From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: ( successful, unsuccessful)
    Current time is 11:50, 28 March 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
    Robertsky RfA Successful 3 Jan 2024 196 0 0 100
    Interstellarity RfA Withdrawn by candidate 2 Jan 2024 5 18 2 22
    Tails Wx RfA Withdrawn by candidate 29 Dec 2023 143 35 10 80

    I will always be there to serve Wikipedia as an administrator till the end of time. Thank you to everyone who has guided and helped me.

    Hello everyone. I just wanted to make a note and say that I am very thankful to every single person who has seen my work, supported, guided, and helped me over the last 13 years since I have been here on Wikipedia. I have learned a lot here, but there is still a lot to learn and experience here on Wikipedia as an editor. Wikipedia has given me tremendous knowledge, and I will always be there to serve Wikipedia as an administrator till the end of time and till my last breath. I will run for RfA one day when I am ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser ( talk) 23:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

    Thank you. That's good to know. Deb ( talk) 09:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
    Thanks for your acknowledgment Deb. TheGeneralUser ( talk) 11:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

    2 days of discussion-only for the next 5 RFAs

    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
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
      Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
      No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: ( successful, unsuccessful)
      Current time is 11:50, 28 March 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
      Robertsky RfA Successful 3 Jan 2024 196 0 0 100
      Interstellarity RfA Withdrawn by candidate 2 Jan 2024 5 18 2 22
      Tails Wx RfA Withdrawn by candidate 29 Dec 2023 143 35 10 80

      I will always be there to serve Wikipedia as an administrator till the end of time. Thank you to everyone who has guided and helped me.

      Hello everyone. I just wanted to make a note and say that I am very thankful to every single person who has seen my work, supported, guided, and helped me over the last 13 years since I have been here on Wikipedia. I have learned a lot here, but there is still a lot to learn and experience here on Wikipedia as an editor. Wikipedia has given me tremendous knowledge, and I will always be there to serve Wikipedia as an administrator till the end of time and till my last breath. I will run for RfA one day when I am ready. Thank you. TheGeneralUser ( talk) 23:10, 19 February 2024 (UTC) reply

      Thank you. That's good to know. Deb ( talk) 09:14, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply
      Thanks for your acknowledgment Deb. TheGeneralUser ( talk) 11:00, 20 February 2024 (UTC) reply

      2 days of discussion-only for the next 5 RFAs

      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

      Videos

      Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

      Websites

      Google | Yahoo | Bing

      Encyclopedia

      Google | Yahoo | Bing

      Facebook