Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/ToadetteEdit

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 ...[edit]

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]

+1 Sincerely, Dilettante 15:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolded !votes in the general discussion section[edit]

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?[edit]

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[edit]

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]

Cremastra, you re-opened this RfC with the edit summary "Whoa there. Firstly, voting hasn't even started yet, so let's not be too pessimistic. Secondly, they have not withdrawn, so there's no reason to make an early close. Thirdly, you aren't a 'crat, so you shouldn't be closing the discussion at all, let alone a potentially controversial early close."

I don't think these are great reasons to re-open. The RfC that resulted in this trial explicitly included SNOW closes as exceptions, so we expect that some RfAs will still be closed before voting starts. For your second and third reasons: "If uncontroversial, any user in good standing can close a request that has no chance of passing in accordance with WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW" according to the RfA instructions. I don't think this RfA has a chance of passing, and I'd have close it myself, except that now it is evidently controversial to do so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@S0091 and Serial Number 54129 and others who I've pinged elsewhere: if anyone wants to re-close this, I'm not going to object. My re-open was ill-considered, and I seem to have made the close controversial when it was not previously. Cremastra (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toxicity, causes thereof[edit]

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]

It is an especially disappointing position to see from a Wikipedia Bureaucrat, who we trust to keep in touch with changing sentiments and closely follow community consensus. I read this comment as "I know the process has changed but I'm going to keep doing it my way ...". Apologies in advance if that is not what you intended to say — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:05, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm baffled at what Acalamari is even trying to say. They gave no rationale for Opposing ToadetteEdit, unless the reasoning is buried two links deep. And if it is, they seem to be saying that ToadetteEdit bites newcomers, is generally uncivil and aggressive in tone, and has been disruptive to the RFA process, among much else... which makes no sense. All of which would require diffs, besides. A confusing oppose from anyone, and a disappointing one to see from a bureaucrat. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After following that rabbit hole several links deep, maybe they're trying to say that they oppose self-nominations, or that they don't want to add more detail to their opposition lest they again "sink this type of RfA format", but it's not not at all clear. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:18, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. i really don't think this sets a good atmosphere. Izno's comment all the way back in 2008 sums it up i think: You know, I think this is the exact kind of oppose that this experiment was trying to prevent with this RfA. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFA discussion period was "closed" for about 10 hours...[edit]

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]

I consider the "pre-discussion" to be a failure unless there those that are obviously not going to succeed aren't shut down as expeditiously as they would be under the old system. This isn't an advantage if it leads to more wasted community time. (t · c) buidhe 14:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe May I suggest a comment on WP:BN instead? I don't think anyone has actually requested a Bureaucrat to monitor or close this. So for all we know, uninvolved 'crats are not even aware this RFA needs closing (forget the question or "Could/Should the crats close RFAs this way", which I think is still a yes) Soni (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see #I think they've withdrawn?. At least one 'crat is keeping tabs on this RFA. Primefac (talk) 14:36, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's inconceivable to me that an active crat would not be aware of an ongoing RFA, but if that's a concern, then perhaps part of the RFA-opening procedure should be to post a notice at WP:BN that an RFA has opened. Levivich (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Efficiency of community time was not the goal of RFA reform. Making the process less toxic for contributors and encouraging growth of the admin corps was. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but in this particular case it is not proving less toxic, and TE hasn't edited in closing on 24 hours. Not closing this is not making it less toxic. Literally the last thing they said before going offline was "Not yet, but soon". Valereee (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like it's far too soon to try and determine if this process has been "less" or "more" toxic than normal. Better to look on that in hindsight, after the RFA closes and rests for a bit. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. This would have ended by now, which all by itself would make it less toxic for the editor in question. Valereee (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Early closure denies the opportunity to provide any feedback at all - positive and negative. So early closure neither inherently lowers nor increases toxicity.

If the discussion is feeling toxic, sure, early closure helps. But toxic discussion isn't caused by the RFA process - it's caused by the people who participate. How RFAs are run and handled we can control - how people interact with them, less so. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has had hours of feedback that they clearly have found painful. It's plenty. Valereee (talk) 18:00, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @valereee based on ToadetteEdit's comments on their talk page and here, along with the fact they have not edited today. S0091 (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ORCP[edit]

Is there something that could have been said or changed about ORCP that could have avoided this situation? Seeing as how the candidate filed the request two days after the ORCP thread ended. — ♠ Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. ♠ 15:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ORCP brought up some of the things brought up at the RFA, particularly the blacklist/salt issue. But, the user expressly stated they didn't plan to run for six months, which I believe caused a lower participation at ORCP as well as people not taking as deep a look. If the ORCP had garnered a serious look from a "I am getting ready to run now" view, the recent issues around COI edit requests, categories/AFC, poor NACs (I believe a third AFD BADNAC was just vacated) and such would have been discussed. After a week, they self-closed the ORCP and immediately created the RFA. I'm not sure this is a process issue with ORCP, but someone who is, being generous, overeager to move forward. -- ferret (talk) 15:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually in their OP they said not planning until 1.5yrs later [1], then changed it to 6 months after someone said ORCP was only for editors considering running in 3-6 months. S0091 (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, they misrepresented their intentions to ORCP, which is going to skew the responses they receive. -- ferret (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After the ORCP where they said 1.5 yrs away (later changed to 6 months), and in which not one editor who responded said "yes you're ready to run for RFA" or anything close to that, ToadetteEdit closed their ORCP, and then, in their next edit, created their RFA page and, a little over an hour later, launched it. When it was suggested they withdraw, they wrote User talk:ToadetteEdit#A story..., responding It should continue to raise awareness of the story and possible changing their minds.

To the extent this RFA has gone poorly, I don't think that's the community's fault. The community has given ample feedback. This is an editor who is not listening to anybody else. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Reap what you sow. I know we want to be nice to editors, we don't want to discourage RFA candidates, but I agree with buidhe that this is, fundamentally, a waste of a lot of people's time, because one person is not listening to any of the ample feedback given. I don't think it's unkind to say that Toadette is responsible for Toadette's actions and the consequences of those actions, and I bet Toadette would agree with that.

So for those reasons, I don't think there's anything that could have been said or changed about ORCP to avoid this situation. Levivich (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although I appreciate there may be an interested audience of page watchers at this talk page, since this discussion is a general one about the optional RfA candidate poll, I think it would be better held at the corresponding talk page with a pointer from here. And since this RfA is underway once again, I suggest deferring discussion until it is completed. isaacl (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Crats need to stop trying to clerk the page[edit]

There, I said it. No one but a Crat should messing with trying to close or blank or otherwise modify the process of this or any RFA. All this mucking about is disruptive. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported the problem to WP:BN, but so far no 'crat seems interested in any of it. Came close...a former 'crat unblanked the RfA. Maybe another former 'crat could step in - do two former 'crats equal one current 'crat?--Bbb23 (talk) 01:54, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]