux Talk 14:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Didn't realise it was a hands-on job Xaosflux, many thanks for that. ——Serial Number 54129 17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Feedback on the "new RFA process"[edit]

    Hi all, as suggested above - I think the discussion stage is an excellent improvement to the RFA process, and I hope it continues in future. It's less binary and instant than the wave of negative/positive votes - I would like the status to say something like "discussion stage" or something that indicates that "voting" hasn't opened.

    I hope others have feedback too! Turini2 (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • I realize there are multiple, sometimes self-contradicting goals for this new process. But one data point is: I don't think that was any less painful for the candidate than a bunch of opposes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I have to agree; it's still a pile-on whether it occurs in the General Comments or Oppose section. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The above comments are correct, but I don't think that this RfA is really prototypical of the problems that people were trying to address. The discussion period seems like more of a potential fix for RfAs where an initially strong candidate is contested by an oppose that alleges significant misconduct, leading to reevaluation of past supports and perhaps lending itself to an overly polemic back-and-forth as oppose !voters try to swing against the wall of initial, presumably superficial, supports. signed, Rosguill talk 19:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich recently wrote Has anyone reading this ever, in any other aspect of their life, seen anything like this happen? Ever gone to a school where the entire faculty and student body gets together and talks about you? Or had a job where an all-staff meeting is called and the subject of discussion is the performance of an employee? And what do we have here? A bunch of of people lining up to explain "here's the reason why you suck". Only this time without so much as a single Moral support. I would frankly suggest IAR-deleting the RFA. ToadetteEdit does not deserve to be subjected to that. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Suffusion of Yellow, what do you mean? ToadetteEdit! 19:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean people are being needlessly cruel in your RFA. I seem to remember that once upon time RFAs like this were just deleted as a courtesy. If you want it kept, sure, that's your choice. If not, well, there's no policy supporting deletion, but hopefully someone will do the decent thing and WP:IAR. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a nice idea in theory, but I think the discussion phase actually made it worse. I really don't see the point in a general comments section if people are just going to fill it up with would-be opposes, withdrawal recommendations etc. It's just moving the poor and bitey comments to another section on the page. --Ferien (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit I'm not the biggest fan of discussion only for a few days even if I think discussion is a valuable part of the RfA process. Maybe the next time we do RfA reform 2 years from now I'll try my luck? An idea popped into my head this afternoon: an actual vote for support/oppose akin to the securepoll process but without getting rid of the discussion aspect. We could just place a greater emphasis on general comments if one has feedback they wish to bring to the wider community (whether that's "wow I'm glad so and so is running, they do a great job at x" or "I have some concerns because of y"). But people don't have to pitch in if they don't want to and votes otherwise remain anonymous. I think we might get the best of both worlds from that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People will always be more motivated to explain why they're opposing than why they're supporting. With the SecurePoll option, people whose votes were going to be "yup" or "LGTM" or "not a jerk, has clue" will probably not make any public comments at all. So the whole "discussion" could just end as a pile-on of negativity, even if the silent majority supports the candidate. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a sample size of one (and not exactly a typical RfA, either) is sufficient for determining this. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd still suggest a running tally of the votes, just with them being anonymous. I don't think it'd necessarily end in a wall of negativity - I suspect many would be opposers would just oppose and leave it at that instead of engaging in discussion about why they're voting the way they are unless they think it's crucial that other voters be aware of such information. And I genuinely think that people in our community would be willing to leave positive feedback in these comments like they would if they wrote an extensive support vote in the current rfa environment. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a running tally would remove my objection. A bit more difficult to anonymize; you'd need to keep secret the list of voters until the vote is over, and then shuffle it. But not impossible. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think these difficulties are significant. That's not to say I disagree with you - just that I think this is easily surmounted. -- asilvering (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a poor test case for the new idea. This sort of RfA would also have been painful under the old system. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    +1. This is not a typical RfA. If this RfA had happened a month ago, it would have been a simple snow close after multiple moral support opposes. Perhaps we should encourage people not to self-nom under this system during the test period. Valereee (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Discussions of RfA reforms have always focused primarily, if not entirely, on ones that have a chance of succeeding. It's very difficult to imagine how we deliver a WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW outcome in a way that isn't painful, but in any case the discussion-only trial was not intended to address that and explicitly said that they did not count towards the trial period. – Joe (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    In the interest of not unduly biasing the current request in progress, or having the candidate undergo a meta-analysis of their request while it is live, perhaps further retrospective discussion can be delayed until at least the request is over? isaacl (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for this suggestion. However, it is now over, and I have to say: this was awful. If we're going to continue using this "comment only" bit at the beginning, we absolutely have to make it clear that comments that are in essence describing a vote are not allowed. But I don't see any way for this to be possible. To take a single comment that I think illustrates the problem well (I don't mean to pick on anyone in particular! but Daniel, since I'm quoting you, it seemed best to ping you), this comment is clearly an oppose vote: Was not impressed by this DRV submission, which was very ill-judged. When challenged by numerous editors, including directly as a reply, failed to show up to defend their position. This would be a strong oppose for lack of experience and capabilities from me.
    But let's say we remove the vote part. That would fix the problem, right? No. We're left with: Was not impressed by this DRV submission, which was very ill-judged. When challenged by numerous editors, including directly as a reply, failed to show up to defend their position. Come on! We can all see this is an oppose vote. But how on earth would anyone bring up legitimate concerns without sounding like an oppose vote? I could rewrite this to something more hesitant, like "I'm not sure this DRV submission showed a willingness to adapt to consensus. When other editor challenged this submission, the candidate didn't comment." But that's no better. It's just more passive-aggressive. -- asilvering (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The instructions on the AfD page say "Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting." So I thoroughly reviewed their contributions before commenting. "Voting opens at 12:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC). In the meantime, discussion may only take place under § General comments", so I placed my review of their contributions under General comments. I didn't "vote", but indicated how I viewed their candidacy to be totally transparent, based upon my review of their contributions. I felt it was less passive aggressive to write my perspective on their future candidacy, rather than a more vague comment that everyone knows what it means but lacks the candidness of actually saying it. Not sure what else I'm meant to do? Daniel (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone is criticizing you. I believe you just happened to phrase your comment in a way that illustrates how difficult it is to discuss a candidate without indicating a vote. Joyous! Noise! 05:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, of course - my frustration is more with the process causing this confusion. If someone in good faith feels like they're doing the right thing (like I was here), but their action is counter-intuitive to the actual goal of that process, then maybe either a) the process needs to be tweaked or b) the instructions for said process need to be clearer. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm starting to get the sense (possibly incorrectly) that what people want to see is a wave of solely positive comments and discussion points. That's all well and good, but I'm concerned it might set some users up to expect their RFA will succeed and then be crushed when the actual vote comes and it isn't successful. Intothatdarkness 13:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be easier to discuss good points ("several GAs") and bad points ("not many edits to AIV") about a candidate if there were no issues that are almost universally seen as disqualifying. You just can't make up for recent blocks or recent poor judgment about copyright or similar core article issues. —Kusma (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I closed that section of the RfA RfC and don't remember seeing any discussion of forbidding comments that indicate an intended vote. You're very welcome to propose such a measure, but it was not an explicit part of the proposal that we're trialling now. Personally, I find it difficult to imagine how you could make a meaningful comment, that isn't a question, without giving away which way you are leaning. – Joe (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) I think my takeaway is for people to understand that a discussion is different from a voting process. This isn't a typical ANI discussion where consensus will be evaluated from just arguments; we have a separate vote later. Not everything needed mildly rephrased repetitions. Perhaps editors/crats should informally discourage pile ons more (More section headings? Cutting down discussion sooner?).
      Comments like Should I be able to participate in the voting time, I will automatically oppose or bolded "too soon"s do not do any favours either. The point of a "discussion only" time period is to avoid votes, not to merely make them early. Soni (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that commenters need to be aware that there's no need to repeat any points, since the relative strengths of each discussion point will be weighed by each person weighing in during the support/oppose phase. (Commenters can engage in discussion to further expand or counter points.) In general, Wikipedia editors ought to exercise restraint when an outcome seems apparent.(*)
      Looking at the other end of the process, it's hard to dissuade editors from doing something they decide they really want to do. They will say they've read the relevant advice, and be given opinions from experienced editors against proceeding, and yet still go ahead. Maybe there should be a procedure to initiate a quick temporary pause, where some experienced editors could pause a request for administrative privileges to check with the candidate if they want to proceed. But English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions make it hard to make decisions quickly, and many Wikipedia editors don't like having gatekeepers (which certainly can lead to clique issues).
      (*) I realize, of course, that editors doing what they really want to do applies also to commenters. A lot of editors like expressing a viewpoint set in bold, and so it happens all the time even when editors are asked not to express a final opinion and focus on discussion points instead. isaacl (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not impressed with how this first one went. 1) It interferes with the normal RFA dynamic of the first day or two being mostly supports, which could be an important morale booster. 2) It seems more disorganized. People are still supporting and opposing with the tone of their comments, but it is no longer placed in the corresponding section. 3) Folks that comment now have to remember to come back in 2 days and copy paste their comments into the support/oppose sections. I'll keep an open mind since we have 4 more of these to do, but not off to the best start. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Editors can and should leave comments during the discussion phase extolling the virtues of the candidate. This dynamic doesn't have to change. isaacl (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I expect I will leave co-nomination style statements in the discussion phase, assuming I know the candidate and wish to support them. —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • P.S. I guess according to the proposal 3b close and ProcrastinatingReader's WP:NOTNOW close, this latest RFA doesn't count towards the 5 trial runs total, and we still need to do 5 more of these? –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Not 5 more of these. 5 real RFAs. Hopefully next time people will refrain from using the nonvoting period to indicate how they will vote. Levivich (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The instructions on the RfA page itself should be improved to clarify this, especially during the trial period. Nowhere on the RfA did it state that you could not indicate how you would vote, whether implicitly or explicitly. Daniel (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      That's because there has been no consensus to restrict people from doing so. – Joe (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      This seemed like a serious RFA by an experienced editor, so I'm a bit surprised it doesn't count. But that's fine, let's follow the wording of the close. 5 non-SNOW non-NOTNOW RFAs or six months (September 24, 2024), I think it says, whichever comes first. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it is correct that RfAs that do not go into the voting phase after the discussion phase do not count for the purpose of the experiment. —Kusma (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Moot for now, Cremastra has reopened. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is still going to end up as SNOW or NOTNOW. —Kusma (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Trial info request[edit]

    I generally come to RFAs from my watchlist and have not followed the reform discussions, and it took me quite a bit of time to figure out why the RFA looked different and why everyone was noting that ToadetteEdit "was the first under the new system". Would it be possible to put a bigger banner/info in the lead on WP:RFA, or the individual RFAs, saying that there's a trial happening and linking to which trial(s) are ongoing? Right now the only information is a half-sentence in #Expressing opinions that I missed until my second time reading the page. Or maybe add another line linking to the trial information in the Support/Oppose/Neutral sections where it currently just says "Voting opens at [date]"? Alyo (chat·edits) 13:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1221530360"