User talk:Waggers
| This is Waggers's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 7 days  |
RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins[edit]
Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:
- Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
- Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
- Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
- Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
- Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
- Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
- Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
- Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed
See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 16 May 2024[edit]
- News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections
- Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators?
- Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24
- Comix: Generations
- Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby
Hello, Waggers,
First, thanks for helping out closing AFD discussions. We are always in need of competent, thoughtful closers.
Second, typically, if a discussion has low participation (say the nominator and one other editor "voting" Delete), those discussions are closed as "Soft Deletes". If you are using XFDcloser, there is a box that appears under "Delete" option that says "Soft" that you can check off. The difference is that an article deleted as a Soft Delete is treated like a Proposed deletion and can be restored upon request at WP:REFUND. If an article is straight-on "Deleted", it is much more complicated and an editor likely will need to file an appeal at Wikipedia:Deletion review and have the AFD reexamined in order to restore an article. Soft Deletes are primarily used when there are no editors arguing to Keep an article, when the article has not been PROD'd or to AFD before, and, as I said, when there is low participation in the discussion which generally means 1 or 2 participants.
It's not uncommon for an editor to appear weeks later after the AFD has closed with new sources that might have influenced an AFD discussion if they had been aware that the discussion was taking place and it can be convenient to be able to restore an article that didn't receive a great deal of support for Deletion. Thanks again for your help. Liz Read! Talk! 21:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)