Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/ToadetteEdit: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:07, 30 April 2024

This is an RfA talk page.

While voting and most discussion should occur on the main RfA page, sometimes discussions stray off-topic or otherwise clutter that page. The RfA talk page serves to unclutter the main RfA page by hosting discussions that are not related to the candidacy.

Please remain calm and civil in discussions on both pages, avoiding personal attacks and harassment. Uninvolved administrators can still fully intervene in RfAs.
Discussions should stay on-topic; consider moving or continuing discussions that are going off-topic elsewhere.
Move discussions not germane to the candidacy here, then link them with {{subst:rfan|dm|name of section header}}, indented to the original vote. Be conservative in using the template; obvious trolls and disruptive participants need not be noticed.
Otherwise, avoid starting discussions here if they would be of interest to RfA participants and can fit on the main RfA page; generally, discussions should begin at the "General comments" section or as an indented reply to a vote.

This new voting process ...

I'm thinking the "Support/Oppose/Neutral" sections should be put on a separate subpage that is fully protected until the vote opening date. Will prevent what happened with me on the future as ... I have not been keeping up with the new RFA guidelines since the proposals, and thus potentially made the first "mistake" during this new process since I just voted in the manner I have been for over a decade. 😫 Steel1943 (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who would full-protect it for self-noms? The candidate ipso facto cannot protect the page. Besides, I'm pretty sure a decent portion of !voters are admins who wouldn't even notice the protection were we to enact it. My guess is we'll have a handful of mistakes for the first 3–6 months but, after that, should be fine. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dilettante: When the respective subpage is created, an admin-level bot could place protection on it, and then a bot could unprotect the page upon an appropriate timestamp 2 days later. Such protect-by-bot processes are already done in various other parts of Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 16:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Better option would just be to have a timestamped value that hides the voting until it opens, similar to how we have a timestamp for auto-closing. Primefac (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or even better (from my semi-Luddite perspective), just leave it as is. There are "do not vote here" messages, and if someone does anyway, just remove it. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, that works for me. Coding the auto-close was an absolute faff. Primefac (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolded !votes in the general discussion section

I am not sure we should have bolded support, oppose, or even not yet comments in the general discussion section. I think it defeats the purpose of having a general discussion period before the actual !voting. CC @Deepfriedokra and Intothatdarkness. Best, House Blaster (talk · he/him) 16:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absent guidelines, I followed a prior example. Doesn't matter to me either way, but I do find it helpful in terms of highlighting a specific concern or reason for feedback. Intothat darkness 16:59, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, HouseBlaster. It does rather seem to go back to how things were minus an actual vote. And then, come the !voting period, I suppose we'll have two lots of bolded votes. I don't see that helping to highlight anything. ——Serial Number 54129 18:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think they've withdrawn?

See the most recent post on their talk page. —asparagusus (interaction) ^sprouts! 18:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am confirming with them now. Primefac (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They have not. Primefac (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as WP:SNOW or WP:TOOSOON

According to note #3 at WP:RFA, the two day discussion period excludes "those closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW". Who determines an RFA meets that criteria, Bureaucrats? S0091 (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're reading that wrong - there are 5 trial RFAs which will have the two day period. Any RFAs closed per SNOW or NOTNOW will not count towards that value. In other words, if it doesn't make it out of the two-day period, we don't add it to the tally. Primefac (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh...got it. Thanks. S0091 (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's been reopened. Valereee (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good. ——Serial Number 54129 12:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm torn. Valereee (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity, causes thereof

WP:RFA2024@ ...RfA is widely agreed by the community to be toxic and hostile to participants and candidates.
User:Acalamari: ...I will automatically oppose in line with my past precedence.

It's good to be reminded of just why we're here. This is a wholly unhelpful comment, suggesting that a candidate has set themself an insurmountable task and irrecoverable position. It is precisely this kind of negativity that we are trying to avoid and overcome. Comparing a relatively new user who is presenting themself honestly before the community's scrutiny to Ironholds—an editor whose own contribution to the toxicity of Wikipedia that we enjoy today appears to have been legendary—is poor, to say the least. Well, cheers. ——Serial Number 54129 13:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA discussion period was "closed" for about 10 hours...

Per this gap of time, the discussion period was closed for 10 hours when it should have still been open, meaning the 48-hour window was reduced to 38 hours since the RFA did not appear on watchlists for 10 hours. What to do here? Steel1943 (talk) 13:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 38: / Line 38: @@
 *[[User:Acalamari]]: {{tq|...I will automatically oppose in line with my past precedence}}.
 It's good to be reminded of just why we're here. [[Special:Diff/1221465176|This]] is a wholly unhelpful comment, suggesting that a candidate has set themself an insurmountable task and irrecoverable position. It is precisely this kind of negativity that we are trying to avoid and overcome. Comparing a relatively new user who is presenting themself honestly before the community's scrutiny to ''Ironholds''—an editor whose own contribution to the toxicity of Wikipedia that we enjoy today appears to have been legendary—is poor, to say the least. Well, cheers.  [[User talk:Serial Number 54129|<span style="color:red">——Serial Number 54129</span>]] 13:02, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
+== RFA discussion period was "closed" for about 10 hours... ==
+Per [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_adminship%2FToadetteEdit&diff=1221518099&oldid=1221465857 this gap of time], the discussion period was closed for 10 hours when it should have still been open, meaning the 48-hour window was reduced to 38 hours since the RFA did not appear on watchlists for 10 hours. What to do here? [[User:Steel1943|<span style="color: #3F00FF;">'''''Steel1943'''''</span>]] ([[User talk:Steel1943|talk]]) 13:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)