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 258, 259, 260, 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267

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

Per Proposal 3B of 2024 RFA Review that was recently closed as successful, the first 2 days will be discussion-only for the next five RfAs that are not closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW or to RfAs opened in the next six months – whichever happens first. Soni (talk) 06:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As we implement, I'll reiterate my comment from the proposal discussion:

In order to encourage editors to run, I'd like to see this implemented in a way that allows those who sense that the !voting phase may not go as well as they'd hoped to bow out gracefully after the discussion phase with as little stigma attached as possible. One way to get at that would be to require candidates to affirmatively assent to proceed to the !voting phase as the discussion phase nears its end; if they do not, the default course of action would be to end the RfA with a neutral (not red) background and a note like This is an archived request for adminship that did not proceed beyond the discussion phase.

Cheers, Sdkb ^talk 18:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If the start of providing support/oppose statements is initiated manually, say by adding (or making visible) the appropriate sections in the request, then I think it would be best for the person doing this to first check with the candidate, and hold off either way until the candidate responds. I wouldn't want a request to be withdrawn by default just because the requestor became unexpectedly unavailable for a period of time. isaacl (talk) 20:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, RfA candidates normally try to be very available during their run, but stuff can always come up, and I wouldn't want unexpected unavailability to have that effect either. But if we say they have to respond one way or another, what happens if they don't and the two-day mark passes? The way I envision it, we'd allow a grace period of, say, a week, where someone whose RfA stopped after the discussion phase (I want language other than "withdrawn," which has some stigma) could decide to re-open it for the !voting phase without having to go through another discussion phase. Sdkb ^talk 22:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A week to hear a response seems reasonable. However in the interest of not delaying a trial, I think proceeding with the current default approach is simplest for now: once the RfA process begins, it continues until the candidate withdraws or the outcome is determined. isaacl (talk) 22:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That comment is fine, but implementation of it is not specified in the RFC closing, only a prohibition on numbered votes for 48 hours. Of course, the candidate is welcome to withdraw their candidacy at any time. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

affirmatively assent. Since that wasn't in the RFC, and would open up the possibility of delaying the RFA !voting opening without intending it to, perhaps we should just keep it as auto open. I also don't personally see a stigma with the word withdraw. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think auto-open is the correct method. - Enos733 (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Instead of the next 5 RFAs, how about we say "the first five RFAs in April and May of 2024". That way, candidates who don't want to be part of an experiment know when the experiment is going to end. Oh, and if nobody runs during that period, we should consider this a failed experiment. Risker (talk) 05:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Risker People can just wait 6 months now Mach61 05:19, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What I am suggesting is shortening the period. Two months should be sufficient. If there are no candidates during that period, then it should be dead in the water. If there are five or more candidates during that period, then that indicates candidates prefer this proposed method. A six month experiment is far too long; we need new admins, and if people aren't running because they think the experiment is unhelpful, then we're making the problem worse, not better. I'll just note that the biggest concern that has been expressed about RFA has been the quality and nature of discussion about the candidates, not the voting itself. Six months of preventing voting to emphasize what many consider to be RFA's worst feature could kill RFA entirely. Let's go with a much shorter experiment. Risker (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC) And I'm just wondering how an RFA could be closed as WP:SNOW before voting starts. Risker (talk) 05:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The proposed length of the experiment was made clear in the proposal, which found consensus. We may need about 5 RfAs to figure out whether or not the experiment worked, and hopefully we'll get that sooner than 6 months. If the experiment goes horribly, we could always decide by consensus to end it early. Sdkb ^talk 05:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, it gained consensus amongst RFA regulars (I've read the decision). They didn't build in an escape clause. When redesigning such a major program, there is a very significant chance that things will go sideways in a way that is not anticipated by such a black-and-white, either/or method of decision. Frankly, if there aren't potential candidates jumping at the chance to test out this new process in the next two months, then we're doing ourselves harm. If nobody gets as far as a successful/unsuccessful result (i.e., withdraws, or NOTNOW or SNOW is invoked, or nobody runs at all), the experiment is a failure; the whole purpose is to attract more quality candidates who can pass an RFA. RFA is hard, in much the same way that building a good article or a featured list is hard. So I suggest the escape clause, because we can't afford to go six months without a successful RFA. Two months is bad enough. Risker (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  There were five RfAs in January and February of this year and six in November and December of last, so I think there's a good chance that the trial will be over in two months anyway. If it turns out to be so unpopular that nobody runs, then I'd say the implicit "escape clause" is that we just decide, in

  the usual way, to scrap the idea early. But it seems odd to be talking about doing so just a day after the RfC was closed. – Joe (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The RFC was very well attended. It had 80 participants and was

  T:CENT-listed and had a watchlist notice. I'd be most comfortable sticking to the RFC's wording, I think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:45, 26 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]

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]

So Proposal 14 of

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]

Per

• 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]