Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Reminder of civility norms at RfA

2024 Requests for adminship review

Status as of 05:42 (UTC), Sunday, 19 May 2024 (update time)

Phase II is open for discussion! Participants are invited to contribute towards improving and refining the proposals for a reminder of civility norms at RfA, administrator recall, designated RfA monitors, and an RfA mentoring process.

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists:

Wikipedia policies and guidelines
Wikipedia proposals

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Discussion about refining proposals from Phase I of WP:RFA2024 to add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and require links for claims of specific policy violations. --19:32, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Welcome! This is the discussion subpage about refinining two proposals from Phase I of RFA2024: Proposal 2: Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Proposal 9b: Require links for claims of specific policy violations. The discussion close of Proposal 2 by Nagol0929 is as follows:

I find that there is consensus for there to be a reminder of civility implemented at RfA. However there is not a clear consensus on the exact wording of the reminder. The exact wording of the reminder shall be discussed in phase 2.
The support group mainly relies on the arguement that this would be a low cost way to potentially cause greater civility to RfA. Some in the support group also claim that this could cause non admins to enforce this when admins or bureaucrats are WP:INVOLVED.
Those in the oppose group make somewhat compelling arguments. These range from that trolling at Rfa helps gauge a candidate to that this would cause participants to be hesitant to oppose. Some in the oppose group also argue that because WP:CIVILITY applies everywhere, there is no need for a reminder at RfA.
Overall the oppose groups arguments are rendered null by either discussions under said opposes or by supports countering them. This is why I find that the oppose arguments are not compelling enough to create consensus against.
I welcome any feedback to this close as this is my first significant close.

The discussion close of 9b by ToadetteEdit is as follows:

Clear consensus to require diffs for claims of specific policy violations.

The original, draft wording of the civility reminder is below:

Editors are reminded that the policies on civility and personal attacks apply at RfA. Editors may not make allegations of improper conduct without evidence.

Uninvolved administrators and bureaucrats are encouraged to enforce conduct policies and guidelines, including—when necessary—with blocks.