Is phase 2 a good idea? Seems like we'd just end up RFCing the same things again. RFCs are extremely time intensive, especially 13 of them. Perhaps we should just do a phase 1. There will likely be one or two follow up RFCs for certain proposals after phase 1, but I am not sure they need the structure of a "phase 2", i.e. all starting and ending at the same time. Those could be run at the village pump ad hoc / only as needed. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, only the things that need a second look after trial are moving to Phase II. It's basically just a place to put all the follow-up RfCs. I don't mind there being large proposals in Phase I, but the idea is that most of the things should be trial balloons. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 06:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• most of the things should be trial balloons I'm not sure there's support for that. There are proposals, some of them are trial ones. I personally would rather do away with Phases. Soni ( talk) 06:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

  I see it as just a placeholder section. It could become just be a list of pointers to wherever further followup discussions are held, to make them easier to find in future. It can be decided later what is most suitable. isaacl ( talk) 07:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

As we move into the later parts of phase 1, something occurs to me that continues some of the points made previously in this thread. On the one hand, I like the idea that phase 1 has been an opportunity for trial balloons, and it seems to me that a lot of the discussion has treated proposals in that way. On the other hand, some of the proposals look like there will end up having been a lot of participation, and some of those may perhaps have significantly more support than opposition. I think everyone agrees that when a proposal has gotten a lot of support in phase 1, then that's a proposal that has the potential to lead to something. But I would not want to see any phase 1 proposals closed as "having consensus" and consequently enacted as initially written, even if they seem to have clear majority support. I say that because even those that have gotten a lot of support have also gotten a lot of feedback about ways they could be improved, or about things that potentially might need revision. So if we're going to have a phase 2 at all, then phase 2 should include finalizing/polishing up even the most supported proposals, followed only then by RfCs asking whether or not they should be enacted. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Absolutely And this is essential. I proposed "refine any proposals that pass" as a proposal but then it was pointed out that this is already explicitly a part of the plan and so I withdrew that proposal. North8000 ( talk) 21:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Whoever evaluates the consensus view should be examining the comments and determining if the concept has support but there are details that need to be worked out. Additionally, there's always an implementation phase for any approved proposal, whether or not it's called "phase 2" and held on a central page or discussed on a working page elsewhere. As we saw after the last review, that will provide interested parties an opportunity to object to the how the proposal is implemented. isaacl ( talk) 21:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

But I would not want to see any phase 1 proposals closed as "having consensus" and consequently enacted as initially written, even if they seem to have clear majority support. This sounds like bureaucracy for the sake of having bureaucracy so I disagree. If there is significantly enough people who want a specific proposal edited before it gets implemented, sure. But I am hard against all proposals going through another set of hoops no matter what. That's the easiest way to overturn consensus completely, just make all proposals go through another set of rubber stamping where they may potentially fail. Soni ( talk) 01:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

For example, take Proposal 25, Require nominees to be extended confirmed. There isn't any ambiguity, nor any specific procedure that needs to be worked out, and the support statements seem clear cut. I wouldn't see any need for a further discussion phase for this proposal. isaacl ( talk) 01:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Basically. It'll all come down to the closing editor's best judgement but essentially I am expecting "Is there consensus to enact it as it is" checked before any fancier "Is there consensus to enact it after workshopping" or similar. If 90% editors approve of a proposal already, the remaining editors should not get to force another phase of workshopping. There is always room for improvements after the fact. Soni ( talk) 04:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Consider the discussion for Proposal 2 in the context of the discussion about Proposal 9b. Much of the discussion of the former took place before the latter had even been proposed. Yet the latter revealed what might perhaps be a consensus that links should be required for "claims of specific policy violations", but not necessarily for claims of more general wrongdoing. The two proposals are similar, and have a lot of overlap. A dimwitted close that finds that they both have consensus as written would be a contradiction, because Proposal 2 says that "Editors may not make allegations of improper conduct without evidence" and implies that doing so might lead to a block. "Specific policy violations" is a far more precise term than is "improper conduct".

I'm not trying to have "bureaucracy for the sake of having bureaucracy", and I'm not trying to "overturn consensus". I'm trying to treat consensus as more important than the order in which proposals were made. And I'm trying to make sure we get the best outcome, rather than the quickest. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Perhaps some users could be suggested to be evaluators of consensus? Let's start building up that list of trusted evaluators. isaacl ( talk) 21:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

If that's the problem we want to solve, we can request the closers to keep this in mind instead of giving orthogonal suggestions that have other effects. This entire process will go for another month (with watchlist and individual notifs as well). I would not make claims on consensus based purely off when the discussions happened; we have plenty of time for editors to edit their opinions based on discussions. Soni ( talk) 22:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

There might be a simple best of both worlds. We just need to have a the fourth category of results

1. pass exactly as proposed consensus
2. fail consensus and
3. no consensus.
4. Pass if it gets fine tuned

For #1 the closer only counts the unconditional supports. For #4 count the unconditional and conditional supports, the latter including things like "good idea but needs refining". North8000 ( talk) 23:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

BTW further workshopping was initially specified "Any proposals that require workshopping or follow-up can be discussed in Phase II, where participants will discuss the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of broad-strokes ideas. " and this is the basis/framework that many folks used in responding. North8000 ( talk) 23:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Sure, whoever evaluates consensus has a free hand in figuring out what viewpoint best represents all the expressed opinions. Within the constraints of English Wikipedia's current decision-making traditions, this already covers all these possibilities and more. isaacl ( talk) 23:51, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I can certainly accept that it is possible that some proposals might be closed as having achieved consensus, and having had nothing revealed during the discussion that would have indicated a need for further refinement. That would entail a finding that all of the objections raised during the discussion had already been satisfactorily solved or rebutted, and that there were no other proposals where the discussion covered the same ground and revealed issues that could be addressed in this proposal. But let's remember that there are a lot of proposals that are variations on one another. I just don't want someone closing discussions here without being attentive to such nuances. Given that we've known all along that there would be a Phase 2, I'm not seeing any urgency about problems that have to be solved before Phase 2 happens or else RfA will have a catastrophe. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:21, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Sure; so any suggestions for evaluators of consensus? (I'm deliberately not calling them closers, since the point is that consensus might be to continue discussion rather than closing it.) Perhaps you'd be interested in evaluating some of the discussions in which you have no involvement? isaacl ( talk) 23:50, 18 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, I've tried to be involved in all of them, so not me. :) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Ah, yes; the closed proposals threw me off when searching the Phase 1 page. Well, next time if you're concerned about the methodology that will be used to evaluate consensus, you might consider volunteering at the start to do the evaluation. isaacl ( talk) 00:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think it might be good to put all closed/rejected proposal into an archive. The page is already quite long, having closed RFCs out of the way would make it a lot easier to parse. Soni ( talk) 06:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

On a somewhat related note, I don't think it's a great idea to close discussion of a proposal less than a day after it was initially made. Establishing consensus requires patience, particularly in a global community, and there's little downside in allowing an active, productive, good-faith discussion continue for a few days. This will let everyone across all time zones the chance to give the proposal and any initial comments some consideration, and choose to participate in discussion. isaacl ( talk) 07:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I think that letting the ideas germinate is the only way someone's gonna be able to write a great comment that makes a good case for another idea down the road – that's why I've been refraining from SNOW closing things myself. It's never a good idea to be the person who puts the kibosh on the bluesky-spitball-pitch meeting too soon. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 07:30, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

People commenting on the proposal page should not be closing any section of the page. SNOW or otherwise.

If it continues, it will invalidate the page, as No Action, due to INVOLVED closers.

I don't think anything untoward was intended. But I think everyone participating would like the community to have confidence in any results here. - jc37 08:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I am just discovering this page for the first time today, and it seems it's been going a while already. If major restructures of the way the community's processes work are going to be held it seems imperative that all editors be alerted via watchlist notices so they can give their tuppence-worth. Cheers  —  Amakuru ( talk) 21:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I came to the talk page to make this point myself. I believe that if we place RFAs on the watchlist we definitely should be including reform efforts for them on watchlists as well. This is especially the case since some proposals call to disenfranchise new editors which are unlikely to know this discussion is even happening without being watchlist notified. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 23:11, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

filed a request for the same :) theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 23:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Can't remember if there was a watchlist notice 2 days ago, which is minorly concerning heheh, either way there is a watchlist notice now. -- ThatOneWolf ( ^Chat _Edits 17:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Same for me. This is too obscure of a place for this important effort. North8000 ( talk) 17:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Doesn't appear in the watchlist anymore for me. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 01:23, 9 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Phase 1 has ended, removing the watchlist notice. -- ThatOneWolf ( ^Chat _Edits 00:15, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Well, in a sort of way, really, I kind of misunderstood, but that is why the watchlist notice is removed. Phase 1 isn't technically over, yet there are no more new proposals being accepted. Phase 1 will officially end once the final proposal has been closed, from what I understand. -- ThatOneWolf ( ^Chat _Edits 14:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Is there a summary of past changes? Has there been any discussion or evaluation? The first step in thinking about future changes ought to be reflection on the status quo and past improvement efforts. YBG ( talk) 02:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

See the second sentence of the project page, which begins "However, as laid out at the 2021 and 2015 RfA reform pushes ...".- gadfium 03:53, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

There's no invitation to make proposals and no method to make proposals. North8000 ( talk) 13:36, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

and, finally, the watchlist notice invites all who see it to make proposals, as many have done. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 17:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Also this IMO is headed for the same problem as the previous one. A effective process is one that is going to do the long hard work of evolving and refining some really good ideas. Under the last and current process, this work is terminated at the very beginning of the process. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 14:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Just a note on the 2021 review—the development work was not terminated at the very beginning. There was a lot of groundwork laid to provide the opportunity to build up strong proposals: an initial problem identification phase occurred to help direct proposals towards areas of maximum concern, and then a brainstorming phase to discuss and refine ideas. For better or worse, English Wikipedia's RfC traditions lead many editors to expect to be able to ignore the prep work and come in at the end with a brand new proposal. isaacl ( talk) 17:28, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

A brainstorming phase might have been appropriate here, but a "problems" phase definitely would've not have been – 2021 and 2015 laid the groundwork, we know what the problems are. relitigating that would've been a poor use of time. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 17:39, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

On a large scale, I agree that the 2021 review paved the way for the proposals in this review. It's given time for participants to consider the problems identified then and to get used to the idea of significant changes being needed to address them. Of course, the continued lack of RfA candidates remains a major factor in driving change. isaacl ( talk) 18:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

also, I think we're on track to make real change – if you're thinking that this is gonna turn out just like the last two, look at the proposals that are passing right now. I think this could be huge. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 17:41, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I guess is that what I meant is that by the time more than 20 people knew about it (a sub-page to RFA) it was too late to propose new ideas. As for this one, the main page makes it look it looks like one has to make a sub page with the proper templates and structure and then link to it from the main page in order to propose an idea. North8000 ( talk) 22:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Struck because I'm starting to figure it out. North8000 ( talk) 22:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The people that we really need are the capable "I'm willing to serve" people rather than the "I want this" folks. RFA has an "I want this" atmosphere / basis, a basis and environment that the "willing to serve" folks are often unwilling to go into. Also, it puts the crowd and conversations at RFA into a "you are asking for this, you'll need to fight/grovel/beg for it" mode. Changing the name to "Nominations For Adminship" would shift the psychological ground in all of these areas. North8000 ( talk) 13:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

You should add this as a proposal, North8000. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 13:08, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes I should. I have to figure out the details on how to do it without messing something up. North8000 ( talk) 15:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

The page is getting quite long and can be hard to read through. By collapsing them, it would be much easier to read through Fanfanboy ( talk) 16:20, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I have attempted to do so. I think this should help? Soni ( talk) 17:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Discussion tools like "reply" do not work inside such an environment, so I have undone your edit. — Kusma ( talk) 17:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I hadn't realised it, thank you. I also assumed it would "remember" what sections I had collapsed the last time I visited the page, which it doesn't. So that's also not good. Soni ( talk) 17:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

So since it's not possible to do that. How about collapsing only closed proposals (not their discussions)? Fanfanboy ( talk) 18:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Instead, how about moving all of these proposals to subpages? The page being more than half a megabyte in size is ridiculous. Steel1943 ( talk) 19:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

That would also work too (if not better) in my opinion Fanfanboy ( talk) 20:09, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

That would lose a lot of watchers, not a good idea. — Kusma ( talk) 21:42, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah, it's too late now. The "phase 1" page was initially created as a cluster, and as a cluster it shall remain. I mean, kind of difficult to track when new comments have been added to a proposal when a comment for a different proposal is added minutes later, but whatever. (But then again, I don't watch pages by default, so my level of sympathy for those editors is like nonexistent; if I really want to see what happens later, I'll go to the page proactively instead of reactively.) Steel1943 ( talk) 22:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Given we are at 650K chars already, I would suggest at least moving closed proposals to a subpage, if not all proposals. The load time is a bit of a mess. Soni ( talk) 19:22, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I've moved the discussions for all closed proposals to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals; it only reduces the page from 815k chars to 715k, but it's better than nothing. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Like the subject line says. ☆ Bri ( talk) 23:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Having new proposals streaming in the entire time !voting and discussion takes place means the status of each proposal becomes less and less clear as participation thins. Create a deadline for proposals and start the RfC at that point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:37, 29 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Rhododendrites, I agree, but how should the deadline be decided/implemented? — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 14:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

March 5, 2 weeks after this review page was created. No no proposals after that day and [re]start the one-month RfC at that point. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:04, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

No need to rush. Slow progress is faster than non-progress which is what semi-rushing has led to. I think that no brand new proposal for this phase after March 5th is reasonable but I really think that there needs to be a phase to tweak/refine the promising proposals. North8000 ( talk) 16:08, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Support. Let's add a "Deadline to submit proposals is March 5, and deadline to !vote in any proposal is April 5." to the appropriate pages, so that we have an actionable plan for closing this and moving to the next steps. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 21:59, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I like this addition. March 5 is a reasonable deadline, and that phrasing will help.

I would change it to "For Phase I, the deadline to submit new proposals is March 5, and proposals will be open for discussion till April 5." or something closer. Also makes it clear that there may be Phase II proposals if needed. Soni ( talk) 13:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

+1, otherwise we will have quorum issues with proposals. Galobtter ( talk) 23:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Too many proposals is better solved by requiring a seconder, than by introducing a filter to randomly thin the proposals. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

+1 – Hilst [talk] 00:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Sure, but allow plenty of time. Weeks. The dramah and stresses are more a problem with wikiholics who log on everyday. Wikipedia backroom stuff should cater more for the more relaxed volunteers. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Theleekycauldron, would you like to make a decision on this one? As the editor kind of running this process, perhaps you should make the final decision. And if we are going to do a March 5th deadline, you should probably make a decision soon, and update the appropriate wordings if the decision is affirmative. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 10:48, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Novem Linguae: totally :) let me take stock of what's going on, and I'll put up a thing in a few hours. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 19:38, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Adding to the urgency, there are basically now 27 open rfcs. It is going to take a lot of community time and effort to close all these. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 22:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Add me to those editors who support the general concept of a deadline. There's also a clear pattern emerging of there simply being a lot more comments for the older proposals than for many of the newer ones, and it may just not be possible to decide whether or not something with a low quorum, such as 3 supports and 1 oppose, should be followed up on in Phase 2, compared to something with 30 supports. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 22:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Given the closeness of March 5, I suggest that the deadline be pushed back a bit—say, 23:59 UTC, March 8? If there is no objection by tomorrow then anyone can update the RfC. (If some objects later or reverts, then we can discuss again.) isaacl ( talk) 23:11, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

 Done this suggestion :) theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 00:05, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Probably should edit the MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages notice and the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Header template with the date (and time?) as well? Soni ( talk) 00:10, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the update. The watchlist notice says 23:59, March 9, though, while the header on the phase 1 page as well as the parent page says 23:59, March 8, and the parent page says until March 8. Which day did you intend? isaacl ( talk) 00:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

until end of March 8 is mine decree, and I shall rewrite it as thus! and, uh, continue to be frustrated about both the wifi and my brain working on-and-off. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 00:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Renewed notification

Once the deadline has arrived, I think it would be appropriate to issue a new set of notifications.

I also think it would be appropriate to provide a talk page notification, containing a list of all active proposals and a brief neutral summary of each one, to every editor who has participated in any discussion here - editors may be unaware that the proposals have kept being added, and I think it would be a good idea to give them every possible opportunity of participating.

I'm happy to write up the summary and then post it here for approval prior to it being disseminated. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I would prefer any summary be placed on the Phase 1 page for the benefit of all participants regardless of when they joined the conversation. If a talk page notification is delivered, I think it should just inform the recipients of the expired deadline for new proposals, and point to the summary (if one is added). isaacl ( talk) 03:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm happy to write up a summary and post it wherever needed when the deadline hits :) theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 19:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Theleekycauldron We're at roughly 23 proposals remaining assuming nobody has issues with the 8 I just closed. I think we should start preparing a summary now that deadline has hit + watchlist notif has expired + we should be closer to "Most pertinent proposals for everyone to look at".

I'm happy to help with same if needed.

I'd personally prefer putting the summary somewhere on Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review page simply as it's the shorter and more of a summary page anyway. I don't mind it either way as long everyone who participated in any of these proposals gets a ping Soni ( talk) 05:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I considered whether or not the summary should go on the 2024 review page, and I think it may be a suitable place in the long run. However in the interest of not directing interested parties to two pages, I suggested placing it on the Phase 1 page for now. isaacl ( talk) 06:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Am writing up a summary, hoping to post it by tonight (PT) :) theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 00:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

got a draft going in my sandbox. gonna finish up with the wikilinks and post tomorrow – I don't reaaally think it's my place to rank the proposals in order of importance, but I'm giving it some more thought. I'm leaning towards going to talk pages and the village pump, since we should be doing as much as we can to get the word out about the process and what's in it. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 11:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

For a list of users, I have a list at User:Soni/sandbox3.

I used regex to take everything spoken at Phase I, closed proposals and this page, and extracted all usernames in there. I didn't see a simpler way to do it given we had Village Pump moved to RFA page. That should be everyone who participated in the RFA 2024, with a couple false positives maybe. Soni ( talk) 15:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't recall any suggestion that an order of importance be determined; I don't think this should be done. Each participant can decide for themselves what is important to them. As I stated earlier, I would prefer that notifications contain a pointer to the phase 1 page, and that the phase 1 page contain the summary of each proposal. This will make the summary available for anyone who visits the page, no matter how they reached there. I do think it may be helpful for the notification text to include a brief list of the types of proposals being examined. This can be kept very concise, thus maximizing its chance of being read, while providing additional incentive to visit the phase 1 page. isaacl ( talk) 17:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Isaacl: I just sent out the MMS. I understand why you wanted to point people to the project page for the summary, but I think that almost all new traffic is going to see the talk page message, and it's not substantially different from the project page anyway. It is nerve-wracking to use that tool, but it looks like it's going out okay :) @ Soni: you included a banned user, but other than that, much appreciated the help! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 10:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's a good assumption that there will be no new commenters on the page. Thus as a separate concern from whether or not the summary should be included in the talk page notifications, I feel that there should be a summary on the phase 1 page. isaacl ( talk) 16:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah there's no functional way to differentiate between someone mentioning a user and signing a comment, so I expected false positives. Glad it's just one (hopefully). I agree with Isaacl that the summary should also be included on either Phase I or the general 2024 review page. It makes logical sense to me.

P.S. Will there be a watchlist notification renewal? Or was it intended to be just during the new proposals phase Soni ( talk) 19:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't understand why that would be necessary. There's already a summary of all of the proposals on the project page, and it would be really cluttery on already over-stuffed pages to include a message designed to be read from a user talk page. I didn't say there'd be no new commenters, but I think between those messaged directly and talk-page watchers, most of the new traffic we're get is going to have seen the summary (and I don't think there's any downside to them having not seen the summary). Anyone who visits the project page already can see that phase I is active and no longer accepting new proposals, but here's the proposals that are currently open and not. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 20:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think there may be an audience who planned to come back and comment once all the proposals had settled down, and I think having a summary would benefit them. If there is a new watchlist notification, then this will also draw new participants. isaacl ( talk) 23:19, 14 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Theleekycauldron I think putting a summary on Phase I page or just the main page is a "no negative, all positives" scenario so I'd prefer putting it there. The only reason I haven't made the change myself is to not step on your toes.

Same for Watchlist notification, I think it's strictly a positive Soni ( talk) 18:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think having four watchlist notifications for a single RfC is excessive (presumably, two per phase, then? if not more, considering how spread out phase II could prove to be). I've partially integrated the notif in place of a TOC on the phase I page. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 08:40, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for adding the summary. One thing to note about removing the table of contents: for readers who place the table of contents in a sidebar, the title of the current section being read is set in boldface. This is a helpful navigation aid when the sections are very long, as in this case. I appreciate, of course, for those who have the table of contents inline, it removes a set of links to scroll past. isaacl ( talk) 17:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

isaacl ( talk) 17:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Could we collapse closed proposals? SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yeah I think plus close more of the proposals as WP:SNOW (to increase participation in the remaining proposals). Galobtter ( talk) 01:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Galobtter I have collapsed the already closed proposals, but did not feel comfortable closing any more proposals myself. It would be good if we did close more of the obviously failing proposals though. Soni ( talk) 11:57, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

There are some proposals that could benefit from greater participation. I wonder if an alternate route to highlight those could just be to transclude or summarise all currently open proposals somewhere. I attempted to wrangle with Template:Excerpt at User:Soni/sandbox3 but there's probably smarter ways out there too.

There's a number of proposals that seem to be at consensus already, I'm just hoping we can also increase engagement and ease of joining discussions for someone new. Soni ( talk) 14:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Perhaps once the deadline for new proposals has been reached, a list of the proposals can be posted at the proposals village pump. isaacl ( talk) 17:28, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I considered making a proposal but I'm not sure how to word it clearly/concisely, and it may be slightly outside of the scope of this process.

It's well known that Wikipedia needs more administrators, but there seems to be a disconnect between that fact and getting volunteers to stand for RFA. It seems to me that the process should go the other direction, in a sense - that is, there should be more clarity on which tasks we need more admins for, and by extension, more clarity on who would be well-suited to volunteer. Adminship, at least in the eyes of some, has been seen as something that one strives for less so than volunteering to take on something new, which might contribute to some of the hostility at RFA. I suspect there are a number of people who would consider standing for RFA if they knew where the needs were and where they could contribute. Candidates are often nominated by current administrators, but how many potential candidates are overlooked? I don't know if I can articulate a specific proposal here, but this is something that's been on my mind for a while so I thought now was a good time to bring it up. -- Sable232 ( talk) 02:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Reviewing the discussion, I think the following can be closed as a clear consensus against:

1. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2024 review#Proposal 8: Straight vote
2. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2024 review#Proposal 12: Abolish the discretionary zone and crat chats
3. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2024 review#Proposal 16b: Require a reconfirmation RfA after X years
4. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2024 review#Proposal 20: Make RFA an internal non public process
5. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2024 review#Proposal 21: Reduce threshold of consensus at RfA
6. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2024 review#Proposal 22: Change the name from RFA to "Nominations For Adminship"

If no one objects in the next 24 hours I will close 8, 12, 16b, and 22 as "consensus against" with a suitable summary - I am not involved in any of those, and have no personal opinions on them. I will not close 20 and 21, as I voted in favor of both of them and am thus WP:INVOLVED, although I hope another editor will be willing to do so. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Closed 8, 12, 16b, and 22 as "consensus against". I've also closed 25 as "consensus gained"; given that the change is relatively minor and there is a WP:SNOW consensus for it I felt such a close was appropriate in the interest of focusing editor time on more contentious proposals.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 13: Admin_elections is also worth considering closing; while the change is far more significant, an apparent WP:SNOW consensus also exists there. BilledMammal ( talk) 00:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'd be wary of making any early closes that aren't "consensus against", unless we also first solicit neutral respected closers to do them. We'd both want editors who aren't as active to also have the chance to weigh in on the proposals, at least the promising ones. And I'd personally hate for any promising proposals to fail once again due to procedural shenanigans when we have potentially strong consensus in favour of multiple of them. Soni ( talk) 01:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I largely agree; I only closed 25 because it was both WP:SNOW and because the change is very minor - I would be much more hesitant about 13, although I wanted to bring it up here for other editors to consider. BilledMammal ( talk) 01:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I disagree on your close of 25 as well, having only noticed it now. I really would rather not have affirmative closes be made early by semi involved editor, that's the best way to drag this out into Close Reviews that make everyone unhappy. Every SNOW close we do is a way to shorthand processes and skip excess BUREAUCRACY, but that also risks not enough diligence. While I personally think 25 will get consensus anyway. I'd rather the determination be made in a way that is unarguably correct. Soni ( talk) 01:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

thanks for drawing attention to that, by the way :) theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 06:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• Once Phase I closes (another 4h and change from now), it might be good to close a bunch more proposals that are least likely to succeed. Out of 30 open proposals, these already stand out to me as close enough to SNOW - 4 5 10 16F 18 20 21 29 30.

I'll wait 24h after PI closes. If nobody has objected to these closes or closed all of these already, I'll then mark them all as "consensus against". Soni ( talk) 20:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I have closed all of these - 5, 10, 16f, 20, 29, 30, 31, 32

None of them looked like it was passable, I was not involved with any of them best I checked, I'd waited a couple days after message above just in case. Hopefully the remaining proposals can be looked at by neutral editors so we can cut down further to the proposals actually likely to pass. Soni ( talk) 04:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I feel that there should be less haste in labelling discussions as being nearly impossible to reverse course. Proposal 29, for example, has five opposing statements versus the one statement from the proposer. I don't personally have an issue with it being closed because I think the changes it is proposing can be made through a normal talk page discussion. But I think it's a stretch at this point to definitively say that the proposal couldn't receive enough support over the next month to flip the current position. isaacl ( talk) 17:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I understand. It's basically why I brought up the proposals beforehand to let people opine on these closes before I did any.

My main motivation here is just to not have so many clearly failing proposals open, that the average editor cannot parse the overall page at all. There are a lot of solid proposals that are way closer; and the decision between "Will it pass/fail" will probably be more about how many editor eyes see them. I am happy if anyone wants to discuss/revert these closes, I'll just request keeping the overall page in mind and how to improve that Soni ( talk) 18:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, I understood the motivation. Like or not, as I wrote previously, English Wikipedia's RfC traditions have led some to expect to be able to drop in at the last moment and make a proposal that gets full consideration. Then editors get upset when discussions on seemingly less-promising late proposals get curtailed. I don't have a good solution for this in a large group setting, as I agree it's challenging to keep up engagement, so narrowing down options is the usual way to raise the likelihood of participation. At a minimum, as I suggested, for some cases I would choose a different label than suggesting the outcome is impossible to reverse. Proposal 31 is another that, while I agree is unlikely to change direction, still seems to be within the realm of possibility of gaining a few more consecutive supports that could alter the nature of discussion. isaacl ( talk) 19:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC) reply

By my count, we've got 44 proposals and sub-proposals and we're not even a month in (though a few have been closed). How many of these are we going to have? It makes it kind of difficult to read through. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 21:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The option to make new proposals closes tomorrow night, and a lot of them can be weeded through fairly easily – i'm hoping that we're down to 15 open proposals within a week. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 21:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Is it a good idea to be closing proposals as successful with only 5 days of discussion? Could this possibly open the closes up to wiki-lawyering later? Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I#Proposal 25: Require nominees to be extended confirmed (closed). It is my understanding from our discussions above that we were going to have a 30 day period where no new proposals were introduced so that everyone could catch up on !voting for the existing proposals. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

cc BilledMammal. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 05:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Note this is being discussed in the section § Potential closes. isaacl ( talk) 05:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm also shaky on this. Proposals should definitely be allowed to run for longer than that unless they're clearly not going to pass. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 06:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

My thinking was that:

1. The impact of 25 is minimal
2. 25 was snowing, with multiple editors in the discussion mentioning that and calling for it to be closed
3. Editor time is best spent on proposals which could still go either way, and having lots of proposals deters participation
4. As such, closing 25 was a positive step for the process

However, if people feel it was too early I have no objection to withdrawing that close - personally, I'm not concerned about later Wikilawyering, as I don't see any grounds to overturn such a clear consensus. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:16, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, if you could self revert 25, i think that'd be safest. Leek and soni seem to share my concerns, so best to play it safe i think. Thank you for being flexible. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 06:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I’m on a phone at the moment and will be several hours till I get back to a computer - if anyone wants to do it before I get the chance I have no objection. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I have reverted the closure of proposal 25. isaacl ( talk) 15:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you. BilledMammal ( talk) 23:57, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Theleekycauldron:

I changed the section headers to make it easier for editors to identify proposals that are still open; if there is a concern about links elsewhere being broken, we can add anchors. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ BilledMammal: I honestly had no idea the RfC was going to be this big when I opened it. Had I know, I would have fashioned each proposal or group of proposals as a separate subpage – that's probably what I'm going to do for phase II. It seems disruptive to change the flow of the RfC now, but what I would say is to just archive in full the closed sections to a temporary storage area, and we can bring it back later. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 06:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Easy mistake to make; even WP:NSPORTS2022 wasn't this bad. I don't think we should be archiving each section in full, as comments often refer to other proposals and it leaves incoming links even more broken. BilledMammal ( talk) 06:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Once Phase I slows down a chunk (probably closer to when we are waiting for a close, tbh) it may be good to start a separate /Workshop page, with the purpose of letting editors discuss and tweak ideas before taking them to Phase II. There are many proposals here that could have benefitted from it without forcing every one of them to go through that gauntlet.

Speaking of which, I read a comment from somewhere talking about adding proposals to Phase II only if they get a couple seconders. That would be another idea to help organise the structure better Soni ( talk) 06:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Phase II will only accept follow-ups to phase I, so that's easier to organize, I will say. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 06:58, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The 2021 review didn't get much engagement during its brainstorming phase, with participants seemingly more interested in making new proposals than commenting on any. Thus I suggest not having a separate workshop page, in hopes that will get more participation. Perhaps move where participants will discuss the outcomes of trial proposals to a later phase and just focus phase 2 on and refine the implementation details of broad-strokes ideas. isaacl ( talk) 15:14, 8 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I didn't have a chance to actually draft a proposal to this effect, but for me one of the most critical things to determine would be how to make it easier/smoother for editors like myself, who are purely technical editors, to gain the mop. Having admins who are exclusively dedicated to counter vandalism and technical work is not a bad thing (despite what some might try to say otherwise). However, nominations of these types of editors generally fail because of the content thing; and while I guess I understand why some content-building experience would be important for those who wish to dive deep into the drama boards and dispute resolution and CTs and all that "fun" stuff, I would argue that it should also be indisputable that one does not need experience writing content to be able to have sufficient skills to block vandal accounts, inappropriate username, delete obvious CSD pages, etc. Like, the ability to determine whether something is or isn't blatant disruption, to determine whether something is or isn't a username violation, or to determine whether some page meets or doesn't meet the rather black-and-white CSD criteria doesn't really require having written anything at all. And yet we still say that all admin candidates must be content creators because admins are the ones who mediate disputes involving content that become conduct disputes, and admins have to make tough calls at AFD or AE and whatnot. Which is all true... but the problem is that not all admins will have a desire to do that stuff. How much content one has created doesn't provide any insight as to one's technical knowledge. If only there was a way to somehow segregate the technical/janitorial aspects of adminship from the social aspects of adminship, we would be much better off. We could have two different boilerplate templates for RFAs - one for someone who is running on purely technical grounds, and one for someone who is running on social grounds or both grounds. An RFA for an exclusively technical editor who would be focused on AIV/UAA/RPP/CSD/etc would be able to be evaluated solely based on their understanding, execution, and application of the relevant enforcement policies (i.e. check their AIV/UAA reports for general compliance with standards, make sure there aren't hoards of blue links in their CSD log, ask some basic questions about when to block vs. protect, etc.) Contrarily someone who is running with a stated intention to get involved in the more complex areas could be evaluated based on their social skills, content work, dispute resolution skills, etc. Not all admin candidates are created equal; we should stop trying to apply a one-size-fits-all criteria that all candidates have to meet before being considered regardless of their backgrounds or their intentions. We must tailor applications to the specific applicant and what they plan to do with the tools. If we did this, I have a feeling we'd have a lot more nominations. End Rant. Taking Out The Trash ( talk) 23:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Amongst admins 99% of the time that dichotomy already exists and the other 1% is when we see bad blocks. They know that just having the mop doesn't mean they should immediately work the drama boards and do blocks there. And RFA is extra tough because RFA people presume the opposite. I had a proposal to raise the awareness of / solidify this informal dichotomy but it failed. It looked like it was misunderstood which is probably my fault for not explaining it more thoroughly. North8000 ( talk) 00:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I encourage you to propose some specific changes on the corresponding talk pages. Having a concrete proposed edit will make discussion easier. isaacl ( talk) 04:06, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think nominations of 'antivandalism / NPP' candidates typically fail because of a lack of content work. Usually, when such a nom fail, content a secondary concern is combination with "temperament" issues or bitey behaviour.

When I just started out, I heard people describe NPP school as admin school, and I found this a useful framing, as people active in NPP have proven they can work away backlogs efficiently. If you compare that to content writers like me, giving these people the mob alleviates pressure much more. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 07:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think you can separate the mechanistic from the social aspects of adminship, because every admin action affects either another editor or another editor's work. Most of the time when 'technical' admins get into trouble, it's because they've slipped into thinking that they are separable: that there aren't people behind those vandals they're blocking, that the pages they're speedying came from the aether, that discussion and consensus is just another system of rules, etc. –  Joe ( talk) 10:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

This might seem like a really simple question, but when will the general voting/discussion period be over and successful proposals closed? Do we have to wait for more RfAs for the process to continue? Thanks for dealing with a semi-clueless user! ❤History Theorist❤ 00:22, 19 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ HistoryTheorist: proposals are closed as soon as they have been open sufficiently long and discussion has died down. As many of the earlier proposals have been open for ~30 days (typical RfC duration), I think we'll likely see a couple of them closed as successful soon. No need to wait for an RfA; it's likely people are holding off on launching RfAs anyway, if they believe these reforms make RfA a better process. —Femke 🐦 ( talk) 20:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Femke and HistoryTheorist: I've listed proposals 2, 3b, and 4 up at WP:RfCl; I'm expecting to list more soon :) if any uninvolved users want to close one of those proposals, that would be appreciated. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 23:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Cool! Thanks for the answer. ❤History Theorist❤ 23:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I've just closed proposals 16 and 16c as successful but requiring further discussion of specifics in Phase II. What's the format for that going to be? –  Joe ( talk) 09:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Joe Roe: I'm going to open a subpage, probably at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall. If I'm reading your close correctly, there is consensus that the community should be able to force an RRfA, but no consensus as to the initation threshold or the RRfA pass threshold? Of the six points in 16c, which have by-default consensus (pending amendment) and which have no consensus? theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 10:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

No, my reading is that there is no consensus for how to initiate an RRFA at all – just that the community should be able to do it somehow. 16c has support but I don't think it amounts to a consensus yet. It also seems likely that now people know that it's going to happen, there will be more ideas about how it should happen, so I'd suggest leaving the door open for new (sub)proposals. The general sentiment across all three discussions was that quite a bit more workshopping is required. –  Joe ( talk) 10:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Subpage created; I'll open it once prop 13 is closed, since that's the only one that looks like it needs heavy-duty refinement before possible implementation. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 11:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I would very much prefer some discussion period before going all in on Phase II. Probably a free discussion week or so? We possibly might need to have a poll on every suboption of the proposal, but I am concerned this approach will result in passing the most watered down aspect for each subproposal. Soni ( talk) 11:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'll think about it? It might be good to let people have a place to shake out some of the knucklehead ideas first, but that sounds like it could pretty easily be a low-trafficked page and then we lose a week on it. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 12:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'll be frank, I am not convinced you should be the sole authority making structural decisions about how proposals are made and implemented. I love the progress we've made, but ultimately this should be a community thing. I think there's value in at least having open discussion, to gauge out people's initial ideas. Soni ( talk) 13:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think opportunity for discussion should be included at the start of phase 2. I think having some open discussion will help lay the groundwork for better proposals, before a list of support/opposes are made that make it harder to evolve proposed changes. Having this discussion on the phase 2 page will avoid dissipating interest. For better or worse, though, concrete proposals focus people's attention. So although personally I would like participants to take more time with workshopping ideas, I acknowledge that most people will want to get to the support/oppose period sooner rather than later. isaacl ( talk) 18:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I'll add to this part of the discussion a quote from Joe's closing statement: "Phase II of this review should therefore consider specific proposals for RRFA initiation procedures and further consensus should be sought on which, if any, is to be adopted." I think it's self-explanatory, and should be the way to go. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Sure; all I'm saying is that it would be good to provide some time to allow for discussion and refinement of specific proposals before starting to collect support/oppose statements, as those tend to lock people into particular positions and can thus hamper finding an acceptable middle-ground approach. isaacl ( talk) 21:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree. I just wanted to cite that passage from the close, but it was more in response to multiple comments above, than to yours. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It's up to the closer of course, but in my opinion prop 13 contains plenty of detail and could be implemented quickly after this RFC. In fact I would prefer it skip phase 2. All the essentials are in there: the suffrage requirements (same as ACE), the # of days to discuss (3), the # of days to vote (7), the frequency of the elections (6 months), the software to be used (SecurePoll), the pass threshold (70%), etc. It's all detailed in the proposal. Will let the closer decide if there's a consensus that X detail has to be fleshed out or X detail is too vague, but from where I'm sitting, I see a complete, detailed proposal that is ready for implementation. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 12:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I would agree, except you were pretty clear at the outset that In my opinion, this RFC should only be to determine if community consensus exists to try some kind of admin election / secret voting system. The technical details should be worked out later. Xaosflux said in the discussion that ACE suffrage would be time-consuming, scrutineering and election location haven't been worked out, and I think the threshold is too high. An idea was passed, and the community should have the chance to workshop and concretize it before a test run. If the closer wants to fill in blanks, that's great, but no, I don't think skipping phase II is fair. theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 12:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The threshold question is probably more ripe for post-test run questioning, so I can see the implementation of prop 13 being much more informal than prop 16, where Joe basically threw out most of the proposed details. I do want to give everyone a chance to iron out some kinks, though. By the way, I was also thinking about putting myself in the first test run of prop 13 to have a non-binding control group... theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her) 12:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I originally stated The technical details should be worked out later because of what happened in RFA2021, but I have completely changed my mind about it because support for prop 13 was so strong in RFA2024. Just now I have struck my original comment so that this is clearer.

I agree that the suffrage requirements could be a pain for the WMF person that sets up SecurePoll, but we could always RFC a simplification of that after the first admin election, when we are armed with WMF feedback, better data, and experience.

Not sure what to do about the scrutineers. Maybe just copy ACE for the first election, then RFC a simplification after the first election? It's actually a bit strange to me that SecurePoll involves proactive checkusering of everyone. It may be the only process on the entire website where the checkuser tool is used so proactively. The reason for this should be explored, and maybe we will end up deciding that the suffrage requirements are secure enough that we only need to do random scrutineering or no scrutineering. Not sure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I also think further RFCs will be MUCH more worth our time after we do one election cycle and see how it goes. – Novem Linguae ( talk) 12:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think that any plan needs to recognize and handle the following which I think is the case with many of the passing proposals:

1. There is consensus for the idea in general. So it's time to move forward from that and not revisit that question. And avoid changes that would effectively negate or deprecate the initial result.
2. There was recognition that there will inevitably be flaws in the initial proposal, and it was pretty clear at the time that details will be refined and a good portion of the support was conditional on that.

Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 18:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

What North just said is exactly my understanding, as well. When in doubt, discuss further, and Phase II would be the logical place for that. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Joe For Proposal 14, is the consensus to restrict voting in RFA to "Extended Confirmed" or to "30 days and 500 edits"? The former can be manually added to users based on a request, the latter cannot. I don't know if that matters in 14, but it was a non-insignificant factor for discussion in #25 (Nominees should be EC) Soni ( talk) 13:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

It wasn't explicitly discussed. Most people used the phrase "extended confirmed", so that's the wording I added to WP:RFA. –  Joe ( talk) 17:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Nagol0929: In your close, can you please address the related issues brought up in Proposal 9b, as discussed above in #Is phase 2 a good idea? Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Tryptofish: I did try to address said issues in discussing the oppose arguments and then mentioning at the end that all oppose arguments were rebutted. But if there is a specific way you would like me to word it, I am open to discussing that. Nagol0929 ( talk) 02:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

You found consensus that diffs are required for things that are not policy violations. But the 9b discussion found the opposite. And most of the 2 discussion took place before that later discussion at 9b. If we have two different proposals here coming to conclusions that contradict one another, that's a problem. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

To hopefully clarify further, Nagol0929: Based on reading your close I think that your intent was to find that there was consensus for a reminder of civility on the RfA page in some fashion but that a Phase II discussion is needed to iron out the wording. If that's the case, I'd advise amending the close to make that clearer, and that should address Tryptofish's concerns. Even though you make mention there isn't much agreement on the wording, your close gives the impression that there is consensus for the reminder as written by the proposer. This has conflict with 9b due to the wording of "Editors may not make allegations of improper conduct without evidence.". Now, if you believe there is consensus for the wording as written, then Tryptofish is asking for clarification as to how proposals 2 and 9b are going to be reconciled as they appear contradictory. — Sirdog ( talk) 23:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Personally, I don't feel the summarizing statement leaves an impression that there is consensus for the proposed text. The first two sentences are I find that there is consensus for this to be implemented at RfA. However there is not a clear consensus on what the actual message should say. isaacl ( talk) 03:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

My intent was indeed to conclude that there should be a reminder of civility in some fashion. I also wanted the community to deliberate on the exact wording of the reminder. I’ll make it more clear when I am able to access a pc next. Nagol0929 ( talk) 04:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks for agreeing to clarify that. And thanks to Sirdog and isaacl for clarifying the issue. Sirdog explains my concerns very well, and I agree that making it clearer that there is not consensus for a single, specific wording, but there is consensus for, as you put it, "a reminder of civility in some fashion", is what is needed. Such a clarification, which I see as necessary, will address my concerns. Thanks again. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

How does this sound? I find that there is consensus for there to be a reminder of civility implemented at RfA. However there is not a clear consensus on the exact wording of the reminder. The exact wording of the reminder shall be discussed in phase 2. Nagol0929 ( talk) 14:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

+1 — Sirdog ( talk) 18:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, that would address my concerns. Thanks for listening. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 21:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

All discussions are now closed. Toadette ^Edit! 22:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

With the understanding, per the discussion immediately above this one, that 9b that you closed, must be discussed further in Phase 2. (I'm starting to feel like a broken record, but people seem to keep overlooking this, and it's important.) -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree with tryptofish this needs to be discussed in phase 2. More specifically in collaboration with the discussion of proposal 2 as the wording of the reminder could impact proposal 9b. Nagol0929 ( talk) 02:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC) reply