Status as of 08:09 (UTC), Monday, 16 September 2024 ()
- The trial of the RfA discussion-only period has concluded! You are invited to discuss its effects on the candidacies run in the trial period and on RfA as a whole.
 |
|
|
|
Welcome back! Now that the trial of (Proposal 3b: Make the first two days discussion-only (trial)) has ended, we return to discuss its pros, cons, and (later) whether to retain it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
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The trial was in effect through the RfAs of ToadetteEdit (NOTNOW), Numberguy6 (SNOW), DreamRimmer (withdrawn), Elli (successful), Pickersgill-Cunliffe (successful), HouseBlaster (successful), and asilvering (successful).