Template talk:RfA

Usercheck

What do people think about the idea of adding a {{usercheck}} to the 'General comments' section of this by default? That way, there would be links to the log, block log, etc. of the user in question, and also to things like RfCs there might be on the user; for instance, it would appear as Ais523 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) for me. --ais523 16:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Pronouns

@Tamzin, I took a stab at implementation. Is there anything I should be aware of following this that might be a complication? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:28, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit doubtful that we should be doing this by default since the default pronoun setting will render as "they/them", and the user would need to affirmatively select pronouns for it to be something otherwise. The default system also doesn't allow for pronouns like she/they, and we shouldn't be inserting pronouns by default when the software isn't up to that yet—particularly when those sorts of distinctions matter to people. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:18, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm also somewhat skeptical that we ought be putting this sort of thing front and center. I can imagine women who fear sexism on-wiki not wanting to prominently state that they are "she/her" and/or not changing their system pronouns from the default of gender neutral, but don't want to place front-and-center in an RfA that their pronouns are "they/them" when they don't actually have that preference. Seems like an overly blunt solution to a problem that can be addressed ad hoc. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:23, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I think this is something best left to case-by-case basis. - jc37 04:16, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair points. The not wanting to call attention to gender is something that occurred to me. As implemented, it was pretty easy to opt out, so I saw it as more of a suggestion.

For a less default-y approach (at least in the interim), would it be okay for me to change the instruction text to offer an opt-in option, e.g. If you would like to display the candidate's pronouns (as defined in their settings), use {{user}} instead of {{user and pronouns}}? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 15:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Your statement sounds like you should be flipping the two options there. Primefac (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Oops, yes. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

I would support the opt in option but not as a default or optout so I think this is a good direction to go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Implemented; feel free to tweak if there are improvements to be made. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:44, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Sigh. I've written a longer comment twice and deleted it. The short of it is that I agree with both Red-tailed hawk and jc37. I expect more and more people will opt in, making it increasingly uncomfortable for people who, for whatever reason, prefer not to do so, and I do not see that as a positive development. I'll note also that the comment that sparked this discussion in the first place was on leeky's RFA, where both nominators clearly use "her" in their nominations; this is a solution in search of a problem and not the other way around. -- asilvering (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Asilvering, I do hear that. Defaults are really powerful, though, so with it being opt-in, I expect a lot of people will just not bother. Certainly no one should feel pressure to share their pronouns — if anyone ever makes a comment along the lines of "why didn't you share yours???" I hope they'll be (politely) told not to do that.

Regarding pronouns appearing in the nominations, they can be easy to miss there, so I think it's helpful for those to choose to share to have them in a more standardized spot. Even if it only helps a tiny bit at the margins, that's a plus weighed against the very cheap cost of using up a few characters. I do think that there's currently a problem to the extent that misgendering at RfAs is a fairly common issue, so it's worth trying something. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:02, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

So long as there is robust effort to make it clear that stipulating a pronoun is not in the slightest way expected as the default. I think some people underappreciate the number and seriousness of reasons why some people play their gender close to their vest here: There's the already discussed fact that many women may do so as a tactical choice to avoid harassment, which is justified in itself--if also an indictment upon the state of things (including on this project) whenever one of our community feels that is necessary.But there are other reasons as well:

• concerns about doxxing;
• an editorial philosophy that puts a premium on their arguments being judged on their own merits, neither being advantaged or disadvantaged for what they consider a largely superficial detail;
• feeling that not being judged by their gender in a work environment is part of the special appeal of contributing to this project;
• personal uncertainty about (or difficulty relating to others) what their gender is at that moment in their lives;
• being relieved or excited to not use their AAB gender here, but not being ready to use another one.

...to name just a few of the possible scenarios here. The rush to elevate respect for declarations of gender should never be allowed to subsume the right of any editor to not share said aspect of their identity with this community, if that's what they feel most comfortable with. Even to the extent of making them feel pressured to conform to a standard approach of listing a pronoun in a field, that they have to actively opt out of.

Also, just to play devil's advocate: is there really a problem with the extent of misgendering at RfA? This is a mileage will vary issue if ever there was one, but I don't think that most accidental misgenderings here are really a source of serious consternation, offense, or substantial difficulty for the average editor, trans individuals included. It's the willful, dignity-denying refusal to use the right gender after knowing the individual's preference that tends to generate offense, hurt, or an uninclusive environment. You can also lump in those people who don't intentionally misgender per se, but through lack of effort to commit mistakes to memory, repeat them.

So these malfeasant misgenderings and misfeasant misgenderings, if you will, are where things truly get uncivil and disruptive. And those are already covered by our behavioural policies. Accidental misgendering tends to be taken in stride as a thing that's just going to happen from time to time with natural language being presented almost exclusively in the form of written content, no matter how well-intentioned and prepared everyone is. Trans people in particular are likely to have faced so much of the overt, malicious form of misgendering that an accident by someone who then rushes to change their approach once notified of the facts is often taken pretty firmly in stride.

I do wish people wouldn't be so quick to default to "he", though, when speaking with someone they don't know for certain is male. Some people try to justify that as "well, statistically speaking, your average editor here is going to be a man." In these situations, one wishes they could see you speak between clenched teeth when you reply "Yeah, I wonder why that is?" SnowRise ^{let's rap} 19:49, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Having read over this, it seems that there is good reason not to have pronouns placed in a prominent place as part of the template, but I agree that RFA misgendering is common enough that it could use some addressing. Would it be a good idea to include some language about "users who wish to indicate their preferred pronouns for other editors to refer to them with may do so here" in the space for candidate acceptance of the nomination? That blurb is always reasonably freeform (so no "slot" for pronouns exists where they would be expected to appear), and it acts as more of a suggestion than anything else. This would allow users who wish to include pronouns but might forget to do so, and those who do not wish to include them to omit them without others expecting them to be there. AviationFreak💬 17:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

If people are !voting in an RFA without even reading the nominations then we have a problem. Giving extra highlighting to information about a candidate that we don't want to influence !voting in the RFA doesn't seem like a useful response to that. Why don't we instead look at how we can encourage RFA !voters to read the whole RFA and assess the candidate's editing before !voting? ϢereSpielChequers 18:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Pinging you here, as I noticed this edit at Template:RfA/readyToSubmit. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 00:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Reaffirming that I don't think mandating use of this template is a good idea. -- asilvering (talk) 02:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why this is an RfA-specific issue? We should have general guidance that editors should make a positive effort to use the right pronouns, and that the preferences setting and {{they}} is one way to do that – if we don't already? – Joe (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Is this talk page section about this edit? I support that. Saves the step of having to look up their pronouns, and should reduce misgendering. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as this was opened in 2023, it pre-dates that edit by a bit. But yes, I did ping leek here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 16:01, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

• The default system also doesn't allow for pronouns like she/they, and we shouldn't be inserting pronouns by default when the software isn't up to that yet? Are thinking about making this available? On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog#Implications, and I think we should keep it that way. We are here to build encyclopedia, gender disclosing stuff is one step closer to making Wikipedia a social networking site. I miss the old days when men used to pretend to be women, women used to pretend to be men, and kids were FBI agents. If somebody doesn't want to be discriminated against something, then keep that something a secret. I think Wikipedia should get rid of both the pronouns, and keep only gender neutral they/them, and then whatever an editor wants to disclose should be up to them. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  The software setting exists because words like "user" are different for men and women in many languages. In Spanish, for example, it's usuario for a man or usuaria for a woman. If people don't want male-as-mandatory in romance language projects, then the setting is something that makes sense to have. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

As noted by Red-tailed hawk, the purpose for the gender setting at Preferences → User profile → Internationalisation isn't for users to specify how they want others to refer to them, but how they want the MediaWiki software to select pronouns or gendered words in its messages (see Help:Preferences § Internationalisation). True enough, that's probably the same result for most editors who use the setting. However I'm wary of making the assumption that's always the case (I know of one editor where the assumption fails). isaacl (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

HTML comment

There's a mysterious HTML comment in this template: "To substitute your RfA, remove this line." What exactly is it referring to? If you remove the HTML comment, it obviously does nothing. If you remove the above line saying {{safesubst:, it obviously breaks the syntax. Ditto for the following line, "RfA/readyToSubmit". I thought I clarified it in this edit, but that clearly didn't work in my embryonic RFA. I'm obviously not getting something *somewhere*; I wonder where it is? Yes, I know, it's ironic that a largely technical candidate is going through this (I'm OK with templates but wouldn't call myself an expert). Pinging HouseBlaster, who added the comment. Graham87 (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Removing the HTML allows the template to subst; just the comment and it should be ready to go. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Just figured that out on my own before getting your message, thanks. Graham87 (talk) 04:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm almost definitely done clarifying the HTML comment now. That instruction was so counter-intuitive to me, as someone who knows HTML reasonably well but only has a moderate grasp of templates, that I think it needed clarification. I should've gotten the hint from the presence of the "safesubst" code in the edit window, but ... you live and learn. Graham87 (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Adding space for more co-nomination statements

I had previously encountered RFA's with up to five co-nominators before in the relatively distant past(though I've tried searching for that sort of thing and came up blank). I was going to have several co-nominators in my upcoming RFA to address different aspects of my editing career, as it would have been a highly unusual adminship request. I made a bold edit to {{RfA/readyToSubmit}} to add ten *just in case*, but it was reverted by Primefac as excessive while I was sleeping (see the relevant history). I took my queue from this edit by L235,, which changed the number of nom statements from two to three. The practical problem here is that I asked Laterthanyouthink to contribute a nomination from the perspective of a non-admin (as I'd been advised; she was only able to do the task after the RfA/readyToSubmit edit was reverted, so she became understandably very confused by being unable to see her nomination statement (I've let her know by email that she did absolutely nothing wrong). For this reason I'm going to raise the number of nomination statements to four; I don't mind if this is a temporary fix. Unless I'm misreading something, until this edit to Template:RfA, there were no such hard-coded limitations at all. I don't think there should be any, and if I'd known this was going to happen in advance I would have either discussed this earlier or set a hard limit of co-nominations on my re-RFA to three. Graham87 (talk) 03:15, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I've substituted the template; I was going to add one more co-nom. Graham87 (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

And I've self-reverted my edit to the readyToSubmit template as it's not needed now. Graham87 (talk) 04:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily opposed to adding another statement or two, but bloating the code with ten just seemed a bit much (as a minor point, most RFAs these days have ~200 votes, needing 5% of them to be your nominators seems rather excessive). Primefac (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair point; five would've worked for me, too ... but I wanted to accommodate lots of possibilities (you're probably right that I went for way too many). I think I'll leave any further edits to you, for now, unless you're OK with me fiddling around more. The other possibility, used at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Firefangledfeathers, was to bundle all the nomination statements into one parameter; that RFA had three noms when the template could only really acommodate two (it was before L235's edit linked above to expand the template to three). The other thing, and another reason that I haven't made another edit to the submit template yet, is that there are other reasons to subst the template besides wanting to transclude the RFA, and that should be mentioned in the template text. It might be worth changing the current text to something like "When you are ready to transclude your nomination, or if you wish to make formatting changes to the RFA before it goes live" (or maybe mention adding an extra nom?), subst the template ... and then say something like "The RFA does not officially start until it is transcluded on the main requests for adminship page." That would make things a bit more user-friendly. Graham87 (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

It's my impression that having more than 3 noms may not be good RFA strategy, so keeping the template at around 3 is probably a good idea. No objections to temporarily increasing the # though. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)