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

2024 Requests for adminship review

Status as of 07:22 (UTC), Saturday, 23 November 2024 ()

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

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

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

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

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

This is to be a trial that applies to the next five RfAs that are not closed per WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW or to RfAs opened in the next six months – whichever happens first.

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

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

Open discussion

• Discussion goes here...
• no !votes (comments indicating "support", "oppose", or "neutral") may be made An explicit exception for joke !votes should be made. Polygnotus (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Why? QuicoleJR (talk) 23:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  @QuicoleJR: Because, people will make joke !votes in the comment section and others will literally interpret them as !votes and delete them and then drama will ensue. Also, has it been made clear what should happen to non-joke !votes? Should they be not be counted? Struck through? Removed? Polygnotus (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  An admin, an IP, and a sockpuppet walk into a bar... Randy Kryn (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)