Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Debriefs

Attribution[edit]

@Barkeep49: first, I'm NOT trying to raise any copyright issues here! I suggest you place Special:PermaLinks in each of the copy-paste sections to the revision where the source was obtained, if nothing else it allows readers to verify that this was actually what the editor wrote. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:52, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Xaosflux this is in project space and so in the great Wiki tradition I would encourage you (and others who may want to) to improve the page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added simple diff citations to the two copied sections. (I preferred diffs over permalinking to versions as it makes the added text obvious.) isaacl (talk)

Linking vs. transcluding[edit]

It's a little incongruous to have some debriefs be written out on this page, whereas others just linked. I'm thinking of changing the links to transclusions, just to equalize. If at some point there become too many debriefs to fit on one page (as hopefully happens one day), we could change back to links and create subpages for each of the written-out entries. Sdkb ^talk 04:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer just linking all of them instead of transclusions; transcluding everything is unnecessary and can make the page difficult to load/navigate Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 23:55, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit makes the heading hierarchy inconsistent, which affects the table of contents. Partial transclution or labeled section transclusion could be used to work around this, but personally I don't feel the motivation for transcluding the text is sufficiently compelling to mandate that new admins adhere to a specific format in their thoughts. isaacl (talk) 23:57, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm encountering that and was considering partial transclusion, but the more I look into it, the messier it seems it'd be. Agreed that just linking everything is preferable; I'll switch to that. Sdkb ^talk 23:59, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done! We now have level-3 sections with nothing in them except a link, so I'm thinking it might be nicer to keep the level-2 year headings but format the entries something like this:

Ched (RfA, closed 18 June as successful, 103/10/4)
Example (RfA², closed 18 October as unsuccessful, 47/147/74, after a bureaucrat chat found no consensus to promote, 4-7)

This format includes salient context (how close an RfA was affects a candidate's experience) without going overboard. Does that look good? Sdkb ^talk 00:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit wary of replicating Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year and of highlighting the results in yet another location. Personally I'd rather focus on the viewpoints expressed by the admin candidates apart from the outcomes, even if that means putting a little more onus on whoever wants to examine them by some grouping to do the legwork. isaacl (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is your concern with replication the maintenance burden, the social consequences, or something else? I don't see the maintenance burden as significant, given that there are only a handful of recaps per year. And regarding the social impact, the outcomes of RfAs are already very well-known, so I don't see providing details here impacting willingness to do recaps or anything else. Sdkb ^talk 19:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both. I don't want to add yet another place to update with outcome information, and as I said, personally I prefer this page to focus just on the comments from the candidates, without being another reminder of the outcome. I feel the tradeoff is worth the additional work required to open up the usual result page in parallel for anyone seeking this info. isaacl (talk) 20:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really agree with that. Potential candidates come to this page (as I did) with questions like, "If my RfA ends up in the discretionary zone, just how stressful will it be?" For someone with that question, we should make it easy for them to find debriefs from RfAs that ended in the discretionary zone without having to click through on all of them. I don't see any value to hiding that information.

If it'd go some way toward assuaging your concerns, I'd be alright compromising to just something like Ched (RfA, closed 18 June with 91% support). But overall, while I think there are some places (like the admin list) where we would never want to dwell on how contentious someone's RfA was, for here, where the whole purpose is to reflect on their RfA experience, it just seems like foundationally relevant context. Sdkb ^talk 21:23, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The information isn't hidden; it's readily available. I appreciate you feel a higher priority should be given to someone like you who is looking to match up experiences with outcomes without having to open a separate page. isaacl (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with the lower-prominence compromise for now, in that case. Happy to continue discussing or hear third opinions from others. Sdkb ^talk 02:49, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think as it's only been a day since you made the proposal, it would be better to wait for more voices to join the discussion. I don't think there was a compelling need to make a change so quickly. isaacl (talk) 03:23, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the changes. I think the new presentation is more scalable in the long run. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you referring to the proposed addition of a summary of the outcome, or the current page appearance? isaacl (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm referring to changing the transclusions to links. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:38, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]