This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.
Automatically closing RfAs after a week
InaSignpost interview, ScottishFinnishRadish noted that one easy way to make RfA better for candidates would be to close RfAs automatically after one week. Obviously, they would not be closed as successful or unsuccessful. Instead, they would be marked with something like {{Rfah}} (without the note that it was placed by a 'crat). 'Crats would still evaluate and then close the RfA (or RfB) as they currently do. SFR had a great rationale in the interview, so I am just going to post it verbatim:
If you've been sitting through a week of contentious RFA, that end point is a light at the end of the tunnel. Let's have a bit of sympathy on someone who's endured a stressful week-long experience and just cut it off. Having an end to look forward to helps, and watching it go by without actually ending does not help at all.
I will note that when {{Rfah}} was created, there was discussion that determined it was only for use by 'crats. Then again, that discussion was in 2007. Should this be implemented? Do we really need an RfC to make this change, or is this informal discussion sufficient? And if this should be implemented, what is the best way to do so? Is there some wikitext/module magic that can be used to achieve this, or is a bot (that might only make an edit once a month, but must check continuously for "overdue" RfAs to be useful) the best way forward? HouseBlastertalk16:39, 1 October 2022 (UTC) Note: I am raising this for future RfAs, not for Whpq's.[reply]
I would support such a change. Given that a bureaucrat could close the RFA at any time after 7 full days, I see no systematic benefit to the community by not doing so, and the considerable benefit of reducing stress in candidates. Vanamonde (Talk)16:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Noting for the record my complete agreement with Valereee and Levivich below, and also that as far as I am concerned, no criticism is intended of the bureaucrats. Of course it takes time to close an RFA properly, and the crats aren't expected to babysit. The candidate is, however, and as we can reduce the burden of that expectation by a little bit, we should. Vanamonde (Talk)20:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Traditionally we use a six-week two-stage RfC to implement things like this. I don't believe this would be as helpful as claimed, though: should someone come with a truly damning observation shortly before the official closure, bureaucrats could currently decide to wait for the reactions of others before closing. Under the proposal, they might consider reopening the RfA instead. As long as we view RfA as a consensus-building discussion, it shouldn't have hard cutoffs for the discussion. (I personally would prefer a far more vote-like system, where a hard cutoff makes more sense to me). —Kusma (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's an issue that is worth solving. It doesn't affect a lot of people, but for those whom it does affect it can add one more bit of stress to an already stressful situation. And it costs us very little to solve it: we just need to decide here, "Yeah, good idea, let any admin close the discussion with "Consensus to be determined." Valereee (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be interested to hear from others who had a contentious RfA closed a little after the cutoff point about if an automatic close would've made the experience better for them. Given that bureaucrats are likely closely watching the end of an RfA, this issue might also be solved just by crats changing their behavior and choosing not to wait, even if it means using a placeholder close. {{u|Sdkb}}talk18:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Um... who says 'crats are waiting? I've already indicated that this is not true. Additionally, the idea of edit-conflicting with an on-the-second bot that puts the RFA "on hold" is extremely problematic to me. Primefac (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I think Sdkb is suggesting that 'crats (in non-obvious cases) 1) put the discussion on hold 2) evaluate consensus 2.5) possible 'crat chat 3) close discussion with summary of consensus instead of 1) evaluate consensus 1.5) possible 'crat chat, at which point the discussion is put on hold 2) close discussion with summary of consensus. If SFR was a one-off, I would agree that a bot/other technical solution is likely to be unnecessary. Maybe a gentle request that 'crats put the discussion on hold, even if you do not intend to be the closer, is all that is needed. W.r.t. solution looking for a problem, candidate stress at RfA is definitely a problem. SFR has said that closing the discussion "on time" would have reduced his stress. If something can possibly decrease RfA stress for the candidate, even if just slightly, I would consider that a good thing. W.r.t. edit conflicts, there is already the chance you will edit-conflict with a closing 'crat. I do not see how conflicting with a bot would be any different.HouseBlastertalk19:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero difference between your two suggestions, in that any 'crat that is even remotely following the RFA will know the outcome well before the 168 hours are up; there is no reason to put it on hold (barring due to a 'crat chat) unless it's just on the borderline of 75% and could still be unilaterally closed, and even then I would argue that the closing 'crat will already have a consensus determined.
With all due respect to SFR, it was clear to anyone watching the discussion (from about day 3) that it was going to a 'crat chat; it would take a literal last-minute unprecedented wave of opposition to drop it even remotely close to 65%. Expecting it to "all be over" exactly after that time is unrealistic because there is still the inevitable delay between opening the 'crat chat and having us all respond.
If it even only slightly reduces it, why not? I babysat my RfA. Like literally sat and watched it. It was a very stressful period. Every time there was a new oppose, I had to deal with the things people were saying about me: that I was unaware, apathetic, exploiting recent events, or a strikebreaker crossing a picket line. It was not fun waiting for the next comment, and the fact those late comments would be removed or discounted wasn't a comfort. Valereee (talk) 16:58, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was well aware it was going to crat chat, which is all the more reason to not leave it open any extra time. There is a sharp difference between waiting out the crat chat, and actively monitoring your RFA. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think technical implementation concerns are relevant yet, it could just as easily be implemented with a template that automatically "closes" the RfA when time is up. Legoktm (talk) 19:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sdkb: To answer your implied question: There was one post-168-hour-mark vote at my RfA. It was an oppose, and so I didn't like that it was cast. If it had been a support, I'm sure I would have been thrilled that it was. :D But it was a bit surreal overall. I had an alarm on my phone for the minute it was to end, and it was strange having that alarm go off and then still being in limbo. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe)11:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, (and I am the newest crat, so it might not be worth much), I put a timer in my phone for about ten minutes before the RfA should close to remind me to take a look at things and put a closing template together. However, we are talking about an item that could happen at any time of the day, and there is only around 20 of us. Something that closes at a good GMT time for me might be poor for others, and we all still have lives (unbelievable, I know).
That said, the actual close is rarely the important part, as either the user knows they will pass/fail, or have to wait for a cratchat anyway. Having a cratchat close within a day to me is a good indicator that the work is being done in a timely manner. All an automated close is going to do is remove later !votes, which isn't something I've ever seen be an issue before. Lee Vilenski(talk • contribs)19:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The delay caused by a crat chat is inevitable, and candidates understand that. What is avoidable is waiting for yet another crappy oppose comment added late. Waiting for the close can feel pretty excruciating when you've been ticking down expecting for it to be over. Valereee (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With no disrespect intended towards SFR, the change to "on hold" of that RfA came a little less than four hours after it was scheduled to conclude. The counts changed from 232/87/5 [1] to 234/92/5 [2]. In terms of percent, that's a difference of less than 1%. The outcome of the RfA wasn't affected by those four hours. I don't see how creating a new procedure for RfA would have changed anything in this case. Creating new procedures for stopping something that had effectively no effect is not good business. Show me several candidates who were stressed over such closures, and then we might be on to something. For one case? No. Also, Kusma is correct; as long as RfA is run as a consensus gathering mechanism, an RfA that closes late isn't a problem. If some new revelation comes in late in an RfA that begins shifting people from support to oppose, that is a good thing, not a bad one that we should be shutting down by an arbitrary seven day cutoff. I could just as well see an argument that if N% of !votes come in on the last scheduled day of an RfA, that it will be automatically extended, as it would seem the community has become far more interested in the RfA. So, no, I oppose this change. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If one person says they were stressed, I can guarantee you multiple others were and haven't said anything. My feeling is that if we can do something easy and simple to reduce RfA stress on someone, there is no good reason not to. When someone is going to a crat chat, there's gigantic stress, and that stress has been going on for perhaps the entire week and almost certainly most of the week. And honestly, we should be listening to the folks who had stressful RfAs, here. For those of you who had basically stress-free RfAs: listen to those of us who for whatever reason didn't. We are the ones whose RfAs people are looking at and thinking "JFC, I am not risking going through that." Valereee (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That ties into my advice to people thinking about RFA from the interview, Read contentious RFAs closed in the discretionary area and decide if that's how you want to spend eight or ten days of your life.ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If extending the duration of an RfA by 4 hours (2.4% of the entire duration) is enough to dissuade people from ever running, it's probably a good moment for some self reflection. As I noted, if you can find others who felt an RfA going past its 7 days normal allotted time was stressful, then we might be on to something. Reacting to a single case (across thousands of RfAs) as proof of a problem is a very bad basis on which to make changes. RfAs are stressful period, even if they go well. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Yes. Exactly. I was actually about to make exactly this point, that even unanimously-supported RFAs, even ones from before it became the norm to ask more than maybe one "optional" question instead of the 30+ that are the norm now, are horrifically stressful. Why go out of our way to make them even worse in a way we could actually fix for a change? —Cryptic18:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think a bot that "closes" (puts on hold) at the closing time is a good idea. Anyone worried about an edit conflict with the bot can just wait until a second after the closing time. Another very easy solution is to just allow any editor to apply the "on hold" template at or after the closing time. Just crowdsource it; someone will be on and watching. Although a bot could also be used to close any discussion that editors wanted to auto close at a certain time, so there might be some broader use there. Levivich (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can. It's because RfA is stressful, and recently someone who has gone through RfA has said having the damn thing go on for hours longer than they'd been counting down to added to that stress, and removing potential sources of stress may help encourage other people to run RfA. When removing those potential sources of stress costs us basically nothing, why wouldn't we think it was a good idea? Valereee (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. 1/ First thing that comes to mind is that auto-closing at 168 hours would have avoided discussions like this and this (and two years later...). 2/ An extra 4 hours might not seem like a lot to me or you, but I bet it sucks if you're the RFA candidate going through it. Some expect candidates to be online and responsive constantly during their RFA (see this recent exchange for example). The candidate should have the peace of mind that comes with knowing that there is a definitive end time. During those 4 hours, the candidate didn't know it would be 4 hours. It could have been 14, who knows. 3/ During those 4 hours, BTW, 5 new oppose !votes came in. They didn't affect the outcome, but it still sucks to read five more oppose votes over the extra 4 hours, simply because there isn't a crat online right now. 4/ Deadlines provide motivation. If everyone knew that 168 hours was a strict drop-dead deadline, people who want to !vote will find time to !vote before then. That's a good thing, as it reduces the possibility of late developments in an RFA. 5/ Honestly, if the RFA candidates say it would be less stressful, then that's the end of the discussion for me. I can see no reason not to close it at 168 hours, and at least 5 reasons to close it. Levivich (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+6. I am going to expand slightly on point number 2: those 4 hours may have been 2.4% of the time, but they were a much larger part of the stress. Personal anecdote: when I was about five years old, my mother dropped me off at school for one of my first days of kindergarten, which I knew would last until noon. I was a mommy's boy; I hated that she was "abandoning" me for a couple of hours. I was nervous. I was scared. I was stressed. The knowledge that she would be back at 12 was comforting. She came to get me at around 12:15. Those last 15 minutes were the worst part of the day, by far. Even though they were negligible in terms of time, they had an outsized influence on my stress. I did not know when she was coming. After 12 came and went, there was no longer an "endpoint". There was no longer a light at the end of the tunnel. It was actually this memory that convinced me to bring this up. I also want to respond to Primefac's point above about how it was obvious that it was going to a 'crat chat since day 3. We know that candidates who are well above the discretionary zone still have a negative experience with RfA. An RfA that pass at 90% but has 10 opposes that hurt is still stressful, even though it is successful. I have never gone through RfA, nor have I considered doing so, but I would guess that the anxiety surrounding RfA is not entirely about whether you pass or not. I believe it is about the scrutiny you are put under, the expectation to justify any diff thrown at you, and reading the searing opposes. As further evidence, both SFR and Tamzin have said that the 'crat chat was the least stressful part of their experience. If it were entirely about passing, I would imagine a 'crat chat would be the most stressful part of RfA.HouseBlastertalk20:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since this started because of my statement in the interview, maybe I should elaborate a bit on why I said it. Near the week-long highly stressful and contentious RFC I was strongly looking forward to the end on Monday evening, not of the entire process, but of the part that I was expected to follow, absorb, and possibly respond to. The crat chat wasn't as big a deal, because that was a process that I wasn't actually involved in. Monday evening rolled around, and right around dinner time it was slated to end. My wife saw that I was still focused on my phone, keeping an eye on my watchlist like I had been for the past week and asked when it was going to be over. I told her that that (at that point) it was going to end in about 20 minutes. We started eating, and when I finished up I saw that it was still open. My wife asked why, to which I responded, "well, no one closed it yet." She responded, as she does to most things I try and explain about Wikipedia, "that's dumb." I understand the delay was only four hours, but for me that worked out to an entire extra night, which was made worse by the continuation of comments. There was still discussion continuing as I retired for the evening, for another night of wondering what I would wake up to.
As has been pointed out above, the additional votes and statements made no difference to the outcome. They did, however, make a difference in the total time I was under that microscope. Like I said in the interview, knowing that there was an end point made the whole ordeal easier to deal with. Watching it go by was pretty disheartening, and heading to bed that night not knowing when it would actually be over was really not great.
Some of the objections above seem to me to be even more of an edge case than "contentious RFA doesn't get closed immediately and causes unnecessary stress." Sure, it's possible in the last couple hours something wild could happen, some sufficiently damning diff dug up, or the candidate could rip off a mask and show that they're actually Larry Sanger, but how often has that actually happened? That concern can be addressed the same way it is now, a crat says "we're keeping this open to see if the revelation that the candidate thinks that Adrian Paul is the best Highlander is going to sharply change the vote ratio." The end date could be adjusted at any time with a number of different solutions. As it stands it's making it less likely that someone who thinks there's a chance they may have a contentious RFA will stand at RFA. It's also adding stress to an already stressful experience for no actual gain. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of things that don't actually happen, can anyone remember when was the last time a bureaucrat deliberately extended an RFA? That's about the only potentially-valid excuse I can see not to do this. —Cryptic17:55, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we auto-close the community should step away from its long held stance that RfA is a discussion and not a vote. I obviously support the idea of autoclosing with a purely mathematical determination of passing — this has been my stance for years. The community as a whole, however, does not. If the community continues to insist that RfA is a discussion and not a vote, and that bureaucrats are to be given discretion on when to close, when to put on hold, when to go to crat chat, etc. the idea of auto closing at exactly 168 hours makes little sense.
So I'd support the change if and only if it comes with larger RfA reform that sees us admitting that RfA is a pure vote and nothing more. Unless that happens, we I oppose this change. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to the stress level of the candidates. Why does it have to "make sense" in terms of whether we're pretending this isn't a vote? We can keep our pretensions and still make life easier for candidates and potential candidates. I think Emerson had something to say about that. :D Valereee (talk) 14:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the idea is that incremental improvements could dampen the enthusiasm for a radical restructuring of the way RfA works. If RfA is made less awful, then there will be less of an appetite for a major overhaul. 28bytes (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if we set up an actual gantlet? :D Oh, wait...I think those did actually have a definite end point. Hm, so that won't work. Valereee (talk) 15:23, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having been through RfAs and an RfB myself, I agree with SFR that arbitrarily extending what many here call “hell week” simply due to the unavailability of a bureaucrat at the scheduled closing time is an added stress for no particular benefit to anyone. This seems like a low-risk change (just code it to show as closed in the RfA templates themselves, you don’t even need a bot) that might add a little touch of humanity and empathy to the process. (I would also support codifying a caveat that 'crats may extend or re-open an RfA due to significant last-minute revelations in case people are concerned about that.) 28bytes (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to disagree with TonyBallioni. I don't see that closing but not deciding an RFA at the end of seven days changes it from a discussion to a vote. Rather it makes it a discussion that defaults to ending after 7 days. My experience of two RFAs and an RFB is that a week at 60% is stressful, a week clearly above the discretionary zone? Not what I call stress. So I don't think that this change would make much difference, but what change it would make seems purely positive (provided a crat could decide to extend an RFA). One last point. Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Current_bureaucrats shows that we crats are rather concentrated geographically, with the majority of us in just two time zones. It might help timing and other things if we had a crat from the Indian subcontinent or Australasia, or if people starting RFAs avoided doing so at hours that meant it likely that everyone on the shores of the North Atlantic was likely to be in bed 7 days later. ϢereSpielChequers19:30, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We used to have at least one crat from India, but Nichalp has been inactive for well over a decade now. So perhaps it is time to search for some good candidates from Australia/New Zealand/India etc. Any admins from these areas interested? Graham87? @Schwede66? Anyone? —Kusma (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks but no thanks; I've thought about this before (for reasons unrelated to time zones) but I'd prefer to stay on the sidelines. the whole RFA process is too crazy for me. Graham8704:11, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have very strong feelings on this, but would lean to leaving it be. RFA's are a discussion, and we set a minimum time on them so that there is an opportunity for many editors to contribute - keeping in mind that some editors may only contribute once a week, such as on weekends. This is similar to almost all other discussion we have, for basically the same reason. — xaosfluxTalk21:05, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RfAs, unlike other discussions, publicly count down. In multiple places. RfAs, unlike other discussions, are a job interview conducted in public with up to two questions allowed by everyone, including your worst work enemy and the intern who started yesterday. RfAs affect real people in their real lives. So, no, not really similar to almost all other discussions we have. Valereee (talk) 14:07, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Tony and Xaosflux on flexibility being one of the characteristics of Wikipedia discussions. We shouldn't give incentive to editors to drop in last-minute comments before a hard deadline. I am sympathetic to the stresses of those who feel they are being evaluated in public for a week. To me it would be better to address this root cause. The admin elections proposal made last year (that had a significant majority in favour but was not enacted) is one possible approach. (On a side note, although I appreciate there was no negative intent, I don't think comparing those volunteering to perform administrative tasks to kindergartners is apt.) isaacl (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Just responding to your side note) I would be happy to strike if others find it inappropriate, and I can assure you there was no ill intent. My sincere apologies to anyone I offended. I was not trying to compare RfA candidates to kindergartners, rather, I was trying to compare the closure of RfA to my mother coming to pick me up. I did so to explain why I believe a firm end time to a stressful event is a good thing, and that a tiny amount of additional time can amount to an outsized increase in stress.HouseBlastertalk23:15, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A kindergartner, though, will not have had enough life experience to learn how to deal with the stress of a sliding deadline. Someone seeking a grant of administrative privileges will have had more experience to help manage this situation. We can argue if the community should have lower expectations than they currently do on the degree of experience, but I don't think going to one extreme helps support your position. isaacl (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can see merit to both sides, but I would be fine with it automatically locking at the deadline and awaiting an available bureaucrat to close it, start a bureaucrat chat, or (presumably rarely) unlocking the RFA for further comment. Useight (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sympathetic to anyone feeling stress for being involved in any aspect of Wikipedia editing. We are all volunteers, and nobody should feel that they have to be subjected to stress. An RfA runs for a minimum of seven days, but can run longer. We try to close them as close to that exact seven days as possible as a matter of curtesy, but as it stands there is no requirement for them to end on exactly seven days. And I kind of like leaving room for human judgement. It reminds us that there are humans involved in this project, and I am cautious of too many human actions and decisions being taken away from us. I hope that we can think of ways we can alleviate the stress of a contentious RfA (a non-contentious RfA is less stressful because it is clear soon enough if it will be successful or not) rather better than involving a bot. I think that making it understood that a candidate can withdraw from a contentious RfA and try again later, is one thing. I'd be interested in someone running the numbers on how many candidates who withdrew early from a contentious RfA then ran again successfully compared to how many who went to a crat chat and failed then ran again successfully. Another thing is Crats getting more involved in moderating RfAs. I don't think we do enough of that. In fact, I don't think there are enough of us to do that. I'd like more Crats, especially younger, more active users becoming Crats. I'm not sure allowing inline responses to opposes (or supports) is helpful - these can degenerate into unpleasant hot spots. It might be more helpful to allow everyone a space to comment, in which they can give their supportoroppose along with any reflections they have on the candidate and/or on what other people have said - do away with the support and oppose column. Put more emphasis on the comments, and less on the voting. More like AfD or like an ArbCom case. Take away the daily vote counter with that dreadful percentage of doom (though, to be fair, this can alert people to when a RfA is turning, and encourage them to return to it to re-evaluate their !vote). Consider having RfA more like an ArbCom election - a period of questions and discussion followed by a secret ballot. Perhaps have a monthly RfA - candidates are invited to step forward (or are nominated) on the 1st of each month, followed by seven days of questions and discussion, and then seven days secret voting - Crats then look at the votes, announce the results, and flick the switches on the new admins. I'd prefer us to focus on reducing the overall stress of the RfA, than replacing humans with bots in order to save a few minutes (or - very rarely - hours) of stress. SilkTork (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When the community weighed in on the topic of voting/discussion last year the consensus was the current balance was OK but if there was going to be a change it would be for more voting. This was then born out by an election proposal nearly passing during the second phase. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support automatic closure. If the status quo and proposal were reversed, I couldn't see "Let's shut down the bot that closes after 7 days and have a crat close it up to an hour early or five hours late" being a winning suggestion. I agree with WereSpielChequers that automatic closure doesn't affect the discussion/vote question. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:14, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of thoughts. Firstly, I have no problem with an RfA shutting itself down at the end of the time limit - just as we don't allow votes prior to going live, a hard stop works in my head unless the bureaucrats actively choose to extend. The concern that Primefac has of a bot edit conflicting with a closing 'crat is a valid one, but edit conflicts happens, so it's not that big a deal in my mind. However, cannot the RfA template simply have an end date included and automatically show itself as "on hold" after that end date? No bot needed, the page simply goes "yellow" and a note at the top says it is on hold pending closure. To those saying this is not worth fixing, time and again community members complain about the RfA process being awful - why would we not try to make it a bit better with clear goalposts? WormTT(talk) 08:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have lots of discussions that run for at least 7 days, such as WP:AFD; if some editors write an article and it is up for deletion - it can be at AFD, where it certainly can run "long", while the authors hypotetically sit around "stressed" if their efforts are going to be wiped away. I haven't heard any arguments that we should shut down people contributing to those discussions because they show up past a redline timestamp - and in XFDs it is also routine for discussions that have evolved over their course to be extended. We generally only have hard "not after" constraints on actual "votes" - and generally that is related to the fact that the ending is holding up a team of volunteers from starting more work. — xaosfluxTalk13:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the stress of RFA is comparable to AFD. A "bad RFA" is one in which your colleagues publicly and repeatedly call you a liar, or biased, or fascist, or stupid, or a jerk. I've never been through it but I'm sure having your article deleted ain't the same. Levivich (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is discussing your work, a team of people maybe deciding if what you created (and possibly even what a team of people created) is worthy to be read by everyone in the world or not. We have certainly had contentious AFD's before. I'm not saying they are the same thing - just that they have some similarities. — xaosfluxTalk16:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except an AFD is not about people discussing the authors' work, nor about deciding whether that work is worthy to be read. The discussion at AFD is about whether or not the topic meets notability requirements, it's never about the quality of the article. It's not even close to an evaluation of an editor; there is no similarity whatsoever, other than both are discussions. Levivich (talk) 16:35, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we conclude that an article is not-notworthy, we are indeed saying this isn't something that we should publish for our readers. Articles don't materialize from the air, proposing that an article has poor quality is claiming the authors produced poor quality work; proposing that an article subject is "non-notable" is a reflection that the authors poorly picked a topic. There are certainly denials at WP:PERM/AP because the authors have been judged to not be sufficiently skilled at writing articles (oft citing their creation deletions); generally this comes with feedback on how to improve - just as many RFAs opposers identify things to work on. I wholly agree that AFD and RFA are different, and that RfA speaks more directly at the character of the candidate. My main point is that AFD can be stressful for an author as well, but no one seems to worry that we keep them stressed too long, especially with the vast difference of expectations that RFA candidates should have going in vs anyone else who clicks publish. — xaosfluxTalk17:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard RFA compared to a lot of things - a job interview, a cross-examination, a public flogging. I'd think that the fact these comparisons are being made would mean we should err more towards caring for the human element rather than trying to prolong an already agonizing process. 🌈WaltCip-(talk)16:36, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think the concern of edit-conflicting with a bot can be easily put to rest with a simple bit of conditional logic in the template. No bot required. 28bytes (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Creative use of {{show by}} is my (current) technical solution to the above; it will just be one more line of code the 'crat closing the discussion will need to replace. Primefac (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking as someone who has gotten seriously hammered at RFA, and as someone who once made the mistake of suggesting that his RFA could be closed a few hours early in the interest of not running into the beginning of the work week, I really don't see the need to auto-close RFAs. The discussion ends when it ends. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)15:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Things have hopefully changed for the better since then (I see some familiar faces in that thread who have now been blocked for ongoing incivility, for example). 🌈WaltCip-(talk)15:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I understand the stress candidates go through; I twice ran for adminship and twice ran for bureaucrat, so I get wanting an RfA to be closed as soon as possible once the scheduled end is reached. That being said, if we bureaucrats were taking days and days to get around to closing RfAs or if we had an overwhelming amount of candidacies up that was too much for us to handle, then this proposal would have some merit but even in those circumstances the problem would be slow or insufficient bureaucrats, not RfA closing procedures. While there was a short wait between the scheduled RFA closing time and when I placed ScottishFinnishRadish's candidacy on hold and started the bureaucrat chat, nothing that happened after the scheduled time changed the result. Overall, I think this is a solution looking for a problem. Acalamari22:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No one is objecting to crats needing time. No one is accusing crats of being slow. They're saying it's quite likely not necessary that the grilling they thought would be over by the time they finished dinner still wasn't over by the time they went to bed several hours later, and that there may be a cheap simple fix. They're pointing out this unnecessary extra bit of stress is not only unkind to candidates but may even in some slight way be counterproductive to attracting candidates, and they're suggesting maybe this is one tiny way in which we could improve the process. Valereee (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
One thing that sticks out in my mind about how an unexpected delay can impact the process was Tamzin's crat chat. Several of the crats said that because it was a bank holiday weekend, that they would have to wait a couple extra days before they would have a chance to review the RfA and provide their opinion. Obviously no one intended to make Tamzin wait any longer than necessary, but real life gets in the way for all of us at times, and I think removing the risk of an unnecessary and unexpected prolongation of the process would indeed pay dividends. 🌈WaltCip-(talk)16:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the beginning of 2016 (when the discretionary range changed), there have been six RfAs (Money emoji, Floquenbeam 2, RexxS, Jbhunley, GoldenRing, Godsy) that have gone to crat chat (not including this year, and thus SFR). In those six years, there have been 93 successful RfAs and 161 unsuccessful. Crat chat RfAs comprise 3.7% of all RfAs over that time. The average time those RfAs have gone beyond their scheduled close is 3 hours and 26 minutes. On those RfAs, there have been an average of 4.3 votes cast after scheduled close. Curiously, the voting improved the support/oppose % in every case where it happened (RexxS, Jbhunley, GoldenRing, Godsy). Of those six RfAs, two (Money emoji, Floquenbeam 2) closed within five minutes of scheduled close. Of the other four, none of the editors in question have edited in the last two weeks. I was considering reaching out to those four to inquire as to their thoughts about their RfA, but it seems futile given their inactivity. We can't draw any conclusions based on six RfAs as a statistical sample. But, the results are nevertheless interesting. One thing I think we can reasonably conclude though is that crat chats happen so infrequently (once per year) and RfAs that go to crat chat going past their scheduled time significantly being even less common, it's doubtful it is any sort of deterrent to running. I'd rather we poll potential candidates perhaps by looking at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits to find out why they don't run. That would, I think, be considerably more productive. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ritchie333, Barkeep49, TonyBallioni, and a few others including me, have spent a considerable amount of time talking to potential adminship candidates, drawn from that list and elsewhere. Of the people I've approached, at least two-thirds have declined outright, and the stress of RFA was by far the most common reason cited. Quite a few more have decided to wait on it. I've now nominated six candidates, which ought to give you some idea of the numbers. The other nominators (all more active than me) may have additional perspectives to offer, but I'm quite certain they've heard very many concerns about the atmosphere of RFA too. Also; why do you assume the RFA isn't going to be stressful if it's outside the discretionary zone? Mine was, and I would have appreciated a quick closure too. Vanamonde (Talk)04:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers I looked at were focused only on those that went to crat chat. I'm not presuming those that didn't weren't stressful. It's just that those that don't go to crat chat very likely have a clear outcome that extending past the scheduled end won't change. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Mine had a clear outcome. Still quite stressful, and I really was counting the minutes until it was over and no more awful things would be said about me. :D There are multiple stories from recent candidates whose RfA did not go to crat chat at WP:Requests for adminship/Debriefs. Valereee (talk) 12:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done as much of it as in past years, but I literally have not had a single person who I approached for RfA take me up on it this year. Every candidate I've done (or am on track to do by the end of the year) approached me. I'm not sure stress of the RfA would be the #1 decline reason I get - undesired scrutiny would probably be the #1 reason I hear - but stress is something that does come up in basically any discussion that gets at all serious and it's a common theme in the debriefs even among people who pass relatively easily. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the scrutiny is the same as the stress. The scrutiny is the primary driver of the mental toll, as well as (as my wife put it) answering for your crimes. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Same as BK40. I've approached multiple editors. Very few are willing to even think about it. Very few people I'd actually want as an admin look at the RfA process and think, "Oh, totally worth it!" That may partially be because in recent years one of the things we've required in an admin is "not a jerk."
Jerks don't care if they're pummeled as long as they get the mop in the end. Non-jerks -- those who tend to be capable of empathy -- also tend to take criticism more to heart. Which in my opinion is a good thing, no matter how many people think being willing to go through RfA's hell week is evidence you can stand up to the stresses of being an admin.
I don't know that quite matches my experience/perspective. I think a good admin needs the wisdom to be able to (politely) brush off bad faith accusations, listen to good faith criticism, and to know when to admit mistakes. Knowing how to appropriately handle criticism is one of the questions I emphasize with people who I get serious about exploring RFA and it has been the deal breaker for some. As I not infrequently say, if you're happily editing wikipedia and there's a reasonable chance RfA will make you unhappy, don't do it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that admins need to be able to brush off bad faith criticisms. It's the jerks who also brush off good faith criticisms, and if you can do that, you probably won't feel much stress in RfA. Valereee (talk) 18:47, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we able to differentiate between bad faith and good faith criticisms? In SFR's RFA, there were criticisms that some fools felt were made in good faith and others (correctly) felt were in bad faith. Should those be brushed off or taken on board? (The first one.) While I may have an opinion (you'll never guess what it is) if we collectively don't agree on what is a good/bad faith criticism, we're going to have a hard time agreeing on whether an admin's response to it was good/bad. That's why I think character-based evaluations of RFA candidates are kind of bunk. You can't evaluate whether someone knows when to admit mistakes unless you can objectively determine what is and what isn't a mistake... and the putative mistakes that actually matter to us are the ones where there isn't any objective right-or-wrong answer. For example, the unusual use of advanced permissions by a few editors during the WP:FRAM saga: were those mistakes, or were they proper uses of tools? Depends on who you ask. Can I fault those editors for not admitting their mistakes? Again, depends on who you ask. One person's "Support - he correctly brushed off bad faith criticism" is another person's "Oppose - he failed to admit mistakes". RFA is, in part, a test to see if a candidate's opinion of what is good and bad matches the opinion of at least three-quarters of a couple hundred RFA voters. In other words, "Are your values our values?" We call this "trust". If the answer comes back "no", it's hard not to take that as a rejection of your values. Hard to feel a connection to the community after that kind of rejection. I imagine the process of finding out is, and always would be, stressful. Levivich (talk) 19:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about this w/re making an RfA !vote, though. I'm talking about it w/re whether someone feels stress in/is willing to undergo RfA. If you can brush off any criticism, fair or unfair, you probably aren't going to feel as much stress at RfA. And in recent years we've been focussing on people who "aren't jerks". Which (if what I'm hypothesizing is true) might mean we're getting fewer people to run because the people who can brush it off are the people we aren't asking. We think, "Oh, X is very clueful and without fail civil and helpful" but the reason they're without fail civil and helpful is the same reason RfA looks awful to them. It's because they've got the capacity for empathy or however else we want to shorthand "not a jerk". Valereee (talk) 19:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a general problem that goes beyond RfA. I think for many collaborative editors just looking to help out a little, encountering someone who reverts their changes with an abrasive, caustic comment results in them thinking, this isn't very fun, and then silently leaving. Most of people who like to talk about these things will shrug it off, saying editors have to grow a thicker skin (that is, brush off criticism). The net effect is that the English Wikipedia environment selects for editors willing to brush off criticism, and those who are more abrasive. I appreciate there are new editors who ought to be discouraged from editing, and being abrasive towards them is an easy way to get a lot of casual, unsuitable editors to leave. We have to understand, though, that it affects the community's ability to get and keep editors involved. isaacl (talk) 20:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We can evaluate how someone handles a disagreement, whether or not we agree with their viewpoint. There are a lot of disagreements that are related to the different weights being given to different factors, so there can be honest disagreement. You can examine someone's communication skills, and whether or not their lines of reasoning unfold logically. That being said, giving and receiving critical feedback is very difficult. The best way to make it less stressful is to reduce the degree to which it is done in public. To accomplish this, the community needs to be convinced to support a different procedure where public feedback is given by skilled communicators who can do it sensitively and constructively. There are lots of ways to do this, with different pros and cons. For better or worse, most of the editors who like to comment on these matters seem to prefer having a big mass, public conversation. isaacl (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And we actively invite anyone who's discovered their watchlist. Advertising it on watchlists was considered 'reform' when it happened. I'm sure there's no argument that it increased participation, but did it improve the quality of the process in any way? Valereee (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For better or worse, there are lot of editors (amongst those who like to comment on these things) who are wary of delegating responsibility, so tend to support proposals that solicit discussion from more people. (I suspect in the larger population of all editors, many would be happy delegating to some sysop group.) Given that RfAs are already a poll of self-selected editors who happened to show up, I understand the argument that we might as well encourage more participation, to get a (slightly) broader sampling. isaacl (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break
I am inclined to oppose any proposal that automatically forces a cessation of participant activity (!voting/commenting) precisely at the 168 hour mark. That said, I understand candidate stress and believe it's a factor worthy of mitigation. To that end, I would support a counterproposal that did not implement a default procedure until a prescribed amount of time (beyond 168 hours) elapsed (perhaps 2 or 3 hours) where the RfA was still pending closure at that time. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 05:49, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's a strategy used for silent auctions, which usually have a stated end time...a bid in the final five minutes increases the closing time by another five minutes; this continues until there are no more last-five-minutes bids. That makes sure someone isn't gaming the system by sneaking in a bid just under the wire. But in a case like RfA, it could allow for the possibility of a late-discovered reason for opposition. Would that be a solution for your concern? Valereee (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the goal is to allow everyone time to respond to the new part of the discussion, 5 mins would be way to short; that would need something like a day - and I don't think we'd want anything to force the "minimum" time to be pushed indefinitely (as people could keep replying). — xaosfluxTalk13:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about this idea, but didn't think it would address the expressed concern over the effect of a sliding deadline on the requestor. Anyone who would be waiting anxiously for additional comments with the current procedure would still be doing so. Also, I suspect in practice it wouldn't shorten the duration of an RfA versus current practice, assuming that an extension is on the order of hours. isaacl (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your input Valereee. While it's interesting, and I can see its utility in concert with an auction, I agree with Xaosflux that it isn't well suited for RfA. I also agree with Isaacl that any process involving auto-extensions would do little or nothing to alleviate a candidates stress regarding the lack of a fixed time for the RfA discussion to end. For what it's worth, my rationale for intimating the counterproposal I suggested is basically that I do not wish to commingle my support of a fixed deadline for the RfA discussion to end with a proposal that fixes the deadline by faulted reason and wrongful assumptions (encroaching outright assumptions of bad faith). To elaborate, fixing the deadline at T-168 hours implies that the only way to end an RfA discussion at or reasonably proximate its scheduled end time is to effect an automated process that forces the discussion's end at precisely the earliest opportunity that would have afore been possible. In the context of "a fix", the thing broken is implied to be rampant bureaucrat lethargy resulting in an unacceptable prevalence of intolerably late RfA closures. Of course, the exact opposite has historically been the overwhelming norm regarding RfA closure and instead of implying otherwise, I prefer to embrace the track record while encouraging its continuation by fixing the implementation of any automated process sufficiently beyond the 168 hour mark (to allow the professionalism and unimpeachable discretion of our bureaucrat volunteers to selflessly emerge as we have come to expect) yet reasonably near the scheduled end time (perhaps 2 or 3 hours as has been suggested) to effectively mitigate the stress of anticipating an RfA's closure where currently no fixed ending exists while simultaneously precluding the fringe minority of RfA closures which one could reasonably feel had languished in its pending state. Similarly, an overriding concern with participant activity while an RfA's closure is pending is undoubtedly born of the wrongful assumption that latecomers are editors of bad faith and ill will whose pending closure participation is singularly purposed to negatively impact the RfA where again, the sum of pending closure activity at RfA does not bear out any such preponderance of negativity (as I recall of 10+ years of RfA observance and participation). I, therefore, see no reason for automatically disallowing respondent activity solely because an RfA is pending closure. These things said, I hope others consider the merits of the counterproposal and perhaps elivate it to become their own first choice. Thank you and be well.--John Cline (talk) 05:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)À[reply]
A couple crucial clarifications: No one, and I mean no one, is saying there's 'rampant bureaucrat lethargy' or anything close to it. No one here is saying bureaucrats aren't working fast enough. Nothing like that has been said. Likewise no one is saying latecomers are acting in bad faith. No one has said anything like that at all. In fact I don't believe anyone here has implied anyone is acting in any kind of bad faith whatsoever.
The idea of closing when countdown ends has literally zero to do with preventing potential bad faith action on the part of anyone. Zero, nothing whatsoever, and no one here is saying that. Valereee (talk) 11:44, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What difference would an extra 2-3 hours really make? Or an extra 5 minutes after every late comment? You had a full week to make your opinions known. If you couldn't adequately express your opinions in a week, than an extra 2 hours ain't gonna help. Besides, how many RfAs are really decided in the final hours of the RfA? Most are either closed after 12 hours, or already a foregone conclusion after 3-4 days. Any RfA that's really on a razor's edge by the end of a week will trigger a crat chat anyway. —ScottyWong— 19:38, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My preference for a 2-3 hour delay before implementing an automatic procedure to end participation is not about ensuring extra time for the discussion to continue but instead about trusting our crats and allowing them the continued opportunity to effect a timely close of the discussion as they have predominately done to date. As such, the discussion would end in concert with their decision to close it or place it on hold which would mostly occured well before the 2-3 hours elapsed. --John Cline (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Like Isaacl, I have thought about this idea. I think it would be an improvement over the status quo: there would be a known "light at the end of the tunnel". However, I consider it a distant second choice to putting the discussion on hold after 168 hours. Putting the RfA on hold after the minimum length is less arbitrary than 2-3 hours later. One reason that I support this change is that extensions would be done actively through 'crat action, as opposed to passively through 'crat inaction. The counter-proposal does not have this benefit. Finally, I would prefer to eliminate the extra time a candidate has to be actively monitoring their RfA, instead of putting an upper bound on it. HouseBlastertalk00:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support. Small step to make the process just that tiny bit more manageable for the candidate, but bigger steps are needed (discussion before !voting / anonomous (!)voting). Femke (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My super scientific measurements say that we are at 61 KB of discussion, and I am getting the feeling that we are starting to run into heat:light issues. Both sides have non-negligible support, and this is a change to a highly contentious process. I do think semi-structured and wider input would be useful. To that end, unless anyone has a really good reason not to, I intend to start a RfC below within the next day or so. To be clear, it would just cover this proposal: I am not looking to start WP:RFA2022.
I also want to clarify, as the guy who brought this up, that I am absolutely not criticizing the job that 'crats currently do. Despite real life, 'crats have a pretty darn good record of closing RfAs on time. Yes, there was a contentious RfA that lingered for 4 hours, but that is quite clearly the exception, rather than the norm. I did not raise this because I felt that the 'crats are "failing" to do their "job". I did so because someone who just went through a tough RfA said this would have improved the experience, and their reasoning really struck a chord with a deep memory. I figured I should just go ahead and start the discussion, rather than wait for someone else to do so. HouseBlastertalk22:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't the slightest doubt that your efforts are entirely motivated by good faith. I wish you the best and hope that the RfC culminates with a clear consensus and unambiguous answer to the question posed. To that end, I encourage you not to rush into an RfC and further encourage you not to squander the "RfC before" opportunity that is currently underway. In my opinion, this discussion has more to offer in terms of information that will be useful in a subsequent RfC provided you slow down enough to reap its full measure. Sincerely.`--John Cline (talk)
(edit conflict) I echo your first two sentences right back at you. I do believe there is a little more that could be said about your counter-proposal, and so I will hold of a bit on a RfC. That being said, comments have slowed somewhat (as I get double edit-conflicted... maybe not?). HouseBlastertalk00:58, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that bureaucrats have generally appreciated the ability to allow a discussion to 'run just a bit longer': to allow folks to react to some late breaking revelation, or to see if a trend reversal holds; however in reading the above (particularly the experiences of candidates who have been held in that liminal space), I'm wondering if it would be better for bureaucrats to be actually clear that this is what they're doing, rather than quietly holding back like some kind of pocket veto. (That being said, bureaucrats have not always agreed on whether an RfA should be extended.) –xenotalk00:46, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise? I would only support automatic closure where the Rfa is clearly passing after 7 days - with say over 80 or 85% supports. Otherwise it is unfair to potential voters who only check in once a week, have exams, are on holiday or travelling, or are just busy. Johnbod (talk) 00:54, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support ending all comments/"votes" on all RfAs after seven days unless the bureaucrats make an affirmative decision to extend discussion because of "late breaking news". I was fortunate enough to experience an easy RfA, but even for me, the process was moderately stressful. It must be orders of magnitude higher for those undergoing a contentious RfA that ends up in the discretionary zone. I empathize with ScottishFinnishRadish and Valereee and Tamzin. I am sorry that things were so stressful for you. Tamzin, you know that I opposed your RfA over one specific point but in my opinion, you have been a very good administrator so far. I regret adding to your stress level. So, I agree with Vanamonde93 and Levivich. Let's bring the "voting" to an end when seven days have passed in almost every circumstance. Let the candidates sleep. Cullen328 (talk) 02:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IMO a hard deadline for commenting should be set irrespective of how long it takes a crat to review the discussion. Seven days is long enough and especially in the case of contentious AfDs, I believe it is unfair to the candidate to subject them to further unnecessary stress. The crats can formally close the discussion whenever they get around to it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I too believe that an auto-close could apply unless a Crat had specifically stated on day 7 that an extension would be occurring. I think @Xeno: makes a good point that clarity on when a crat is doing so would be beneficial. I would suggest that when a Crat does so (which is likely to be really rare) they should automatically start a crat discussion, rather than risk another Crat coming in and undoing. This discussion would likely not be anything like a CRATCHAT - once it's clear enough it can be closed. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support an automatic closure by bot per Levivich. This system is already gives the appearance of being rigged and due deference to procedure is the least this community can provide for the appearance of impartiality. I realize many prefer a system where the RfA closes exactly when it is going "their way" and I warn against this impulse. Chris Troutman (talk)18:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support as long as all RfA pages (going forward) have some kind of countdown timer to clearly let everyone know when voting ends, similar to the "Scheduled to end" text that already appears on an RfA, but with a live timer added. Something like "This discussion will be automatically closed at 13:55, 10 Oct 2022 (UTC), which is 3 days, 7 hours from now." This auto-closing change shouldn't force people to do calendar math to figure out how much time they have left to comment. As long as it's made clear up front, no one can reasonably complain. —ScottyWong— 19:43, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the minimum not maximum time intent for these discussions. Yes, it's stressful for the candidate but the community should expect full discussion up to and if necessarily beyond the minimum time allowed. The counts typically make the outcome clear but breaking news in the last second must be given time for discussion if bureaucrats think it could change the result. While not essential I do think that it would be useful but not mandatory if a 'crat who is initially reviewing for decision and sees late-breaking comments of that nature added a "minimum extension of n days due to possible effect of recent comments" observation. Not for the candidate's benefit but to make it clear to the community that consequent observations aren't going to be ignored just because the minimum time has passed. The absence of such an observation a few hours after the minimum time should be enough to reassure candidates that the usual response time will probably happen. Things taking time and the need for patience is one of the routine aspects of this place. Jamesday (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
RfC: should RfAs be put on hold automatically?
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This proposal is successful. There is consensus to automatically place RfA discussions "on hold" after one week (i.e. no further comments will be accepted after 168 hours of discussion).
Supporters of this change argued that it would be beneficial at reducing stress for the RfA candidate. Opponents to the change often pointed out that many RfAs are already closed within a few hours after the one-week mark is reached, so the benefit of this change would be minimal. A few others raised the point that RfA is supposed to be a discussion, not a vote, and argued that arbitrarily cutting off discussion after a certain length of time would violate that principle. On the whole, however, most participants in this discussion did not find these concerns convincing, arguing that this is a lightweight change and that the beneficial effect this would have for the candidates outweighs the concerns raised.
The original RfC suggested a technical approach to implementing this change (i.e. modifying {{rfa}} to automatically place the RfA "on hold" after one week). I view the community consensus here as favoring an automated solution (perhaps with magic words) over a manual one (e.g. requiring editors to manually add {{rfah}}). Mz7 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Should RfAs automatically be put on hold after one week? Details: This would be implemented by modifying {{rfa}} to automatically place the RfA "on hold" after one week. Bureaucrats would still be responsible for evaluating consensus, formally closing the discussion, granting admin access itself, etc. This would not affect the ability of 'crats to extend the duration of RfAs, if they deem it necessary. HouseBlastertalk11:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposer. Plenty of words have been said about this in the above discussion, but the main motivation behind this change is candidate stress. After his RfA, ScottishFinnishRadish noted in his Signpost interview that his experience would have been better if his RfA had been put on hold when it was scheduled to end. Both RfA candidates with substantial opposition this year (SFR and Tamzin) have said that the 'crat chat was the least stressful part of RfA, because they were no longer obligated to babysit a discussion where you are under a microscope. When Wikipedia becomes stressful, we can just take a break. When RfA becomes stressful, you have to either withdraw or push through, continuing to respond to questions and reading opposes that sting. I also want to highlight this comment by SFR (it is in the discussion above), where he eloquently advocates for this change. I agree with it in its entirety. HouseBlastertalk11:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding on to the above. Everyone appears to be in unanimous agreement that RfA is stressful. This is clearly a problem. Sure, actually being an admin is stressful, but I reject any argument that leads to the conclusion that stress at RfA is a good thing. Stress is bad. Reducing stress is good. We should not be making decisions to increase stress at RfA to "prepare the candidate". SFR has clearly and unambiguously stated that automatically putting his RfA on hold would have been a small step towards reducing anxiety during the process. Multiple recent RfA alumni have agreed with him, including Moneytrees, the admin with the longest successful RfA. By my count, there are 10 admins who have opposed this RfC. Of those 10, one went through RfA within the last decade. One. Also by my count, there are nine admins in this RfC who were "promoted" after WP:RFA2011, eight in support. With all due respect to the older generation of admins, I trust them less than the newest crop of admins to know what is wrong with RfA, and what would actually help fix it. The younger generation of admins is saying this is a solution to a real problem; I believe them. HouseBlastertalk02:01, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see benefits to this change - which should be simply on a visible level, changing the background of the RfA to say, yellow, and noting that it is on hold pending bureaucrat closure. It should be simple to over-write if a 'crat wishes to actively extend the RfA. There are clear improvements to candidate wellbeing in doing so, and I am unpersuaded by the arguments against in previous section. WormTT(talk) 12:25, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose - I don't like the idea of late-comers being able to add to the discussion but not being able to be replied to just because of a redline. Are we expecting any editor or admins to enforce this with reverts or protections? — xaosfluxTalk13:48, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, discussions should be closed when they are done, not at an arbitrary cutoff. As long as RFA is a discussion, fixed time closure is bad. Also, bureaucrats unofficially extending by a few hours simply by not closing will be far less stressful on the candidate than an official extension that will cause lots of people to re-examine the candidate. —Kusma (talk) 14:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed previously, I feel that flexibility is one of the characteristics of Wikipedia discussions. We shouldn't give incentive to editors to drop in last-minute comments before a hard deadline. I would prefer addressing the root problem of how to make the process less confrontational. isaacl (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. RfA is a discussion, not an election. If the community wants to make admin an elected postion, then do it properly in an RfC. Then, we can have a fixed ending time, secret ballot, etc. - Donald Albury16:35, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As I said above, I would only support automatic closure where the Rfa is clearly passing after 7 days - with say over 80 or 85% supports. Otherwise it is unfair to potential voters who only check in once a week, have exams, are on holiday or travelling, or are just busy. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how the current setup (sort of like the old unannounced amount of stoppage time) is more fair to those groups. The only thing that's going to be more fair for editors who are unable to participate during the 7-day period is a longer discussion period that is specified ahead of time. isaacl (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per my comments above. It costs us nothing, especially as bureaucrats will retain the ability to reopen for comments, and there's many folks at this point who've said it would reduce stress. Vanamonde (Talk)16:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I followed the entire discussion above as it unfolded, am unconvinced that an additional four hours adds more stress than an RFA candidate should be able to manage, and see strict deadlines on such an important process as a slippery slope, as one cannot envision how that might affect future RFAs and unforeseen circumstances.
To my knowledge, a delayed closing of an RFA has only been used abusively once, about fifteen years ago, and the "abuse" that occurred in that case was less about a latecomer having a delayed objection as it was about the specific makeup of the large group of editors who also happened to "miss" the RFA until the last minute and followed on the first oppose to completely flip the outcome; I don't see such shenanigans as being possible or likely in 2022. If such things occurred often, I would be in the Support column here; they don't, and are a rarity.
In the particular case that led to this RFA, there are very clear indications of how the quite-minimal delay of a few hours may have added confidence in the eventual close of the RFA by the 'crats, as although a considerable last-minute issue surfaced in an oppose, no one but me (I think) picked up on that in the additional period. One wonders if this figured, to the candidate's benefit, in the 'crats final decision, and if it did, the extra time served a useful purpose; surely the 'crats took into account that, even with extra time, no one came back to oppose based on new findings, and they might have figured that in to the final outcome. That is, the extra time was potentially useful to the candidate, "stress" notwithstanding. Let's not bootstrap the 'crats unnecessarily, when there is no evidence this change will cause any measurable effect, but may lead to some difficulty in unforeseen circumstances. Four hours is nothing on the internet. If RFA is broke, this is not the fix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a simple fix to better align when the RfA template says discussion will be closed and when it actually is. There are sometimes good reasons to extend an RfA discussion, but that should be done deliberately, rather than as a quirk of when particular bureaucrats happen to be awake and available. 28bytes (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. 29 votes, all support. No need for nominators. No discussion. Talk page still redlinked. I'm running RfA on metawiki asap. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That wording would even more blatantly postulate the fear that HouseBlaster alluded to above, of an RfA that could in theory might never end. Of course, we know in practicality they will be terminated on or shortly after that time, but there is the risk of introducing a new culture based on the subtle change in wording. 🌈WaltCip-(talk)18:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think that would be a step in the wrong direction. I don’t mind if an RfA gets extended past 7 days for a legitimate reason, but that reason should be explicitly stated rather than just letting the RfA languish in limbo for however long. Otherwise, if a 'crat who is monitoring that RfA decides it ought to go on for a bit longer, how will other 'crats who come by know not to close it? 28bytes (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Look, our RfA reform didn't accomplish anything except WP:XRV which arguably has absolutely nothing to do with improving the RfA process. This is something. It's the tiniest of steps to make an arduous process LOOK more tolerable.--🌈WaltCip-(talk)18:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for several reasons, though I suppose the main one is that flexibility, discussion, and consensus are at the heart of the success of the Wikipedia community - inflexible hard rules or formats are not part of that. I dislike the idea of hard wiring any aspect of Wikipedia - there should always be room for flexibility and judgement, and all that flexibility and judgement offers. SilkTork (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd support as long as all RfA pages (going forward) have some kind of countdown timer to clearly let everyone know when voting ends, similar to the "Scheduled to end" text that already appears on an RfA, but with a live timer added. Something like "This discussion will be automatically closed at 13:55, 10 Oct 2022 (UTC), which is 3 days, 7 hours from now." This auto-closing change shouldn't force people to do calendar math to figure out how much time they have left to comment. As long as it's made clear up front, no one can reasonably complain. —ScottyWong— 19:30, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is a solution looking for a problem. In the well over 400 RfA I've examined and voted on since 2009 and at least since writing WP:RFAADVICE in 2011, AFAIK it's never been raised as needing discussion. However, I see no harm in it and to satisfy the proposer I'll go along with it and per Scottywong - if for no other reason than the en.Wiki spans every time zone in the world, and according to our prefs the actual time displayed may be local or UTC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per my earlier statements. Anything we can do to make any process slightly less stressful or negative when there is no appreciable downside should be done. Crats will still be able to extend discussion if they feel it necessary, only now it will be an active choice, rather than a passive result. It will also eliminate RFAs that don't need additional discussion from staying open unnecessarily and causing stress for the candidate. I don't see any real drawbacks that would be specifically caused by this change that aren't already present in the current system. Discussions can still be closed by crats even if someone recently made a point that some think should allow for more discussion. If a crat is around to close right at the deadline those who may be on vacation or unavailable still won't be able to contribute. Automatically placing an RFA on hold at the end of a week wouldn't change that. Just because someone doesn't place importance on the stress another has to undergo doesn't mean that they're lying about the stress being real, and about believing this to be a small, easy way to reduce it somewhat.
As for concerns that this isn't a large enough change, so isn't worth doing, why? Maybe I've paid attention to too many lean and continuous improvement training sessions (I'm a six sigma brown belt!!), but it's pretty obvious that it's much easier to make smaller changes with small gains than to rebuild a system. Even if this change is only a one or two percent improvement, why is that a bad thing? It's still an improvement. Find a few other pieces of low hanging fruit and we can get a ten percent improvement without having to dramatically change any structure. We have a process that is working as-is, so why not make small improvements where we can? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Anyone who hasn't experienced this should really be thinking harder and trying to empathize. We're talking about a cheap fix that can make life easier for those it affects. Valereee (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. An RfA shouldn't be extended just because there's no one to put it on hold at the time. It's not the same situation as something serious coming to light at the last second which would cause the RfA to be extended. The former is more common compared to the latter (didn't this last happen several years ago?) and this can ease candidate stress by placing a more definitive end date. So to me, this seems like a fairly obvious support. Honestly I'm suprised this isn't already the case. There's a part of me that wonders if a community desysop procedure might be more useful for the latter situation if it's really something that would cause the majority of supporters to change their mind. But wouldn't something like that be almost guarenteed to come up in the actual RfA? People examine RfA candidates with extreme scutiny and it'd be weird if "a skeleton in the closet" would come to light just as the RfA is close to be closing. Yes, different individuals have different time schedules (that's why I didn't !vote in the last RfA) but if something is really that problematic, presumably you're not relying on any single person to point that out? Clovermoss(talk)03:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To expand on my reasoning here a litle bit, in general RfAs end at 7 days. If the RfA is contentious, bureaucrats put the discussion on hold when they get around to it. My understanding is that this proposal is just making the "on hold" part automatic instead of arbitrary, not getting rid of bureaucrat's discretion for extending the RfA in extenuating circumstances. I get that RfAs are a consensus-building discussion and not a vote, but they are not meant to go on forever. 7 days is the commonly accepted timeframe. This is why this seems like the obvious choice to me. If that was to change, we'd need a seperate RfC. But to me, the concept of people having limited time to participate in the RfA and wanting to participate after it would normally have been closed is such an edge case I don't nessecarily see how it's worth it compared to the alternative. I think this is a small improvement as outlined by ScottishFinnishRadish and therefore think we should do it. To eloborate a bit on the "skeletons on the closet" analogy I made earlier, the slim chances of that happening at that late point in the RfA could happen at any point after an RfA, too.
I think that this concern about extending RfAs for wider input was more important in the days of the community when there several going on all at once all the time. Nowadays it's a handful per year. The last cited RfA being extended that I know of was in 2007 when another candidate running at the same time did not notice that particular RfA and provided evidence of doxxing. That's an exceptional circumstance and not the same as "sorry RfA candidate, all the bureaucrats were busy/asleep until now". Clovermoss(talk)12:37, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Could be incompatible with consensus decision-making. Also oppose further straight-jacketing of the bureaucrats in using their discretion to manage RfA, and diminishing the role of bureaucrats. It is entirely possible that new information may arise late in an RfA and extension of the discussion becomes important. While the bureaucrats are not known for relisting RfAs, this doesn't mean that it will never be a good idea. The proponents go too far in writing rules out of norms without good reason. It is better to leave it to a bureaucrat to close an RfA as finished. A bureaucrat may very well apply a timed template, but that action should be left to bureaucrats and not transferred to a rule to be implemented by non-bureaucrats. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:24, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose An RfA should be a discussion, not a vote. If new information arises near the end of seven days, the information should be discussed, not swept away with a bureaucratic close due to rules. Stress for candidates is unavoidable—that's regrettable but it is better than creating an admin who does not have the temperament to wait. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I incline to oppose along the lines of a number of editors whom i respect ~ SilkTork, Xaosflux, &c. I have not, however, undergone the particular stresses RfA may generate, so i'm not certain i have the moral right to oppose those who have and are speaking out in support; if they believe that this proposal will reduce any of those stresses, i guess i have to take their word and experience for it, and therefore Support. Happy days ~ LindsayHello09:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I fully support the goal of making RFA less of a hell week, but I am unconvinced that this will achieve that goal whereas the downsides higlighted by others are much more likely to occur. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ioppose forcing the RfA discussion's end by automation. I reject the premise of this being a small step in the right direction and instead see a moderate to large step in precisely the wrong direction. Something is wholey awry when a process is seen able to grant the title and tools of leadership yet incapable of effecting its closure by leadership means.--John Cline (talk) 03:03, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In cases where the outcome is obvious, there's no source of stress, and where it isn't the tenor of the last hours of edits is often discussed by the bureaucrats. And if a candidate honestly finds having their RfA open for a few minutes to hours extra such a stress, then adminship might be too stressful. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No need to strictly enforce one week. It give a chance for later participants, and really it does not matter if closure is delayed. It does not matter that much if it is stressful for the candidate, as they can expect that as an admin as well. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:21, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support The benefits to RFA candidates outweigh the costs of reducing whatever minimal discussion is happening at the end of an RfA. One week is sufficient for discussion. We should be looking to make the RfA process more appealing to candidates wherever possible in order to encourage additional candidates to run. W4217:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. First, If someone decides to run in a RfA, they should learn to cope with the amount of stress caused due to non-closure of an RfA for 3–4 hours at max. That is what all of us should expect from prospective admins. Secondly, I feel that a "This RfA is on hold" or something along that line will be more stressful for a candidate with 75% support than an outright closure as successful or 'crat chat. If the closing 'crat finds that more discussion time is merited, that flowing discussion shouldn't be hindered by a yellow wall of template for hours until a 'crat finally reverts it. Thirdly, community has decided that RfA isn't a vote, as such, there should be no hard closes. If it were a vote, I would've most likely supported it. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})18:55, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. When this first came up above a few days ago, I was inclined to support, as a simple matter of efficiency, "fairness", and empathy towards those running. However, on further reflection, I do think we should be more open rather than less for discussions to take the time they need (even if often delayed closes are usually just logistics), and I worry about bad actors swamping discussions with supports/opposes carefully timed to avoid scrutiny if there is an enforced precise deadline. I am reassured that closure delays seems to rarely exceed a few hours, which doubtless feels painful to those running at the time, but is ultimately not long compared to potentially stressful situations admins may experience -- or better yet attempt to defuse -- during their tenure. Martinp (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Adding, in response to the "crats can reopen if there are last minute shenanigans" counterargument: the issue is not "new news" to which crats can respond by deliberately extending, but the implied final word (with less community review) for !votes coming in just before closing time. I fear this will lead to gaming when there is a guaranteed precise ending time. Like people putting in their bids in the last seconds in a silent auction at a party. We can't expect crats to decide to reopen just because somehow 5 opposes (or supports) came in during the last 3 minutes, indicating agreement with arguments raised before (that others earlier found less compelling in the discussion). Also adding: I think the younger generation feels their online personas, here and elsewhere, are much more part of their overall personal identity, so perhaps feel more stress from lack of a deadline? I'm of an older generation that views online interactions as secondary to the "real me". So it's easy for me to say "if you're feeling stressed, just turn off your computer and go for a walk. if your online account's RFA tanks it says nothing about your worth as a real, warm-blooded person. And it's not like the candidate does much while the discussion is ongoing anyway so just look away.". The latter is in contrast to e.g. policy discussions where one does need to keep monitoring to add to the discussion, if you feel passionately about it (with the caveat on bludgeoning of course). Martinp (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Easy to override if necessary, but the important point is that it encourages applicants to go through the torture if they can have some more confidence about when it will end. Jmchutchinson (talk) 09:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As someone who went through the process several years ago and didn't have the emotional strength at the time to see it through at the first signs of scrutiny so ended up withdrawing, I think this is a great idea, not just to encourage more to run but also as a bit of a help to those already running to think 'I've only got to get to this date and time'. Mike1901 (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Discussions should run as long as necessary. Just putting in a set end doesn't help this. Also...I for once get more nervous the nearer an end of a "countdown" gets, so the set end might actually be more stressful. Lectonar (talk) 10:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. I've read the supporting arguments and I'm very unconvinced this is a legitimate issue that needs solving. -FASTILY23:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Perhaps it's a small thing, but if we can - in any way - reduce how stressful and frustrating RfA can be, we should. ♠PMC♠ (talk)06:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As per SilkTork, while RfAs are probably the closest thing we have to a "vote" structure, they are still a discussion on the matter as well and should remain as much so as possible. Editors should remain free to comment until a bureaucrat actually says "That's it for this one, time to make a decision." SeraphimbladeTalk to me10:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I find the concerns about flexibility and bureaucrat judgement unpersuasive. As worded, the proposals explicitly retains that flexibility and judgement. What the proposal changes is simply the default flow of the process. The talkpage would presumably remain open, as would other venues, and there's always the IAR post if something critically important comes up. This seems like a a small yet helpful change, which should be the easiest change to RfA that could be made. CMD (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A reasonable, common sense improvement. A week of agonizing scrutiny is more than enough to ask of someone, and it is a reasonable condition that the process should end when it's scheduled to end. Really just strikes me as the most minuscule measure of decency to extend to candidates. In the event of extraordinary circumstances where more discussion is required, crats are already permitted to extend the discussion as they see fit, so nothing else needs to change. ~Swarm~{sting}22:17, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ioppose in agreement with SandyGeorgia and me. If, however, we bureaucrats suddenly started taking ages to close RfAs or if we regularly have loads of candidates each week, then I'm happy to revisit and reconsider. Acalamari01:38, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per SFR. I generally don't care much myself, as I'd prefer it be either ended immediately by crats or ended immediately by technical implementation stuff (but crats have to be viewing the discussion to revert the close if something flared up or they otherwise thought it was proper to extend the RfA under their discretion). It doesn't really change what I think the system should be; merely which the crats take (e.g. either to close the rfa or to not reopen the RfA). However, I'm more inclined to sympathize with a recent RfA candidate (side note: reading SG's cmt and consdidering my own recollection, the RfA likely merited a few hours' wait to close). —Danre98(talk^contribs)20:13, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. RfA is not voting, it is a discussion. If something came up on the last days of the discussion, it should be discussed. Admins are lifetime appointments, I expected all of their work to be closely scrutinized and questioned by all. Yes, it would be stressful on some contentious RFA, but most RFAs are straightforward and have no problems that need addressing on this specific matter. If the candidate is elected, RFA might be the final time they are questioned and scrutinized by the whole community, if they didn't create problems in the future there won't be any "re-certifying" of their adminship. In short, more discussion will not be bad for the project.✠ SunDawn ✠(contact)16:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SunDawn: Bureaucrats would retain the discretion to extend the RfA; this proposal is trying to address the accidental extension of the RfA by default because a crat hasn't gotten around to it. Best, KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 23:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) there has never been an accidental extension of an RfA. Crats manage to deal with a RfA (to close, extend, or start a Crat Chat) on the 7th day. Where Crats may be a bit slow is not in closing a RfA, but in closing a Crat Chat. The Crat Chat for the RfA in question, took 44 hours, extending the decision by almost 2 days. Now, if someone says what we should do is close Crat Chats within 24 hours of the close of an RfA (which seems reasonable) then ScottishFinnishRadish would not have been promoted to admin, because 24 hours after the Crat Chat was opened, the result would have been 4 Crats saying No consensus against 3 Crats saying Promote. Now, we can have rushed decisions in order to save a candidate some anxiety, or we can have considered decisions. My assumption is that candidates would rather have a considered decision, even if that means waiting a little longer. SilkTork (talk) 23:52, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There has been no accidental extension by more than a day, but that isn't the issue. This proposal is about no longer leaving RFAs open for a few hours. ϢereSpielChequers09:39, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about accidental extensions or crat chats not being conducted quickly enough. Purely about any RfA that doesn't need to be extended itself being closed while crats decide whether a crat chat is needed. Purely about allowing the candidate to breathe a sigh of relief that a discussion that has basically petered out is now completed and they can go offline. Candidates in the discretionary zone know the crat chat could take a while, but in the meantime there isn't anything they need to keep checking in for at the RfA itself. Valereee (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: an RfA that has been open for a week and does not have enough discussion is a farcical concept based on its state over the last decade, particularly in recent years. There is more than enough scrutiny on candidates. IAR would suffice as justification for re-opening discussion if some revelation came about at the 6 day mark (something I don't know has ever happened). RfAs open for exactly 1 week strikes me as a better rule than "a week and a little bit until a crat is online". I can't see an oppose that points to the last time an RfA was deliberately extended through non-closure just past the one week mark, and that extension was useful in some way. — Bilorv (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: RfAs are important because other than ArbCom elections, they decide who get the mops. That being said, if anything can change the result of an RfA after a week, then talk page posts will still show up on watchlist. RAN1 (talk) 22:05, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It was quite a surprise to me when I first found out that the one week time period wasn't a hard deadline, and that votes could keep coming in after it had passed if no bureaucrat had closed the request. If I'm understanding this correctly, it seems like a good way to make that close a hard one. Also, to whomever commented above that RfA is "not a vote it's a discussion", while this is true in other places (AfD, RfC), it's not really true in an RfA. While bureaucrats certainly have some discretion, it is de facto only within a range of votes as determined by hard numbers. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I also support bureaucrats having the ability to extend the request for a longer period if -- in their collective opinion -- they need to get a better read on the community's feelings; although I trust that the discretion to do so would not be utilized regularly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Running for RfA is stressful, a whole 168 hours of it is plenty long enough, and we should give candidates certainty that once the time is up, it all finishes automatically. SFR's wife put it quite eloquently; the way we currently organise ourselves is "dumb". Schwede6601:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional support, condition being that it is something done manually and not automatically. Say someone discovers something that might be important to the RFA a few minutes before it's put on hold. The implication I get from it being automatically put on hold is that said person discovers this thing, and then shortly after the RFA is put on hold, resulting in discussion regarding said discovery not being able to happen. If it were done manually then the time needed for it to be put on hold could be extended or shortened, depending on the situation. ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#654516:32, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I do understand the people who are arguing for not closing due to the potential for a "late rally" that may help a borderline case, but I think that balances out by the value in standardization here. Having them all last exactly the same time has a small net benefit of having a clearly defined end to the process. There is an element of fairness in that that I kinda agree with. Only a little. --Jayron3218:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding displaying a real-time countdown timer: note this can only be done with Javascript, and thus would require some additional code to run for every page load. The interface admins generally do not favour having more Javascript code run for every page. If those interested in seeing a countdown didn't mind clicking on a link, there could be a custom link provided with a withJS URL parameter that loads an appropriate script to display the countdown. isaacl (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which would be worse because without purging your timer might show 6 hours remaining when actually only 2 hours remain. The current system of showing end time works fine. No prejudice against anyone wanting to use a ?withJS url parameter though. —CX Zoom[he/him](let's talk • {C•X})05:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still genuinely confused about this complaint/concern. Every listing at WP:RFA itself has the end date/time, and every RFA has Scheduled to end ... (UTC) in big bold writing at the top of the page. I don't see this "have to play hunt-and-peck with the calendar" thing; don't most devices give the date and time to their operator? Primefac (talk) 11:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've already supported it but I don't have a clue about the technologies involved. If this idea passes - and it looks as if it will - if needs a fix at Phab, anyone who doesn't like it could put the kybosh on it by saying that this discussion doesn't count and it needs a community-wide debate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:26, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree. The point I was making above was in irony to the new trend in needing a site-wide RFC for every little nut and bolt and about people who just don't like things throwing a spanner in the works at Phab. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose a technical implementation could be done with some sort of "Protect after" / "Scheduled protection"; but that shouldn't be a hold up to implementing this process-wise if there is support here. — xaosfluxTalk02:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
