Some critics of the optional RfA candidate poll have said they don't see any advantages that couldn't be achieved more effectively through other means. I was wondering if you had some concerns about asking one of the frequent administrator candidate nominators for feedback? You can get a sense from their track record how dialed in they are to community sentiment. I appreciate it can be tricky to take an unbiased look at your own record. Nonetheless, have you attempted to see how you measure up based on the various concerns that users have raised at RfA?

Regarding your proposal, I understand you might think it's a perfect way to attract you to volunteer to be an administrator. I have concerns, though, both about the community effort expended in having trial runs versus added benefit, and making the process twice as arduous for prospective candidates, while still discouraging those who don't receive positive support during their trial run and thus leave Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 01:23, 2 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Isaacl: Thanks for the response. I used to be more interested in potentially becoming an admin, and there's definitely times on here where it would be helpful to have the mop. I understand the concerns about a trial run, but my sense is RfA is considered toxic for the edge cases: people opposing on specific grounds which may not have been vetted, where the candidate doesn't have the chance to respond directly. It's also somewhat intimidating to reach out and say this is something I'm interested in. I'd be more interested if there was a more streamlined intake process. I'm not entirely sure what that looks like, but a straw poll, where a potential candidate can receive and accept feedback, is something I'd definitely be interested in, and I don't think reaching out to an admin or two would necessarily prepare someone for an RfA. Perhaps I'm jaded.

In any case though I appreciate your response and you reaching out. SportingFlyer T·C 14:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate the reply which helps me get a better sense of your concerns. Some of the common administrator candidate nominators will work with you to prepare you for your RfA. They're friendly and from what I can tell, relish the opportunity to assist a new promising candidate. Not sure what you mean by a "streamlined intake process"; either you contact one of them, or they contact you if they come across your edits and think you're worth encouraging.

A full trial run is asking 100+ users to duplicate their vetting efforts. There will be some who will tell candidates "why didn't you just proceed with an actual request". I'm less certain but I think there will be some who will tell candidates who skipped a trial run "please do a trial run first". In a world where users have boundless effort to devote to Wikipedia, it would help provide a smoother transition to being an administrator, but I highly suspect in practice that it would be too large of an imposition. Getting feedback from users (who don't have to be admins) that are experienced in evaluating and nominating candidates will, in my view, result in much of the same benefits. isaacl (talk) 17:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply A barnstar for you! edit

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

For that beautiful How to AfD 101..!! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply Thanks for the Monday laugh edit Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion That IP address looks like a duck wearing socks anyways. from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bettina Rodriguez Aguilera was the perfect answer to Daylight Savings Monday. Have a good one! Star Mississippi 12:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I edit Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion: Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum. Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only. Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections. Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting. Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings. Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured. Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%. Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections. Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote. Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation. Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats. Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum. Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%. Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll. Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators. Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms. Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions. To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)Reply John Tran edit Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion Hi, do you think you would vote to delete the page John Tran if you saw it in an AfD? I asked on another editor's talk page weeks ago with no response. I ask only because I am unsure if it meets WP:NPOL #2 and I'd rather avoid another Paul Richards if possible. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply I just took a quick glance and I'm not sure. There looks to be more on Richards. SportingFlyer T·C 17:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)Reply Political candidates edit Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion I agree with you, but it can be a futile task to debate the long term notability of a political candidate in the middle of election season in the US. It may be better to wait until the election is in the rear view mirror to discuss notability and in the meantime, patrol the article for policy violations. - Enos733 (talk) 04:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)Reply Closure review for the RfC on lists of airlines and destinations edit Latest comment: 26 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion I wanted to be honest with you regarding the RfC closure review in January and say that yes, I had noticed the discussion that you and others were having on A. B.'s talk page. I'm sorry for plotting against your plan to challenge the close. I had spoken to A. B. about this on their talk page and should've contacted you, too. Sunnya343 (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)Reply Wide Right II draft edit Latest comment: 25 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion I believe the Chiefs going on to win the Super Bowl shows an “lasting impact” that could justify the page. 131.247.224.203 (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)Reply Nomination of Where is Kate? for deletion edit Latest comment: 23 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion   A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Where is Kate? is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (3rd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 11:55, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024 edit Latest comment: 22 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion Hello SportingFlyer,   Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points. Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive. Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion. It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated! 2023 Awards   Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing! WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits. Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited. Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool. Reminders: You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord. Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)Reply AfD closure edit Latest comment: 21 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion I wanted to let you know that I was thinking of going to DRV regarding the closure of the AfD on lists of airline destinations, though I'd be arguing for Delete all. Sunnya343 (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply I should've asked, would you be interested in starting a review instead? Sunnya343 (talk) 04:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply @Sunnya343: I thought Liz made an excellent and well-reasoned close given the circumstances, and am less adamant about keeping all of this information than I am about the information on airport pages, so feel free to proceed however you see fit. SportingFlyer T·C 05:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply OK, I have posted a request for deletion review. Sunnya343 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)Reply New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive edit Latest comment: 7 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive   On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here. You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply