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	6 days, 13 hours	no	report

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

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 I wouldn't want a request to be withdrawn by default just because the requestor became unexpectedly unavailable for a period of time.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]

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]

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 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

• 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]

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? Toadette^Edit! 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]

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]

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]