Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

message: *P.S. I guess according to the proposal 3b close and '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)
thread_title:  About 5 trial runs 

message: Since the RfA is underway once again, I repeat my suggestion to defer retrospective analysis until at least the RfA is completed. isaacl (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is what the great Kenneth Parcell would have called a "clusterwhoops". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Sorry about that mess... I just hope no-one will revert my self-revert, which would cause everything to become so much more confusing. Cremastra (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Out of your hands now! Thanks for self-reverting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I was fairly active in the discussions about the reform proposals, and I tried to make the case that we should take it slow on implementing stuff, and subject most of it to the Phase 2 part of the process before implementing. But I got pushback from editors who felt like, if something clearly had a lot more support than opposition, then we should go ahead and treat it as having consensus. At this point, for this particular trial, it looks like we were going to run into harsh reality, one way or the other, sooner or later. I'm on the side of the editors who say here that we cannot regulate that RfA participants only comment in general, without indicating how they intend to !vote. It's unrealistic to think that we can reduce that rule to something that is enforceable. It can't be done. Editors will want to say what they want to say, and if we demand that nobody indicate a planned !vote, people will just find artful ways to skirt the edges. There are so many ways to write about one's opinion without quite framing it as a stance, that it simply will be unenforceable. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reopen and reclose 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't know, it sounds quite bureaucratic and might risk turning the next few RfAs into reruns of the RFA2024 RfC rather than a real test of how the changes work. The way I look at these 'trials' is just that we've agreed to make a change to policy, and also agreed to revisit that decision after a fixed amount of time. Until then, WP:RFA and the individual RfA pages describe the process RfA voters should follow now. The links and discussion archives are all there for those who want to dive into why the process looks like it does. – Joe (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: My thought is that for someone (*cough*) whose path is Watchlist-->"An RFA is open" link-->the RFA candidate link in the box on the right, it's complete opaque why "Voting opens at [date]. In the meantime, discussion may only take place under § General comments." I thought I'd gotten to the RFA before it had officially opened and that the candidate had either requested feedback from a bunch of people or was so known that a lot of people had watchlisted their RFA page. And also that maybe Special:Watchlist was glitching and showing me an RFC that it shouldn't be. I realize a lot of this is based on me being dumb, but if you end up on the individual RFA without doing a full read of WP:RFA (which, why would I?) then there's no explanation why it's different than every other RFA I've ever been on. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Is something like what I added to Toadette's support section adequate? Floquenbeam (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I added ", per a recent RFC." to Floq's addition. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: Absolutely, much appreciated. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: It might also be good to have watchlist notices for all RFAs in this trial mention it explicitly. "A new RFA is up. Note that Support/Oppose/Neutral votes may only be made after 1 May 0000 UTC". Or something roughly along those lines, so it's clear from Watchlist notice that something is different Soni (talk)  15:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I kind of wonder whether it might actually be counterproductive to call these trials out as "something new" on watchlists. Valereee (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect it will not be necessary; I have added language to the preload page similar to what Floq et al added to the live RFA so that it is more clear at the next RFA that this is a trial process. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: I don't think that's really a fair assessment. This wasn't a typical RfA, and the snow close probably should have been left alone. Valereee (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't an RFA. It was a public hazing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Suffusion of Yellow, Is there a difference? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, no, but if you're nasty to someone who stands a realistic chance of passing, you can excuse it to yourself with "well, they'll have to put up with the same shit when some troll drags them to ANI, so they better get used to it". Piling on to a doomed RFA with "and another thing" is ... well, I'll hold my thoughts per WP:NPA. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: @Suffusion of Yellow None of what you say is wrong-- you've described every RfA that isn't a blow out. That's why I'll never vote oppose. RfA is one of the oldest, most important hazing rituals on the internet, and I see a lot of that as stemming from how uniquely powerful-- and fickle-- the Wikipedia community is. It's a cultural thing. I don't think the comment delay is necessarily bad because of that. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Without the delay, either there is a "cushion" of supports, so the candidate knows that not everyone hates them, or it's closed (and maybe even deleted) within hours, before an excess of pile-ons can happen. This new format sets up the opportunity for two days worth of pile-ons, the excuse being "well, we don't know how the vote is going to go, they might pass." Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a sample size of one, and it did not go for two days, and was in fact snow-closed within hours (14 hours). I'm not sure that other snow-closed RFAs are snow-closed much sooner than that, and I don't think they're deleted; sometimes they're courtesy blanked, and so was this one. Also, there are different kinds of snow/notnow RFAs: this one wasn't like one that's made by a non-extended-confirmed editor, which might be closed within an hour and deleted; this one was by an experienced editor, so that would lend itself to a longer period before it was closed as snow/notnow... long enough for their to be a pile on. In fact, the only way we get to snow closes in such cases is with a pile-on; it's snow-closed because of the pile-on. So, pile-ons are inevitable for any non-obvious-but-still-snow RFA. While I agree on the larger points (RFA is hazing, this discussion period idea will not make RFA less toxic), this RFA doesn't seem to have been much different than any others. Levivich (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree about the sample size of one; I'm still willing to let the experiment run out. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text: If having a bank of supports is deemed important for all requests for adminship, then the process could require a nomination period where editors supporting the request would comment, with a somewhat low threshold required for the request to proceed. Without changing the process, potential candidates could be encouraged to do this themselves, with the understanding that if they can't find enough people to support them, then their chances aren't good at making a successful request. isaacl (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

text:   I'd say it's analogous to the difference between a multi-level marketing company and a pyramid scheme. Or between an escort and a hooker. Kurtis (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

text: @Suffusion of Yellow, I feel like what you're talking about would have happened under any system. This wasn't a ridiculous nom. I think many people would have tried to treat this with respect -- and in fact many did --and we could have ended up with something that went on much longer. If it hadn't been for the reversion of the close, this would have been over in hours. Valereee (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

text: What, you think it would have gone perfectly and there'd be no hard feelings if they had submitted one in the old style? jp×g🗯️ 20:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Trial info request

message: *""
*""
Ahem.
* Typical RfA, January 2024 – withdrawn within 6 hours
* Typical RfA, November 2023 – withdrawn within an hour
* Typical RfA, April 2023 – withdrawn within 3 hours
* Typical RfA, January 2023 – NOT NOW after just 2 hours, despite the candidate's statement:
*: ""
* Typical RfA, October 2022 – SNOW within 2 hours
This typical type of RfA happens much less frequently than it used to, but all types of RfAs happen less frequently these days.I don't follow the logic that you can NOTNOW or SNOW when the vote is 0–0, i.e. before voting has even started, unless the so-called "discussion" section, where !voting doesn't happen is interpreted as a "pre-voting" not voting section where not not votes are not voted, but are counted anyway.
This trial should be SNOW closed, because of this fatal flaw. A better option for handling pre-vote discussions for first-time candidates would be to mandate that they open an RfA candidate poll before they are allowed to open an RfA. I'm not sure that's a good option, but it could be an option for a viable trial. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:55, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not necessarily a flaw—if the discussion hadn't been closed prematurely, it wouldn't be a problem. Cremastra (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

text: (It is hilarious to read that community consensus should be "SNOW closed" for a "fatal flaw") On a more serious note, OCRP has problems too, like a lack of participation and the danger of digging up or manufacturing skeletons that tank future RfAs. The consensus in favor of a better mentorship system reflects this. What I would support is requiring candidates to have at least one nominator, since that seems to be the best mentorship we can offer. Toadspike [Talk] 19:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Typical" RFAs 

message: Obviously, discussion of the Phase II proposals is supposed to take place at the Phase II sections (Proposal 2, Proposal 16/16c, Proposal 17, and Proposal 24), but what about the trial proposals? I see discussion of the trial proposals in quite a few places on this page, but it's a little messy and hard to follow. Should discussion take place in a section here, on WT:RFA2024, or some other avenue I'm not thinking of? Dialmayo 11:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Nowhere would be best for right now, IMO. We should try the new stuff out first before we analyze or discuss it. It's too soon to learn anything about the reforms. Levivich (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree with Levivich that it's better to wait until there's been more experience with the trial process. We risk overreacting, particularly with the real-time analysis that has been ongoing. Plus if anyone is concerned about the behaviour of participants in requests for adminship, now's the time to influence community expectations. If you feel candidates aren't getting enough moral support, then offer some. Soni has added subsection headings to try to focus discussion into common points, as he discussed earlier. (I've previously advocated centering threads around specific discussion points to avoid repetition.) We have the opportunity to lead by example through our participation. isaacl (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I'm fine with wanting to wait before judging the trials prematurely, but a related point occurs to me. What I see here, at WT-RfA, includes a significant amount of editor concerns about how the trials so far have been going. But it seems to me (other editors' mileage may of course differ) that these concerns would lead logically to some thoughts that could be relevant at the current discussions at Phase 2 of RfA2024. In particular, I think the discussions about the reminder of civility norms and about admin recall are ones where I've been surprised at what I personally think is a lack of the skepticism that is the same skepticism that I have been seeing on this talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just lost interest because I feel steps were jumped in the process, and now things like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall are being ramrodded through. At some point, you just have to realize the project wants to screw itself over. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have a feeling that you are not the only experienced editor who feels that way. But I urge editors who are concerned about that ramrodding (not to mention that screwing!) to weigh in before it becomes a fait accompli. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It's too late. There's already been three weeks worth of participation there, and nobody is going to change their minds now. In a world where we're desperate for administrators, we're trying desperately hard to come up with a way to get rid of them <smdh>. And this, for something that happens at the ArbCom level twice a year. If ever there was a solution looking for a problem, this is it. I don't mean to be dramatic, but it gives me pause about whether to continue to be an administrator. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

text: By the way, we're now down to 438 active administrators. 16 months ago, we had 500. Give or take, we're going to be down to around 412 by the beginning of the year, and by this time next year, we'll be below 400. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Whether or not it's too late to change the minds of editors who already commented there, it's not too late for other editors (even if not you) to add their opinions to the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

text: There are plenty of proposals that have received consensus support about which I've been skeptical. Eventually, though, it gets tiresome for others if I begin every comment with "I'm skeptical of this proposal, even though it has consensus support. That being said, here is my feedback on implementation detail X..." At some point, I either get on board with working on the implementation details, or I leave it to others who feel strongly about making the implementation as effective as possible. isaacl (talk) 15:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to clarify, I'm really talking about when editors have skepticism about proposals that are still being discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. The level of consensus support for a proposal and its details is on a continuum, and thus in the collaborative spirit, I try to focus expressions of skepticism to aspects that haven't yet achieved consensus. isaacl (talk) 04:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I just can't. We're at the point now where people just throw as much censoredspaghetti against the wall as they can to see what sticks. Nobody seems to give a damn about trying to actually figure out what's wrong and work the process. Just come up with "solutions" and get them applied and see if they work or not. Well, as we've seen with this stupid discussion trial, it doesn't work. I feel sorry for the people that have had to endure this discussion trial. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Place for discussing the trial proposals 

message: @SchroCat, why did you do this? – robertsky (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect because of time zone things. Anyone on UTC+1 will see "starts at 10:02" and potentially forget that "10:02" their time is really 09:02 UTC. Primefac (talk) 09:26, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Like DST offsets not accounted for? That makes sense. – robertsky (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed. I forgot that we in the UK are currently on BST, rather than UTC. - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well. The milk has spilled, and it is just an hour off. I don't think much can be faulted on this. A pedantic me would request you to re-sign the vote after 20 minutes from now lest others seek to invalidate the early votes in a toss-up, if it happens. If this 2-day thing becomes a permanent thing, we can look into solutions to warn people not to vote early if they do so mistakenly. – robertsky (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have always though that a tool to lock sections of a page would be beneficial, rather than locking the whole page. That would be useful in these situations too. Alternatively, not having the voting sections in place until the kick-off time would also help. - SchroCat (talk) 10:04, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior to the note being added, that was my thinking as well (hiding them entirely, that is) much as we do with the auto-close code. Something to discuss at WT:RFA though, not necessarily here. Primefac (talk) 10:10, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The conditional statement that would have automatically opened up the voting at the right time didn't help much here because it was manually removed an hour early. If that conditional contained the entire voting section, it probably still would have been manually removed an hour early. Not that this was a big deal, but there's probably not much we can do about people removing code because they think the code is broken, don't understand what it is, or don't notice it's there. I don't think the problem is with the code. Maybe add to the hidden comment something that alerts people that the code will automatically open the voting at the right time? Levivich (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: How about ? See Special:Diff/1226653241. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

text: I was thinking that maybe we can explore using an edit filter to warn editors to not vote if they make modifications in the voting section early. – robertsky (talk) 10:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit filters are loaded on every single edit page on the entire wiki, so in general should be useful on a large number of pages to justify the performance overhead. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Could this be done by transcluding the section from another page (say, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/DreamRimmer/Vote), and locking that page? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 10:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but that makes things complicated. A  call (or something similar) would actually hide the text/sections entirely so there would be no reason for anyone to be editing it unless they were editing the entire page and didn't then notice the code saying that it was hiding the voting. The other option, as Levivich says, is to possibly indicate that the "this isn't open yet" code also contains a note that the code disappears when the time is right. Primefac (talk) 11:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It might look like I'm going to fall out with  over footnotes and pages +n, etc., in the near future, but he's one of the best editors we've got and is trustworthy as hell. That's for the record.  ——Serial Number 54129 11:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No need to do this, and should be reminded that all times in Wikipedia are in UTC and not your local time. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 06:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: UTC+00:00 (UTC for short) is also known as Greenwich Mean Time. SchroCat above says  live in the United Kingdom, which confusingly isn't always on Greenwich Mean Time, "despite having Greenwich". —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early start by an hour? 

message: You are invited to participate at the phase II review of the ongoing trial of the discussion-only period :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are also invited to participate in a discussion of the discussion of the discussion-only period at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:13, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of discussion-only period 

message: I have eliminated the parameter for the second question number from Template:Rfa-question, as it should always be the first question number plus 1. So, if you want to ask two questions, then you should use  rather than . GTrang (talk) 14:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asking two questions 

message: Hi all! I wrote a debrief of my RfA from February and have added it to the debriefs page. You can read it at User:Sdkb/RfA debrief. Cheers, Sdkb talk 22:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Some additional conversation at . Sdkb talk 16:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sdkb RfA debrief