Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→RfC: should RfAs be put on hold automatically?: closing discussion, proposal is successful |
|||
Line 170:
==RfC: should RfAs be put on hold automatically?==
{{closed rfc top|1=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). {{pb}} 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. {{pb}} The original RfC suggested a technical approach to implementing this change (i.e. {{tq|modifying {{tl|rfa}} to automatically place the RfA "on hold" after one week}}). I view the community consensus here as favoring an automated solution (perhaps with [[Help:Magic words|magic words]]) over a manual one (e.g. requiring editors to manually add {{tl|rfah}}). [[User:Mz7|Mz7]] ([[User talk:Mz7|talk]]) 00:01, 6 November 2022 (UTC)}}
'''Question''': Should RfAs automatically be put on hold after one week? <br>
'''Details''': This would be implemented by modifying {{tl|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. [[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|Blaster]]<sup>[[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]</sup> 11:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Line 279:
*: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. — [[User:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#FF9933; font-weight:bold; font-family:monotype;">xaosflux</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Xaosflux|<span style="color:#009933;">Talk</span>]]</sup> 02:21, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
*:This can be implemented locally, using wikitext magic. Luckily, no need to go to Phab. [[User:HouseBlaster|House]][[Special:Contributions/HouseBlaster|Blaster]]<sup>[[User talk:HouseBlaster|talk]]</sup> 21:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
{{closed rfc bottom}}
| |||