Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Status as of 01:16 (UTC), Saturday, 29 June 2024 (update time)


Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to have a discussion-only period at the beginning of RfA. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:23, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! This is the discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of RFA2024 (Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial)). The discussion close by Joe Roe is reprinted here:

After more than a month of discussion, there is a clear consensus in favour of this proposal. Eighty editors participated in the discussion and a 76% majority supported the proposal. The arguments against were sound but evidently not persuasive. Additionally, many opposes were qualified as "weak", and many concerned a preference for another variant of this proposal – none of which have been successful.

The details of this proposal were implicitly taken from the unsuccessful Proposal 3 above. For the avoidance of doubt I'll repeat them here (slightly edited for clarity):

For the first two days (48 hours) of a request for adminship (RfA), no !votes (comments indicating "support", "oppose", or "neutral") may be made. Optional questions and general comments are still allowed. After the first two days, !votes may be left for the remainder of the RfA.

This is to be a trial that applies to 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.

Neither proposal specified what should happen after the trial period. I assume another RfC should be held to determine whether there is a consensus to make this change permanently. – Joe (talk) 12:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The trial has been in effect through the RfAs of ToadetteEdit (NOTNOW), Numberguy6 (SNOW), DreamRimmer (withdrawn), Elli (successful), Pickersgill-Cunliffe (successful), and HouseBlaster (successful). The trial will conclude either when five RfAs have concluded without SNOW or NOTNOW, six months have passed, or if consensus resolves to end the trial early.

Open discussion[edit]

  • no !votes (comments indicating "support", "oppose", or "neutral") may be made An explicit exception for joke !votes should be made. Polygnotus (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @QuicoleJR: Because, people will make joke !votes in the comment section and others will literally interpret them as !votes and delete them and then drama will ensue. Also, has it been made clear what should happen to non-joke !votes? Should they be not be counted? Struck through? Removed? Polygnotus (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    An admin, an IP, and a sockpuppet walk into a bar... Randy Kryn (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was more thinking among the lines of this one Polygnotus (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and the bartender says, "what're you having?" The admin says, "I'll have a glass of your finest champagne." The IP says, "Give me your cheapest draft beer." The sockpuppet says, "Just water for me; I can't afford a third drink." Levivich (talk) 02:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's gotta be the best Wikipedia joke I've ever seen. Hats off to you. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not bad! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh man, that's a great joke! Toadspike [Talk] 06:01, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol that's very good. Neocorelight (Talk) 11:24, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I love this joke. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It can be difficult to discern jokes, especially when you don't have labeled sections. Imagine the chaos where someone gets a normal-looking !vote removed and insists it was a joke. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think a large issue with RfA being an unpleasant process for applicants are the detailed explanations of "oppose" votes, not a lack of them. Perhaps the most hurtful (or even dishonest) explanations of oppose votes have been provided only because they're practically required for a vote to count without causing huge drama. If this is true, the discussion-only period was a mistake going into the wrong direction, and admin elections may help. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ToBeFree: I was wondering what you might think of something like this? Do you think something like that could work? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Admin elections with a crat chat? I'm not a fan of bureaucrat discretion. Admin elections solve multiple problems including supervoting in my opinion, and I'd say there's no need to remove or weaken that part of the solution. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My idea was much different than admin elections, at least as it was conceptualized in the reforms. Essentially, I was thinking an anonymous vote with a running tally that begins as soon as the RfA starts + the general comments section/questions. But otherwise comparable to how RfA usually is (such as the crat chats). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The aspect of facilitating SNOW closures is indeed something I didn't think about when supporting this proposal. Should there be some sort of motion for early ("expedited") RfA closing? While this may incur a bit of stress on the candidate, it will resolve the efficiency problem and have it all be over with sooner. Maybe we can make it so early closure can only be proposed 4 hours after opening? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "efficiency problem"? There are many problems with RfA, but taking too long is not one of them. I also don't think this proposal facilitates SNOW closures – it makes them more confusing, since there are only general comments to go by rather than votes, leading to the chaos of Toadette's RfA. I would support allowing SNOW closure only after voting opens, and prohibit SNOW closes in the discussion-only phase. Toadspike [Talk] 06:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it difficult to discuss this (and the early close proposal below) while there is an RfA currently ongoing, and plan to comment after it closes. Levivich (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We haven't had a full-length RfA yet, but for the two early closes and DR's ongoing, the two-day discussion period seems to have caused quite a few more questions than before. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I doubt the 32 questions in Numberguy6's RfA made the process any easier for him. Once the discussion period ends, we could end up having less questions than normal, but we can't tell at this point. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be possible to remove the general comments section and shorten the discussion-only period down to 24 hrs for the remaineder of the trial? I think it is a good idea to have a short time before voting for only questions to be posed and then answered. This would prevent rushed and uninformed voting. It would also give the candidate a right of reply before users casting judgements. I think the three-day discussion-only period has been too cruel, drawn out, and unnecessary. It doesn't achieve what it was set out to do. — GMH Melbourne (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wouldn't that cause even more questions to be asked (which is undesirable according to ARandomName123's comment above)? Polygnotus (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Polygnotus: I guess you're right. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with questions relevant to better informing users. Perhaps keeping general comments and just shortening the discussion period to 24 hours could be a solution. That being said, Numberguy6 still received 22 questions within the first 24 hours of his RfA. GMH Melbourne (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    fwiw the discussion period is currently two days, not three days. I also think Numberguy6's huge question count was partly due to his extremely concise answers. Toadspike [Talk] 06:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This feature has failed to fix a lot of the things we hoped it would, but I think it's still an improvement. Stealing a point from Wikipediocracy, A big part of the 'emotional challenge' of an RfA is the usual initial flood of support votes in every non-obvious no, followed by a single oppose that heavily swings it over. I think in DreamRimmer's case, they understood why they were going to be opposed and probably had a rough idea of how the ratio was going to start out. Snowmanonahoe (talk · contribs · typos) 14:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I initially backed the 3 + 7 day format but it's pretty clear now that would have been suboptimal. Mach61 07:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • what is the point/topic of this RfC? I see only some random statements, and facts related to previous RfC. Anyways, I oppose the "trial only" pattern for RfAs. Up until DreamRimmer's RfA, I was neutral about it, but that RfA has shown that the "discussion only" method isn't much of improvement except for number of questions. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The topic is to evaluate what will happen with the trial as there's reasonable opposition to it, I think.
    The DreamRimmer RfA has had this trial bring up and adequately form opinions around their content work. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aaron Liu: I agree with Rosguill's comment on DreamRimmer's RfA: It seems like the main substantive effect of the discussion period is to prevent the minor embarrassment of making an early support !vote only for some scandalous controversy to be revealed. In theory, perhaps this also could make oppose comments and !votes less polemical, since they're not being aimed at a wall of supports[...] this is exactly what happened. I am not referring to the content translation as extraordinarily controversial/scandalous, but to the general occurrence of one substantial oppose argument flipping the generally positive RfA. The discussion period was supposed to prevent that, it did not happen. The issue would have been brought up in regular RfA as well. —usernamekiran (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure what purpose this two-day-discussion actually serves. It sounded like a sensible idea when first floated, but having now seen in practice a few RfAs under this new format, I don't think it has moved the needle. People are expressing their opinions, like they did under the old format, just not allowed to !vote. And as DreamRimmer's RfA showed us, those opinions aren't necessarily even indicative of the way the !votes are then going to go. I for one would be quite happy to go back to the way things were (spoken like an old geezer, truly). --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is kinda pointless that it says comments indicating support/oppose/neutral are forbidden but I'd argue that's about 80% of them on the past RfAs. Not sure how the majority of them being "how is this user not an admin" is beneficial. Wizardman 20:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should end this trial. It's shedding no more light and the numbers of questions for the candidate it's generating is simply unfair. We tried it, it failed, so back to the old way.—S Marshall T/C 08:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Strictly speaking, questions are the only things candidates need to review, and scenarios depicted would come up quite frequently anyways. Questions answered also provide a better understanding of the candidate and discussion stabilizes the change in percentage. While the DR discussion may have created unreasonable expectations, the percentage of supports to opposed remained quite consistent, which IMO would provide less shock to candidates. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that we have had a successful RfA under the trial system, here is some feedback about it from the new admin: [1]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    some good, some bad. I liked the ability to answer questions and concerns without worrying about a flood of opposes due to my delay in getting to them... but it felt like the discussion-only period went on a bit too long.

    Aaron Liu (talk) 00:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pickersgill-Cunliffe and HouseBlaster:, out of curiosity, do either of you have any opinion on the discussion only period with respect to your RFA? Did it have a positive/negative impact? Soni (talk) 09:54, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • In hindsight, I think it was a good thing. Allowing people to raise concerns without necessarily opposing was beneficial. It did feel like the discussion period was dragging on, so I think a 24-hour discussion period followed by a six-day !voting period would be better. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 13:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • [2]. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The timing of my RfA was entirely down to when I was on holiday and could guarantee free time to respond to questions! I didn't find the new format problematic; it does seem to be encouraging people to ask more questions (for good or bad!).
    — User:Pickersgill-Cunliffe 14:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

    (you can permalink comments with Special:GoToComment now!) Aaron Liu (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know you know this already, but for the benefit of others: I use my script, User:Isaacl/script/copy-comment-link-to-clipboard, to facilitate copying links to comments. The URL fragment ID can be extracted from the result and used with Special:GoToComment. (I'll think about updating the script to also display the permalink, so it can be copied and used.) isaacl (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    insert c:Project:Convenient Discussions plug here. There's actually a software thing where the timestamp straight-up links to a URL. It's enabled everyWMFwhere except enwiki for some reason. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hold up, according to T365974 it's coming on the 26th. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the info – I don't need to bother changing my script then. (My script might still be handy when linking to older posts that were archived, to allow the page location to be seen in the link, while the permalink will be helpful prior to archiving, since the page will change.) isaacl (talk) 01:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides resulting in extra questions, the new format also appears to be resulting in less overall supports and less overall votes. This ties into the problem of taking away the first day or two of all supports, which is a morale booster that helps deal with the opposes to come. All of this together, in my opinion, probably results in a worse candidate experience rather than a better one. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another thing that I notice is, admittedly, something that editors can view differently, depending upon one's perspective. Historically, opposes sometimes increase over time, as editors become aware of issues and, perhaps, some editors get past the social awkwardness of not wanting to be near-alone in opposing, so they wait for others to "go first". By having fewer days of support/oppose, it's possible that there are fewer opposes in non-unanimous cases, and that might make it easier to pass. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early close[edit]

note: section added retroactively. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support early close so far this experiment has achieved nothing but waste a lot of community time and prolongs the suffering of unsuccessful RfA candidates. In both Toadette and Numberguy RfAs (and very likely DRs), the discussion period simply forestalled a close for two days, attracting a lot of community energy without any change in the outcome. (t · c) buidhe 00:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support early close. Yeah this does not seem like an improvement to me. Lotta milling around, walls of text accumulating without being structured enough to lead somewhere productive. It makes me appreciate that threaded conversation under specific oppose votes (typically) is actually a helpful way to track what major concerns arise and how much weight they deserve. The prospect of having to winnow that out from the morass in the general comments section of DR’s RFA for example seems to have made the process less rather than more efficient. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The fundamental reasons for this change were not elucidated in the proposal, but any change to the RfA process should be an effort to attract more people to sit through the process, without compromising standards or the effectiveness of the vetting process. While this trial run did not result in lowering standards, it also did not make the process any more attractive. As pointed out above, it also made the process less efficient for the community, many of whom needed to visit this page multiple times to weigh in on the candidate. I agree with the call to abandon this trial before we deter potential candidates from RfA, or fail to promote a good candidate who would have passed without this change. – bradv 02:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support close per Buidhe. Polygnotus (talk) 02:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose early close – We have one ongoing RFA discussion (DreamRimmer) potentially heading toward neither NOTNOW nor SNOW result. Indeed, I see plenty of "support" votes yet also plenty of "oppose" ones there. Sure, two other RFAs were closed as either one, and the process seems either annoying, slow, or whatever. However, at this time, the amount of such after enacting the trial run is too small for me to favor early close at this time. After DreamRimmer, let's wait for either four more RFAs resulting in neither NOTNOW nor SNOW or three to four months then, whichever first. In other words, why not patience? George Ho (talk) 02:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC); updated, 07:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A few days later: The DreamRimmer RFA was closed as withdrawn, neither NOTNOW nor SNOW. We now have a potentially successful RFA (Elli). After that, three more non-NOTNOW/SNOW RFAs or three more months to go, whichever first. --George Ho (talk) 07:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC); updated, 05:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least two weeks later: Since my above further comment, we've now had one successful RFA, and we're heading for another potentially successful RFA that's now ongoing (HouseBlaster). After that, in order to finish the whole trial, let's await one more RFA that'll result in neither NOTNOW nor SNOW within the three remaining months from now. As I predict, that one more RFA will arrive probably not too later (but probably sooner than expected) and result in neither of those. To put it another way, after more RFAs that became successful, the proposal to close the trial early will be moot and pointless. --George Ho (talk) 05:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Misread, sorry. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  • Oppose early close. The format is a change, and the community did not adjust well to 2 of the 3 RFAs so far. There were usual RFA comments repeated, which led to arguments and frustrations. However, I think the third RFA was a marked improvement on all of them, particularly with more 'Crat involvement. As Innisfree987 said, we have walls of text accumulating without being structured enough to lead somewhere productive. So I think we should continue with the process, but structure it more.
The process has not been immediately beneficial in my eyes either, but I'd prefer if every RFA reform idea didn't get discarded at first resistance. If it still fails, it fails. I just think we do not have a sample size enough to say it yet, with adjusting community behaviours. Soni (talk) 02:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that we've seen a 4th RFA with this process, and a successful one in fact, I am now starting to believe this format is a strict positive. Someone else on another discussion mused how this shift might make the first two days much more active (than the other 5 days) for the candidate, potentially giving rise to weekend RFAs. I think that's be a net positive effect.
The discussion overall also feels more collegial than adversarial. I think we can still be kinder to obviously not-passing candidates, and reduce repetitiveness in conversations. But the changes so far actually make RFAs more palatable in my opinion, or at least seem to. Soni (talk) 09:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think it's going great so far, but the community voted to approve this trial run and we should see it through. It's not as if the status quo was so desirable that we must return to it ASAP. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 03:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While i understand and sympathise with Bradv and Buidhe's arguments, the community did decide to run this trial and should agree to stick to it for the (limited) time that was agreed. The currently running RfA benefited from at least one 'Crat's reminder to stay on discussion before the voting period began, and i would hope that each of the next four in the trial will also attract sufficient 'Crat attention. The call to close the trial is too soon (or NOTNOW, if you like) for us to judge the success or failure of this attempt. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 04:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support early close. This format (with the oppose section initially closed) seems to push of lot of opposition into the early questions section. The following comments snipped from various questions at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Numberguy6 feel to varying degrees to be pushing back against the nomination. I've left the names off to avoid personalizing what does not seem to be a personal issue: "Looking at Special:PageHistory/Template:Expand language, I don't see any edits by Numberguy6. [...] the one-year time period you've chosen to examine is rather short. [...] A lot of your "Plug-in electric vehicles in X" articles are Start-class, and many genuinely can't be developed beyond what you've already put in them. I would argue that they can be merged into more substantial articles. I think the articles for hybrids in Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and the Faroes can probably be merged into something like Plug-in electric vehicles in Northern Europe or something like that. And even more importantly, the articles arranged by US state and Canadian province should probably go to Plug-in electric vehicles by US state and similar. [...] Your answer above is not an answer: many people are "very active on Wikipedia, and ... already have a very large amount of editing experience" but zero interest in becoming an admin, but you don't say why. [...] looking throughout your reverts I can't see messages or warnings that you've left on talk pages after. [...] There's been some concern about the brevity of your answers here, and I see that across your many years editing Wikipedia, you've only edited your own talk page 24 times. [...] You state in an answer above that "I thought that only admins had the authority to leave such messages. I did not learn otherwise until I applied for adminship." As you have stated that you intend to block vandals if this request were to succeed, don't you think it is likely that many users may find this a rather alarming lack of policy knowledge for an admin candidate? [...] your answer is quite vague [...] I realize that candidates have their ideas of why they want to be an admin, but not a concept of all the admin areas to be taken care of. [...] Right now anyone can already see whether corresponding articles on other language wikis exist, so there's no need to duplicate that information. If a multilingual editor has the language and editing competence necessary to check the quality of text and sources in a corresponding non-English article, then they already know whether the English one can be expanded from it or not, and the template is unnecessary for them. A monolingual English editor shouldn't be trying to expand our English article from the corresponding non-English article anyway, because they can't verify the non-English text and sources, so the template doesn't help there either. For that matter, if you don't have the language ability necessary to check the quality of text and sources in the linked article beforehand, then you shouldn't be adding a template to tell other editors that the English article can be expanded from that corresponding article, because you don't actually know if that's true. [...] I've seen, at least with {{Expand Japanese}}, is that well-meaning editors see that a Japanese Wikipedia version exists and slap that template on our article, even though the additional Japanese Wikipedia content (which they cannot read) is useless on English Wikipedia, e.g. a bunch of unsourced lists, comically unreliable sources, BLP-violating personal information, non-encyclopedic detail like the voice actress's nickname for her plant, etc etc. In those cases adding the template is less useful than doing nothing at all. [...] Some editors have expressed concerns you are planning to work in areas that you currently have limited experience in."(27 May 2024) I think a previous attempt at something similar also resulted in a barrage of vaguely accusatory questions. Rjjiii (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. When the current RfA is closed, we'll have a grand total of one data point for how the new process works in a non-SNOW/NOTNOW setting. Granted, it doesn't seem like a particularly positive data point. But statistically, that's not enough to draw any meaningful conclusion, especially given the inherent erraticness of RfA. We should see this through, and while we may not keep it, with more data we may be able to iterate on it. The impetus for this change — reducing the pressure of the first two days by offering a chance to air concerns not attached to a !vote and giving the candidate more time to answer questions — is still an extant issue that we need to find some way to address. Sdkb talk 05:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support early close. 1) Disorganized. Increased mental effort for !voters because all comments are mixed into a giant vat of prose. The previous system had a nice way of sorting comments into support, oppose, neutral, general comments. 2) Obfuscates how the RFA is going. The tallies at WP:RFA and at User:Enterprisey/rfa-count-toolbar.js provide non-helpful 0-0-0 for two days. 3) Folks who participate in the first two days need to remember to go back on day 3 and copy their comment over. 4) Seems to result in more questions being asked of the candidate, which is burdensome to the candidate. 5) In my opinion, no change to the toxicity and no positive change to the dynamic of RFA. Opposers still make blunt comments and still make aspersion-like speculations that surely sting for good faith candidates. 6) Denies candidates the normal first 24 hours of all supports, an important morale booster in the normal RFA process that helps balance out the opposes to come. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, two totally unsuccessful RFAs and one RFA split aren't enough to end this trial abruptly. Furthermore, this year so far (Jan–May), amount of nominations is about the same compared to the same period of last year. Noticeably, four pre-trial nominations were successful this year to this date, while three within the same period of last year were successful. Perhaps we'll see loads of nominations this summer? Hmm... I'm doubtful; compared to last year, the nomination run has been slow so far, i.e. amount of nominations have become scarcer over the years as much as successful ones. George Ho (talk) 06:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been the longest time without a successful RFA since October 2021 to January 2022 (inclusive). The whole of March, April and May this year had 0 successful RFA and there wasn't one at all until the last days of April. It used to be a frequent occurrence until 2018. 2021 had the lowest at just 11 RFA of which 7 were successful but it has since recovered to 2018 levels in 2022 and 2023. In fact 2022 had almost double the RFAs in 2021 (and had double the number of successful candidates). See also: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_261 thread about the 2021 RFA stats. JuniperChill (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Because March, April, and May of this year was when WP:RFA2024 was (and still is) happening. Levivich (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: we have had three RfAs that are not representative of the general pool and (in my view) none have been the most toxic RfA in the last 12 months (which is not a large pool). Hopefully in the trial of five we will see a successful RfA (or an RfA that would have been successful under the old system) so we can compare. An early close would be bizarre. — Bilorv (talk) 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose early close. I don't support the change being tried but the community voted to conduct the trial and the trial deserves to run its course and to accumulate proper amount of data. Otherwise there will be endless debates that the trial was closed prematurely and similarly endless attempts to bring it back. Just let it run, and if it should fail, let it fail convincingly, with sufficient data. Nsk92 (talk) 10:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support early close It hasn't done anything to improve the environment. If anything, it makes it worse. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the person who proposed the idea, this should be closed early. I'm generally done with RfA but since I was the one who proposed the idea that eventually became this proposal I feel some responsibility here. And the outcome of this has been to change the dynamics in a way that amplifies the negative qualities of candidates. The goal was to introduce a time for thought and high level discussion. While that has happened, soome I don't think it has happened in proportion to make it worthwhile to keep or even see if it'll get better with more experience (as Lindsay suggests). I think it likely that all of these candidates would have faced difficulties in passing even without this method but this method made it even more lopsided and negative than it would have been otherwise. English Wikipedia should, in my mind, be willing to try out new things and it should be equally willing to admit when they've failed. That ability to admit when things have failed and move on will make it easier to say yes to other ideas which might work. This has failed. We should move on. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Elli's RfA showed now benefit to this discussion only format even in a largely uncontroversial RfA. Further proof that it's not helping anyone and is, perhaps, encouraging people to run who might not have which is its own negative thing. I hope those who said "we need to see what it's like in a successful RfA" re-evaluate now. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The new format wasn't designed to impact high quality candidates, unless some 'RFA-derailing information' came along which needed a proper analysis before !voting. At least that is why I voted for it. The new format will only be tested when such an event happens. I can't see how having a discussion on a candidate before !voting is an inherently bad idea, and my understanding was that this is how ArbCom members are chosen? Aszx5000 (talk) 01:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    is, perhaps, encouraging people to run who might not have Wait I am confused how this is a negative. It makes complete sense if you think the new format doesn't work, but to me, at least "encourage people who might not have run" is a strict positive. I genuinely believe impostor syndrome reduces our pool of likely admin candidates, simply because many candidates do not consider themselves worthy. If anything, Elli's RFA should be proof that candidates who aren't 100% sure of themselves should still apply to RFA? Or perhaps that encouraging more people to run will make it more likely that the solid candidates run? Soni (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the amount of people who leave Wikipedia after a failed RfA, encouraging people to run who then fail is a negative if there aren't people being ecnouraged to run who pass. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We won't know if people are being encouraged to run who pass if we close early. So far (excluding snow/notnow), we've had 1 unsuccessful and 2 successful (counting the pending one prematurely). Doesn't that suggest a success? Levivich (talk) 20:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That depends on how many successful we would have had during this time under the old system. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose early close we need s larger sample. I don’t think this change has made things catastrophically worse than a regular RfA Mach61 15:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I encourage those insisting we persist with this debacle to stand for adminship themselves, rather than insisting someone else get butchered for their entertainment. —Cryptic 16:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe total utility would increase if I gained access to the tools included in with the sysop userright, hope that helps. Mach61 17:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose early close: I'd agree the sample size is SO small, none of the three candidates were "shovel ready" admins. I do agree in practice the prior discussion will likely focus on negatives. So far not one of these candidates had passed a prior ORCP. None of them were going to pass the RFA anyway. This trial hasn't really been tried yet. What we HAVE learned so far is the change has encouraged three unqualified candidates to believe the trial might make them more likely to pass. Hasn't worked out for those three. These are wins, not losses. BusterD (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In this latest RfA, we seem to have a more prepared candidate; any previous urgency to end this trial looks unfounded. It's a trial. We're expecting things to go wrong. Let's stick to the proposal. BusterD (talk) 14:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Two weeks after my prior assertion we should continue this trial run, we've had two solid candidates whose RfA processes have demonstrated no issues with the prior two-day question and discussion. We are seeing data. Trial continues. All the above concern is now unfounded. BusterD (talk) 12:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm kind of torn on this one. We've really only had one RFA that was an actual full test case, the other two were obviously going to fail, as was evident from the moment they were posted. Is it not possible to just close obviously doomed nominations during the discussion period? It should be, for the sake of both the candidate and the community. I think there may be some merit to discussing things before unthinking "no reason not to support" or "they disagreed with me one time so oppose" votes start piling up, but in the case of obviously unqualified candidates we should still be able to close them right away as we used to be able to do. The real downside here is seeing users with no chance whatsoever getting beat up on for two days before the inevitable NOTNOW/SNOW close a few hours after voting opens. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 17:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Unlikely candidates can succeed, sometimes Mach61 18:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But the point here is that the discussion phase is actually making it more obvious when we have a candidate with no chance at all (which I don't think applied in GR's case). Numberman gave what is, quite frankly, one of the worst answers I have ever seen in an RFA I think it is merely a logical step up from Extended Confirmed. If I am qualified for the permissions, then I can receive the permissions; there's no cap on the number of admins. From the moment they posted that, this had 0% chance of success. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:12, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I understanding your point correctly that, if there seem to be points against the candidate during the discussion period, an RfA should have a procedural close-type mechanism to be immediately terminated for want of an obvious lack of chance? If my understanding is correct, I think that might be problematic and precarious.
    Your saying “this had zero chance of success from when X said Y” is a pure judgement call that may or may not be borne out by facts/consensus in the future. What single person decides who is an obviously unqualified candidate[]? It is my understanding that no one does because, as per Phase I of this review, there is no community consensus on setting minimum requirements for the role of an admin, and therefore there are no objective points that anyone closing early might present to justify such a move. In fact, I think that all your suggestion would serve would be to introduce the possibility of an abuse or misuse of power. –Konanen (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose early close. There's no rush. No damage is being done, interesting data are being generated, and we need multiple instances of different flavours to find out the pros and cons of the system. So far we've had a NOTNOW, a snow close, and (presumably) a reasonably clear fail. Ideally we can also get a couple passes, then we'll have a spread to talk about. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:11, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose early close. We've only had one non-snow/notnow RFA under this new system, and the system worked as intended: problems were uncovered during the discussion phase, leading to a clear and quick result. Under the old system, this RFA would have gotten a bunch of supports, then the problems identified, then a big swing as people struck their votes and moved to oppose. That would not have been better than what just happened. So, I see 1/5 test cases so far, and it was a success (even if the RFA wasn't). Mostly, though, we haven't had enough real trials to determine if this is helpful or not. Patience. Levivich (talk) 18:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another reason to oppose an early end: so we can hear from 5 (non-snow/notnow) candidates what they think of the new format. Levivich (talk) 18:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the quality of pre-vote discussion may improve after the community gets a little more practice at it. Levivich (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose early close. Three RfAs - two self-nominations, one nomination that apparently came about much sooner than the timeline the candidate had previously stated was their intention, only two of the three to actually reach the voting period, and only one to meet the 5-count requirement of the proposal - is not a large and diverse enough sample to gauge anything. --Pinchme123 (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My original hope was that discussion would be followed by secret ballot. Sadly there is very little benefit to the system of early discussion. The only benefit I see is we get voters who are entrenched in their positions after early discussion. In the previous system editors would vote, "why not", "yup" and "I thought you were an admin already" but later revelations would sometimes cause voters to abandon their positions. So that previous system was harder on the candidate who gets their early hopes up only to fail later. My gripe has always been with the unofficial steering committees fussing, striking etc. and a secret ballot is the only fix for that malady. Lightburst (talk) 23:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And only for elections... Elections close discussion before voting, to reduce the pressure. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 01:27, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support early close, largely per Barkeep49 above. It's clear this isn't going to fix anything, and is only aggravating our existing problems with hierarchy and bigdealism running wild. (For my part I would suggest that any meaningful fix to RFA will require revisiting the idea that any perms, other than maybe crats, should involve inquiring into anything other than the respective likelihoods of use and abuse.) I don't think there's any particular need to stand on ceremony here. It's entirely proper (and consistent) for the community to approve trying out something that hasn't been tried before, and then quickly decide to end the trial once it's apparent that the harms outweigh the benefits. -- Visviva (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are right V. This does seem to amplify. And I rarely disagree with Barkeep49. The Arb election works because there is discussion then secret ballot. I belong to several organizations that also have secret ballot. Sadly RFAs are often a bloodsport because folks have to declare votes and then defend positions. It creates longterm animosity to the point where I have witnessed an admin bring up an editor's oppose vote that happened seven years earlier. Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support early close per buidhe. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Buidhe. Whatever this was originally supposed to be fixing is just causing problems and leads to pseudo-voting in the comments section, rather than anything beneficial. Any possible benefits to this new approach are outweighed by new problems. Tinkering around the edges of RfA won’t sort its problems: it’s the mindset that needs changing. - SchroCat (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose early close. There have been cons, but there have also been pros (e.g., better informed !votes), and the very limited evidence we've seen hasn't persuaded me that the former so outweigh the latter that we can't let the trial play out. I do think it'd be worth thinking about smaller fixes, though: so far it's seemed that most of the benefits of discussion are achieved in the first 24 hours, so perhaps 1+6 would make more sense than 2+5. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as the sample size is too small. My impression is that it's working well in encouraging contributors to engage with the candidate's details rather than just rushing to cast a blind "why not" support. So, it's already improving the process but we need more cases for a sound conclusion. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support early close - this is a silly change that should be undone. Simply have !voting from the off as we always have. GiantSnowman 09:02, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proposal - which I also voted for - was to handle situations where new information that had not been properly discussed could derail an FRA. That has not happened as yet. It was not to make an RFA easier, more attractive, or to let down candidates who were not as yet suitable in a nicer fashion - it was to make it more accurate and fairer to a good candidate whose information was not properly discussed. I was also particularly swayed by the fact that this is the process for how arbitrators are chosen on Wikipedia. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Discussion before voting is maybe ok, because we can address problems without having a lot of oppose votes. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 15:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have been reading the pre-vote discussion at the most recent RFA, and for less experienced people like myself, seeing a candidate properly discussed before any voting, gives me a better understanding of the requirements at RfA. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support early close. The idea was to reduce potential negativity, but the negativity comes from discussion rather than voting, and this is increasing the discussion rather than reducing it. If a candidate is good, neither they nor the community need the extra two days. If the candidate is weak, they are subjected to an extra two days of negative comments. SilkTork (talk) 12:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose early close. Other than Pinchme above, no one's !vote seems to have taken into account that this change in procedure may likely have changed the way people approach RfA. All three candidates since this change seem, as noted at some of the RfAs, to me to be editors who might not otherwise have considered adminship but for the discussion period that now precedes the !vote. If so, the decisions to withdraw before !voting started likely meant they found out the easier way, and might be more disposed to reapply in the future than they otherwise would have.

    I mean, let's face it ... when the !vote started right away we were much more likely to have candidates who believed they would easily get the community's blessing (and thus with bigger egos to bruise if they didn't). Maybe, if we keep this going for a while, we'll see if this hypothesis bears out.

    If some reform suggests itself, perhaps we could allow a direct !vote without preceding discussion as an option for candidates above a certain threshold of edits and time. Has anyone ever broken down RfAs by editors' edit count and tenure at the time? I find it hard to believe that this hasn't been done in all the time we've been doing this, but then again if it had I'm sure I'd regularly see it referenced. If we haven't, we need to do this. Daniel Case (talk) 18:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've done a little bit of data collection on when admins passed various edit count thresholds, available at User:Isaacl/Community/Analysis of requests for administrative privileges. I've been thinking of adding a breakdown of admins based on how many years since they passed a given threshold (perhaps minus years away), but I haven't done it yet. When I first floated the concept, it didn't get a lot of interest, as there are lots of special cases that make measuring tenure difficult using fixed thresholds. isaacl (talk) 19:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We have other methods that potential admin candidates could use that are more helpful, less bruising, and less involving of the community's time than starting an RfA, regardless of how the RfA is run. Perhaps something we could try is putting up a notice when someone is creating a new RfA page asking if the candidate has gone through Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll or read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, or at least asked someone else's opinion first. SilkTork (talk) 19:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A notice is displayed when someone creates a request page. You can see an example by visiting the creation link for a non-existent user. The first sentence of the message says "Please read Administrators, the Guide to requests for adminship, and Advice for RfA candidates before proceeding with a nomination." It warns that "several thousand edits to articles and housekeeping tasks" are expected, and provides links to the list of admins and to Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination as suggestions of people to ask for advice. isaacl (talk) 21:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for that isaacl. SilkTork (talk) 09:23, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose early close So far, we only had three types of failed RfAs: a "not now" RfA (ToadetteEdit), a "snowing" RfA (Numberguy6), and a withdrawn RfA (DreamRimmer). That might seem pessimistic at first, but then the current RfA, Elli, looks like it will finally break the pattern of failed RfAs, and even then, we would still need more RfAs to see whether they would fail or succeed before ending the trial. GTrang (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's any need for an early close (so this is sort-of an oppose), but my observation so far is that this is trending towards a net negative. But there's no harm in letting the trial continue, to gather more experience with the new process. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose of early close I don't think that this is very useful except to avoid early "pile ons". But, especially since the community approved it, we should probably give it more of a try. North8000 (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support early close. I should note I was opposed to this change in the first place; I don't see how it is supposed to reduce negativity in any way. So much of the less-pleasant discussion surrounds the habitual oppose !votes of a dozen or so editors, and quickly devolves into meta-discussions about badgering. Even otherwise, in this day and age, even a user acting in good faith has generally made up their minds about their opposition, and is unlikely to be persuaded, and discussion of their vote is targeted toward the audience rather than the opposer themselves. Neither of these categories of discussion are going to move into the new discussion period, and if they did I don't see how it would be better. In my view the real problem has always been that opposers at RFA get free rein to say things that would not fly in any other circumstance. This reform does nothing to address that, though I appreciate that others tried.
    All of the above isn't directly about the trial discussion period, but IMHO the trial made those problems obvious; the discussions weren't any less negative, the amount of negative commentary the candidate had to endure before seeing prolific support come in was quite high, the back-and-forth in the oppose section (which isn't pleasant, but is far from the heart of the problem, in my view) still exists. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was curious and did a little mini-audit, and I believe habitual oppose !votes of a dozen or so editors is objectively untrue. Here are the last 10 RFAs, excluding WP:SNOWs and withdrawals, which go back about a year: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Now maybe my count is off, but the editor who opposed the most often opposed 4 of the 10, and supported the 6 others. Nobody opposed 3 of them. Six editors opposed 2 out of the 10 (and all of them supported at least some of the others). Everybody else who opposed only opposed 1. There certainly aren't a dozen or so editors habitually opposing. At least for the last year, there is nobody habitually opposing RFAs, nobody even opposes most of the RFAs they vote in, and everyone who does oppose RFAs has supported more RFAs than they've opposed. Levivich (talk) 17:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The bad old days of Kmweber and "oppose since self-nomination is prima facie evidence of power hunger" are long behind us. But not forgotten by those in a position to remember. Daniel Case (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Levivich: I believe you're misreading my comment. I'm not saying most opposition comes from serial opposers (it doesn't), I'm saying a lot of the supposedly nasty discussion that follows a !vote follows the predictable opinions of a few editors. I don't want to name names here, but I did my own count before posting yesterday, and I can name a half-dozen editors who a) !vote oppose more often than the rest of the community, judging by their proportion of opposes, and b) often engender reams of discussion when they do so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, sorry, you're right, I did misunderstand your comment. But I still dispute that there are a half dozen editors who oppose more often than the rest of the community, at least not over the course of the last year or 10 RFAs. Maybe if we went back more than a year this pattern would emerge but frankly I doubt it. Levivich (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The last year isn't much of a sample size. I counted 73 RFAs since 1 January 2020 that weren't SNOW closures. 54 of these were successful, or approximately 2/3rds. The proportion of supports is substantially higher (someone could count, I'm not going to). In contrast, in a few minutes checking editors I could think of off the top of my head, I found 9 who had participated in an RFA at least 6 times in that period (8 who participated more than 12 times), and who had supported less than 50% of the time. There was even one who has never supported since 2020, and has entered over a dozen opposes. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support an early close -- it's clear to me that this process doesn't actually add anything, it just shifts the !voting to "pretend we're not voting but now people have to remember to come back twice." It's had no impact on the quality or success rate of applicants -- the ones who didn't make it now, wouldn't have made it before either, and the converse as well (Elli would have made it under the old system too). The rate of new applicants is low enough that people asking for MOAR SAMPLE SIZE!!! are barking up the wrong tree. At the current rates, it'll be months of this "experiment" for no foreseeable payoff. And if the sample size never grows large enough to matter, then that's a sign that we've wasted all this time and energy over something with trivial to no impact on the actual problem: getting *more, qualified* admins. ⇒SWATJester Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat! 16:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose early close I do not think there is enough data to determine whether this has been an improvement or not. --JBL (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support of early close - This was a completely unneeded change, as evidenced by the RfA's on which it was experimented, and it just wastes everyone's time. This thing actually reduces 2 days (48 hours) of !voting time from the normal 7 days of RfA and actually solves nothing. People have very busy lives, and not everyone has time to log in every day to Wikipedia. The community members should be immediately able to decide and !vote according to their reasons as and when they please, as soon as an RfA starts and until the time it is open, so that no one's time is wasted. TheGeneralUser (talk) 19:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support an early close I see the good intentions of this trial, but even with a small sample size, it is clear that this experiment did not solve any problems. The main problem for most real RFA's is that someone will bring up one or two very specific instances of un-adminly behavior, and then everyone spends days dissecting those instances. Waiting 2 days for votes doesn't solve that problem, it just delays the voting. The sometimes toxic discussion still occurs, just without voting statistics involved. Angryapathy (talk) 19:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, that's the point of having a discussion period first. Users can discuss the characteristics of a candidate before they have committed to a support or oppose position, which tends to lock in their views. isaacl (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I closed the thread as "no consensus" – by talk page request, I've reopened it. I would hope for it to run for maybe another 10 days, and then I'll request closure somewhere else. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:51, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support early close: Wastes community time without any changes in the ultimate outcome. A downgrade from the status quo. Let'srun (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now We've still only had a few RfAs under the system. While I'm still wary of it, I did notice a few positives. In both the DR and Elli RfAs, the oppose rationales were made clear well before voting started. Therefore, we know all the support voters saw them, acknowledged them, and didn't think they were grounds to oppose. In the old system, RfAs that ended in crat chats forced the crats to guess whether the early supports knew about the newer concerns. While a necessary part of building consensus, I don't think the voters or the candidates liked it when that happened. It would be interesting to see if the new RfA system could eliminate that. While I understand the old system was much more convenient for those who were on top of the RfAs enough to vote in the first 48 hours, but busy enough not to be able to check back at all in the remaining 120, I would still like to see more data. I would, however, support a modification where we drop the discussion to 24-31 hours, in light of Elli's comments. It seems like most of the big issues get caught then anyway, and the extra 24 hours just stresses everybody out. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1/6 would be more useful, because benefits of discussion are mostly done in 1 day. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 14:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Except that we haven't yet seen a potentially problematic issue raised that needed a fuller analysis/discussion before !voting. I suspect that if such an issue arose, more than a day would be needed? Aszx5000 (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we have, for example in the RFA that was withdrawn. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Historically from RfAs before the current trial, I don't think it's really true that the benefits of discussion are mostly done in one day. Regarding Aszx5000's question, though, note discussion can still continue past the start of the support/oppose statement period. isaacl (talk) 16:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It can, but I think it is an poorer process when people are !voting while an issue is still not fully understood? Aszx5000 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure; one day of only discussion is a step further from the previous state, two days is a step further from that, and so on. All I'm saying is that no one is compelled to state their support or oppose viewpoint immediately after the end of the discussion-only period. isaacl (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We are now only having 2 successful RfAs and 1 withdrawn, so still cannot have any definite conclusions. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 23:40, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose early close. We are still learning. Carrite (talk) 18:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose early close. This is starting to grow on me a little already, and I'd also oppose the proposal to reduce to 1 day. As noted, it often takes a little while for the "skeletons" to emerge, and not all editors log on every day, thus if this is worth doing at all then we should give that time for any issues to emerge.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose early close – is finishing the trial too much to ask? It has allowed much more informed voting and fewer mid-RfA surprises, perhaps at the cost of a few more questions for candidates. A worthwhile trade, in my opinion. Toadspike [Talk] 06:25, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support early close All the discussion period does is make admin candidates need to answer more questions. Lightoil (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion format[edit]

What we have is a situation where an editor is extensively discussed over two days while they are expected to just watch silently. If someone wants the input of the candidate, they have to go to the optional questions section to make a formal request for an answer, and the candidate is even more helpless having to just sit and wait patiently for someone to ask the right questions. This is not a technical requirement but this is what is happening, through interaction of usual RFA etiquette with this new trial. This is, in my opinion, also why there are so many questions. One alternative could be that the candidate only answers the compulsory questions and then participates in the discussion threads naturally; optional questions arise and get answered in the discussion threads themselves. Maybe. — Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that this is correct, appropriate, or correctly placed. Anyone who knows better has my permission to reformat or move it. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with discussion format needing more workshopping. So repeating the only idea I have, more section headers. General discussion with horizontal lines was clearly more structured than just discussing all over the place. I think specific subsections would be a strong positive for General discussion (So say "AFD participation" could be discussed in one section separate from "Content creation". Or whatever headings people choose).
In my opinion, this will make RFAs more readable and easier to follow along, while potentially solving a couple concerns from above discussion. Soni (talk) 18:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to subsections by topic. Levivich (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the discussion format should be threaded, like having some subsections to discuss issues with the candidate. Just a random Wikipedian(talk) 00:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
while they are expected to just watch silently – are they though? To quote User:Joe Roe: I think the community is not only tolerant of mistakes but actively wants to see them and see how the candidate responds. (from Special:Diff/1223160785). —⁠andrybak (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposal effectively abandons consensus, as it encourages unexplained opposition. An unexplained support implies agreement with the nominators' statements, but an unexplained oppose could mean almost anything, and in reality could easily be out of petty spite, which a lot of people will assume in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. An explained oppose can still be in good faith, as a reason is given. An appose implies a reason to oppose. If one has no reason to oppose, and does not wish to support, either abstain, or vote neutral if you want to make some point. · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 07:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • And why should an unexplained oppose not then be read as disagreeing with the nominators' statements? I mean, it's not going to convince anyone, and you really have to do that if you're in an extreme minority and hope to change the discussion's outcome, but it doesn't make it be a bad-faith statement like you so heavily imply. And an unexplained support could also mean almost anything, say, that "I'm familiar with the candidate from our extensive interactions on IRC and Wikipediasucks, where we have a grand ol' time saying things that would get us blocked if we did it on Wikipedia, and oh btw you can't bring those up without it being OUTING!". —Cryptic 17:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expedited closure[edit]

I'd like to workshop my idea I've mentioned above. The idea is that an early closing request can be stated four hours after commencement. Their consensus must be assessed before voting opens. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing anything in the language of the proposal that prevents an uninvolved admin or 'crat from simply unilateraly closing obvious NOTNOW/SNOW RFAs as they have been able to do in the past, and yet nobody saw fit to do so during the discussion phase of the two obvious cases we've had so far. I feel like if just clarifying that NOT/SNOW can still apply during the discussion phase is sufficient without inventing another whole process. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was a whole thing with ToadetteEdit, I think Numberguy avoided a SNOW close anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Neither proposal specified what should happen after the trial period."[edit]

As noted by Joe in the the close at the top of the page, this was not specificed. Did we learn nothing from the pending changes trial? Failure to specify how a trial period was to be evaluated and what was supposed to happen after the trial led to literally several years of protraced debate and blame-casting. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want this? because this is what you get when you don't specify these things.Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 18:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. So that's why Protect -> Pending Changes -> "PC1: Review revisions from new and unregistered users" has a giant PC1 in front of it. From looking at your RFC navbox above, looks like a PC2 and maybe some others were proposed and maybe even trialed. Interesting. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the pending changes trial, no switches have to be flicked and no affected articles have to be reset in order to end the trial. We can just go back to the previous process immediately. For better or worse, many of the editors who like to weigh in on the process for granting administrative privileges are cautious about making significant changes, and so there hasn't been any appetite to set predetermined goals or evaluation criteria. As we have seen, the results are highly influenced by many different factors, so it's reasonable to take a wait-and-see approach. isaacl (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with isaacl. The change may take a bit long to advance, but I don't see how discussing what happens right now will be any more efficient than discussing after. Aaron Liu (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2024_review/Phase_II/Discussion-only_period&oldid=1231160994"