Svoboda | Graniru | BBC Russia | Golosameriki | Facebook
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Primefac (talk | contribs) at 08:14, 11 December 2022 (→‎Coding ver. 2 complete: re). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
    Current time is 05:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
    Recently closed RfAs and RfBs (update)
    Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
    S O N %
    HouseBlaster RfA Successful 23 Jun 2024 153 27 8 85
    Pickersgill-Cunliffe RfA Successful 15 Jun 2024 201 0 0 100
    Elli RfA Successful 7 Jun 2024 207 6 3 97
    DreamRimmer RfA Withdrawn by candidate 31 May 2024 45 43 14 51
    Numberguy6 RfA Closed per WP:SNOW 27 May 2024 5 23 2 18
    ToadetteEdit RfA Closed per WP:NOTNOW 30 Apr 2024 0 0 0 0

    RFA max time holds - technical implementation

    Now that the RfC above passed, whatever is going to be done needs to be created. Have a crat come by and manually do something should certainly not be part of the solution (as the premise above is that 'crats may be delayed). — xaosflux Talk 12:31, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Using Wikipedia's syntax magic should be the correct solution - an edit filter or titleblacklist addition as suggested in Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#RfAs should now be automatically placed "on_hold" after 168 hours is needlessly too much. Anyone !voting after the automatic closure can be reverted by any user, and I don't believe it would cause any drama. DatGuyTalkContribs 12:35, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Have the template add {atop}/{abot} (or equivalent) at 168 hrs after start. Levivich (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyone should feel free to make and test sandbox mock ups, if you get something that works and can't edit the main just open an edit request. — xaosflux Talk 15:09, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Inspired by the syntax we use to hide the nomination text box at WP:ACE2022/C before the start of nominations, I have just created a {{Hide until}} template that hides the specified text until the specified date. We could use this to do something like: {{hide until|<!-- RFA end time -->|text= {{Rfah}} }}. Mz7 (talk) 08:15, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking {{Show by date}} originally but {{hide until}} is probably the better option here. All it would mean is adding that in to the RFA preload. Primefac (talk) 11:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like a great idea, @Primefac. I just want to note that I oppose using an edit filter as suggested here. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 17:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed on the filter, also oppose a bot (even though we seem to have moved past that as an option). Primefac (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh wow, admittedly I didn't even know that {{show by date}} existed. Looking at the documentation, that template seems to be limited to only the top of the hour (even {{show by}} uses math to round to the nearest hour). {{Hide until}} should be able to hide until down to the second if you give it a valid {{#time:}} expression. Mz7 (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's not one I see (or come across) all that often, and every time I think about it I have to spent 15 minutes looking for it! As you say, {{hide until}} has a better timing so that would probably be the best way to go. I'm a bit annoyed because I actually had sandboxed the RfA preload when the RFC started turning in that direction, but I didn't save it (though it was easy enough to make so I wasn't too concerned). I'll see if I can whip something up tonight. Primefac (talk) 18:53, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    By using a template, will we have any problems with purging? That is, maybe the RFA will expire, but the template will not be smart enough to display it as such until someone edits the page, due to the page not being WP:PURGEd. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:52, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but if you think about it potentially having *one* extra comment isn't the end of the world. Primefac (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Coding v1 complete

    I have created {{RfA/readyToStart}}, in which I pretty much sandwiched everything from that first paragraph (and got rid of some of the horribly awkward "scheduled to end" nonsense that shouldn't have shown up anyway). All of this I have placed into Template:RfA/sandbox for review. I also have done a dry run as proof-of-concept [updated 06:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)]:

    Now, the one potentially problematic element here is that there really isn't a good way to get {{rfab}} at the bottom of the nomination and have it only display when time is up. So at the moment, either it's always there awkwardly or we need to start putting {{-}} transclusions after RfA noms when they're put onto WP:RFA. If anyone has ideas for this I'm all ears (one not-ideal example would be having someone copy the {{hide until}} template after the nomination is live to place the rfab at the bottom). Primefac (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps I'm missing something—is there an issue with putting the appropriate code to enable the {{rfab}} template at the right time at the bottom of {{RfA}}? Not sure if there would be a time synch issue between the top and the bottom of the enclosing box, but I imagine they would synch up again after a second or three. isaacl (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and it's one of substitution. When someone creates a nomination (either through Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Nominate or directly) and they substitute {{RfA/subst}}, none of the times are yet fixed (in either {{RfA}} or its sandbox), because the nomination is likely not yet ready. It is only when the page is ready to go that the time function (whether through {{RfA/time}} or this new subtemplate) is substed and the "clock starts" so to speak.
    In the interest in making this sort of thing as easy and straight-forward as possible, I did not include any sort of transcluded time template at the bottom of the page. I am more than happy to do so, but it does mean that when the nominee is ready to transclude they will have to remember to subst the hidden {{rfab}} call as well. If you/others think that this is not an overly large burden on the nominee, then of course I will code it up; I just think (as a cynical template/real-life programmer) that it will get done after the fact more often than not. Primefac (talk) 08:09, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the generated deadline date/timestamp can be selectively transcluded into the footer. isaacl (talk) 16:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can test it out, but my guess (and honestly, it's just a guess) is that a transcluded timestamp won't work. Can't hurt to try though. Primefac (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: it works if the timestamp is on the page itself, but until the "ready" template is substed there is no timestamp, so there's nothing to transclude. I suppose I could hide a fake timestamp inside some sort of "display:none" span, but then the editor would have to remove that as well; not sure how much hidden stuff there should be. Primefac (talk) 15:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding additional hidden stuff for a nominee/nominator to sort out is not ideal. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been a while since I worked with selective transclusion but I think it returns nothing (rather than an error message) if there is no matching labelled section? If so, then I believe the code can be written so that the {{rfab}} template is omitted in this case. isaacl (talk) 16:33, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That's LST not selective transclusion, but yes, you are correct; I'll see if adding an extra #if statement sorts it out. Primefac (talk) 16:53, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure; the help page I linked to uses the term to cover section header-based transclusion, labelled section transclusion, and "the parameterization method" (which I haven't looked into and don't know anything about it). Thanks very much for your efforts! isaacl (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies, I didn't realise there was an LST subheader further down the page. Primefac (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I just tried this in my sandbox, and it put the discussion on hold immediately (diff). I am guessing that {{hide until}} does not like the <section begin><section end> tags. Are there problems with this solution? HouseBlastertalk 21:44, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but I've just done something more elegant. I've updated the permalinks above as demonstration. Primefac (talk) 06:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The only other thing I can think of is trying to close as successful/unsuccessful to make sure it is working/update documentation as needed, which I leave to 'crats to do. Otherwise, I think we are ready to "go live". HouseBlastertalk 18:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The documentation for how to close is terrible anyway, so I might use this as an excuse to improve it (I assume that's the "last step" you're referring to, if not please let me know). Primefac (talk) 09:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry for not being more clear—that is exactly what I was referring to. HouseBlastertalk 13:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Coolio. If no one has issues with it in the next few days, I'll pop it live. If anyone puts up a nomination before I do that, I'll make sure the code ends up in there so at the very least we can get a "trial run" of sorts. Primefac (talk) 13:28, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    It has been a week and there have been no objections, so I think we are good to go. I am not about to try to make the change myself, because I would probably find some way to break things (is it as simple as copy/pasting [correctly, of course]? Or would things substitute themselves?). I also do not believe I should be updating documentation for something I have never done myself. In other words, I am asking for User:Somebody "Notme" Else (who I hear is really good at not breaking wikitext) to do the work for me. HouseBlastertalk 02:53, 22 November 2022 (UTC), edited for clarity 22:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    There were a number of things that caused me to not implement this over the weekend; I'll get to it at some point today I have now done so. also, I fixed your outdent, feel free to revert if you prefer it your way. Primefac (talk) 08:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much, Primefac. If being busy was not okay, I would have been SBAN'd long ago. An additional thank you for the outdent fix! HouseBlastertalk 22:35, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was away for a long time. I notice that rfab is coded at the bottom of the RFA. In my opinion, it is not ideal to have such templates at the end of "General comments" section. Editors (experienced or not) would be commenting there, and there's a good chance that comments would be added below the template. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 14:54, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the comment that says DO NOT EDIT BELOW THIS LINE is sufficient. In any event, I am not sure how you could close the <div> without having something at the bottom. HouseBlastertalk 16:05, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I spent a ton of time working and thinking about it, and it finally came down to either having no rfab or hardcoding it in. It screws with the main WP:RFA page if it's not hardcoded, so the note was the best I can do. We'll see how well it works when the next nomination drops (unless someone has a better idea before then). Primefac (talk) 18:03, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as I had expected, there were comments below the rfab line (Special:Diff/1126511904), despite instructions asking to do otherwise. Well, tbf instructions being shown in the same visual style as the rest of editing interface inadvertently causes a blind eye to what it says. I've faced it many times. Unless you know that there has to be something at that place, you just miss that. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 19:36, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Let see if Special:Diff/1126653105 does it. If there's no further issues and no major opposition to that change, I'll put it into {{RfA}}. Primefac (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My guess is that there are enough people who expressed interest in having the comments stopped precisely after seven days who can move the closing bit as needed when the time has elapsed. isaacl (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    First live test case

    Noting that we have our first RfA with the new coding. I don't believe anything special needed to happen on launch for this to work, but confirming that this is the case. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know if the issue reported by Clovermoss is related. When the changes were being implemented, I thought about asking that a test be done with the Lua-generated report, but after thinking about it, I didn't think it could be affected. However I didn't think about asking for a test with Cyberpower678's RfX report... isaacl (talk) 04:15, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm working on a fix. The bot report should get updated automatically once I hotfix the existing ones. Primefac (talk) 08:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Coding ver. 2 complete

    I decided to overhaul everything to fix the issues; {{subst:RfA}} will now pre-load a template, with the relevant editors only needing to change the values of a few parameters. When all set, they can subst the subtemplate and it will then hard-code the three timestamps that are needed for the bot and the auto-hold templates. Hopefully this should fix everything, but I'll keep testing to make sure there are no funny issues.

    There are some minor things I still plan on changing, namely some of the prompts and pre-loaded statements, but from a "we need to fix the code, NOW" standpoint I think we're good to go. Primefac (talk) 09:37, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Extraordinary work, Primefac. Thanks! I really like the new {{RfA}} design, and it seems clear now this is how it should have been implemented from the start (i.e. since the template was created in 2005). Gone are the days of a big red notice telling prospective candidates to mess around with a "time parser function" [1]. Mz7 (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I think with version 1 I was trying to fenagle in a new version with as little change as possible to the original, which in hindsight was rather silly of me. I guess it's a good thing it broke? ;-) Primefac (talk) 11:49, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you so much, Primefac. I believe the third permalink should be to Special:Permalink/1126436968, but that is my only complaint. As an added bonus, it should prevent !voting before transclusion... HouseBlastertalk 13:59, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How would I do a 2nd nomination with this new template? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:31, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears that the template takes an optional |nomStatement2= parameter, which hides itself if empty. HouseBlastertalk 15:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I wasn't clear in my question. Not a co-nomination statement. How do I nominate a user for their 2nd RfA? And I ask this having experimented at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate which is where I start when I am ready to nominate someone. More broadly it feels like those instructions need to be updated as I think this revised template needs to be handled slightly differently? To be clear I like what Primefac has done here and am just doing a bit of stress testing. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Same as before, you would put the username with a number in the field where Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/USERNAME is above the "nominate X" button. I'll get to updating that page's documentation tomorrow. Primefac (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Did the old template break when we did that also? Because this one definitely does. 2nd/3rd noms are infrequent enough that maybe I've forgotten. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The short answer is yes - you would have to change the {{subst:SUBPAGENAME}} to the specific user name. I'll make sure that's a bit more obvious in the documentation when I go through it. Primefac (talk) 16:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Just as an update to this, I don't really see anything at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate that needs to be updated with the new template, since the setup/loading is still the same. I might tweak the {{RfA/subst}} message to indicate that subsequent RfAs will need a parameter value tweak. As a minor note, yes, Barkeep49, folks were needing to pull the "2" before this switch. Continuing feedback is always welcomed as more bugs gets uncovered. Primefac (talk) 08:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Is a reason for oppose required

    If I oppose an RfA, am I required to state a reason? I am not asking in response to a particular candidacy, as none or open at the moment. I am asking in regards to the general voter, which is not a new account or under suspicion of manipulation. Is there a risk that my vote will be removed or stricken if I don't give a reason, or respond to questions / negative comments about my reason or lack thereof?

    I understand that some people will think poorly of the vote or my judgement, but that is not the question I'm asking. If half of all voters oppose, even if many do not give reasons, and if these voters are found to be long-term editors and not single-purpose accounts or meatpuppets, the guideline strongly suggests that the RfA will be unsuccessful. Is this under dispute? —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 03:47, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    1) No - typically a high number of supports don't give a reason, or a full one. But it is a good idea to give some explanation, even if just by reference to others. 2) No, not in dispute. In fact the number of opposers needed for a fail is less - around 35%. See the explanations on the Rfa page. Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Giving a decent reason makes your !vote less likely to be downweighted or discarded when the RFA is in the discretionary range (65-75%), which is the range where bureaucrats start treating it more like a regular RFC and start weighing strength of argument. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:11, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a reason is required. Your vote won't be stricken, but it could be ignored by bureaucrats if the RfA is closely divided. When supporters at RfA don't give reasons, it is generally implied that they endorse the reasoning expressed by the nominators. However, if you are the first one to oppose a candidate, it is expected that you should provide reasons for disagreeing with the nomination. If there is already an oppose section, and you wish to pile on, I would still strongly encourage you to still provide a reason, even if it's just an "oppose per user X", or you do risk your view being downweighted as Novem Linguae mentioned. Mz7 (talk) 05:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Neither are required to give a reason, but the bureaucrats give more weight to opposers than supporters, so supporters are best advised to give reasons. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Speaking as a 'crat, a reason is not required for either supports or opposes, nor do we "ignore" !votes without explanations (in either direction). If a reason is given, of course, it makes it much easier to weigh the opinions of the discussion, but pile-on opposes are often treated (at least by myself) as "per the other opposes", which still does add weight to the opposition arguments that were made. I do realise that I do not speak for all of the 'crats (and some do heavily discount no-reason opposes) but it is less of a case of "requirement" and more a case of "how much you want your opinion to be counted". Primefac (talk) 09:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi! Like Primefac I don't believe one to be "necessary", but I do think there is a moral reason to comment why you would oppose. Whilst I think every comment should have some rationale, I understand why people don't have a specific reason to support a nomination. I know some people support because they don't have a reason to oppose. In contrast, saying "oppose" because you don't have a reason to support isn't all that convincing. I wouldn't discount such a !vote, and considering that RfAs are based on a ratio of support to oppose !votes (at least until a cratchat) then these !votes are inherently valid.
    If I'm honest, I find the moral aspect to be more convincing on why you shouldn't leave no comments more valid. There is, after all, someone on the other end of the !vote, who has dedicated a lot of time to the improvement of Wikipedia. An oppose !vote is saying you don't believe that person to be trustworthy enough to use the toolset (or a similar argument), so an uncommented oppose !vote, or what we see quite often - a bizarre reason to oppose (such as the "should not be unanimous") - are potentially quite upsetting to the user.
    I'm not saying don't do it - but also maybe think about the reasons a bit more thoroughly. It's a civility thing to me, and why we also shouldn't jump on opposers, who also don't want biteback for doing what can be a hard task - saying no to a volunteer. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    RfA is a discussion. Opposes, supports, and neutrals generally contribute to the discussion process more when they contain substance. — xaosflux Talk 12:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to sink an RfA, you do it through the comment (and "damnning" diff) you make while voting. It matters very little whether that comment happens in the oppose, neutral, or even support sections. It can be beneficial to the candidate if you do not leave a comment. —Kusma (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Inactive Admins

    Not really my place to make a comment at the Bureaucrats' board, but i would just like to point out here how pleasing it is to see, after the notices of impending desysopping going out, three inactive admins, so far, coming along and confirming their inactivity in order to have the buttons switched off immediately. I know that there have been a number of occasions when it has seemed that the activity requirements might be or might have been gamed; seeing the opposite is a real pleasure and gives me faith that, no matter the issues with RfA, in the end we do tend to end up with trustworthy and responsible admins. Happy days, indeed ~ LindsayHello 23:22, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I really appreciate and respect those admins as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Pending closure?

    Why does the RfX template say that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Extraordinary Writ is pending closure? We're not even a day in. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I notice that I'm not actually using the right terminology. I'm actually referring to User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report here, which some userpages have and why I was under this false impression. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:08, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This relates to #RFA max time holds - technical implementation above; thanks for the notice, I'm working on a fix. I've changed the existing nominations and the bot should (in theory) update the page accordingly. Primefac (talk) 08:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Ability/Mechanism to disable annoying push notifications

    Hey,

    Is there any mechanism to explicitly turn off the push notifications on the top of my watchlist every time a new RfA is advertised. I have tried dismissing these "RfA type" notifications multiple times, but they still keep coming back when a new RfA gets posted and it is genuinely distracting. I am not interested in the general governance side of the project right now, and I have no idea who these editors are (no offence to them) since I generally stick to mostly technical areas and/or technical articles (+ general cleanup and vandalism reverting when I get time).

    Also, AFAIK this is not a MediaWiki-core/extension's feature, if it is, I'll be happy to file a issue on phab and provide a gerrit patch to enable such a mechanism if it is not already present. :)

    Regards, Sohom Datta (talk) 15:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-centralnotice-banners ? Cabayi (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I have all of those turned off on English Wikipedia, but it doesn't appear to make a difference :( Sohom Datta (talk) 16:02, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia:Watchlist notices#How to hide the notices should help. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 16:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, okay yeah that does help :) I assume there is no way to just disable just RfA/RfB notices ? (I do like getting a notification for the Signpost) Sohom Datta (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    You can subscribe to Signpost. And if you don't want that red notification, you can subscribe to that on one of your user talk subpages, like I did at User talk:CX Zoom/Newsletters/Current year. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:20, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Every notice should have a "don't display this notice again" link. I have all my notices turned off but I'd much rather be able to select only certain notices to turn off. Would support a phab ticket for this but I'm guessing one already exists. Levivich (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Recurring notifications could have a specific CSS class placed on its enclosing list item, thus allowing a user to customize their CSS (or for a gadget to be written to help customize their CSS) to hide the CSS classes corresponding to categories of notices in which they aren't interested. isaacl (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Question about Template:RfA/readyToStart

    Now, Template:RfA/readyToStart is completely unused. So, @Primefac:, do you agree with speedy deleting it as G7? If so, then go ahead and delete the "readyToStart" subtemplate yourself. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=1126797699"