Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/2024 review

Phase II format

I've just closed proposals 16 and 16c as successful but requiring further discussion of specifics in Phase II. What's the format for that going to be? – Joe (talk) 09:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Joe Roe: I'm going to open a subpage, probably at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall. If I'm reading your close correctly, there is consensus that the community should be able to force an RRfA, but no consensus as to the initation threshold or the RRfA pass threshold? Of the six points in 16c, which have by-default consensus (pending amendment) and which have no consensus? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

No, my reading is that there is no consensus for how to initiate an RRFA at all – just that the community should be able to do it somehow. 16c has support but I don't think it amounts to a consensus yet. It also seems likely that now people know that it's going to happen, there will be more ideas about how it should happen, so I'd suggest leaving the door open for new (sub)proposals. The general sentiment across all three discussions was that quite a bit more workshopping is required. – Joe (talk) 10:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Subpage created; I'll open it once prop 13 is closed, since that's the only one that looks like it needs heavy-duty refinement before possible implementation. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I would very much prefer some discussion period before going all in on Phase II. Probably a free discussion week or so? We possibly might need to have a poll on every suboption of the proposal, but I am concerned this approach will result in passing the most watered down aspect for each subproposal. Soni (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll think about it? It might be good to let people have a place to shake out some of the knucklehead ideas first, but that sounds like it could pretty easily be a low-trafficked page and then we lose a week on it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll be frank, I am not convinced you should be the sole authority making structural decisions about how proposals are made and implemented. I love the progress we've made, but ultimately this should be a community thing. I think there's value in at least having open discussion, to gauge out people's initial ideas. Soni (talk) 13:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think opportunity for discussion should be included at the start of phase 2. I think having some open discussion will help lay the groundwork for better proposals, before a list of support/opposes are made that make it harder to evolve proposed changes. Having this discussion on the phase 2 page will avoid dissipating interest. For better or worse, though, concrete proposals focus people's attention. So although personally I would like participants to take more time with workshopping ideas, I acknowledge that most people will want to get to the support/oppose period sooner rather than later. isaacl (talk) 18:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll add to this part of the discussion a quote from Joe's closing statement: "Phase II of this review should therefore consider specific proposals for RRFA initiation procedures and further consensus should be sought on which, if any, is to be adopted." I think it's self-explanatory, and should be the way to go. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Sure; all I'm saying is that it would be good to provide some time to allow for discussion and refinement of specific proposals before starting to collect support/oppose statements, as those tend to lock people into particular positions and can thus hamper finding an acceptable middle-ground approach. isaacl (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I just wanted to cite that passage from the close, but it was more in response to multiple comments above, than to yours. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It's up to the closer of course, but in my opinion prop 13 contains plenty of detail and could be implemented quickly after this RFC. In fact I would prefer it skip phase 2. All the essentials are in there: the suffrage requirements (same as ACE), the # of days to discuss (3), the # of days to vote (7), the frequency of the elections (6 months), the software to be used (SecurePoll), the pass threshold (70%), etc. It's all detailed in the proposal. Will let the closer decide if there's a consensus that X detail has to be fleshed out or X detail is too vague, but from where I'm sitting, I see a complete, detailed proposal that is ready for implementation. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I would agree, except you were pretty clear at the outset that In my opinion, this RFC should only be to determine if community consensus exists to try some kind of admin election / secret voting system. The technical details should be worked out later. Xaosflux said in the discussion that ACE suffrage would be time-consuming, scrutineering and election location haven't been worked out, and I think the threshold is too high. An idea was passed, and the community should have the chance to workshop and concretize it before a test run. If the closer wants to fill in blanks, that's great, but no, I don't think skipping phase II is fair. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The threshold question is probably more ripe for post-test run questioning, so I can see the implementation of prop 13 being much more informal than prop 16, where Joe basically threw out most of the proposed details. I do want to give everyone a chance to iron out some kinks, though. By the way, I was also thinking about putting myself in the first test run of prop 13 to have a non-binding control group... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I originally stated The technical details should be worked out later because of what happened in RFA2021, but I have completely changed my mind about it because support for prop 13 was so strong in RFA2024. Just now I have struck my original comment so that this is clearer.

I agree that the suffrage requirements could be a pain for the WMF person that sets up SecurePoll, but we could always RFC a simplification of that after the first admin election, when we are armed with WMF feedback, better data, and experience.

Not sure what to do about the scrutineers. Maybe just copy ACE for the first election, then RFC a simplification after the first election? It's actually a bit strange to me that SecurePoll involves proactive checkusering of everyone. It may be the only process on the entire website where the checkuser tool is used so proactively. The reason for this should be explored, and maybe we will end up deciding that the suffrage requirements are secure enough that we only need to do random scrutineering or no scrutineering. Not sure. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I also think further RFCs will be MUCH more worth our time after we do one election cycle and see how it goes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that any plan needs to recognize and handle the following which I think is the case with many of the passing proposals:

1. There is consensus for the idea in general. So it's time to move forward from that and not revisit that question. And avoid changes that would effectively negate or deprecate the initial result.
2. There was recognition that there will inevitably be flaws in the initial proposal, and it was pretty clear at the time that details will be refined and a good portion of the support was conditional on that.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

What North just said is exactly my understanding, as well. When in doubt, discuss further, and Phase II would be the logical place for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 14 close

@Joe For Proposal 14, is the consensus to restrict voting in RFA to "Extended Confirmed" or to "30 days and 500 edits"? The former can be manually added to users based on a request, the latter cannot. I don't know if that matters in 14, but it was a non-insignificant factor for discussion in #25 (Nominees should be EC) Soni (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't explicitly discussed. Most people used the phrase "extended confirmed", so that's the wording I added to WP:RFA. – Joe (talk) 17:52, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 2 close

@Nagol0929: In your close, can you please address the related issues brought up in Proposal 9b, as discussed above in #Is phase 2 a good idea? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I did try to address said issues in discussing the oppose arguments and then mentioning at the end that all oppose arguments were rebutted. But if there is a specific way you would like me to word it, I am open to discussing that. Nagol0929 (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You found consensus that diffs are required for things that are not policy violations. But the 9b discussion found the opposite. And most of the 2 discussion took place before that later discussion at 9b. If we have two different proposals here coming to conclusions that contradict one another, that's a problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

To hopefully clarify further, Nagol0929: Based on reading your close I think that your intent was to find that there was consensus for a reminder of civility on the RfA page in some fashion but that a Phase II discussion is needed to iron out the wording. If that's the case, I'd advise amending the close to make that clearer, and that should address Tryptofish's concerns. Even though you make mention there isn't much agreement on the wording, your close gives the impression that there is consensus for the reminder as written by the proposer. This has conflict with 9b due to the wording of "Editors may not make allegations of improper conduct without evidence.". Now, if you believe there is consensus for the wording as written, then Tryptofish is asking for clarification as to how proposals 2 and 9b are going to be reconciled as they appear contradictory. —Sirdog (talk) 23:27, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I don't feel the summarizing statement leaves an impression that there is consensus for the proposed text. The first two sentences are I find that there is consensus for this to be implemented at RfA. However there is not a clear consensus on what the actual message should say. isaacl (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

My intent was indeed to conclude that there should be a reminder of civility in some fashion. I also wanted the community to deliberate on the exact wording of the reminder. I’ll make it more clear when I am able to access a pc next. Nagol0929 (talk) 04:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to clarify that. And thanks to Sirdog and isaacl for clarifying the issue. Sirdog explains my concerns very well, and I agree that making it clearer that there is not consensus for a single, specific wording, but there is consensus for, as you put it, "a reminder of civility in some fashion", is what is needed. Such a clarification, which I see as necessary, will address my concerns. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

How does this sound? I find that there is consensus for there to be a reminder of civility implemented at RfA. However there is not a clear consensus on the exact wording of the reminder. The exact wording of the reminder shall be discussed in phase 2. Nagol0929 (talk) 14:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

+1 —Sirdog (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would address my concerns. Thanks for listening. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

note

All discussions are now closed. Toadette^Edit! 22:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

With the understanding, per the discussion immediately above this one, that 9b that you closed, must be discussed further in Phase 2. (I'm starting to feel like a broken record, but people seem to keep overlooking this, and it's important.) --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with tryptofish this needs to be discussed in phase 2. More specifically in collaboration with the discussion of proposal 2 as the wording of the reminder could impact proposal 9b. Nagol0929 (talk) 02:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Phase 2 - Designated RfA monitors

Note - This section was originally on the talk page of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors before being moved here. Soni (talk) 01:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I am thinking of the old-fashioned RfC format where people state a view and then editors sign underneath it? CC @SchroCat, Theleekycauldron, and Sirdog. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I like that! Depends on if we do one subpage for open discussion or many, so let's see what other people think about that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the CC . I'm not the most experienced with structured discussions, but this idea seems fitting given the specific proposal. —Sirdog (talk) 21:55, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good. It’s a method that we know works well. - SchroCat (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

As I am the blame for the suggestion, would it help if I roughed out a few points on the page that were in my mind when I made the suggestion (and that came up in phase one), which could be used as the starting point for people to agree/disagree on - it would, at least, get the ball rolling and get people thinking about potential pitfalls, processes etc? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, SchroCat :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't too sure exactly on the formatting you wanted, but I think the points outlined are the main ones I thought about or that people threw up in phase 1. Two options on the formatting: one (less likely) and two. Feel free to suggest a different form if you want and I'll try and put it into that form. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• HouseBlaster, Just a query on the opening text, which currently reads "Following the passage of proposals 16 and 16c, providing for community-based recall of administrators by petition": is that germane for this page? Shouldn't this be pointing to proposal 17? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
  • @SchroCat: that would be a botched copy/paste job.  Fixed and thanks for pointing it out! HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Beginning phase II

@HouseBlaster, Reaper Eternal, Thebiguglyalien, Soni, SchroCat, and SportingFlyer: Hey everyone! Congrats on getting a proposal passed at phase I :) y'all's proposals are going to need to move to phase II before implementation. I'm thinking that we should open Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II as an open discussion phase (broken down by proposal) to get a rough idea of how we want to answer the open questions before going to proposal-specific, more rigorous subpages. Anyone have thoughts on how they'd like their subpage to look, or if they want to skip open discussion entirely, etc.? Let me know your thoughts :) Also going to draw up a list of questions each proposal needs to have answered before implementation. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Works for me :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 21:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I would like 16-16C to have an open ended discussion approach for the first few days (probably 7?). It might help with a "vibe check" for how the community prefers 16/16C get tweaked.

As for pages, I think it might be good to just start some subpage structure, and let people modify it before making Phase II "live". I don't have specific plans yet but we'll probably have a decent starting page from that. I know Phase I had a bit of a "wing it as we go along" issue to figure out. Soni (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Soni: works for me. I know that you and HouseBlaster are working on subpages; if open discussion is gonna be on the communal subpage, do you have a draft of a more structured discussion for your proposal? Or would you rather that the 16c subpage have its own open discussion? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Whichever works. A starting point to consider is just.. Default to open discussion split by sections, and then shift to structured subproposal page 7d later. And either close the main open discussion for 16-16c, or move it when that happens.

As for draft, I do not. I will first start with an open ended question, and then create the subpage/adapt your subpage linked above accordingly. It's not clear to me what structure 16-16C's phase 2 would benefit most from (Every subsection is voted on in parallel, Base proposal + every amendment is a vote, Every proposal is wholesale and has a Y/N vote). So I'm waiting for more weighing in during Open discussion. Soni (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think keeping the discussion pages separate will help avoid the need for a running archive, like we needed for phase I. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Then let's get separate subpages ready, one-week (can be extended if needed) open discussion phase on each. HouseBlaster, I think yours and 9b should be the same subpage – the open questions look pretty much the same. 17 and 24 will happen separately, I'll draw up those subpages hopefully tomorrow. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: subpage for 17 exists at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors. I will add the 9b language to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA come tomorrow. I have been getting to bed in the day I woke up in for the last ~week and it is glorious, and I am not going to break my streak now :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 03:07, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have updated Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA to incorporate discussion surrounding 9b. If there are no other issues, I think we are ready to start phase II. CC @Theleekycauldron and Soni. Best, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 14:24, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

For 16/16C, I have done a pass at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall and am happy with sending the page as is. Tagging @Thebiguglyalien in case you have preferences.

Unrelatedly, do we want each subpage to have it's own talk? If not, I prefer moving all discussions from subpages here and redirecting. Soni (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Whatever works. As far as I'm concerned, I'm just the guy who brought it up and it's the community's now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

A running list with all proposals slated for Phase 2.

• 2 and 9b - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA
• 16 and 16c - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall
• 17 - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Designated RfA monitors
• 24 - TBD

Soni (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I have created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Mentoring related to the RfA process. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:19, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the best way to note this, but generally speaking, creating more mentorship options doesn't need a broad community consensus to proceed. Anyone can start an initiative and run with it. It is of course a good idea to have more discussion to try to figure out what might have a better possibility of succeeding. But the stakes are somewhat different with proposals for optional initiatives: as long as there's no community consensus barring them from happening, volunteers are free to drive them forward. isaacl (talk) 18:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I left that proposal with just a general discussion section. I think that bundling it with RfA reform generally will (hopefully) encourage more people to participate in molding the process to be the best it can be. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 19:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks so much for getting these set up! I've been so swamped, but going to start pushing buttons to get this thing going now. Stay tuned... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:11, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Got most of the messages written out; I'm gonna proofread in the morning and then we'll launch :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:32, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Voting for specific options on Admin Recall Phase 2 is now open

The Phase 2 of Administrator recall has closed the "Open Discussion" segment and is now open for !voting. Everyone is encouraged to !vote or discuss specific sub-provisions of recall there; or give feedback at #General_Discussion.

Pinging everyone who commented during the "Open Discussion" segment - @Alanscottwalker, BluePenguin18, Chetsford, Dilettante, Draken Bowser, Giraffer, Hammersoft, HouseBlaster, Isaacl, Joe Roe, Just Step Sideways, Kusma, Levivich, LindsayH, Mach61, MicrobiologyMarcus, OhanaUnited, Pppery, QuicoleJR, Rchard2scout, RoySmith, S Marshall, Soni, Suffusion of Yellow, Tazerdadog, Theleekycauldron, Toadspike, ToBeFree, and Tryptofish: Soni (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is addressed anywhere, but what happens to the page in the case of non-rolling petitions? Is it deleted, blanked, kept, or is the fate wholly up to the user in question? and does that vary based on whether it meets the threshold? The obvious argument for keeping is that it makes determining suffrage for petitions easier. The obvious argument against is that keeping a list of an admin's detractors is demotivating and easy to abuse. Sincerely, Dilettante 15:05, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I would personally suggest blanking as it's an easy balance between "keep records" and "list detractors".

But we do also have a #Finer Points section in case something can't be easily resolved from discussion. There will be a lot of simpler questions that don't need a full "close" (Should Designated RfA monitors also apply to RRFAs, say), with the section being an option if it's not clear enough as is. Soni (talk) 16:01, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

To keep the discussion in one place, I suggest continuing to comment on the administrator recall phase 2 page, rather than this one. isaacl (talk) 17:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Most "detractors" are quite fine with their opposition to a specific admin being listed as publicly and irremovably as possible, and the opposition comes with practical immunity against further administrative actions from that administrator against their vocal critic. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Should this discussion be linked to more directly on WP:CENT? Riht now it just says that Phase II of RFA reform is open, but not that there's an active RFC for community admin recall, which is what I'd expect to see for a RFC this potentially impactful.Tazerdadog (talk) 23:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Anyone can revert or wordsmith but Tazerdadog's suggestion makes sense to me. Sincerely, Dilettante 19:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging Phase I voters to Phase II

Sorry if this has already been discussed, decided, or done... but are we planning to ping the editors who voted in a relevant Phase I section to the related Phase II discussions? Any thoughts on doing/not doing this? Levivich (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

There were notifications on user talk pages, e.g. Special:Diff/1222314878 (using mailing list: Special:Permalink/1218650058). I assume that the list was aggregated from users participating in Phase I discussions. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Ah, yes! Thanks. Levivich (talk) 16:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Make Phase III the review of trials instead of Phase II?

It would be confusing to have Phase II close and then open again for the ones that passed and are just being evaluated. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

RFC tag?

Should phase II have one? It would trigger WP:FRS and list this at WP:RFCWP, maybe bring in some new participants. Levivich (talk) 17:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Phase IIA is a more complex wonkish phase, needs like another 5 people to dive in deep here to workshop ideas. Not sure how to do that but RFC might not be the way. North8000 (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I do not know how to add the RFC tag, but it will be a good idea. We've already listed Phase II under Watchlist and CENT notices, so if RFC tag brings more attention, that is good. Soni (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I think it's just a matter of putting {{rfc|policy|prop}} (or whatever categories) on top of the phase 2 page (or wherever is appropriate, maybe on the four subpages), and then a bot does the rest. Levivich (talk) 19:19, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the more participation, the better, so I support anything, including RfC listings, to make that happen. Although it's not clear to me what the "RfC question" would be in each case. Whether Phase II is a workshop, or a poll to determine policy, is very unclear to me, but it seems to be all of the above. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

c.f. The three blind editors and the elephant RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

If it was one RFC notice, I'd just crib the nutshell at WP:RFA2024:

{{rfc|policy|prop}}

2024 Requests for adminship review Phase II (WP:RFA2024) is open for discussion! Participants are invited to contribute towards improving and refining the proposals for a reminder of civility norms at RfA, administrator recall, designated RfA monitors, and RFA mentoring process. RFC notice posted ~~~~~

If it were four RFC notices (one for each of the four Phase II pages), I'd crib from the top of each of those pages:

• {{rfc|policy|prop}} Discussion about refining proposals from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and require links for claims of specific policy violations. RFC notice posted ~~~~~
• {{rfc|policy|prop}} Discussion about refining the implementation details of proposals from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 for community-based recall of administrators. RFC notice posted ~~~~~
• {{rfc|policy|prop}} Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to have named admins/crats to monitor infractions. RFC notice posted ~~~~~
• {{rfc|policy|prop}} Discussion following up on a successful proposal from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 which called for better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process. RFC notice posted ~~~~~

Anyone should feel free to cut and paste :-) Levivich (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

With thanks to Levivich,  Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal 13 (admin elections)

How is it being taken forward? Sorry if I've missed something. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: WP:AELECT. I'll add that link to the main RFA2024 page. Levivich (talk) 17:29, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I had tried WP:ADMINELECT, WP:ADMINELECTION, and WP:ADMINELECTIONS. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

I just created that first one, I agree it's an obvious guess. Levivich (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:Adele redirects to Wikipedia:WikiProject Adele, but WP:ADELE hasn't been taken yet. —⁠andrybak (talk) 00:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

I remember a failed proposal to have the article Adele redirect to the name article instead of the singer. The way it is now is like having the Eddie article point to singer Eddie Money's article. NYC Guru (talk) 07:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Though I'll admit I haven't edited as I used to, I think these changes (delaying the support-oppose comments and applying the arbcom vote process) will make the experience better in the long run. I look forward to partitpating the the first RfA under the new reform. NYC Guru (talk) 07:44, 18 May 2024 (UTC)