This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

• Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
• Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
• Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
• Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
• Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
• Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
• Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
• Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
• Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
• Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
• Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
• Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
• Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
• Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
• Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
• Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
• Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron ( talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

As you issued this warning, I was curious whether or not you would consider some of the edits made by the user, such as [1] [2] [3] and general issues of being somewhat aggressive ( example) - and the general conduct, particularly on talk pages - to be problematic enough to issue a second warning, or if this is still civil and free of edit warring?

Thank you in advance :) FortunateSons ( talk) 14:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

As for the second part of your question (edit warring), none of the edits you have linked are edit warring, since they all appear to be original talk page comments rather than reverts. The warning that you have mentioned was from a consensus at AE, and it focused on slow-mo edit warring.

As for the first part (civility), I would need to think longer and take a closer look, and I don’t anticipate having much time this week to do so.

— Red-tailed sock  _{(Red-tailed hawk's nest)} 15:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, don’t worry, there is no urgency! :) FortunateSons ( talk) 15:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Precious

Two years!

-- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 08:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is it worth RevDel'ing this edit from almost 20 years ago? I feel it is libelous but I dunno. Cheers! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 00:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello. I conferred with a member of the oversight team and we've decided not to apply revision deletion to the edit. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 02:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that! Out of curiosity, where does one draw the line with this sort of thing? 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 02:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually upon looking again I had missed the allegation of criminal conduct at the very bottom of the page. I'm going to revdel that now. — Red-tailed hawk  _(nest) 02:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah thanks! 🇺🇲JayCubby✡ please edit my user page! Talk 02:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering what I've done to provoke the warnings on my talk page? Please note, I am trying to take a wikibreak so you may wish to drop me an email if an urgent reply is required. W C M _email 10:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The redirect Wikipedia:CLUSTERFUCK has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 March 30 § Wikipedia:CLUSTERFUCK until a consensus is reached. Paul_012 ( talk) 10:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)