Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Current time is 09:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC). —

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
ToadetteEdit	RfA	Closed per WP:NOTNOW	30 Apr 2024	0	0	0	0
Sdkb	RfA	Successful	16 Feb 2024	265	2	0	99
The Night Watch	RfA	Successful	11 Feb 2024	215	63	13	77

Nomination limited to Extended Confirmed users

Per Proposal 25 of RFA Review 2024 being closed as successful, nominees are required to have Extended Confirmed user-right. Soni (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

• While we're here, we probably should discuss Nomination standards section of the RFA page. I think it might be good to give an indication that XC is necessary but not sufficient. Probably something like The formal prerequisite for adminship is Extended Confirmed userright. However, in practice, successful RFA candidates are often significantly more experienced. Soni (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  That sounds reasonable. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

  I've made a go at it: diff. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 9b of RFA2024

Per Proposal 9b of RFA 2024 passing, any claims of specific policy violation during an RFA should be backed by links or can be removed. Soni (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• It's not clear to me if we'll have another set of !votes to decide who can remove said specific policy claims. By default I assume any bureaucrat can, but pinging @ToadetteEdit to ask. Soni (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  This might help crats feel that they have a little more license, but really all it seems to be saying is "you must abide by the casting aspersions provision of Wikipedia:No personal attacks at RfA," which...was already the case. Sdkb ^talk 01:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  While this might have technically been the case, several examples immediately come to mind of aspersions being cast at RfA. I think this proposal passing is one of the best things that could've happened in regards to RfA reform. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  As discussed on the proposals talk page, there will still need to be discussion of what exactly needs to be stated as the implementation of Proposals 2 and 9b, during Phase 2 of the process. It's not like the closes of those two proposals make them ready for immediate implementation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Still, it's progress. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:33, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Indeed. I just want to make sure that we don't skip any necessary steps. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Relatedly, this closes all the proposals in RFA2024. Some proposals will go through a Phase II process of refining and editing, but the first set of changes are all done. You can find all of them at the RFA2024 page. Soni (talk) 00:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Toadette RFA

Are we allowed to ask questions now? — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 13:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Ixtal, confirmed. ——Serial Number 54129 13:13, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Question that I uhhh don't know where to put ... where would we give feedback about the RFA process test proposal thing - given that the discussion phase is new. Is this a one and done attempt? Turini2 (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think here is the best place to do so (assuming you mean feedback on "Is this trial working?").

WT:RFA2024 also exists, but it's mostly focused on the procedure and specific implementation discussions (More like "When should Phase 2 for this proposal happen?") Soni (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I do mean "Is this trial working?" - I'll start a new little section. Turini2 (talk) 17:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:RFA page main table colors

If this could be addressed ASAP it would smooth things over I think. At the moment, it's showing red because it has zero supports. Can this be changed to a so-far unused colour (blue, perhaps?) so that one glance at the table does not imply that there are no votes due to a lack of support, but rather because the 'neutral' discussion period is taking place. The blue can be turned off, I guess, in a couple of days? ——Serial Number 54129 13:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Noting that this change would take place at Module:RFX report, which tracks these sorts of things. Not an unreasonable request, will see about doing something unless someone beats me to it or vociferously objects. Primefac (talk) 13:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done, I've just changed it to show   if the % is 0. Will probably need an "if S/O/N = 0/0/0 then blue" check at some point but this should get us through for now. Primefac (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it looks much gentler on the eye Primefac, thanks. The scary old 'Red-for-danger' might be fair in a tanking RfA, but not when no !votes have even been cast yet, was my thinking. ——Serial Number 54129 13:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. If we keep using this "discussion-first" approach, I think it would be helpful to also add some kind of hover text or something that says "the voting period has not yet begun" (or whatever), to make the meaning clearer. -- asilvering (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Should remain blue even if N is 1+ but S and O is still 0, I think ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 08:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with tweaks; as I said above this was just a short-term solution because it required no major code changes and I could sort it out in minutes. Primefac (talk) 14:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• Also, it seems to have disappeared from watchlist alerts. Mine anyway. Did anyone else notice it? ——Serial Number 54129 14:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  New RFA's only get loaded to the WLN manually, typically after they have been up for a few hours to help avoid wasting people's time for SNOW closes. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:32, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  Didn't realise it was a hands-on job Xaosflux, many thanks for that. ——Serial Number 54129 17:57, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback on the "new RFA process"

Hi all, as suggested above - I think the discussion stage is an excellent improvement to the RFA process, and I hope it continues in future. It's less binary and instant than the wave of negative/positive votes - I would like the status to say something like "discussion stage" or something that indicates that "voting" hasn't opened.

I hope others have feedback too! Turini2 (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

• I realize there are multiple, sometimes self-contradicting goals for this new process. But one data point is: I don't think that was any less painful for the candidate than a bunch of opposes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  I have to agree; it's still a pile-on whether it occurs in the General Comments or Oppose section. Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

  The above comments are correct, but I don't think that this RfA is really prototypical of the problems that people were trying to address. The discussion period seems like more of a potential fix for RfAs where an initially strong candidate is contested by an oppose that alleges significant misconduct, leading to reevaluation of past supports and perhaps lending itself to an overly polemic back-and-forth as oppose !voters try to swing against the wall of initial, presumably superficial, supports. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 19:38, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Levivich recently wrote Has anyone reading this ever, in any other aspect of their life, seen anything like this happen? Ever gone to a school where the entire faculty and student body gets together and talks about you? Or had a job where an all-staff meeting is called and the subject of discussion is the performance of an employee? And what do we have here? A bunch of of people lining up to explain "here's the reason why you suck". Only this time without so much as a single Moral support. I would frankly suggest IAR-deleting the RFA. ToadetteEdit does not deserve to be subjected to that. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow, what do you mean? Toadette^Edit! 19:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean people are being needlessly cruel in your RFA. I seem to remember that once upon time RFAs like this were just deleted as a courtesy. If you want it kept, sure, that's your choice. If not, well, there's no policy supporting deletion, but hopefully someone will do the decent thing and WP:IAR. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a nice idea in theory, but I think the discussion phase actually made it worse. I really don't see the point in a general comments section if people are just going to fill it up with would-be opposes, withdrawal recommendations etc. It's just moving the poor and bitey comments to another section on the page. --Ferien (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I admit I'm not the biggest fan of discussion only for a few days even if I think discussion is a valuable part of the RfA process. Maybe the next time we do RfA reform 2 years from now I'll try my luck? An idea popped into my head this afternoon: an actual vote for support/oppose akin to the securepoll process but without getting rid of the discussion aspect. We could just place a greater emphasis on general comments if one has feedback they wish to bring to the wider community (whether that's "wow I'm glad so and so is running, they do a great job at x" or "I have some concerns because of y"). But people don't have to pitch in if they don't want to and votes otherwise remain anonymous. I think we might get the best of both worlds from that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

People will always be more motivated to explain why they're opposing than why they're supporting. With the SecurePoll option, people whose votes were going to be "yup" or "LGTM" or "not a jerk, has clue" will probably not make any public comments at all. So the whole "discussion" could just end as a pile-on of negativity, even if the silent majority supports the candidate. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think a sample size of one (and not exactly a typical RfA, either) is sufficient for determining this. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd still suggest a running tally of the votes, just with them being anonymous. I don't think it'd necessarily end in a wall of negativity - I suspect many would be opposers would just oppose and leave it at that instead of engaging in discussion about why they're voting the way they are unless they think it's crucial that other voters be aware of such information. And I genuinely think that people in our community would be willing to leave positive feedback in these comments like they would if they wrote an extensive support vote in the current rfa environment. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, a running tally would remove my objection. A bit more difficult to anonymize; you'd need to keep secret the list of voters until the vote is over, and then shuffle it. But not impossible. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think these difficulties are significant. That's not to say I disagree with you - just that I think this is easily surmounted. -- asilvering (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Anyways my random idea for the next time RfA reform kicks around is somewhat off-topic for this conversation. If anyone has any further feedback for it (whether it's to say they think it's great or it wouldn't work), feel free to stop by at my talk page. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This is a poor test case for the new idea. This sort of RfA would also have been painful under the old system. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

+1. This is not a typical RfA. If this RfA had happened a month ago, it would have been a simple snow close after multiple moral support opposes. Perhaps we should encourage people not to self-nom under this system during the test period. Valereee (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Discussions of RfA reforms have always focused primarily, if not entirely, on ones that have a chance of succeeding. It's very difficult to imagine how we deliver a WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW outcome in a way that isn't painful, but in any case the discussion-only trial was not intended to address that and explicitly said that they did not count towards the trial period. – Joe (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd argue it would've been less painful under the old system—definitely still painful—but however many people would've opposed, it'd get closed as SNOW or NOTNOW, and it'd be over in a few hours. Instead, this discussion has drug out for over a day and the pileons keep, well, piling on. Queen of ♡ | speak 19:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There's some discussion at the RFA's talk page and the candidate's user talk about this. I'm not sure it's that clear. Experienced editors, Arbs, and crats have all pushed back on snow closure being possible here, and the main reasons presented have nothing to do with this trial. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

No one pushed back until the close was reverted, though? What I mean is, it was for ~ten hours treated as noncontroversial. Now that it's controversial, no one is willing to repeat the close. Only a very few actually seem to have objected to it, and as far as I can tell even fewer think the revert was a positive. Valereee (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

People have been willing to repeat the close, but it hasn't stuck. Other than that, I agree with you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Who repeated the close, @Firefangledfeathers? I saw that the RfA disappeared for a few minutes, but I couldn't figure out why. Valereee (talk) 19:34, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

See Special:History/Wikipdia:Requests for adminship for the back and forth. ProcrastinatingReader→ Cremastra→NoobThreePointOh→Primefac. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

There is no revision history at that link. Sorry for being an idiot, I know it has something to do with transclusion... Valereee (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Special:History/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship; FFF misspelt "Wikipedia". Queen of ♡ | speak 19:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hahahahaha Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

hahahahaha...and I didn't catch it! Valereee (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

And this is why I love Wikipdia, the free encyclopdia anyone can edit... Queen of ♡ | speak 19:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Just a typo: Special:History/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship NotAGenious (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

So that wasn't actually it not sticking, though...noob failed to correctly close, Pf simply fixed it? Valereee (talk) 19:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It is true that removing the transclusion isn't the way to close. Maybe Pf doesn't object to closure? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The only thing I'm thinking is that the crats at this point seem to be treating this cautiously because of the reversion of the close? I mean, we're all treating it that way. Valereee (talk) 19:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I am "treating this cautiously" because after someone asked if they had withdrawn, I sought confirmation and they said no, they were not withdrawing. I do not necessarily object to someone deciding that this is a TOOSOON/NOTNOW case and closing (as it states at WP:RFA, anyone can make that call), but I personally am going to wait for a go/no go from Toadette before closing, especially since the close has already been reverted once. Primefac (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I get it. I wasn't jumping on it either. Valereee (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Kind of depends. The reversion of the snow close, which turned the original close into a controversial edit, could have been made under either system. Under the old, it might have meant the vote was left open basically for the entire seven days. If this one gets reclosed quickly after voting starts, which kind of resets the clock, it could end only a few hours later. Valereee (talk) 19:26, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Related to the section above too, but I've asked a question at Template talk:RFX report about enacting 3b on the status column. NotAGenious (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

In the interest of not unduly biasing the current request in progress, or having the candidate undergo a meta-analysis of their request while it is live, perhaps further retrospective discussion can be delayed until at least the request is over? isaacl (talk) 21:03, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion. However, it is now over, and I have to say: this was awful. If we're going to continue using this "comment only" bit at the beginning, we absolutely have to make it clear that comments that are in essence describing a vote are not allowed. But I don't see any way for this to be possible. To take a single comment that I think illustrates the problem well (I don't mean to pick on anyone in particular! but Daniel, since I'm quoting you, it seemed best to ping you), this comment is clearly an oppose vote: Was not impressed by this DRV submission, which was very ill-judged. When challenged by numerous editors, including directly as a reply, failed to show up to defend their position. This would be a strong oppose for lack of experience and capabilities from me.

But let's say we remove the vote part. That would fix the problem, right? No. We're left with: Was not impressed by this DRV submission, which was very ill-judged. When challenged by numerous editors, including directly as a reply, failed to show up to defend their position. Come on! We can all see this is an oppose vote. But how on earth would anyone bring up legitimate concerns without sounding like an oppose vote? I could rewrite this to something more hesitant, like "I'm not sure this DRV submission showed a willingness to adapt to consensus. When other editor challenged this submission, the candidate didn't comment." But that's no better. It's just more passive-aggressive. -- asilvering (talk) 03:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The instructions on the AfD page say "Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review their contributions before commenting." So I thoroughly reviewed their contributions before commenting. "Voting opens at 12:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC). In the meantime, discussion may only take place under § General comments", so I placed my review of their contributions under General comments. I didn't "vote", but indicated how I viewed their candidacy to be totally transparent, based upon my review of their contributions. I felt it was less passive aggressive to write my perspective on their future candidacy, rather than a more vague comment that everyone knows what it means but lacks the candidness of actually saying it. Not sure what else I'm meant to do? Daniel (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is criticizing you. I believe you just happened to phrase your comment in a way that illustrates how difficult it is to discuss a candidate without indicating a vote. Joyous! Noise! 05:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

You're right, of course - my frustration is more with the process causing this confusion. If someone in good faith feels like they're doing the right thing (like I was here), but their action is counter-intuitive to the actual goal of that process, then maybe either a) the process needs to be tweaked or b) the instructions for said process need to be clearer. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 05:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm starting to get the sense (possibly incorrectly) that what people want to see is a wave of solely positive comments and discussion points. That's all well and good, but I'm concerned it might set some users up to expect their RFA will succeed and then be crushed when the actual vote comes and it isn't successful. Intothatdarkness 13:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, part of the reason for this trial run is to find a solution for the common trend of dozens of support !votes being cast before the candidate has really been scrutinized. While this is a worthy objective, I do wonder if we may have tipped the scales too far in the opposite direction. That said, this particular RfA probably isn't going to be very instructive for evaluating the trial run. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it would be easier to discuss good points ("several GAs") and bad points ("not many edits to AIV") about a candidate if there were no issues that are almost universally seen as disqualifying. You just can't make up for recent blocks or recent poor judgment about copyright or similar core article issues. —Kusma (talk) 10:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel, I'm not criticizing you. As I said, I chose your comment because it illustrates the problem well. I don't think there's any way to write it differently that would not come off as an oppose vote. You could have behaved differently, but I don't know that you should have - that is, I can't really come up with any way for you to raise this concern in the discussion without either appearing to be an oppose vote or talking in weird circumlocutions that don't really help anybody. -- asilvering (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you think that all comments that raised concerns appeared to be oppose votes? I don't, I think there are plenty of examples on the rfa page of comments that are not votes. Contra to your view above, my view is if you take out the last sentence of Daniel's comment, it reads like a concern raised that's not an oppose vote. Were it not for the last sentence, I would not assume that Daniel was going to vote oppose. I wouldn't assume that a criticism meant the editor would vote oppose or that a compliment meant the editor would vote support. Levivich (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

When I wrote "Come on! We can all see this is an oppose vote." I did mean that. -- asilvering (talk) 20:46, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I closed that section of the RfA RfC and don't remember seeing any discussion of forbidding comments that indicate an intended vote. You're very welcome to propose such a measure, but it was not an explicit part of the proposal that we're trialling now. Personally, I find it difficult to imagine how you could make a meaningful comment, that isn't a question, without giving away which way you are leaning. – Joe (talk) 09:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe For what it's worth, I'm uncertain where I land on Asilvering's argument. But, I personally thought it was obviously in the proposal (at least to the extent my comment below says). If RFA is converting to "No support or oppose votes for 2 days" and editors go "If I could, I'd vote oppose" or similar, that pretty much defeats the point of trial-ing a discussion based setup. I did not care to discuss it because I didn't think I'd need to. "Hey let's not do X for some time" does not need an explicit "But what if I threaten to X" clause; that way lies more Wikilawyering. Soni (talk) 14:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the point is that any vote, !vote or quasi-vote expressed in the discussion section will not be counted when determining the outcome. That is, at least, how Barkeep49 described his aim when he proposed it ([discussion before voting] has the potential to take some of the temperature of [RfA] down since people will be able to express concerns and respond to those concerns without the immediate stakes of having that discussion impact the support percentage). – Joe (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I will note that my proposal is not what passed and so how I described it is irrelevant. Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

But the proposal that did pass was derived from your proposal, just changing the number of days. This was noted in the proposal that formally passed (3b) and the close. – Joe (talk) 14:39, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

My reading of the proposal differs from both Joe's and BK's. There were two proposals: 3, by BK, and 3b, by utbc. 3 didn't pass but 3b did.

The text of proposal 3b is, in its entirety, Note I have just added an alternative, proposing a 2+5-day RfA trial instead of the 3+7-day trial originally proposed. This clearly means "the same thing as 3, except change it from 3+7 to 2+5." So the text of 3 is very relevant to what 3b proposed.

The text of proposal 3 included: For the first 3 days (72 hours) no "Support", "Oppose", or "Neutral" comments/!votes may be made. Optional questions may still be asked and answered, and general comments may still be left.

To me, no "Support", "Oppose", or "Neutral" comments/!votes may be made is pretty clear: don't say whether you support, oppose, or are neutral, about the candidate. Because doing so would, indeed, defeat the whole purpose of having 2 (or 3) days during which no support/oppose/neutral comments/!votes may be made.

So I do think there is consensus forbidding such comments, and that consensus comes from reading 3b together with 3, which is how 3b must be read. Levivich (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Joe: I just realized that your re-statement of the proposal in your close of 3b changed "no "Support", "Oppose", or "Neutral" comments/!votes may be made" to "no !votes (comments indicating "support", "oppose", or "neutral") may be made". Subtle, but I see those two things as being materially different for reasons that are now apparent: It's not just no "[support/oppose/neutral] !votes," but no "[support/oppose/neutral] comments/!votes", and that word "comments" being in there, and not just "!votes" is meaningful, at least under my reading. What do you think? Is this just scrivener's error, or was there something you saw in the discussion that led you to rephrase that part? Levivich (talk) 15:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think I just thought it was a bit clunkily worded. To me a !vote and a "comment indicating support/oppose/neutral" are the same thing.

In general I'm not saying that the understanding that "no votes" means "no indicating how you will vote" is unreasonable, just that in the absence of a clear statement to that effect in the proposal, and no explicit discussion of it until now, as far as I can recall, it seems a bit too flimsy to hang a new rule off. – Joe (talk) 15:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Comments like This would be a strong oppose for lack of experience and capabilities from me or I will automatically oppose are clearly comments indicating "support", "oppose", or "neutral", right? I don't mean to put words in your mouth, but as I read your closing statement, there is consensus not to have such comments during the first two days... right? Levivich (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think they're differentiated by the insertion of the word "will" or "would". – Joe (talk) 06:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not think it's a 'new rule' but a simple 'Rules as Intended' scenario. To me, the central point of a "Discussion only N days" came from a clear "Why is this proposal a thing", which was 'To reduce stress on RFA candidates'. To me, it's not a bureaucratic note of "Say whatever you want, but we only start counting 2 days later" but a "We find vote-piling is stressful, so we are not voting at all for 2 days". Its core argument derives from "Discussion is less stressful than a bunch of Opposes, but without necessarily losing the 'bringing things up' and feedbacks" in my opinion.

Had I realised how your close differed from what I imagined, I'd bring it up post close. It's hard to notice distinction, but with significant implications (as we can see). So I guess the main question isn't "Is this a new rule" but "Which one did the discussion imply". Soni (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think asking what discussions imply rather than what they explicitly said is a good road to go down. When something is unclear, surely the best and easiest thing to do is to just discuss it further? – Joe (talk) 06:19, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That's what we're doing here. I just wanted to point out that it's not a "new rule", that's all.

But yeah, we could benefit from a quick discussion on "What comments are okay/not" and "Do we need any enforcement of this/by who?" (Probably just crats?). So far this section has a lot of opinions in all directions Soni (talk) 06:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

There's a big gap between "giving away which way you are leaning" and (to take one clear example) "Should I be able to participate in the voting time, I will automatically oppose in line with my past precedence". This is a support/oppose/neutral comment/!vote, it is not general discussion. In fact, it says nothing at all about the candidate, and just an announcement of one person's voting criteria. It's a vote, clearly a vote, and I think there was consensus to not do this. Of course we can imagine less-clear examples, but "I would vote X" and similar constructions are a clear examples of votes, not discussion. Levivich (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I find it difficult to imagine how you could make a meaningful comment, that isn't a question, without giving away which way you are leaning. Yes, I agree. That's my point. -- asilvering (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

"The candidate has 2 FAs and 4 GAs and over 50 DYK credits. They have made no edits to AIV. They seem experienced with content and less experienced with vandalism." A comment like this would just be reporting on research on the candidate without giving away what I personally find important in an admin candidate. —Kusma (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you try a similar comment for when there's something specific being brought up? I agree that "They seem experienced with content and less experienced with vandalism" doesn't in itself come off as a vote (unless, of course, the candidate has expressed a desire to work in anti-vandalism, in which case it sure sounds a lot more like an oppose). But a lot of the discussion about the problems with RFA come down to something like "it's awful that the candidate can be doing well and then get totally scuppered because of a single comment they made somewhere, it makes people feel paranoid and ends up being a drama-fest". I don't really see how "you can bring it up, but you can't vote about it" makes that aspect any better, or how people who are really trying to abide by that rule would be able to bring up incidents they think are important without coming off as being an "undisclosed oppose". -- asilvering (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I imagine we could get discussions of the following type.

A: "candidate used invalid ILIKEIT arguments in these AfDs about snooker players".

B: "but they have hundreds of excellent AfDs unrelated to snooker, so I think they understand notability"

A: asks candidate whether they will recuse from closing snooker AfDs

Sometimes there are problems where there are solutions other than opposing the candidate, and it may be worth discussing them first before voting. —Kusma (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• (ec) I think my takeaway is for people to understand that a discussion is different from a voting process. This isn't a typical ANI discussion where consensus will be evaluated from just arguments; we have a separate vote later. Not everything needed mildly rephrased repetitions. Perhaps editors/crats should informally discourage pile ons more (More section headings? Cutting down discussion sooner?).
  Comments like Should I be able to participate in the voting time, I will automatically oppose or bolded "too soon"s do not do any favours either. The point of a "discussion only" time period is to avoid votes, not to merely make them early. Soni (talk) 03:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that commenters need to be aware that there's no need to repeat any points, since the relative strengths of each discussion point will be weighed by each person weighing in during the support/oppose phase. (Commenters can engage in discussion to further expand or counter points.) In general, Wikipedia editors ought to exercise restraint when an outcome seems apparent.(*)

  Looking at the other end of the process, it's hard to dissuade editors from doing something they decide they really want to do. They will say they've read the relevant advice, and be given opinions from experienced editors against proceeding, and yet still go ahead. Maybe there should be a procedure to initiate a quick temporary pause, where some experienced editors could pause a request for administrative privileges to check with the candidate if they want to proceed. But English Wikipedia's decision-making traditions make it hard to make decisions quickly, and many Wikipedia editors don't like having gatekeepers (which certainly can lead to clique issues).

  (*) I realize, of course, that editors doing what they really want to do applies also to commenters. A lot of editors like expressing a viewpoint set in bold, and so it happens all the time even when editors are asked not to express a final opinion and focus on discussion points instead. isaacl (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  In general, Wikipedia editors ought to exercise restraint when an outcome seems apparent. Honestly, I think this is the crux of a lot of our issues here. We like to see our own comments. We like the little notifications telling us that our comments have triggered replies. This invariably leads to pile-ons in the comment sections. Joyous! Noise! 16:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  your signature being placed after this comment... oh no, haha asilvering (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not impressed with how this first one went. 1) It interferes with the normal RFA dynamic of the first day or two being mostly supports, which could be an important morale booster. 2) It seems more disorganized. People are still supporting and opposing with the tone of their comments, but it is no longer placed in the corresponding section. 3) Folks that comment now have to remember to come back in 2 days and copy paste their comments into the support/oppose sections. I'll keep an open mind since we have 4 more of these to do, but not off to the best start. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Editors can and should leave comments during the discussion phase extolling the virtues of the candidate. This dynamic doesn't have to change. isaacl (talk) 04:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  I expect I will leave co-nomination style statements in the discussion phase, assuming I know the candidate and wish to support them. —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

About 5 trial runs

• P.S. I guess according to the proposal 3b close and ProcrastinatingReader's WP:NOTNOW close, this latest RFA doesn't count towards the 5 trial runs total, and we still need to do 5 more of these? –Novem Linguae (talk) 04:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Not 5 more of these. 5 real RFAs. Hopefully next time people will refrain from using the nonvoting period to indicate how they will vote. Levivich (talk) 05:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  The instructions on the RfA page itself should be improved to clarify this, especially during the trial period. Nowhere on the RfA did it state that you could not indicate how you would vote, whether implicitly or explicitly. Daniel (talk) 05:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  That's because there has been no consensus to restrict people from doing so. – Joe (talk) 09:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  This seemed like a serious RFA by an experienced editor, so I'm a bit surprised it doesn't count. But that's fine, let's follow the wording of the close. 5 non-SNOW non-NOTNOW RFAs or six months (September 24, 2024), I think it says, whichever comes first. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think it is correct that RfAs that do not go into the voting phase after the discussion phase do not count for the purpose of the experiment. —Kusma (talk) 09:57, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Moot for now, Cremastra has reopened. Valereee (talk) 12:27, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  It is still going to end up as SNOW or NOTNOW. —Kusma (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps a BN should strike such comments in the future. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 15:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

  But Joe (who closed the discussion that led to this trial) has explicitly stated that there's no consensus to forbid such comments. Perhaps a bolded Support or Oppose would be downgraded, but those that merely quack like a support or oppose are fair game. As noted above, many kinds of feedback are impossible to give without implicitly supporting or opposing anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Reopen and reclose

Since the RfA is underway once again, I repeat my suggestion to defer retrospective analysis until at least the RfA is completed. isaacl (talk) 17:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Cremastra has reverted his reversal of the close. So third time's the charm, I guess? Queen of ♡ | speak 20:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

This is what the great Kenneth Parcell would have called a "clusterwhoops". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:15, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry about that mess... I just hope no-one will revert my self-revert, which would cause everything to become so much more confusing. Cremastra (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Out of your hands now! Thanks for self-reverting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:24, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I was fairly active in the discussions about the reform proposals, and I tried to make the case that we should take it slow on implementing stuff, and subject most of it to the Phase 2 part of the process before implementing. But I got pushback from editors who felt like, if something clearly had a lot more support than opposition, then we should go ahead and treat it as having consensus. At this point, for this particular trial, it looks like we were going to run into harsh reality, one way or the other, sooner or later. I'm on the side of the editors who say here that we cannot regulate that RfA participants only comment in general, without indicating how they intend to !vote. It's unrealistic to think that we can reduce that rule to something that is enforceable. It can't be done. Editors will want to say what they want to say, and if we demand that nobody indicate a planned !vote, people will just find artful ways to skirt the edges. There are so many ways to write about one's opinion without quite framing it as a stance, that it simply will be unenforceable. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Trial info request

I generally come to RFAs from my watchlist and have not followed the reform discussions, and it took me quite a bit of time to figure out why the RFA looked different and why everyone was noting that ToadetteEdit "was the first under the new system". Would it be possible to put a bigger banner/info in the lead on WP:RFA, or the individual RFAs, saying that there's a trial happening and linking to which trial(s) are ongoing? Right now the only information is a half-sentence in #Expressing opinions that I missed until my second time reading the page. Or maybe add another line linking to the trial information in the Support/Oppose/Neutral sections where it currently just says "Voting opens at [date]"? Alyo (chat·edits) 13:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know, it sounds quite bureaucratic and might risk turning the next few RfAs into reruns of the RFA2024 RfC rather than a real test of how the changes work. The way I look at these 'trials' is just that we've agreed to make a change to policy, and also agreed to revisit that decision after a fixed amount of time. Until then, WP:RFA and the individual RfA pages describe the process RfA voters should follow now. The links and discussion archives are all there for those who want to dive into why the process looks like it does. – Joe (talk) 14:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

My thought is that for someone (*cough*) whose path is Watchlist-->"An RFA is open" link-->the RFA candidate link in the box on the right, it's complete opaque why "Voting opens at [date]. In the meantime, discussion may only take place under § General comments." I thought I'd gotten to the RFA before it had officially opened and that the candidate had either requested feedback from a bunch of people or was so known that a lot of people had watchlisted their RFA page. And also that maybe Special:Watchlist was glitching and showing me an RFC that it shouldn't be. I realize a lot of this is based on me being dumb, but if you end up on the individual RFA without doing a full read of WP:RFA (which, why would I?) then there's no explanation why it's different than every other RFA I've ever been on. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Is something like what I added to Toadette's support section adequate? Floquenbeam (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I added ", per a recent RFC." to Floq's addition. Levivich (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely, much appreciated. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It might also be good to have watchlist notices for all RFAs in this trial mention it explicitly. "A new RFA is up. Note that Support/Oppose/Neutral votes may only be made after 1 May 0000 UTC". Or something roughly along those lines, so it's clear from Watchlist notice that something is different Soni (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I kind of wonder whether it might actually be counterproductive to call these trials out as "something new" on watchlists. Valereee (talk) 16:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I suspect it will not be necessary; I have added language to the preload page similar to what Floq et al added to the live RFA so that it is more clear at the next RFA that this is a trial process. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Holy freaking facepalm What an absolute disaster this 'trial' is. Nobody can snow/notnow close it (there's reverting going on over that), it's a freaking shambles as is, some don't know what the hell is going on, no problem was identified that this would solve, and the candidate themselves acknowledges it's a failure but won't withdraw. Not to mention that these 'trial' RFAs are being inflicted involuntarily upon RfA candidates who want to become administrators. Not to mention that now, instead of snow closes on RfAs that will obviously fail, we now get two days of slapping the crap out of a candidate until !voting begins. What an absolutely colossal eff-up. Take this steaming pile back to the drawing board and think about its impact, potential unintended consequences, and just what the hell problems it's supposed to solve vs. the massive problems its inducing. Wow. Just utter wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that's really a fair assessment. This wasn't a typical RfA, and the snow close probably should have been left alone. Valereee (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't an RFA. It was a public hazing. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow, Is there a difference? Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 21:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, no, but if you're nasty to someone who stands a realistic chance of passing, you can excuse it to yourself with "well, they'll have to put up with the same shit when some troll drags them to ANI, so they better get used to it". Piling on to a doomed RFA with "and another thing" is ... well, I'll hold my thoughts per WP:NPA. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow None of what you say is wrong-- you've described every RfA that isn't a blow out. That's why I'll never vote oppose. RfA is one of the oldest, most important hazing rituals on the internet, and I see a lot of that as stemming from how uniquely powerful-- and fickle-- the Wikipedia community is. It's a cultural thing. I don't think the comment delay is necessarily bad because of that. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 22:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Without the delay, either there is a "cushion" of supports, so the candidate knows that not everyone hates them, or it's closed (and maybe even deleted) within hours, before an excess of pile-ons can happen. This new format sets up the opportunity for two days worth of pile-ons, the excuse being "well, we don't know how the vote is going to go, they might pass." Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

We have a sample size of one, and it did not go for two days, and was in fact snow-closed within hours (14 hours). I'm not sure that other snow-closed RFAs are snow-closed much sooner than that, and I don't think they're deleted; sometimes they're courtesy blanked, and so was this one. Also, there are different kinds of snow/notnow RFAs: this one wasn't like one that's made by a non-extended-confirmed editor, which might be closed within an hour and deleted; this one was by an experienced editor, so that would lend itself to a longer period before it was closed as snow/notnow... long enough for their to be a pile on. In fact, the only way we get to snow closes in such cases is with a pile-on; it's snow-closed because of the pile-on. So, pile-ons are inevitable for any non-obvious-but-still-snow RFA. While I agree on the larger points (RFA is hazing, this discussion period idea will not make RFA less toxic), this RFA doesn't seem to have been much different than any others. Levivich (talk) 22:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree about the sample size of one; I'm still willing to let the experiment run out. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

If having a bank of supports is deemed important for all requests for adminship, then the process could require a nomination period where editors supporting the request would comment, with a somewhat low threshold required for the request to proceed. Without changing the process, potential candidates could be encouraged to do this themselves, with the understanding that if they can't find enough people to support them, then their chances aren't good at making a successful request. isaacl (talk) 22:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow, I feel like what you're talking about would have happened under any system. This wasn't a ridiculous nom. I think many people would have tried to treat this with respect -- and in fact many did --and we could have ended up with something that went on much longer. If it hadn't been for the reversion of the close, this would have been over in hours. Valereee (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

What, you think it would have gone perfectly and there'd be no hard feelings if they had submitted one in the old style? jp×g🗯️ 20:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Bureacrats exist

Guys what the hell is going on with closing/reverting/untranscluding the Toadette RFA by non-bureaucrats. Stop making a mess of this and just let the B's figure out it, please. Don't just throw another ball to the jester and see if he stops juggling. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 18:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The community has been empowered since forever to snow/notnow close RfAs. Of the last 5 that were snow/notnow closed, none were done by a bureaucrat. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed rule: Delete all RFAs that are closed before the voting starts

Suggested rule: Any RFA that is closed before the start of voting is to be deleted unless the candidate explicitly requests otherwise. The candidate may also request undeletion at any time. If the candidate starts a new RFA within one year, the RFA will be undeleted and the new RFA marked "2". Any new RFA after a one-year period will be treated as a "first" RFA. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good blanket rule (creation of a speedy deletion criterion for this). We welcome countless editors to participate in a discussion, then just delete all their contributions because one person decides they've had enough of the discussion? Even withdrawn requests can be useful, with feedback the requester should be able to make use of in the future. — xaosflux ^Talk 22:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The candidate can always request an emailed copy. How much value is the feedback to any third party, unless they're looking to "dig up dirt" on the candidate, e.g. "Serious concerns have previously been raised about [person just dragged to ANI], see [RFA from five years ago]". As to the wasted effort of the commenters, well WP:IWORKEDSOHARD is a bluelink for a reason.

But I realize this proposal might go too far for many people. How about not officially listing RFAs that are closed early. As in, the page exists, people can link to it if they want, but it's not at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Recent, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year, and so on? WP:SNOW closes can still be IAR-deleted on a case-by-case basis. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I Oppose all deletions of RfAs for any reason - Wikipedia deliberately keeps a permanent record of everything and this is not the place to attempt to hide from your past. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Where is the place to attempt to hide from your past? Asking for a friend. Levivich (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Some website that doesn't keep permanent logs of everything. Like IRC. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Or WP:SPI -- Euryalus (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the way SPI outright deletes cases too, for that matter, but that's not relevant here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

SPI is where you go for help remembering your past. Levivich (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It's where Levivich goes when other people remember his past :D ——Serial Number 54129 14:18, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

How would you feel about just not listing them, as I suggested above? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't follow the logic behind this - a RFA being listed is nothing more than a factual statement that it happened and nothing more. But I guess I have no formal objection. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Deleting someone's embarrassingly failed bid for adminship is "hiding from your past"? You can't be serious. It would be rude of me to leave a response to this comment consisting entirely of "🙄", but if it weren't, I would. jp×g🗯️ 17:20, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

You seem to be under the impression that this RFA format is still going to be around after its "trial" period. That's currently looking pretty unrealistic. —Cryptic 23:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure where you get that impression? We've had one rather atypical RfA under this system (that would've likely been quickly closed under the old system). The reforms weren't focused on that sort of RfA in the first place. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

So what was this 3b idea intended to fix then? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

My impression is that it was supposed to fix the situation where you initially have 100% support, something gets brought up on day 3, and you slowly watch opposes gather while you wonder if you'll stay above 75 (or 65) percent support by the end of the week. The people I've talked to who have experienced such RfAs have uniformly described them as awful. Trying to front-load the discussion would hopefully lead to a more stable experience and less constant refreshing and worrying. Elli (talk | contribs) 03:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Also to give people a chance to raise/address/respond to/discuss concerns before anyone votes instead of after. Levivich (talk) 03:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

So now we have the same situation, except the candidate doesn't even get the comfort of the initial support. Swell. I can't imagine wanting to go through RFA during this trial, not before we saw the first live result and certainly not after. And I have to wonder, if every candidate we savage thoroughly enough either withdraws or gets involuntarily withdrawn before it gets to the voting stage, and those RFAs don't count towards finishing the trial, whether we'll ever get through it. —Cryptic 19:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It's five RFAs or September 2024; if no one gets through the gauntlet before time expiry I imagine the consensus will be that the trial failed. Primefac (talk) 19:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Have we ever deleted an RfA? Even in very serious circumstances, from what I've seen they tend to be blanked rather than deleted. The same goes for most discussions. – Joe (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

RfAs that have been run or RfAs that have been created and abandoned? I've definitely seen the latter get deleted, but never a RfA that was actually transcluded at any point. Giraffer (talk) 07:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Oppose deleting any RfAs because this grand project of ours is based on transparency. Courtesy blanking may be appropriate occasionally, but any editor in good standing should be able to take a look if they want, to learn something useful. In the recent case, transparency is especially important because it is the first RfA since recent reforms kicked in. I can only imagine that it must have been embarrassing for the candidate. but they freely chose to self nominate, and actually received a lot of supportive words that should be remembered. We do not need a memory hole. Cullen328 (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer that unsuccessful RfAs weren't listed on the RfA main page in the table. This has been discussed before, and the decision was to keep the unsuccessful in the table but let all RfAs age off more quickly, as with so few RfAs, some were being listed on the main page for many months.

IIRC, the rationale for keeping unsuccessful RfAs on the main page for up to three months was that they were educational for prospective candidates to be able to easily find recent unsuccessful RfAs. I don't think it's actually useful for very many prospective candidates; anyone savvy enough to be thinking along the lines of "I should go review recent unsuccessful RfAs as part of my preparation" is likely also savvy enough to be able to find them even if they aren't on the main page. Anyone who wouldn't know how to find them is IMO also unlikely to have bothered with that much preparation. Any benefit of having unsuccessful RfAs listed in that table is IMO far outweighed by the downside of it. Valereee (talk) 10:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The benefit to listing, esp in the discuss-now, come back later for not-voting, is that if you start participating in the discussion, then remember to come back for it and the discussion is just disappeared, you can be quite confused. The one-line in a table of "this was closed" makes it easy to see that you are done. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, but does that outweigh the downside of having a failed RfA prominently displayed for up to three months? I'm not saying delete. The discussion would still be available at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year. It just wouldn't be on the main RfA page as a constant reminder to all. Valereee (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Generally against deletion. It seems like some of the concerns/reasons for this could be addressed, in part, by framing. While we're doing this 2-day pre-vote discussion thing, we could frame it as not actually part of the RfA or otherwise use language to make it seem like the stakes are reduced. Like you can announce your interest in being an RfA candidate, start a 2-day discussion, and then make an active decision about whether or not to initiate a vote. Declining to do so would mean the RfA never started, not that you failed/withdrew it. Not a major change, but maybe could help? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That's more of less the reasoning behind my second proposal, of just not listing the never-voted-on RFAs. It's not really a "request" until the vote starts. It's a bit more like a political candidate who withdrew from the race before the ballots were printed. The current RFA is listed as having "0%" support. Except 0/0 is not 0%. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion. Failed RfAs—whether under the old or the trial system—can be as useful as those that pass. In fact, for would-be candidates, they are more useful. A successful RfA might suggest the things you should do; but a failed one demonstrates what you should not. And knowing what not to do, in any walk of life, is something you take to the bank! ——Serial Number 54129 14:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. Transparency is an important value to me. I would prefer not to delete or blank RFAs, and I am also disinclined to take failed RFAs out of the stats table. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  To be clear, I'm not suggesting taking all failed RFAs out of the stats table. Only those closed before the vote starts. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - looking back at old RFAs is incredibly useful when people re-run. GiantSnowman 17:27, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
• It seems extraordinarily unkind to have a policy where anyone who fails the seven-day-long public job interview has to have the whole thing slathered across the public web until the sun burns out. Yeah, sure, it's "not indexed by search engines" -- but we all know this is a crock. Look at, for example, https://www.google.com/search?q=%22requests+for+adminship%2Ftamzin%22 gives you:

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Tamzin/Bureaucrat ...
Al-Quds University · https://wiki.alquds.edu › Tamzin › Bureaucrat_chat
May 9, 2022 — Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Tamzin/Bureaucrat chat · Just wanted to note… · Request from Moneytrees[edit] · Rebuttal to ...
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tamzin
Al-Quds University · https://wiki.alquds.edu › Tamzin
... Requests for adminship/Tamzin#Ealdgyth's oppose. gnu57 01:42, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]; Oppose – Although they seem quite sensible otherwise, this candidate ...
Category:Bureaucrat discussions
Wikipedia · https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Category:Bureaucrat_d...
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tamzin/Bureaucrat chat · Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Trappist the monk/Bureaucrat discussion. Τ. Template:Bureaucrat ...

And https://www.google.com/search?q=%22requests+for+adminship%252Fhammersoft%22 gives you:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hammersoft - Aeon Coin
aeoncoin.pl · https://www.aeoncoin.pl › view_html
Translate this page
Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Hammersoft. The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify ...

I support being able to do something about RfAs that don't get brought out of the discussion stage, whether this is a deletion or a courtesy blanking or being delisted from the table or whatever. Maybe they could be courtesy-blanked and then linked from the main table as "Unsuccessful RfA" -- I don't know. I get that there's a public interest in editors being able to see what happened during an RfA -- generally, editors who have an interest in the RfA process, so people who are deffo capable of going through page histories. Otherwise it just seems like pointless cruelty; my own RfA passed by an extremely wide margin but I was still quite concerned about the implications of having a failure on public record under my real initials forever (and put it off by a year accordingly). jp×g🗯️ 17:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Saying not now nicely

Now that the kerfuffle over the most recent RfA is dying down, one point that I think is worth discussing further is whether we could make early closes (i.e those citing WP:NOTNOW/WP:SNOW) a less painful experience. They are, after all, supposed to be a kindness: stopping an RfA that has no chance from going further, even if the candidate doesn't realise it themselves.

The first thing that comes to my mind is to try harder to stop them happening in the first place. WP:RFA currently says, the only formal prerequisite for adminship is having an extended confirmed account on Wikipedia (500 edits and 30 days of experience). However, the community usually looks for candidates with much more experience and those without are generally unlikely to succeed at gaining adminship. This is ridiculously understated and I think a prospective candidate that is a bit oblivious to subtext could easily get the impression that running with, say, 1500 edits and three months of experience is fine. We don't have to set minimum criteria, but surely it's realistic enough to say something like "successful requests from adminship usually come from editors with at least [one] year spent actively editing, [5000] edits, and substantial experience in either writing articles and/or working in one or more maintenance areas" – exact wording and figures obviously subject to change. – Joe (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If you try to establish metrics people should pay attention to before applying, then you're really applying prerequisites for adminship. This won't work for a large number of reasons. See Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Prerequisites for adminship. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm explicitly not suggesting adding prerequisites. Sure, it might be misread that way, but if it's question of giving people honest and realistic expectations, versus potentially losing a few inattentive readers with low edit counts who are somehow also great admin candidates, I know what I'd choose... – Joe (talk) 13:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the cause of these is that editors who don't meet the practical criteria but think they're ready for RfA are unlikely to do any of the reading anyway. They often don't even bother to seek advice. Even when they do, and they receive clear counsel at ORCP or elsewhere that they aren't ready, it's not uncommon to see an RfA not long afterward. Valereee (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

That is very possible. But isn't it worth a try? – Joe (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It is often far easier to start something than it is to stop. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I do think it's worth a try, and I've actually added bolded advice at WP:RFA/SELFNOM with a link to WP:RFASELF.

Maybe stop with the clear step-by-step instructions on how to self-nom. Maybe that'll force people to at least ask a question somewhere that will be seen by someone who can give them advice. Or maybe it'll just end with malformed noms that someone well-intentioned but unaware of the problem will come along and fix. Valereee (talk) 14:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

In the last six years, we've averaged just __2__ snow/notnow closes per year. The number of snow/notnow closes is very, very small. So we risk ever creeping RFA prerequisites, for...what, exactly? Even in the unlikely event that this was wildly successful and reduced snow/notnow closes by 50%, we'd see just one less per year. This is a solution looking for a problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

When people don't read something, it's usually because it's too long and says too much, not because it doesn't say enough. There was already a warning in that section; adding another one on top of that was WP:CREEP. I've merged the warnings together. If people want to improve from there, I'd suggest focusing on what it's possible to remove, not what it's possible to add. That section, like many projectspace pages, mixes technical advice with policy advice. If we can simplify the technical process, removing the need for much of the technical advice, that'll leave more room to emphasize the policy advice. Sdkb ^talk 15:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to trying to improve the language, but while I think these are well-intentioned ideas, they might be ineffective because they're trying to treat the symptoms instead of curing the disease.

One way in which the Wikipedia community is dishonest and cruel is that it announces a formal criteria for something and then routinely rejects applicants who exceed that criteria by extreme factors like 10x. Wikipedia is lying when it says you only need 30 days and 500 edits to run for RFA, because people with 300 days and 5,000 edits have a 0% chance of passing. Even at 20x, it's still unlikely.

If Wikipedia wants to be nicer to candidates, it should start with being honest with candidates (and with itself). Levivich (talk) 15:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The minimum standard is appropriate. Today it may be necessary in practice to greatly exceed the standard, but that doesn't mean it should be changed. The only formal requirements to be US President are to be at least 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. But no President has been elected who was younger than 43, and most of them had lived in the US for more than 40 years. It also doesn't say they need to be literate, speak English, or not be a certified idiot. Does that mean all these criteria should be in the US Constitution? No, because it is far better to let electors use their judgement and to retain the flexibility for requirements to change over time. Same with admins. MarcGarver (talk) 15:17, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Imagine if the US Constitution said you have to be at least 3 years old and lived in the US for 1 year to be President. That would be a ridiculous lie. That's what Wikipedia is doing. Levivich (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The reason I chose the US Constitution as an analogy is because it can be extended to how difficult it is to change, just like some Wikipedia policies and practices. Would it be sensible to try and get two-thirds of the House, and two-thirds of the Senate and 38 states to make a change to that article to 40 years old and 20 years in the US because "that was the reality?" I'd say not - lots of effort for a trivial outcome. Same here. All it would do is stop a tiny handful of people - the ones who read the guidance - from applying before they are ready. MarcGarver (talk) 19:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

It would be sensible if the constitution said 3 years old and 1 year in the US. Your analogy is inapt because we're not talking about a gap of 35 years stated vs 40 years reality (a small gap), we're talking about 500 edits/30 days stated vs 10,000 edits/18 months reality (orders of magnitude of difference). I doubt you'll find any analogous situation where the gap between stated criteria and actual criteria is an order of magnitude or larger; that's unique to Wikipedia. Levivich (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with such a change. I would prefer to see 5000 edits/1 year set as an absolute minimum, and for the ""successful requests from adminship usually come from" suggestion to use something like 10,000 edits/18 months. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

These are much more reasonable and accurate numbers. Levivich (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. The culture around here is to hate red lines, and this results in our minimum requirements for perms being too low and out of alignment with actual practice, which results in bitey situations for applicants, both at RFA and at PERM. I'd prefer to have the requirements align closely (or at least more closely) with actual practice. I think the de facto edit count nowadays for RFA is about 8000 (0xDEADBEEF in 2023). I think you have to go back 7 years to get an RFA that was much lower than that (2,385 edits, GoldenRing in 2017). –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

  Agree that red lines can be a problem, there are certain niche edge cases that could pass, but they don't apply to anyone that wants to be a "general" administrator. So, using a descriptive rather than prescriptive verbiage for expectations could be useful. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

In another discussion thread on this page, I suggested having a pre-RfA nomination period, where a prospective candidate would seek out a certain number of supporters before proceeding. The threshold would be low: just enough to give the candidate assurance that they aren't misreading their likelihood of making a successful request. This could be introduced as a recommended optional step, as a reality check to try to avoid a possible embarrassing emphatic rejection of a request.

On the general principle of saying "no" nicely: giving feedback constructively and receiving feedback in its intended spirit are two very difficult things to do. Providing feedback in this circumstance is a balancing act between being honest and impartial, while also being understanding of the good intentions of the volunteer. For candidacies that are clearly going to fail, users thinking about commenting ought to gauge how much additional value they can provide, and lean towards deferring any comments. isaacl (talk) 16:21, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

The idea of seeking out certain number of supports would be a good idea for a future RFA review. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 19:33, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this kind of what we do know, with the unwritten rule that you should find two admins willing to nominate you? (Almost?) all early closes are self-noms. So we could just make this existing expectation more explicit. – Joe (talk) 11:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

There are a lot of alternatives between a self-nom and two admins. One respected, experienced nominator should be sufficient for a good candidate. We've had two early closes within the last year that weren't self-noms, plus at least one successful self-nom, I think. Valereee (talk) 13:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Sure (with the caveat that as noted by Valereee, it doesn't have to be two admins, or even two people). But this discussion is regarding those who aren't doing this, and how to reach them. These volunteers aren't looking at past RfAs for guidance, and are at most giving a cursory look at Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. The community has shown reluctance to bar self-nominations in the formal procedure, but perhaps it would be more open to adding a strong suggestion that anyone planning to self-nominate should undertake a reality check, and find X number of supporters first. (Unfortunately, there are always some users intent on doing what they really want to do, regardless of what advice they are given, and there's no easy way to keep them from proceeding. That's when saying "no" nicely has to be done.) isaacl (talk) 18:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. When they do proceed, regardless of any heads-up they're given, it isn't hard to be nice. It isn't hard to word comments constructively. It isn't hard to give advice and suggestions. I don't think it's out of line to want - and even expect - people to be kind instead of rude. Useight (talk) 18:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree it isn't hard to want to make the effort. My experience with the feedback process in life, though, is that it's a skill that has to be consciously developed (for most, anyway), particularly when being delivered in writing without the benefit of ongoing reaction cues. I do agree that expecting kindness to be exhibited, even if imperfectly, is reasonable. isaacl (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Reminder that the generation of admins who got their adminships from 2004-2005 generally only had 1000 edits and three months experience. This is like the boomers getting cheap houses. 77.103.193.166 (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The wiki and the associated responsibilities/expectations for admins have also changed. A shack is cheaper than a space colony duplex. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 14:05, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

In some ways, we could do more damage in the old days (to give an example, it was impossible to restore deleted images; also, there was no extra layer of "interface admin" protection for .js files), but Wikipedia was a small upstart, not a massively trusted and widely used source of information, so everything was a little lower profile. —Kusma (talk) 14:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a way more interesting example than deleted files. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

The English Wikipedia is the only one where it is impossible to delete the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 06:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

My understanding is that the English Wikipedia also has much higher standards for adminship compared to other projects. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Conversely, an admin that has been continuously active since 2004–2005 has shown that they can use the admin tools for twenty years without causing enough of a fuss to be kicked out. In some ways that shows more trust than a 200-person RfA two years ago. – Joe (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I think you make a good point here. For every admin that has lost touch with community norms over time, there are plenty that haven't. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Asking candidates about their religion at RfA

Hi everyone. I've waited for the dust to settle a bit before I've felt like bringing this to the attention of the wider community, but something happened at my RfA might have wider implications when it comes to crat moderating decisions, so I figured it is probably worth starting a discussion here about it. I'm talking about questions 6 and 7, specifically. These questions asked:

• I found your answer about editing Jehovas Witnesses notable. Are you a Jehovas Witness, and do you feel that being one could impact on your neutrality when editing and administrating the article (potentially leading to stonewalling)?
• How do you feel about allegations that the Jehovas Witnesses are a cult, and about having a full section on that allegation in the article? I note that the article you are passionate about doesn’t have substantial sourced discussion of external commentary on whether it is a cult in the article, yet it’s a commonly heard real world comment on the JWs I hear frequently.

I answered the questions and I understand the practical reasons for why removing this after the fact would not be a desirable outcome. However, the discussion at BN leaves me a bit concerned for candidates who may be asked similar questions in the future. At least to me, that conversation implies that these types of questions do not be removed by crats and that asking them is fine for COI reasons. My understanding is that our current iteration of the COI guideline is that editing about a religion or former religion is not a COI without other factors being involved (see here). No specific concerns were brought up about my editing to Jehovah's Witnesses (all of which can be seen here), just vague accusations. I do not think the same argument would have been made if I was a random Catholic editor who had made uncontroversial changes to the article we have about the Catholic Church. Given the nature of the questions themselves, I was wondering what the broader community thought about whether these questions should or should not be moderated by crats at RfA. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I personally don't feel questions about faith are appropriate unless the person has divulged their faith and clearly edits in that topic area (e.g. many of the editors at WP:CATHOLIC). I think the allegations are likelier to be brought up for smaller or contentious denominations/faiths compared to mainline denominations. For a personal example, I could expect questions about my editing on Opus Dei but would be surprised to be asked about my editing about the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 07:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Also I think that because of the whole Scientology fiasco religion questions are bound to be asked if someone divulges their faith as a necessary step of due diligence. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 07:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

We should be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that WP:COI describes all types of bias. It is only about bias arising from specific external relationships. There are plenty of other characteristics (religion, nationality, sexuality, etc.) that are not an "external relationship" with a specific entity but which we all have and, in certain circumstances, which could make us edit or admin in a non-neutral way. I hope that people wouldn't ask about such things unless there was a genuine reason and evidence that that had happened. However I'd be reluctant to say that these kind of questions are generally inappropriate, because neutrality is important and there could be reasonable grounds for concern. At the end of the day, if a candidate doesn't want to answer a question, they don't have to. – Joe (talk) 07:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• I think it was an inappropriate question, and I think the best option is probably for people to point out that it's an inappropriate question. I wouldn't even object to someone -- anyone, really -- inserting a statement to that effect into the space reserved for the candidate's answer, reminding everyone watching that all of the questions are optional and that in the case of inappropriate questions no one should be opposing on the basis of the candidate deciding not to answer.
  I also wouldn't object to the removal or collapsing of inappropriate questions, although I don't think it should require a 'crat to do that. 'Crats tend to be among the most cautious of admins, really. As seen in that discussion at BN that Clovermoss linked above.
  I don't think we should be drawing up a list of topics that can't be brought up, though. I think it has to be a case-by-case thing. The reason those questions were inappropriate was because they were poorly thought out. If that fairly-inexperienced editor had instead asked, "I see from Q2 that you're interested in editing on JW topics, and I'm concerned from this edit and this userbox that you seem to have a POV about that subject. Would you be willing to avoid adminning around topics related to JW?", it would still have been a somewhat naive question, but not an inappropriate one. Valereee (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate I concur with Valereee that the questions were inappropriate in particular for how they were asked. If there is a serious concern with regards to COI, then it could be raised. Here, there's just a suspicion they might have a problem in the subject area because they are one, and I agree with Clovermoss. Questions like this can and should be removed, and no it doesn't take a bureaucrat to do it. Some discernment is required before doing so, but this case is clear cut. I'm also rather stunned about the username of the editor who posted the question. "Manboobies"? Seriously? No time right not, but this may be appropriate to take to WP:RFCN. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:47, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm reticent to say "no, we should never ask about religion", as there are going to be some cases where someone would have a COI (at the most obvious level, someone who is employed to a Church). However, faith itself isn't a COI. Having a bias, or being particularly tied towards something (which we all are), doesn't constitute a COI. If it did, we'd all have to edit articles about things we didn't care about. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• I know I'm not being fair to RFA candidates under a lot of pressure, and I know RFA voters as a whole are not as rational as I wish, but I would love to see a candidate with the self-confidence to say "This is an inappropriate question and I won't be answering it", and then cross it out, --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  +1. If I were that person's nominator, I would advise that it probably wouldn't be a productive idea. But I'd love to see a candidate go down that path and succeed. :D Away w'ye, troll! Valereee (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  I mean, I was already pushing some boundaries of what's expected at RfA by being a self nom and responding directly to neutrals and opposes. I don't think the candidate striking questions themselves would be perceived all that well... but maybe that's just a perceived social norm and not what would actually happen. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  I think it's likely some !voters would be cheering and some would be hissing, and the balance might very well depend on who cheered or hissed first. Candidates shouldn't be expected to moderate their own RfA. Valereee (talk) 21:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• It's entirely fair to ask a candidate what areas they feel they can act neutrally in, and where they feel they might be biased. That does not require asking them about their real-world beliefs, which is deeply inappropriate. If someone's RL beliefs have seeped into their editing, then any questions can focus on their editing; if they haven't, the candidate is clearly able to set those beliefs aside and edit neutrally, and they're no business of ours. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• People should *never* be asked to identify their religion. It is a prohibited grounds, and asking that should lead to the questioner being sanctioned, and the question being immediately removed. Period. If a person who wants to submit a question to an RFA can't think of a way to bring up a hypothetical conflict of interest without asking someone their religion, then that person shouldn't ask the question.

  Generally speaking, we should be far less forgiving of asking personal questions of candidates. Questioners should be able to link to specific concerns, or be able to ask about how the candidate will apply specific policies. The sort of nonsense Clovermoss experienced is what is causing problems at RFA, and it could be easily sorted without having a gigantic RFC that leads to nowhere. Risker (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Easily sorted without an RfC means someone is willing to address concerns without the knowledge they have community backing. I feel like almost all 'crats want to know they're on firm ground, and many admins do. Look at the BN discussion Clovermoss posted. Admins expressed dismay 'crats didn't handle it. 'Crats expressed a desire for caution in such cases. I really feel like 'crats don't pass RfB because they're willing to take risks, and it's not really fair for us to expect them to be willing to do so once they're 'crats. Valereee (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  The reason I've stopped voting in 'crat elections (rare as they may be) is that I genuinely believe a majority of the RFA-participating community really *do* want bureaucrats to intervene when RFAs go to hell in a handbag, and none of the candidates in the last several years have been willing to do that. Enforcing the UCoC on RFA shouldn't be considered a risky activity; if 'crats think it is, then perhaps we need to reconsider the requirements of the role entirely. Risker (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  What does "prohibited grounds" mean? – Joe (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I'd be in favor of "crats moderating" these questions. If a question is inappropriate, it can be ignored by the candidate. Or even better, calmly and politely state that you're not very comfortable with the question. Or calmly and politely state that you don't think that this is a great question, but then answer it anyway. There's good ways to handle even inappropriate questions. An example answer to I found your answer about editing Jehovas Witnesses notable. Are you a Jehovas Witness, and do you feel that being one could impact on your neutrality when editing and administrating the article (potentially leading to stonewalling)? could be something like Thank you for your question. However I don't feel comfortable disclosing my religion. But I appreciate your concern, and I can assure you that I am aware of Wikipedia's policies on neutrality and reliable sources, and will always do my best to edit neutrally, and to summarize reliable sources rather than injecting my own beliefs about a topic. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  That puts the onus on the candidate, which isn't ideal. Valereee (talk) 19:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  It isn't fair, but administrators will face inappropriate questions and reasoning from upset editors. Being able to see how candidates handle these scenarios is helpful in judging their skillset. And ignoring inappropriate questions is often a perfectly good approach that Wikipedia editors ought to employ more regularly: deny oxygen to the thread. Nonetheless, I also appreciate that in some cases, removing an inappropriate question can be an important measure for the community to express its disapproval. isaacl (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Let's throw 'em in the deep end, see if they can swim? I certainly would never have ignored a question. Five years ago I was flummoxed by how to deal with opposes who'd never even asked me a question. We learn on the job, and that's not a bad thing. We probably don't actually want admins who are eager to act like admins before they're admins. Valereee (talk) 21:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  I don't think the skills in dealing with inappropriate questions are unique to administrators. Communication skills are important for all editors, and having examples of them is useful in evaluating the degree of trust you have in any editor. Good communicators are also demonstrating the capacity to learn through discussion, which is key in a collaborative environment. All the same, I do agree I'd prefer to look at examples unrelated to personal matters. isaacl (talk) 23:18, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Crats already moderate RfA questions, they just didn't in this situation. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Nothing should be done BY RULE. The questions cannot be filtered and excluded, so once they are visible, the appropriate way to deal with it is for the candidate to respond, including a decline - with or without a reason. To do otherwise is a redaction / strike / removal based on someone else being offended. The clear and obvious problem with that is that a candidate may not be offended - and no one can just assume that they are. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think these questions were optimal, but a 'crat removing them would be a little too much. And I don't think being a Jehovas Witness means there's a COI; I'm an atheist, but that doesn't mean I have a COI with the Christopher Hitchens article. Cremastra (talk) 20:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

These seem like total chickenshit questions to ask a candidate, although I admit I find myself at a loss for how to write an objective rule to reliably distinguish between tough questions and total chickenshit questions. jp×g🗯️ 21:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure we need a rule. Just judgment and a willingness to take the risk that you'll overstep in the eyes of the community. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I think Risker is onto something up there -- it seems like, if the issue actually has anything to do with editing, it ought to be possible to phrase it in those terms. Maybe that is something. But I think that, even if you're not directly asking about some intimate detail, it is still esay to write a question that requires them to disclose it. For example: "I notice that you have a lot of edits to this article, part of which is about acts of mopery committed by the Whateverists. Do you feel like you're biased on the subject of Whateverism, or that you'd recuse yourself from intervening in content disputes about them?" -- it seems extremely difficult to answer this question without saying whether you're a Whateverist, to the point where it might as well just say that. Of course, it'd be possible to artfully avoid that, but I think everyone would notice that you had done so. jp×g🗯️ 22:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• I agree with a lot of the things that have already been said. Asking a candidate their religion is inappropriate. One can ask about perceived POV editing without needing to ask about motivations. I also think it's useful to see how the candidate deals with the situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
• It's not fair to force a candidate to choose between uncomfortably disclosing personal information (which religion very much is) if they respond or risk significant opposition for (understandably) declining to respond. Perhaps it's also worth considering whether one would ask someone they meet for the first time IRL about their religious beliefs – being considered a sensitive topic offline, I don't see why it shouldn't be treated as such on WP. Also, since it's not commonplace for RfA candidates to decline to respond to such a question without potential backlash, it should be up to the crats to moderate when inappropriate questions are asked.

Re the NPOV/COI concerns, I find myself in agreement with Lee Vilenski and Vanamonde93 – people edit about topics important to them all the time in a manner perfectly compliant with WP policy, and are to thank for quality content in those areas. There are plenty of harmless ways to ask about neutrality in editing without asking for personal information. ^Complex/_Rational 22:06, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that is very culturally specific. The idea that "faith is a private matter" is, ironically, quite particular to Anglo-American secular/protestant culture. In most parts of the world, you wouldn't ask someone you met about their religion because there wouldn't be any need to. Either it would be obvious because practically everybody you ever meet follows the same religion or, in multi-denominational societies, because religion is the primary structuring factor of your social life and is visible in everything from your name to your dress, dialect, place of residence, etc. – Joe (talk) 07:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Which of these questions should we deem unacceptable?

I propose questions that include the following points should be considered unacceptable and be removed from RFAs:

• Are you gay/straight/bi/gender-fluid and, if so, do you think this will create a problem editing LGBTQ+ articles? (i.e., questions that include an expectation of revealing the candidate's sexual orientation/gender identity)

• Are you married/single/living common-law/dating and, if so, do you think this will create a conflict of interest in editing articles about marriage? (i.e., questions that include an expectation of revealing the candidate's marital/relationship status)

• Are you Jewish/Catholic/Muslim/etc. and, if so, do you think you can be impartial editing articles about [any or all religions]? (i.e., questions that include an expectation of revealing a candidate's personal beliefs of faith)

• Are you of European/African/Asian etc. descent and, if so, do you think you will have problems editing articles about [name ethnic identity]? (i.e., questions that include an expectation of revealing a candidate's ethnicity and/or race)

• Are you from X country and, if so, do you think it is a conflict of interest in editing articles about X country? (i.e., questions that include an expectation of revealing a candidate's nationality)

• Are you GenX/GenZ/silent generation/boomer, etc. and, if so, do you think there is a problem with you editing articles about another generation? (i.e., questions that include an expectation of revealing a candidate's general age group/cultural group)

I can't think of one of those questions I'd consider acceptable in an RFA; in fact, I'd be concerned and would need lots of contextual understanding to see those questions just about anywhere on this project. What about others? Do you think it is acceptable to have RFA questions that are specifically designed to expect candidates to reveal what we generally consider non-public personal information (if the candidate hasn't already revealed that information)? Risker (talk) 22:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, that all of those examples are inappropriate questions. They're all variations on the same theme: asking personal information under the guise of asking about COI. The acceptable alternative would be to link to editing at some page, and to ask about perceived POV editing. No one needs to know the motivation for such a POV, just whether or not it exists. That said, I don't think we need a new rule forbidding such questions. Better to see how the candidate deals with the situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I think these questions are all chickenshit, and I'd say so if I saw somebody ask them. But for all of them, it seems pretty simple to come up with a version that only talks about strictly editing-related issues, but still de facto requires the person to answer the chickenshit part. For example, the one I posted above -- but you could pick any from this list and phrase it like

"Do you expect to intervene in user conduct issues relating to issues of [inappropriately personal thing] or would you recuse yourself from such matters?"

and I think it would still, in practice, require the person either to divulge their status on the issue or do an awkwardly contorted dance around it. Of course, it would clearly be a good idea to explicitly forbid questions such as these, that directly asked about this sort of thing. jp×g🗯️ 22:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Potential answer: "It never occurred to me that this would be an issue. Do you have a concern about me acting in this topic area?" Alternatively, "Hmm, here are edits I've made in that topic area: [diffs, showing non-problematic edits]. Do you have a concern about me acting in this topic area?" --Tryptofish (talk) 22:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

• Ah. I think I see what the problem is with RFA now. Risker (talk) 23:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe I'm just being dimwitted, but what is that problem? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I think restrictions on these sorts of questions are reasonable. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There is a nasty variation on this though; where the question is designed to elicit non-public information about another editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Could you elaborate a bit on this? I've never seen this but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened. Just a bit hard to wrap my head around how this variation would even work. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 00:46, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

There are simple things like "given you and X live in the same city", which you cannot answer, even though you know that you do not. But there are also questions explicitly soliciting details about personal relationships with other editors ("given you are married/living with/dating X"), and even about relationships between two other editors. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:15, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Apart from sexuality, I wouldn't say that any of these are "non-public personal information". They might be things that it's considered impolite to ask about, or that pseudonymous people on the internet are reticent to discuss, but that's not the same thing. As a thought experiment, try to count how many people from your physical workplace that you know but couldn't tell their marital status, religion, race, nationality, or rough age. I counted zero. In fact, where I work now, it's not unusual to list all of those things except race and religion at the top of your CV. I don't think of any of these are good RfA questions but we should not go down the road of conflating Wikipedia's quite unusual (but good) support for pseudo-anonymity in our online 'workplace' with actual, legally-protected expectations of privacy. – Joe (talk) 07:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I actually have no idea about the marital status or religion that would applicable in regards to most of my coworkers. If we're going to bring up real-world comparisons though, let's think about job interviews. The questions Risker used as examples above would be illegal to ask a prospective employee where I live because the only reason someone would really ever need to ask them is if they are trying to be discriminatory. Hence the concept of a protected class. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

It would be illegal in jurisdictions that have that concept, which according to our article is the US and Canada. As I said, in Central Europe people often to put those things on their CV (I don't agree with that practice, but it shows that norms differ). Whenever the workplace analogy comes up, we seem to end up taking the norms of American white collar offices as universal – but this is a global project. Johnuniq's solution below, which allows for a degree of flexibility in interpreting what is and isn't "personal information", seems like a better option to me than adopting specific concepts from US employment law. – Joe (talk) 07:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I did say where I live. I also don't work a white collar job by any means. Anyways, my argument was that your experience was not universal (and obviously neither is mine). I do think it's important to think about what we would gain by having people treat RfA as a free for all where we allow these sorts of questions. In contrast, what do we have to lose? I think the risks far outweigh any potential benefits. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Something else to keep in mind in terms of a global perspective is not every country has the same track record with human rights and asking some of these questions could prompt real world danger. There are multiple places where it is illegal for someone to be a member of my former religion. There are also places where you can be executed for being gay. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Asking those questions would be illegal where I live too. But when I was working in the United States, one of my co-workers was fired due to her marital status (living with her boyfriend instead of being married). Apparently, there is no federal law against discrimination on the basis of marital status in the United States. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The situation you described would be contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is what's applicable to me. [1] Anyways, I was looking into what Joe was saying about how apparently things are different in Europe and I came across similar legislation here. There's always going to be some nuance about who counts as a protected group across countries but the concept of restricting discrimination based on someone's characteristics isn't unique to America. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Asking about marital status at a job interview (which is a good analogy for RFA) is illegal in the US, Canada, all of the EU, Australia... almost all of the West. While it's allowed in Japan and some other countries, and this is a global project, English is a Western language and English Wikipedia has Western values, especially when it comes to discrimination and privacy (just look at the UCOC). In much of the world it's illegal to be gay, you can be killed for being of the wrong religion, husbands own their wives, etc etc. Norms differ, yes, but here on enwiki we have Western norms and that's a feature not a bug. Put me down for no questions at RFA (or rfb or arbcom elections or wp:perm, etc) about marital status, religion, sexual orientation, or other protected class info, or any private RL info, at RFA, in line with Western values even if not global values, and unapologetically so. Levivich (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that there's such a thing as "Western values" and, even if there were, that this project should follow them just because it is written in English, a language spoken by people in literally every corner of the world. I'm also curious how this prohibition on asking about marital status works in cultures where, say, wedding rings are a thing. But really, we've drifted very far from my original point. I'm just saying that most of the things on Risker's list are not "non-public personal information" – a term of art both in transatlantic privacy law and our local policy (namely WP:BLP and WP:OS). I'm not saying they're fine to ask about for no reason, either in RfA or a job interview (which, while not a bad analogy, RfA is not). But I think a general reminder that such things are impolite and rarely constructive (per Johnuniq below) is enough to discourage that. We don't have to start throwing around legal terminology and alluding to OS blocks. – Joe (talk) 14:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think "non-public personal information" as discussed here is in the context of the wiki, which means there is a whole host of things that fall into it that might not in 'real life' (like whether on is a dog :)). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Wikipedia says there is such a thing as Western values. :-) Levivich (talk) 04:49, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I would add a generic statement at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Expressing opinions with something like "Questions which ask for personal information are rarely appropriate." That might be put a little more strongly but it would avoid listing out-of-bounds questions while leaving room for IAR if someone could ever justify their question. My answer to any of the listed questions would be to say that I wasn't comfortable providing personal information as it might be a precedent that led to other candidates being required to reveal more. Admins encounter nonsense and RfA needs to show that they are not going to go crazy when that happens. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think Johnuniq's idea is the way to go. We can't possible come up with all of the "don't ask this" questions ahead of time. Maybe with an added "...such as..." with two or three of the most-likely-to-be-asked questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joyous! (talk • contribs) 02:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree withJohnuniq's idea. Often in RFA there will be questions that should not be asked, as they are trolling, or perhaps timewasters. An admin candidate should be wise enough not to answer some questions. But may say they are not going to answer for whatever reason. If a questioner is trying to figure out undisclosed bias or COI editing, they can ask about why particular edits done. And I will say that jsut because someone is in a group, does not mean that they are necessarily biased or have an assumed point of view. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Here's an actual question from my RfA: "In your last RFA, one of the few questions you did not answer was how you would navigate another undisclosed conflict-of-interest. So I'll repeat the spirit of that question: can you elaborate on how you would navigate your existing conflicts-of-interest?" The questioner was fishing for information about another editor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

A "fishing question". For disclosed interests, candidates should use their user page. For undisclosed, they whould keep away from the topic or edit so carefully that no bias is detectable. And many interests / opinions do not matter. So for example it does not matter whether we have met or not. And some "interests" can be determined from editing patterns and do not need to be disclosed. eg I like to rescue garbage, eg abandonded user drafts, or pages about to be deleted by G13. Or for some particular editors I will try to assist them. But say I was married to another Wikipedia editor. Should I disclose it or avoid voting on anything related to that connected editor? Such disclosure is not required for RFA. But if there were problems showing up in relation to a possibly related editor, then votors may be justified in voting "no". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

You cannot disclose that, because it would be disclosing personal information about another editor. Part of my contract with my former employer was non-disclosure of any detail whatsoever about my work. When someone accused me of writing about my employer, I could only respond that the firm in question was not my employer, but I could not disclose who my actual employer was. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That sounds like a good solution. – Joe (talk) 07:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's better than nothing but it doesn't fix the problem of what to do when people do actually ask these inappropriate questions if crats refuse to moderate them. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

With luck we'll soon have designated moderators per Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors. Valereee (talk) 19:54, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Why? It's not like such ('are you or have you ever been') questions are common and so this seems like a rather extreme hypothetical. But for me it is within bounds for anyone to ask (respectfully) almost anything about a user box the candidate chose and Wikipedia policy, the candidate then gets to show their ability to explain, follow, and/or apply policy. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: These questions may not be common but they do exist (see why I started the thread about people asking about religion in RfA in the first place – because one of my questions was essentially "Are you a member of [this religion]?" and crats saw no need to remove it). So the list of questions posed by Risker is not an "extreme hypothetical". I don't think it's that crazy that if questions like this are considered okay to ask, there aren't going to be people in the future who ask stuff like the alternative examples she posed. We can easily make it known that the community doesn't want to allow such toxicity. It's depressing that we might not want to. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:55, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Well, one instance does not a pattern make, it makes an outlier, thus extreme, and rather hypothetical, especially in the listing of iterations. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This list of no-go areas may or may not be agreeable and may or may not be accepted by the community. Without a method of uncontroversial and non-disruptive implementation it is no more than a wish list. Like "I wish rain water was beer" - but just try making it so. Leaky caldron (talk) 16:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Just for the record, the questions above are from the examples of harassment that are written right into the Universal Code of Conduct. There definitely have been questions like this on RFAs. And, Alanscottwalker, the assumption of the questions above is that the candidate has not disclosed the information publicly in the past (e.g., with userboxen); the question examples are seeking undisclosed personal information. Leaky caldron, it's really, really sad that you feel expecting people to follow both the letter and the spirit of the UCoC is equivalent to expecting rain water to be beer. What does that say about our community? Risker (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Well the premise of the initial question suggested that the questioner thought the person had publicly revealed something about their religion, so the answer to that would be something like, "No. I was not addressing my religion when I spoke earlier (and I have no intention of discussing or disclosing my personal religion, if any, on Wikipedia), I was addressing what the sources say about . . . or some such. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The "basis" on which the initial religion question was asked was that the candidate had edited articles related to that religion. There was no reason to assume that they were the religious beliefs of the candidate; that's a false assumption that isn't appropriate. Plenty of people edit articles that don't relate to their personal interests; most of my recent edits have no relation to my own interests, let alone my belief system, and I think that is commonplace for all editors. Risker (talk) 21:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

No. As I recall, it was something they said about the religion that prompted the question. And even assuming you are right, the reply is obvious to anyone with any clue: 'No. My editing does not disclose my religion (and I have no intention of discussing or disclosing whether I have any religion at all on Wikipedia) I seek and I was seeking there to write NPOV based on V without NOR or CVIO,' etc. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about my religious beliefs in my RfA prior to their questions. My response to question 2 (What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?) did state that My long term goals are improving content about the Niagara Region and Jehovah's Witnesses. If they had actual concerns about my editing, they could've linked to a diff instead of just waving vague accusations and demanding to know what my current religious beliefs are. It's not the biggest deal in the world to me (which is why I did in fact answer their questions) but I did realize that the question was inappropriate. It's why the crat discussion that took place later bothered me. It has wider implications for other people running at RfA and I couldn't in good conscience just ignore that reality. Hence this entire discussion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

So it was something you said about the religion, and not that you had edited, but that you wanted to edit it. At any rate, you are bound to get a curveball question from time to time. Just respond with telling them you don't know how they got to that curve. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I had edited Jehovah's Witnesses already at that point, the above was a partial quote about my general long term goals before going into specifics about what I've actually done in regards to content. But I do not think this counts as so it was something you said about the religion, it's literally just me saying I have an interest in the topic area. Let's imagine they decided to take a different angle on their questions since I have edited articles about the Niagara Region. They could've asked if I currently live in Niagara Falls. Would that question have been okay? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

That seems a thin distinction, not the religion, the subject, but anyhow. In any other situation one would not be surprised, nor shocked, nor concerned about harassment, if someone just told you they like to write about X, and a response was what's your relation to X. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Risker, I was highlighting the potential difficulty of implementing your list into practice in a reasonable, non-provocative manner. The fact that UCoC now evidently places an obligation to swerve these topics will, I have no doubt, place us under an obligation. But it sadly doesn't resolve my concern about the practicalities, does it? Leaky caldron (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Leaky caldron, the fact that something is potentially difficult doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Heck, we have a few thousand FAs, and a ton of other featured content; that's hard, too. And we've changed our culture multiple times in the last 20-odd years. So what about a rule that says "Questions that appear to try to reveal non-disclosed personal information about the candidate or any other editor are not permitted and will be removed immediately by any administrator or bureaucrat. The questioner will have one opportunity to revise the question to meet this standard. Repeated attempts (including similar questions over more than one RFA) may be sanctioned." It doesn't have to be hard, it just needs to be enforced. Risker (talk) 08:05, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Why don't people run at RfA?

There are many reasons I was hesitant to ever run at RfA and I just know that when I was a non-admin that I would've read the above discussion with dismay. It's one of the many examples of RfA being a free for all when anything goes and even basic courtesy can fall to the wayside. I encourage non-admins to share why they don't run because nothing is ever going to change if that perspective is never shared publicly. Maybe my hunch is all kinds of wrong but I have faith in it. I think people need to see who we're losing with the process being the way it stands today. We don't need things to be this way and the risks far outweigh the benefits. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:42, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I would guess that Tamzin's and Vami's RfAs lost us a dozen potential candidates each. —Kusma (talk) 07:53, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Heck, I ran way back in 2008 (back when it was supposedly easier), and I was hesitant at the time. I managed in the space of a week to be told I was too bold in discussing policy, that my content (which included a Good article and an FA collaboration) wasn't good enough, that I was hot-headed, and that (weirdly) I made fun of another editor. Oh, and I got misgendered in the very first oppose, by someone who used to have a dick pic on his userpage. Still managed to pass, and was elected to Arbcom a few months later. I've never been sure if that was a reward or a punishment. There's no such thing as the good old days; they were pretty bad, too. Risker (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

At least in the old days, there was some safety in numbers. When I transcluded my RfA, there were 15 open RfAs and 2 open RfBs. RfAs should not be something rare and special. —Kusma (talk) 08:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Who's idea was that anyway? (Nice to see Keeper76 again!). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:46, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

I've had my nominators and first three answers ready for a while now but I'm honestly not too sure myself why I keep hesitating. I'm not worried about the result; regardless of the result, it won't change what I like best which is writing articles. I suppose it's just hard to look into the lion's den and jump in. I think a factor is that the incivility just adds to the stress level of an already stressful process; stray neutral votes don't need to be endlessly battered, and to use the recent RFA as an example, opposes should be honest but shouldn't be downright mean. Curbon7 (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)