Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC

This RfC has been closed by Nihonjoe. I am simply archiving this RfC so that it will be clear that the discussion is closed. The following conclusions were reached:
(1): RfAs will be advertised on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details;
(2): RfAs will be advertised on Template:Centralized discussion;
(3): Individual editors may ask only two questions per candidate, with relevant follow-ups permitted;
(4): The discretionary range has been expanded from the previous de facto 70–75% to 65–75%. Biblioworm 17:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Summary of results
Question Support Oppose % support Result
#A1: Advertise RfAs with a site banner 0 35 0 Failed
#A2: Advertise RfAs with a watchlist notice 85 12 88 Passed
#A3: Advertise RfAs on WP:CENT 41 7 85 Passed
#B1: Disallow threaded discussion on the main RfA page 16 46 26 Failed
#B2: Limit the number of questions...by any individual editor 82 24 77 Passed (with conditions)
#B3: Limit the number of questions...of any given candidate 1 34 3 Failed
#B4: Clerking at RfA Separate RfC
#C1: Expand discretionary range to 65% 74 30 71 Passed
#C2: Expand discretionary range to 60% 21 44 32 Failed
#C3: Expand discretionary range to 50%+1 0 27 0 Failed
#C4: Abolish the discretionary range completely 0 27 0 Failed
#D1: Upper limits on opposition 5 36 12 Failed

IntroductionEdit

Requests for adminship (or RfA) is the process by which administrators are selected by the community, (theoretically) via the process of consensus. However, the RfA process has been subject to a great deal of discussion over the past few years, and there is general agreement among the community that the process has problems. Therefore, many attempts have been made to fix the process, including (but not limited to) WP:RFA2011 and WP:RFA2013. In 2014 and 2015 combined, there were four months with no promotions (such months were completely nonexistent between 2003–2011; there was one in 2012, and none in 2013). In a recent RfC, there was over 75% support for the notion that we are not producing enough admins. Therefore, a new project was recently started: WP:RFA2015. The project is divided into three phases. The first phase consisted of an RfC (October 15, 2015–November 15, 2015), in which we successfully attempted to identify the actual problems with RfA. The following concepts passed the Phase I RfC: (1) RfA needs more participants; (2) The load on admins should be eased [perhaps via automated mechanisms]; (3) RfA is a hostile environment; (4) The discretionary range [the range of support in which bureaucrats can use discretion in closing RfAs] is too narrow; (5) The standards at RfA are too high; (6) We need active clerking at RfA; (7) The standards at RfA should be defined; (8) It is too difficult to remove admins [the discussion here was actually very close, so it was left as "discretionary", or optional, for the next phases]. Proposals (2) and (8) are not covered in this RfC, since they are not directly related to RfA. Proposal (6) will be handled in a separate RfC, which is currently on hold until this one ends.

This RfC is the successor to the Phase I RfC. The goal of this RfC is to reach actual solutions for the problems identified in Phase I. Participants will examine the proposals set forth on this page and indicate whether they support or oppose those proposals in the proper sections. Comments on specific proposals should be placed in the comments section for that proposal, while general comments about the RfC should be placed the talk page. Since this proposal may have substantial effects on the RfA process, it will be as widely advertised as possible. Thirty days after the opening of the RfC, it will be closed. The closer will determine which proposals attained consensus according to the process described at Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus. Problems for which a solution is not found in this RfC will be further discussed at a later point.

A: More participantsEdit

Absolutely no chance of passing. Esquivalience t 18:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A1: Advertise RfAs with a site banner

A1: Advertise RfAs with a site bannerEdit

One option to increase participation in RfAs is to display a site banner (to logged-in users only) advertising ongoing RfAs.

Support A1Edit

  1. ...

Oppose A1Edit

  1. Oppose. This is a bit too much, in my opinion. Biblioworm 20:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Too intrustive. A watchlist notice would be a more familiar and minimal, yet still effective method of spreading the word. BethNaught (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Per above, this is a bit much. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. I agree this would be too much. At the moment, RFA candidates are fairly well vetted since there are not that many in a given year. Mkdwtalk 22:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Too much. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Strong oppose. Site banner's should be reserved for items of the highest importance. RfAs are routine business and although there are sometimes long gaps between them, there are also long stretches with RfA after RfA. The site banners would become annoying and a usability issue. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. Oppose as overkill. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. Oppose way too much. — xaosflux Talk 21:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Too far.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  10. Too much, would end up being ignored very quickly. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. Oppose overkill. Banedon (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. Oh dear god no In addition to the points made above; several of our topic areas have a vast number of not-prolific POV warriors. Such characters are not likely to turn up at RFA as things currently stand, but might show up in droves if editor XYZ, who once reverted them, were at RFA. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  13. (edit conflict) Oppose – annoying. If other proposals succeed and more people nominate themselves at RfA, such a banner would appear almost constantly. sst✈(discuss) 05:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  14. Oppose: This would be annoying and would hardly make more editors want to participate thoughtfully in RfAs. Jsayre64 (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. Oppose: Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. Oppose: This is overkill. Turnout at RfA has never been so good. All more publicity would do is to invite more trolling. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  17. Oppose: Agree with above. Those who are interested don't need large scale publicity to prompt them. Leaky Caldron 11:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  18. Oppose, this is overkill. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Per Kudpung. Debresser (talk) 23:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Sure, I'll ride with this posse. Overkill. BMK (talk) 01:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  21. Oppose No new arguments. Agree with all above. JQTriple7 talk 03:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  22. Oppose—concur this would be overkill. Grondemar 04:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  23. RfA needn't be such a concern to every logged-in editor that we need to plaster it at the top of every page. A single admin is not that important, and it would get very annoying quickly. — Earwig talk 09:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  24. Oppose Way too much - and it would lose its impact after a while anyway (and be detrimental to the impact of other site banners too) WaggersTALK 13:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  25. Strong Oppose, if we wanted to make RfAs more stressful and more political this is just the way to go about it. SpinningSpark 16:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  26. Oppose – This will just make users feel even more annoyed with the RFA process than they already are. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  27. Oppose: Quite aside from the obtrusiveness of the method, as I mentioned in Phase I, no one's yet explained exactly how greater participation would magically result in better and less knee-jerk an electorate than currently exists. Ravenswing 05:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  28. Oppose Too intrusive, and the banners like I got in my watchlist are certainly enough. Gug01 (talk) 20:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  29. No on En WP --Tito Dutta (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  30. Oppose as ironic WP:ADVERTISING. On the serious side, this would be a (maybe also ironic) violation of WP:CANVASSING. --TL22 (talk) 21:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  31. Oppose - piling on. Enough site banners. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  32. Oppose - Over kill being an understatement!. –Davey2010Talk 03:29, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  33. Oppose Overkill. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 10:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  34. Oppose - if we do this, someone else will figure they need to be up there, too, and the banners will begin to crowd out the rest of the screen for us logged-in users. Not worth it. loupgarous (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  35. Oppose Chris Troutman (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments on A1Edit

  • Maybe if we had RfAs once or maybe twice a year? Or maybe not. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
That's not such a bad idea and it is one that has crossed my mind. Save up the noms for quarterly mass elections a bit like ACE. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • ... or ... if there hasn't been an RfA in 60 days then it can be bannered, else not. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A2: Advertise RfAs with a watchlist noticeEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as clearly passing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Another option is to post a notice announcing current RfAs on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, which will display the notice on all watchlists.

Support A2Edit

  1. Support. I think this is a reasonable option. We do this for major proposals, and RfAs are arguably important enough to merit the same treatment. This option isn't as extreme as A1, and is also likely to attract more experienced editors, since they are likely the ones that make the most extensive use of watchlists. Biblioworm 20:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. A standard way to attract editors to important discussions and events. The best option for reliably broadcasting open RfAs. BethNaught (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. this is the way to do it. Great option. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Subtle but would likely drive more people to on-going RFAs, and in turn, hopefully more candidates. Mkdwtalk 22:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support - good option that is likely to be effective. Just Chilling (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support I can see this being useful. Sam Walton (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support. Useful addition - however if the number of RFA's significantly increase, this may need to be re-looked at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support trial. The watchlist seems like a reasonable place to do this and it would attract the right kind of people (active editors). It would also attract attention to the RfA process, which could in turn help encourage people to ask for admin permission, thus helping to solve the problem with the declining number of active admins. That said, we should have a bail-out plan if things do not go well. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support as a good idea. APerson (talk!) 18:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  10. I can support this rather weakly, at least as a trial. It might end up being spammy, and it might attract more trollish participants, but it's probably worth a try, in order to increase and broaden participation. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  11. If we are dead-set on increasing publicity for RfAs, this is probably the cleanest, most effective way of doing it. Mz7 (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  12. Not everyone uses their watchlist, but this will attract a significant and helpful group of active editors. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  13. Conditional support per xaosflux's comments below. A generic "there are RFA's open" only. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  14. Support This seems like the right way to attract more !voters with at least some experience. It's true not all users use the watchlist, but I'm rather sure most users who have made multiple contributions do. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  15. Support. This seems like a "no brainer" to me... (Now, if we start having 10 RfA's at once, we may need to revisit this... But with the current RfA activity we have now, this seems like a good proposal.) Addendum: OK, the suggested generic "There are RfA's currently running..." banner, as per xaosflux & Beeblebrox, seems to solve all issues here. --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  16. Support, preferably with names, not just RfA count. --PresN 22:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  17. Support - this would certainly prompt me to participate in more RfAs. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  18. Support - sounds like a good idea to me, the only possibility I can see is that the notice becomes regular enough that people ignore it, but let's cross that bridge... Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  19. Support, but with no names. Just a generic "an RFA is in progress" will do. Steel1943 (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  20. Support perhaps with no names. At current rates of applications, "a new RFA is in progress", kept up for 2-3 days, would not mean it is up very much. You don't want there all the time or people will ignore it. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  21. Conditional Support see comment below, only support if this will be minimal, without usernames. — xaosflux Talk 03:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  22. Support looks reasonable to me. Banedon (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  23. Support – unobtrusive. sst✈(discuss) 05:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  24. Qualified support Do it, without the name of the candidate. If editors see a notice and come over to vote, they should do it because they are interested/concerned about the admin corps, not because they like/dislike a given editor. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  25. Q Support per Vanamonde93. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 05:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  26. Support per xaosflux's comment below. Jsayre64 (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  27. Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  28. Weak Support. The turnout at RfA has never been so good. However, as trolls rarely operate seriously by using a watchlist, it might attract more of the right quality of voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  29. Support, without the user's name. Per Vanamonde93. Rehman 13:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  30. Support - Sensible place to do it. Rlendog (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  31. Support - we need to broaden the pool of both candidates and participants. Something simple ("Two RFAs are pending") would work. Neutralitytalk 15:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  32. Support. This is done on some other Wikimedia projects and works well. No names, per below. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  33. Support. What about a note for everyone about RfAs every year or so and making RfAs "subscribable" so that new RfAs get displayed in the watchlists of the subscribers? --Fixuture (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  34. Support including usernames and direct links to open RfAs, with individual [dismiss] buttons. —Kusma (t·c) 20:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  35. Sure, but it does make sense to give it a pause of 12-24h, to weed out possible mistakes etc. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  36. Support, get the word out without being pushy. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  37. Support, yep. BMK (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  38. Support. Not too intrusive. JQTriple7 talk 03:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  39. Support However, I believe there should be a 24 hour delay or so per the concerns raised by Leaky Caldron.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  40. Support FWIW, I also agree with the specific suggestions to wait a bit to avoid TOOSOONs and to not include usernames in such notices. --joe deckertalk 07:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  41. Support - I'm surprised that this wasn't done a long time ago. RfAs need more participation from a wider group of Wikipedia editors. Guy1890 (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  42. Support - --John Cline (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  43. Sure. Don't expect it to change much, but the watchlist notice is a fine place for this sort of thing. — Earwig talk 09:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  44. This sounds a-okay to me. i do find banners mildly perturbing, i would be irked if it popped up all the time. A notice would be unobtrusive and accessible, though what do i know my mother is a fish DirShmielMensh (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  45. Support: I reckon two hours would be enough of a delay before it was advertised here; we only need to weed out the occasional NOTNOW. Wait 24 hours and any people who see the RfA will just be primed by the dozens of !votes by the usual people who visit RfA (i.e. new people will just pile onto whatever the consensus is already, changing nothing). Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  46. Support - Editor participation is what makes this place great. Do this, and think of more ways too. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  47. Support and agree with the comments: make the message simple, and wait 12-24 hours before posting. —2macia22 (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  48. Support this is a good idea, I think it would increase participation, and make the discussion more communal, as it should be. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  49. Support I suppose it's not too problematic. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  50. Perfect way to get more !voters—UY Scuti Talk 07:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  51. Support Hugh (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  52. Support - Having watchlist notices wouldn't be that annoying and if it was annoying editors can remove it, A great way to get more participation IMHO. –Davey2010Talk 03:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  53. Why not.  Sandstein  09:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  54. Support Seems nicer. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 10:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  55. Qualified Support Catches the editor when receptive to the news of an RfA. But I concur, no usernames, and let's keep it down to a line, not a whole banner. loupgarous (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  56. Support Worth a try. The primary thing RfA needs is an influx of nice, reasonable people to provide a counterbalance to the not-so-nice, not-so-reasonable people. It'd be good if we could get the ability to opt-out of particular types of watchlist messages as they have on Commons. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  57. Support No concerns. I assume the admin who adds the watchlist notice will evaluate whether or not the RfA is a clear WP:NOTNOW and if it is truly worthy of seeking broader input MusikAnimal talk 22:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  58. Conditional Support per Xaosflux. Usernames should not be included in the notice. The number of current RFAs should be included in the message. I also support an opt in/out option, without expressing an opinion on which should be the default.Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  59. Support - Promoting awareness in words seems good enough, especially in watchlist pages. I don't mind that. --George Ho (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  60. Support - It was a notice like this that brought me here Mizike (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  61. Support, minimal and without usernames per Xaosflux, and only if there's been no RfA in the last (say) two weeks. If RfA goes back to a reasonable level activity, we won't need the banner and we certainly won't need to have it all the time. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  62. Support. I would use it. Jonathunder (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  63. Support. Reaches everyone who uses their watch list; alleviates a concern of anyone who has considered the RfA process. Prhartcom (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  64. Support as something that would bring in editors who aren't obsessively watching the candidate or closely watching RFA. Those obsessively watching a candidate tend to be those with a beef, while those with positive experience would notice the watchlist message. For this reason, I would like the candidates name in the watchlist notice. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
  65. Support Admins serve the whole community so letting the whole community know makes a lot of sense, Happy Squirrel (talk) 03:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  66. Support A brilliant idea, which was working well before this RfC was re-opened -- samtar whisper 07:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  67. Support It may bring in a greater diversity of voters. There is no shortage though now. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  68. Support - Good idea. Jusdafax 08:45, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  69. Support - non-instrusive and seemed fine when it was briefly implemented earlier. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  70. Support. Yes please.  — Scott talk 10:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  71. Support. Effective and unobtrusive. Double sharp (talk) 10:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  72. Yes --Dweller (talk) 12:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  73. Support Wugapodes (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  74. Support, this would be a good way to bring in people who may not regularly watch RfA for new candidates. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  75. Support Useful for those who don't watch WP:RFA for new RfAs or don't realize they can. clpo13(talk) 22:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  76. Support Would be handy, I keep RFA watchlisted, but even then usually end up missing a few. Brustopher (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  77. Yes please. → Call me Hahc21 03:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  78. Support I presently don't watch WP:RFA, but I am interested in who becomes an admin. I found out about the current RfA through the Watchlist notice, but I would not have known about it otherwise. — Jkudlick tcs 03:07, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  79. Support Certainly better than the previous option.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  80. Support a watchlist notice after 24 hours. Regular watchlist users are exactly the sort of productive power users that should be participating in RfA. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 21:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  81. Support --QEDKTC 09:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  82. Support – I don't see why not. CT Cooper · talk 13:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  83. Support at least worth a try. Gizza (t)(c) 01:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  84. Support - Clearly in line with the function of the watch list. (There should be an option to "dismiss" to avoid clutter.) - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:06, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  85. Support a logical and sensible move. - Mailer Diablo 08:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose A2Edit

Oppose with out more details, see my note in discussion. — xaosflux Talk 21:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC) (moved to conditional support)
  1. Oppose Not clear that the consequences have been thought through. Is this all or just the ones that have passed the obvious "not now" "not ever" stage? Also, inevitable that it will conflict with the idea of reducing overall question volumes and could stir drama from editors joining in for the sake of it. Leaky Caldron 12:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    A good point – a way to deal with this concern would be to not "advertise" RfA's until 24 or 48 hours into the process: that should eliminate the "advertising" of WP:NOTNOW RfA's. --IJBall (contribstalk) 16:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Good question. For sure not all the consequences have been thought through but I don't think that's required at this point in time since this is an RfC, not a proposal. While certainly an important detail, I don't think handling quick-closure requests is an insurmountable issue, and definitely not the point of canning the whole idea. I think it's fair to say that they should obviously be filtered out. So the 24 or 48 hour grace period is a good idea. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    I think you misread the first paragraph of this RfC. These are indeed proposals, if I read it correctly.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown 14:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you for the clarification. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose If I want to see RfAs on my watchlist, I can just add the RfA page(s) to my watchlist. I don't want it cluttered with notices, that's not what it's for. WaggersTALK 13:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Strong oppose. The problems with RfA are not due to the lack of participants, just the opposite if anything. SpinningSpark 16:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose – I'm surprised this has drawn so much support. This will probably lead to increased turnout for the first few affected RFAs, but editors will eventually tune out regular watchlist notices. At some point, they may even be turned off by the notices if they prove to be constantly added, which they will be if RFA turnout does improve. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose per Spinningspark. Perhaps we should do more to encourage editors reading WP:RFA etc to watchlist a page that will alert them to new RFAs, but a notice such as that proposed would be likely to attract editors with little interest in RFA who notice that an editor they've had a disagreement with is at RFA. DexDor (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose, though perhaps more of just a comment; i'm sure i'm not alone in completely ignoring anything that comes up on my watchlist other than article changes ~ all i look for it the "hide" button to get rid of irrelevant stuff that takes up my screenspace. Perhaps this is along the lines of Giants2008 oppose, in that it may increase participation for a little while, but eventually, and i would guess sooner than later, regular editors are going to tune the thing out and it loses its purpose, so we'll be here again looking for a way to attract people. cheers, LindsayHello 11:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. The vast majority of editors that aren't regulars generally don't care about the "backstage" areas of Wikipedia, and may not be particularly interested in an RfA unless it's someone whose username they recognise - and even then they may not care. Hell, I'm probably not wrong in saying that this entire series of RfCs, on reflection, may be poisoning the well for those people. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 09:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, strongly, unless some of the things that usually get there are removed. Otherwise it will, further, water down the effectiveness of the notifications. Also, oppose anyway because if you have not found out that there are such a thing as a discussion/votes to choose admins (say by reading about what the heck is an admin) or you know and you do not care - say by transcluding the very nice {{User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}} - then you are not here long enough nor care enough to be helpful. - Nabla (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. This isn't what the watchlist is for. CENT is far more appropriate. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. Oppose I disagree with driving more traffic to RfA. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, not useful and a lot of people don't even use the watchlist these days. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. Oppose Pointless watchlist cruft. Pschemp (talk) 00:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments on A2Edit

  • I think that IF we go this way, it should be minimalist, something along the line of There are new RfA's open for commenting , and only have a cookie increment. I don't really want to see USERNAMES on watchlist notices. — xaosflux Talk 21:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I agree 100% with that. this would strike the right balance, just informing without spamming. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Seconded, as I mention above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I like the suggestion of doing it without naming the candidates. In the old days it wouldn't have been necessary at all, there was practically at least one RfA going on at any one time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. Sam Walton (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • To solve the problem of notnow/toosoon cases as pointed out by Leaky caldron, notices can be put up a few hours after the transclusion of an RFA. Any premature RFAs would have been hopefully closed or deleted in the meantime by the active watchers. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 15:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Agree, even support up to a day - also technical limitation as admins are required to change the watchlist banner. — xaosflux Talk 05:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • There are already way too many watchlist notices. This should not be implemented without a means to unsubscribe from it. There has also not been an adequate response to Waggers comment - new RfAs can easily be monitored for by, for instance, watchlisting User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report. SpinningSpark 16:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    Spinningspark, you may be interested in this gadget proposal. Commons has a gadget where you can select which sorts of watchlist notices you want to see; it shouldn't be that hard to get it over here. Unfortunately, the gadget proposals page doesn't get a lot of eyeballs, so it hasn't gone anywhere at the moment. APerson (talk!) 17:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A3: Advertise RfAs on WP:CENTEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as clearly passed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Finally, we could also advertise ongoing RfAs at Template:Centralized discussion. It is a heavily watched page, with over 400 watchers.

Support A3Edit

  1. Support. CENT is a heavily watched page, and I think, in addition to advertising RfAs on users' watchlists, this would tend to attract the attention of more experienced editors rather than new users, in contrast to an indiscriminate site banner. I'd probably say that majority of CENT page watchers are familiar with Wikipedia policy and processes. Biblioworm 20:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support I sometimes miss RFA's I would have liked to comment on because I refuse to have RFA on my watchlist due to the unending quagmire on the talk page. I just don't even want to know what is happening there anymore as it repeats itself ad nauseum (emphaisis on the nausea). This would help get the word out without requiring watching the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. a good option to extend the reach of the watchlist notice. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. As the others have said, a supplemental method which will again attract active users. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. BUT only if {{User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}} were added to the bottom of Template:Centralized discussion (maybe as optional). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support, per template. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 05:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. Support. Rehman 13:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. Support - Another sensible place. Rlendog (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. Support. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  13. Support Might be a bit much, but worth a try. BMK (talk)
  14. Support If we increase awareness of RfAs, we'll have more of the community commenting, and isn't the point of RfAs to see if the community trusts the user? JQTriple7 talk 03:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. Support Yes, yes and thrice yes. RfAs are a form of centralised discussion and should therefore appear on the centralised discussions list. WaggersTALK 13:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. Support SteveStrummer (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  17. Support – Of the three options, I think this is the best one. It will attract people interested in the inner workings of the site without potentially alienating those who just want to go on with their regular editing tasks. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  18. Same as above.. More !voters—UY Scuti Talk 07:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  19. Support Hugh (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  20. Only if {{:User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}} gets added instead - Many of us have this on our talkpages already and IMHO this template looks better than a normal link... –Davey2010Talk 03:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  21. Support : See fr:Wikipédia:Accueil de la communauté. --Nouill (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  22.  Sandstein  09:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  23. Support My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 10:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  24. Support on the WP:CENT page itself, using the normal {{User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}}. I realize this is exactly what the proposal is, but wanted to clarify anyway. We shouldn't add anything to {{cent}}, it could easily bloat it when we have multiple RfAs. MusikAnimal talk 22:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  25. Support - Just a harmless method. No further explanation needed. --George Ho (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  26. Support - seems reasonable. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  27. Support. Jonathunder (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  28. Support - Another good way to get the word out. Prhartcom (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  29. Support Again, RfAs concern everyone because admins serve everyone. RfA should not be some dark corner watched by a few. Happy Squirrel (talk) 03:43, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  30. Support - though I'd personally prefer if this were subject to the same restrictions suggested in the watchlist notice section, it's not a dealbreaker for me. ansh666 03:49, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  31. Support another great idea which was working before the RfC was closed. CENT watchers tend to be experienced editors, who would be keenly interested in knowing about RfAs -- samtar whisper 07:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  32. Support this is a good place given the rare occurrence of these nowadays. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  33. Support - as long as the # of RfA's don't pick up again, this is fine. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  34. Support. The inclusion of this template on the Community Portal makes a convenient place for those interested in behind-the-scenes workings of the community to note. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  35. Support, nothing wrong with more people knowing about it, and people looking at CENT are obviously interested in internal project discussions. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  36. Support Good for attracting experienced users who don't watch WP:RFA. clpo13(talk) 22:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  37. Support Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 18:24, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  38. Support Great idea per above. Sam.gov (talk) 19:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  39. Support --QEDKTC 09:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  40. Support – Again, don't see any real downsides. CT Cooper · talk 13:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  41. Support, great initiative. - Mailer Diablo 08:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose A3Edit

  1. I think that the reason given by BethNaught just below is a good reason not to bother with this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose too much clutter for this page. — xaosflux Talk 21:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose leads to systematic bias - only the people watching that page would be reached. Banedon (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    That's actually a good reason to do it! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Kudpung can you explain why that is a good reason? Banedon (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Centralised discussions don't include admin promotion, in my opinion. It doesn't affect anyone other than the candidate, but CENT notices should be for widespread topics. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose, strongly, these are not the same kind of discussion. CENT is mostly about sitewide policy, don't go ruining it by adding only tangentially related discussions. Please allow editors to pick what interests them. Instead "promote" {{User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}} to "official" status - probably moving to {{RfX Report}}, and by encouraging its use on several pages - e.g. wp:Administrators#Becoming_an_administrator, wp:Requests for adminship (it is used, but not advertised, there), and maybe a couple more, maybe even wp:CENT, the page, *not* the template. (I transclude both CENT and Cyberpower678/RfX on my useer page). - Nabla (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Only people who watch the centralised discussion template are insiders anyway. No point of having both this, and the watchlist notice. Brustopher (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
    It's transcluded at the Community portal, where it presumably gets quite a few views, including from some like me who do not use a watchlist. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. Oppose No. CENT lets regulars know where discussions need more participants. RfA doesn't and regulars already participate there if they want to. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


Comments on A3Edit

  • There is already a template, {{User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}}, that carries an automatically updated list of RfAs. If the intention is to put RfA notices on a template which is transcluded in major fora, we should just add this one instead. BethNaught (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • How many people that watch T:CENT don't already keep an eye on RfA and would be persuaded to !vote if they saw it there? I don't imagine this number is very high; people who follow T:CENT are likely already in the "in" crowd. — Earwig talk 09:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    I don't watch T:CENT but I do cast my eye over it when visiting the Community Portal. The fact that RfAs aren't included there but other forms of RfC are doesn't make much sense to me. WaggersTALK 13:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • If we do use that Cyberpower report, it needs to be moved to the Wikipedia namespace. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • We should start by adding this RfC to CENT. I only found out about it as people started trying to close it. The people who currently watch CENT naturally have an interest in what appears there. Andrew D. (talk) 12:06, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't like the idea that we're basically duplicating another template. Like above I think it's simple just to have a version where both are included. Template:Centralized discussion and RFAs or similar could transclude both. Advertising that template seems like a good idea too. --Izno (talk) 12:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

B: Hostile environmentEdit

B1: Disallow threaded discussion on the main RfA pageEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closed as clearly not passing. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

If this proposal were implemented, all threaded discussions which contain more than one comment will be moved to the talk page. The first reply will be left, so that users who see the vote and the subsequent reply will know the initial topic of the transplanted discussion.

Support B1Edit

  1. Support. Long, extended arguments are a large part of what makes RfA a disorganized and stressful place. Biblioworm 21:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support. Threaded discussion can take place on the talkpage. Long arguments between support/opposers are a drain and make out the RFA is more contentious than it actually is. With certain editors arguing with every support/oppose vote in opposition to their position, this is a necessity. While Mkdw has a point, that the base reason for arguments should be tackled, hoping that incivility will be policed is a lost cause. The other reason for to-and-fro arguments is people disputing the legitimacy of the editors vote - that is something the closing crat decides on, not other voters - moving all that rubbish off the main page is quickest and easiest solution to the problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support While I'm sympathetic to the idea that RfA should be a discussion, the discussions referred to here are rarely about the candidate and are consequently rarely useful or productive. 'Discussions' are usually about the specific usefulness of a particular voter's admin criteria. As such I support keeping discussions to the talk page, perhaps with a small 'discussion on talk page' template on the main page below a vote which has been replied to. Sam Walton (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support. Corrections to obviously incorrect comments are important, but discussion should be on the talk page. —Kusma (t·c) 16:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support. In my experience the number of people who care about a 'discussion' is pretty few, certainly far less than the number of people who participate in a RfA. They also tend to be uncivil shouting matches over fine points that most uninvolved people don't think is a big deal. There's no point cluttering the main page with a bajillion arguments: just relegate them to the talk page, with at most a section that summarizes ongoing discussions (e.g. "discussion about this user's conduct in this page"). Banedon (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support – talk pages have always been for discussion purposes. sst✈(discuss) 05:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. Strong support, per Sam. Discussions are rarely useful. Rehman 13:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Strong support per all above. JQTriple7 talk 03:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support With precise voting percentages specified for sure-fire success or failure, RfA is more of a vote than a discussion. If we were consistent about using the talk page for all discussions attached to votes, readers would get into the habit of looking there, and there would be no reason to claim that discussions had been "buried" by being moved there: Noyster (talk), 13:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. Support: threaded comments in this context often serve no purpose other than for users to say "My opinion is better!" Occasionally conversations are needed to clarify or inform, but the talk page is fine for that. —2macia22 (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. Support: We ought to curtail the threaded comment space, because justifiably or not, many of these comments can seem like 'piling on' to the person who's attracting unfavorable comments (unless greater than usual care's taken in how the comments are framed). loupgarous (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. Support: In fact I've always despised the idea that an oppose always needs to be justified or could it be discounted, plus the idea that oppose votes carry more sway then support vote. Currently an oppose vote carries 200% more weight then a support vote, this means for every oppose you need 3 supports to pass. I would support an semi-anonymous automated vote system which compares supports vs opposes and has a threshold of 50% to pass RFA. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  13. Support for consistency per Noyster. ansh666 03:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  14. Support disallowing comments threaded within others' !vote point. Comment on others' comments in your own !vote point (ArbCom commenting style), or use the Discussion section (checked, it is still there), or use the talk page. Threaded discussions in the Neutral section would probably be OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. Support - the recent RfAs have seen trolling discussion moved to talk and then hatted, which seems to greatly improve the atmosphere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:17, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. Support, necessary but not sufficient. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose B1Edit

  1. Oppose I believe RFA should be more like a discussion and less like the election it obviously has become. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose: While I agree with moving long discussions to the talk page, imposing a rigid rule such as this will cause unnecessary and distracting fragmentation, and the implementation of the rule would be mere busywork. Whether performed by clerks or any user in good standing, moving to the talk page should be an exercise of discretion. BethNaught (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose RFA was always meant to be a discussion. Ending discussion because of incivility is not the answer. The problem herein lies with editors who are uncivil and need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Mkdwtalk 22:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. I like the idea of doing this on a case-by-case basis, but I think that doing it automatically is too formulaic and would hamper some useful discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - this was attempted on an RfA where I had commented. It was, to say the least, irritating. RfA isn't a vote. It's a discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - if RFA is only to be a vote, then we should move it to the voting platform. We already have the ability to collapse long sections as needed. — xaosflux Talk 21:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. RFA is a discussion, and moving discussions to the talk page has the potentially to create broken discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. Oppose too formulaic, and may actually be counterproductive. Currently, I can trust that within the cesspool of such a discussion, somebody somewhere has the right idea; and if I follow all the links and read all the diffs, I will eventually figure it out. Without discussion, a !voter could say what they liked without much consequence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I do not think RfA pages need to be censored or otherwise shortened.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Beeblebrox and Mkdw. Threaded conversations are often an important part of the discussion when there is a controversial issue. Relegating those to the talk page would hamper the discussion, and any inappropriate comments would still exist albeit on the talk page. Rlendog (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. Oppose per WP:NOTAVOTE. However, I'm all for removing, collapsing, or moving to the talk page any inappropriate and/or off-topic discussion that has no relevance to the RFA itself. -- Tavix (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. If the environment is hostile, disallowing discussion is not a solution. That way, some users may be encouraged to leave hostile "oppose" votes, knowing that other users would not be able to answer them. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  13. Oppose, discussion is IMO helpful for the most part at RfA. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, unless we're throwing in the towel and saying that RfAs are just votes and not in any way discussions. BMK (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. Sorry, but this strikes me as completely counterproductive. Burying stuff on the talk page somewhere doesn't make it go away, it just serves to fragment discussion and make the main RfA look even more like a straw poll. As others have said: remove comments that are disruptive or off-topic, but do not remove everything unconditionally. If editors are discussing something appropriately, keep it on the main page. — Earwig talk 09:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. Oppose I like the idea but I think it won't work out well in practice. Most people won't read the talk page and will base their decisions on what they see in the oppose or support !vote statement. Threaded discussions allow other editors to provide context to a !vote and that context can sometimes be valuable. A fully formed context needs discussion and leaving anyone with an automatic default last word is not a good idea. --regentspark (comment) 16:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  17. Oppose: this hasn't worked in practice and I object to the idea that someone can write something unsubstantiated or even flat out wrong in their support/oppose, but no-one is allowed to challenge them directly beneath, instead being relegated to a separate page no-one will bother to visit. Even if one response is allowed, I don't think this would help anything. If you want to read the support/oppose !votes, why do you not want to read the threaded discussion that goes with it? Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  18. Oppose There is a general comments section on each RfA which people should, but do not use, for threaded discussion. Just move it all there instead of under !votes. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  19. Strong oppose Either free discussion should be allowed on the voting page or no discussion should be allowed at all. This isn't f***ing Twitter. SpinningSpark 16:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  20. Oppose – The problem isn't that threaded discussions are allowed. The problem is the content of some of the threaded discussions, and more directly the attitudes behind some discussions. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  21. RfA != Vote—UY Scuti Talk 08:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Hugh (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  23. Oppose - It's better to keep everything on one page (even if it is long!). –Davey2010Talk 03:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  24. Oppose Tough call. On one hand I agree it should be a discussion, but it often goes in the wrong direction. Let's just keep it the way it is, and be perhaps more liberal on moving clearly off-topic, overly critical and argumentative discussions to the talk page, which I guess is what we have been doing MusikAnimal talk 23:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  25. Oppose of two minds about this, it wouldn't be tolerated in real life to stand outside a polling station and hector someone for voting the way they have, but open and free discussion is part of Wikipedia's culture and how we do things here. How about a compromise, allow discussion to take place as it does now, but to as a rule collapse and hide such discussion after the initial comment.--KTo288 (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  26. Oppose completely, as those above who point out that RfA is intended to be a discussion; removing that discussion is exactly the wrong thing to do. cheers, LindsayHello 13:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. WP:RfA says - "All Wikipedians....are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA", and that's how it should be.
  28. Oppose: I support moving RfA discussions that show even the slightest sign of continuing into a long thread, but disallowing all threaded discussion on the main page is overkill. Esquivalience t 02:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  29. Oppose In my experience threaded discussion can be good and bad, so we should be judging and removing it on a case-by-case basis, not outlawing it outright. It's not that hard to see when something has crossed the line and needs to be moved to the talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  30. Oppose: disallowing features because it's difficult to police abuse is a loose strategy. There is a number of ways threaded discussions can be improved (collapsing, found-this-helpful buttons, et cetera) ale (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  31. Oppose: antithetical to the idea of it being a discusion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  32. Oppose. If a conversation starts to get long or heated it should be moved. Otherwise, leave it where it is. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 08:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  33. Oppose. "disallow [...] discussion" is generally not a good start for any proposal here. This is no exception. - Nabla (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC) PS: But people that go on to question / comment most votes that they disagree with should be strongly discouraged. One nasty aspect - of WP, not only RfAs - is that some editors go on making it repeatedly, as if we they knew for sure we did not notice their comment somewhere else which would 'obviously make us change our vote'. so they repeat it a bazillion times. That should be removed (or actively ignored) as non-constructive noise - Nabla (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  34. Oppose. Per Nabla. Discussion is the only way to get to consensus. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  35. Oppose this will cause confusion about where is the discussion for what. It is better to be together. Meta discussion can be on the talk page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  36. Oppose – This would encourage the process to be based upon a simple vote, rather than upon deliberation. Also, this would create problems because when people comment, someone would then have to remove/move those comments, which would likely cause friction; "why did you remove my comment...?!", etc. Lengthy threads can always be moved to the talk page. North America1000 08:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  37. Oppose - RfA is meant to be more than just a vote. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  38. Oppose - clerking should deal with this.  — Scott talk 10:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  39. Oppose. I don't think it can be too highly stressed that it's a discussion, not a vote. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:12, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  40. Oppose should be a discussion not a vote per above. Wugapodes (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  41. Oppose, RfAs, while having a strong numeric component, are meant to be a discussion, not a vote. Inappropriate attacks and aspersions are one thing, but people shouldn't be prevented from expressing, and discussing, legitimate concerns about an RfA candidate. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  42. Oppose: Excessively long threads, or threads that veer off topic (i.e. start discussing general policy/philosophy as opposed to the particular candidate) should be moved. However, the need to rebut erroneous accusations (and the need to rebut erroneous rebuttals) is vital to prevent one false or misleading accusation from creating a pile-on effect. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 15:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  43. Oppose Nonsense. Discussion is good and moving the discussion somewhere else achieves nothing. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  44. Oppose – Per above, nothing wrong with having the discussion, but in any case if it had to be done I would move all replies to the talk page for the sake of fairness. CT Cooper · talk 13:32, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  45. Oppose The discussion will still exist. It should be clearly visible. Gizza (t)(c) 01:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  46. Oppose Nothing wrong with making discussion transparentPschemp (talk) 00:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments on B1Edit

"Discussion is good and moving the discussion somewhere else achieves nothing". I couldn't disagree more, sometimes discussion is good, sometimes it's a complete waste of time. A massive three-page rant on ANI between two IPs on everything to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a "discussion" for the pair of them, but a colossal pain in the backside for everyone else. Similarly, anyone blocking Eric Corbett will likely receive a "discussion", but probably one that many would prefer to avoid like the plague. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

B2: Limit the total number of questions that may be asked by any individual editorEdit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is clearly support for limiting the number of questions being asked (even some of those opposed expressed concern about the number of questions being asked). By a strict number count, 41 (38.6% of those participating, and 50% of those supporting) people indicated support of limiting to 2 questions. The next closest was 17 (20.7% of support, 16% of total participants) giving no indication of what they preferred but supporting a limit in general. For followups, there is general consensus that followup questions should be allowed. There is consensus for limiting the number of questions asked, with most the supporting a limit of 2 questions. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

A primary source of stress at RfA may very well be the often large amount of questions asked. Therefore, the community might wish to consider limiting the number of questions that any given editor can ask of a candidate. If you support this proposal, please specify in your !vote what you believe the limit should be. (Example: "Support a limit of [x] questions.")

Support B2Edit

  1. Support a limit of two questions. I've seen some editors ask a large number of boilerplate, impersonal questions, and that isn't really helpful, in my opinion. An excessive number of questions can also cause stress for the candidate. Biblioworm 21:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support in principle if concerns about follow-up questions, which I do think are important, can be resolved. I think a limit of two or three questions plus reasonable follow-ups is a reasonable upper limit. BethNaught (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support a limit of one question and one follow up (related) question. I also think editors who routinely ask questions but never put down in support, oppose, or neutral should be barred from asking questions. They do it because they can, not because they're interested in the process or voting. Mkdwtalk 22:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    I also support Johnbod's proposal to limit the number of questions annually. Mkdwtalk 18:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. support a limit of two questions, with a follow-up question for each if warranted. No more long lists of boilerplate questions. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Absolutely support. Some people at recent RfAs have been making a mockery of the question process. I agree with Peacemaker's suggestion: limit of two questions, with one possible followup for each. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support a limit of one question and one follow up (related) question. This will focus editors' minds on what they really consider important. Just Chilling (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. Definitely, this is something that has bugged me for a while – especially the boilerplate questions. Like those above, I think two questions per user sounds like a reasonable limit. Jenks24 (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support. With the proviso that clearly further clarification questions should be allowed. "This is your one question and thats it" does not really work when someone deliberately gives an evasive/ambiguous answer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support limiting to one or two questions provided there isn't a limit on replying to answers for clarification or a request for expanding on the answer. Sam Walton (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  10. Support a limit of two questions, with a follow-up question for each. It's only reasonable. APerson (talk!) 15:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  11. Strong support, so long as follow-up questions are permitted. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  12. Support A limit of 3 questions per user, with 1 follow-up question permitted.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  13. Support – or, more accurately Absolutely double-plus support. --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    "Absolutely double-plus support"? 1984, anyone? ;) Biblioworm 22:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  14. Support, 2 questions. --PresN 22:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  15. Support two questions. However those who ask questions are able to post short follow ups to clarify answers or ask for more detail, not to ask new questions (except if that's one of their two allowed). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. Support two questions. The questioning has really become excessive.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  17. Support A limit of 2 questions per user, with 1 follow-up question each permitted. I'm tempted to suggest some sort of further annual limit per questioner. As anyone who gives talks and presentations knows, questions to the speaker are usually all about the questioner ...Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  18. Support some reasonable limit. Neutralitytalk 04:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  19. Support I imagine most candidates will be happy to field all the questions in the world in a one-to-one situation. But in a one-to-many situation like RfA, it becomes very time-consuming for the candidate. We should not expect would-be administrators to dedicate all their time to Wikipedia or their RfA. Banedon (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  20. Support a limit of 5 questions, including any follow-up questions. sst✈(discuss) 05:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  21. Support a limit of 2-3 What Johnbod suggested. Not going to fix RfA by itself, but not a bad idea. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  22. Support a limit of 3 questions, including any follow-ups. initial questions. Jsayre64 (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  23. Support one question plus one clarification/followup Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  24. Strong Support (with a limit of 2) as the editor who wrote the ultimate summary of questions here. Multiple uestions that masquerade as one question should also be disallowed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  25. Support. One question, plus one followup. Per Casliber. Rehman 13:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  26. Support a limit of 3 initial questions, but not on followups. Followups can be important in clarifying responses, as long as not abused. Rlendog (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  27. Support - 2 questions, 1 follow up/clarification in total.--Staberinde (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  28. Support 2 questions, plus one follow-up/clarification. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  29. 2+2. If there's three significant issues with the candidate, surely someone else will think of the third one. Worst case you can ask it on Talk and someone else will mention it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  30. Support, 2q, +1 followup. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  31. Support 2 questions should be enough. I oppose limiting the follow-up, because that is more like a discussion, which is something we want. Debresser (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  32. Support 2 initial questions. Double-barrel questions like "Is it appropriate for an admin to do X? Why or why not?" should be counted as one question, but unreasonable attempts to game the system like "When are admins allowed to undo ArbCom sanctions, and also, do you plan to handle WP:RPP requests?" should obviously be counted as two separate questions. No particular opinion on followups. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  33. Support Too many hypothetical situations to deal with is ridiculous. JQTriple7 talk 03:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  34. Support - --John Cline (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  35. Support, two questions. Follow-up and further details should be on the candidate's talk page. —Kusma (t·c) 09:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  36. Support one question plus one clarification/followup Doug Weller (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  37. Support Doug Weller has the right limiting idea. --regentspark (comment) 16:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  38. Support Two questions with one followup. SpencerT♦C 17:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  39. Support two questions and one followup for each. But followup has to be followup, not just an excuse to ask another question. —2macia22 (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  40. Support. One question per questioner, with relevant follow-up questions only allowed for clarification. — sparklism hey! 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  41. Support two questions and one true followup only for clarification. That still leaves the chance for hundreds of questions but does not waste everyone's time on one person's list of questions. Legacypac (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  42. Support – 2 questions and one follow-up. The more time RFAs typically take, the more you end up reducing the base of editors who will apply. I understand that the adminship process is important, but editors do have real lives and there is only so much time that one can devote to answering questions on Wikipedia without taking away from other tasks. Changes like this will do more to promote new RFAs than most will expect. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  43. Support. Two questions, or one with follow-up, seems about right. HGilbert (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  44. Support 2 questions and their follow-up (clarifications about the answer, details about the answer which bring up more questions). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  45. Yes, two at the most (two different questions). However, additional questions should be allowed for more clarification on the existing question.—UY Scuti Talk 08:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  46. Support three. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 17:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  47. Support limit to 2, with occasional exceptions if they make a lot of sense. Unlimited followups per User:Only in death but hopefully the community can gently encourage people to be reasonable with them. The slew of questions can be overwhelming and may deter participation by conscientious !voters. delldot ∇. 00:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  48. Support - 2 questions & 1 follow up, No need for one editor to ask question upon question upon question etc etc. –Davey2010Talk 03:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  49. One question per editor, or two at most.  Sandstein  09:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  50. Support RfA candidates need not be unnecessarily swarmed by questions. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 10:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  51. Support one question per questioner. If that editor wants to ask a followup question or another question then they should do so elsewhere (e.g. on the candidate's talk page) - the candidate (or another editor who hasn't already asked a question) would then have the option of adding it to the RFA itself (with suitable attribution in edit summary or text). There should also be a limit (500 characters?) on the length of each RFA question (and a rule that a question can't refer to a user essay etc or the questioner could ask "What are your views on <my long rambling incoherent essay>?" to get round the character limit). Again, a long question could be asked elsewhere and the candidate could could choose to copy it to the RFA page. DexDor (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  52. Weak Support around 3-4 questions. Might sound too much but it's not like we're not going to expect many questions from a single editor. Actually, Johnbud's proposal seems much better. --TL22 (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  53. Support – Support a limit of two questions, with a follow-up question for each if warranted. This should satisfy most every curious mind, without handing over the microphone indefinitely. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  54. Support This is sensible. We'll probably need another RfC to dictate exactly how many they can ask, but I'd say no more than two. I think this restriction will wean out the more ridiculously vague and counter-intuitive questions, helping provide a more concise and informative picture of the candidate's suitability MusikAnimal talk 23:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  55. Support Per MusikAnimal.Do need a limit on the number of questions max 2 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  56. Support As an alternative to a hard and fast limit, how about a questioner can ask as many questions as he likes, of which the candidate is only obliged to answer any two of his choosing,--KTo288 (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  57. Support a limit of one question. If there are more than 15 questions at the end of a RfA, it shows that many voters didn't do their research. If an editor wants to ask any more questions, they may do so on the candidate's talk page. Esquivalience t 02:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  58. Support I think two questions. They can research the rest. Prhartcom (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  59. Support One question, one followup. I could live with two. If someone asks a particularly great question on another RfA, someone else will put it on here. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  60. Support 2 questions. If certain questions become perennial ones asked in several different RfAs by several different editors, then they should also be added top the default questions asked of an RfA candidate, but this is neither here nor there. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 08:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  61. support, tentativelt, I am quite not sure, but let's see if it helps. No more than 2 questioning lines, i.e. a question with as much follow-up (threaded, mostly one on one) discussion as needed. Obviously the candidate can state that he has nothing to reply at any point, and that should finish the questioning line. - Nabla (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  62. Support 2-3 single (i.e. not multi-part) questions, with reasonably unlimited followups, to help prevent both swamping the candidate and also endless scrolling for participants. KTo's proposal also sounds reasonable. ansh666 03:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  63. Support limit of 2. kennethaw88talk 04:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  64. Support and that also should count multi-part questions as being multiple. There is getting to be an excess of questions. Questioners can prioritize what they want from the candidate and not waste everyone's time with stuff that no one counts for much. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  65. Support - Support limit of 2 single questions with unlimited, relevant followups. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  66. Support - encourages thinking harder about questions to be asked. Allow one clarification on each.  — Scott talk 10:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  67. Support. The barrage of questions is certainly one factor that's offputting to potential candidates. Two carefully thought out questions, plus follow-up if needed, seems adequate. I'd also suggest some boilerplate to discourage editors from asking the same questions of every candidate; additional questions are most helpful to participants when tailored to the candidate's profile and answers to the standard questions. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  68. Support per above. Jonathunder (talk) 15:23, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  69. Support I don't have much opinion on the limit itself yet. Perhaps in stage III if necessary that can be discussed. Wugapodes (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  70. Support to encourage editors to ask meaningful questions instead of pursuing a line of questioning useful only to themselves. clpo13(talk) 22:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  71. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  72. Support. Once an editor has !voted (even neutral), then xhe may not ask any further questions. If xhe has not !voted, then two questions; a followup is a question. If a !voter has lots of doubts about the candidate that requires posing many questions, then xhe can go directly to the oppose column without passing GO or collecting 200 answers. I'm not opposed to a multipart question that asks about six questionable user names or six potential vandal situations, but an editor should pose only one such multipart question. No further questions by proxy or second. I have faith that if an issue arises that concerns the community, then several editors will recognize the issue and pose questions. Glrx (talk) 06:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  73. Support 2 questions with a follow-up on each. Recent RfA's (such as Biblioworm's, where one user asked 7 distinct questions) have had ridiculous numbers of questions. It also leads to RfAs being dominated by the few users who ask a whole slate of questions on each one, as other voters feel reluctant to add additional questions because so many have already been asked. Most RfA's get over 100 votes, so there's still the potential for 200+ questions, so I don't think this stifles our ability to engage the candidate in discussion. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 15:47, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  74. Support – Perfectly reasonable and long overdue – the number of questions being asked was making RfA unmanageable for candidates. This restriction will also encourage participants to be more selective on what questions they want to ask, thereby hopefully reducing the number of trivial/silly questions. If questions continue to be too high then I'm open minded about limiting it to one question per person per RfA (with unlimited relevant follow-ups). CT Cooper · talk 13:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  75. Support 2/3 questions with followups allowed. --QEDKTC 04:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
  76. Support Good way to limit the bloat. Gizza (t)(c) 01:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  77. Support two questions with a follow-up per person. By the way, what's a followup? (Never mind, I think I'll get it.) --George Ho (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  78. Support, and make it a small limit. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  79. Support - clearly sensible. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  80. Support two questions plus any needed follow-ups. Candidates have been facing a level of interrogation that is over-the-top for a voluntary position, more thorough than is deemed necessary for real jobs. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 02:39, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
  81. Support two questions with allowances for follow up no more than 2 clarification questions per each original question. Editors asking the questions should be more than capable of phrasing their question clearly such that any reasonable candidate who is happy to answer the question, can answer it succinctly. Blackmane (talk) 14:01, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  82. Support, long overdue measure. Recommend stop at 2. - Mailer Diablo 08:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose B2Edit

  1. Oppose This is meant to be a discussion. With provision that candidates should not be obligated to answer more than a limited number of questions. — xaosflux Talk 21:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose WP is supposed not to be censored and is not a democracy. Imposing this limitation is easily gamed as well as being unreasonable by effectively censoring legitimate enquiry and attempting to democratise the process by imposing artificial limits. Leaky Caldron 22:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. If you want the job, you should expect to answer a lot of questions. Of course, any candidate is free to ignore any questions they want. Everyking (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Per Everyking.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. As I know, candidates are not obligated to answer those questions. So, if there are too many questions, candidate may simply ignore some of them. There is no reason to limit, some candidates maybe like to be asked many questions. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    That is true theoretically, but in practice, not answering the questions is looked upon unfavorably by !voters and may result in opposition. Biblioworm 21:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - Almost impossible to enforce, and are we now making bureaucrats into RfA-cops? Surely we're not letting anyone or his nephew strike a question? Nope, questions are not really a problem, candidate can always say "I'm not going to answer becase that's (not a serious question/is impossible to answer/is a trick question/etc.) BMK (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. I get the idea, but I think a better approach would be to simply ignore questions that are not helpful, and not penalize candidates if they decide to not answer silly questions. Remember: they're optional. If candidates did this, the users asking them would realize they're not helpful and would hopefully stop. Or we can deal with them separately. But a blanket restriction doesn't make sense to me. — Earwig talk 09:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per Everyking. But I would support a limit on non-candidate-specific boilerplate questions as suggested above; as Beeblebrox points out below, the main problem seem to be users who ask a lot of standard questions no matter the RFA or the candidate. This proposal though would limit all users from asking multiple questions - even if the questions are actually helpful in determining a candidate's skill or knowledge. Regards SoWhy 21:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose: getting rid of the stigma of a candidate refusing to answer some of the questions would solve this problem, although of course that's not an actionable thing we can vote on. I don't feel we need a strict limit and this will surely only cause bickering when it comes to multiple questions disguised as one (e.g. "How would you close the following 3 AfDs?"). I especially oppose the limit of two questions, as I think we need some leeway for a user to be able to ask a follow-up when they're not happy with a response. But if you'd already asked your two questions, then there'd be no chance for clarification, which would hinder everyone. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per Everyking. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. Oppose One editor might have more than one question on point to the discussion, and the questions might be on widely separated topics. It's just a bad idea. loupgarous (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. Oppose, it's a good idea in theory, because a lot of the occasions where someone asks multiple questions, they're either badgering or trying to trick someone into a gotcha moment, none of which are especially helpful to the process. However, I feel this would be unenforceable with editors acting as proxies for others to ask additional questions. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC).
  13. Oppose per Vanjagenije and The Earwig. - Nellis 16:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - editors should be allowed to question admin candidates however they feel reasonable. Editors who are asking multiple questions simply to be disruptive or to try to goad the candidate into spoiling their RfA are already easily recognized and frequently called out, there's no need for a hard limit. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. Oppose I think this is the wrong solution to the problem of inappropriate questions. Under this proposal disruptive individuals can still ask two inappropriate questions, while editors in good standing asking legitimate and pertinent questions are also limited to only two. This could mean in any given RfA there would be an equal number of daft questions to legitimate questions. We should be looking for a solution to limiting inappropriate questions, not imposing false barriers to legitimate questions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per SilkTork. If the quality of questions is a problem, this is not the way to address that. Otherwise, I'm not convinced that we should limit good, useful questions. Begoontalk 23:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  17. Oppose If you disallow a candidate to reply to a, b, c, d, and e, then that will only result in more opposes, as the candidate will only have chance to answer to a and b (if the limit is two), and for c, d, and e (where there !voter apparently has concerns as well) the !voter will have to assume that the candidate is not suitable. Miss out on a and/or b as well .. the candidate will never get a chance to explain himself. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  18. Oppose – My take on this is that limiting speech ultimately goes against the principle of freedom of speech, and creation of this rule also introduces unnecessary instruction creep. Candidates are not required to answer the additional questions. Since this appears likely to pass, people should be allowed two follow-up questions, rather than only one. This makes perfect sense, because people should be able to follow up on both of the two questions that they are "allowed" to post. The notion of being allowed two questions and only one follow-up question equates to, "you are allowed to ask two questions, but can only follow up on one of them". That would be bizarre and inappropriate. North America1000 08:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  19. I've let this one percolate and I do not believe it to be the correct solution (per SilkTork's reasoning, though I came to that conclusion myself). I think clerking of the questions might be a better one which allows a soft rather than hard limit on the questions which can be asked. Obviously, certain criteria would need to be established, but I suspect everyone !voting for "good proposed !rule" has a certain types of questions in mind. --Izno (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  20. Oppose Questions are important. Limiting the number of questions one user may ask is fine but limiting the total questions is going to convert RfA into a vote. Responses to not only reveal the way a candidate thinks but also forces the candidate to think about Wikipedia's policies and procedures. Expecting candidates to put aside a week of their lives to thoughtfully answer a large number of questions is not that big a deal. --regentspark (comment) 22:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. If you can't handle being asked questions, including sometimes unreasonable or "gotcha" ones, you can't even start to handle admin work. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  22. Oppose Let the crats get involved if someone is being POINTy. I don't subscribe to limits on political discussion. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Discussion should be freePschemp (talk) 00:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  24. Oppose. This is how a democracy works. To impose a limit on dialogue, questioning, and good-faith discussion is an impediment to truth and fairness. Softlavender (talk) 10:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments on B2Edit

I want to suport this. The questioning has gotten absolutely absurd. Apparently there si now a sizable contingent of users who believe they have crafted the perfect set of questions that must be posted at every single RFA. I find this extremely obnoxious and a net negative to the already lousy environment at RFA. When I ask an RFA question, it is specific to that candidate, not just something I dreamed up that I imagine will be pertinent at every single RFA. That being said, I worry that this could limit follow-up on personalized questions if the initial answers seemed to miss the point or were otherwise insufficient. I'll give some more thought I guess. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you hit the nail on the head. Whenever I have asked a question at RFA, it has been because I was concerned about a potential deficiency with the the particular candidate's experience, and want to give them a chance to demonstrate they would act reasonably. (I wont ask a question to a candidate I'm not at least considering supporting) I wish there was a way to permit unlimited questions tailored to the particular candidate, while putting an end to boiler plate questions. But alas, I don't see a reasonable way to enforce such a restriction without it being excessively subjective. Monty845 03:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
This proposal doesn't limit your ability to follow up with a threaded discussion, I read it as simply allowing only a set number of primary questions. If the first answer missed the point I don't imagine it being a problem to reply saying "Actually I was thinking about this aspect, could you discuss that?". Sam Walton (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree that questioning has sometimes been excessive, but if this restriction goes through we'll also have to devise a regulation to rule out "cluster bombs" where many different questions are bundled into one as parts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)...: Noyster (talk), 22:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Won't this have the reverse effect—people asking more questions and more people asking questions—in order to make full use of their limited slots. While asking more questions in itself is not bad, the quality of questions might decrease. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 06:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I feel like supporting this but I am hanging on the fence for several reasons already brought up. Besides for the reverse effect, my biggest concern is that the follow-up questions will be limited. I am willing to support two questions at most, but think that there should still be unlimited follow-up questions. Gug01 (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

It's been suggested that I should consider standing for RFA, but (1) I (like probably most editors) would get some opposes (e.g. I'd fail "You need at least a couple of GAs, and preferably an FA or two..." - I specialise in cleanup rather than adding content) so (however well I answered the questions) I couldn't be sure of passing. (2) Answering the questions could take some hours (say 20 questions at 30 minutes each). (3) I can't be sure that I'll have the time available in the next week (real-life happens). (4) Those hours spent answering questions (e.g. doing research into areas of wp I've no current intention to work in or considering all the possibilities of a hypothetical scenario) could be spent doing something else in wp. Thus, I choose to do things from my (very long off-wiki) Wikipedia to-do list rather than stand for adminship. There may be hundreds of experienced Wikipedians in a similar position. DexDor (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Questions would naturally be limited if RFA was done in batches, every three months, as Guy Macon and Kudpung suggested for another reason, somewhere above. Decisions would also be fair-er, or perceived that way, as all candidates in a batch would likely get approximately the same treatment at the same time. Spreading RFAs out gives too much power to whichever regulars happen to have a ton of time available, and otherwise appears to make the RFA process random. Discussion would naturally focus on relative quality of candidates, e.g. how it does or does not seem right that Candidate B's current votes total is lower than Candidate D given B seems better in some way. Doing them all together also would make it worthwhile for more editors to come participate. --doncram 00:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I think that this is a great idea. Is there a way to make it part of the RfC? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

B3: Limit the total number of questions that may be asked of any given candidateEdit

Clearly not going to pass.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown 19:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

B3: Limit the total number of questions that may be asked of any given candidate

As an alternative to (or in addition to) B2, we could also limit the total number of questions that can be asked of any given candidate. For example, if we set the limit at 15 total questions, any questions beyond the 15th question would be disallowed. If you support this proposal, please indicate in your !vote what you believe the limit should be. (Example: "Support a limit of [x] questions.")

Support B3Edit

Support a limit of fifteen questions. This is a necessary regulation, in addition on B2. Simply limiting the number of questions per editor doesn't necessarily guarantee fewer questions; if many editors ask questions (or if some people game the system by getting other users to ask proxy questions for them), it still doesn't fix the main problem, which is that too many questions cause stress for the candidate. Biblioworm 21:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  1. Support – 23 questions: the three regular questions and 20 community questions. This is the first time I can remember having an opinion be alone against that of almost 30 others, so let me explain myself briefly. If the goal is to reduce the question-answering burden on candidates, a limit on questions by an editor is not enough by itself. It would be easy to manipulate things by having editors team up to ask 2 questions each; the end result may not be any better for the candidates than what exists now. A struck comment above this one makes this point, and that editor's first instinct is absolutely right. At some point, those judging the candidates just need to make a decision on whether a candidate is trustworthy based on existing evidence. If 23 questions have been answered on a variety of topics and you're still unsure about one or more factors, maybe that should be taken as a bad sign in its own right. Besides, most of the RFAs I checked while doing research wouldn't even bump against this limit anyway. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose B3Edit

  1. ...Too easily gamed by the users who imagine they have perfected the perfect question and ask it at every single RFA. If there are fifteen of them, their pre-fab boilerplate questions become the defacto standard questions. We can't have that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Per Beeblebrox.BethNaught (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. My two biggest concerns are that a major issue that should be addressed in the question section will emerge after the maximum number of questions has been asked, or that some editors will find a way to game the limit. I also think that there will be a lot of headache and unforeseen consequences emerging if this gets implemented. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. I too have been dismayed by the excessive number of questions at recent RfAs, but IMO the main cause has been too many questions from one individual, rather than questions from too many people. I can see several problems with setting a cap on the total number of questions. As Spirit says, it could prevent proper discussion of a late-arising issue. Also, it could cause an early rush of questions, either from the chronic questioners getting their licks in quickly, or from the candidate's friends trying to forestall them by filling up the queue with softballs. --MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Too easily abused. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Per the above. Sam Walton (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. Per above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. As the others have said. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose May stifle community involvement. — xaosflux Talk 21:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  10. Oppose This seems like a way to discourage participation unless you get there to ask the first questions.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  11. Oppose. I do see how this might give a small group of users too much control over the process, especially if they always manage to rush in with their questions and thereby block everyone else from asking questions. Biblioworm 22:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  12. Oppose since this is not productive in the least. That, and if B2 gets approved ... what will this become? First come, first serve? Camp out on the RFA board to get your question in? Steel1943 (talk) 23:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  13. In theory yes, but in practice it's too easily gamed (even if unintentional). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  14. Too open to manipulation, as explained above. Neutralitytalk 04:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. Oppose per above. Banedon (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. Oppose – just because someone is late to an RfA does not mean that person should not be allowed to ask questions. sst✈(discuss) 05:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per the others; gamed too easily, etc. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  18. Oppose joining the roar.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Rlendog (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  20. Oppose more relevant/important questions are likely to come late then people have had time to take closer look at the candidate.--Staberinde (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  21. Oppose: No way. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  22. Oppose in principle, but it has become evident over the years that certain caveats and controls are required. See comments section below. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  23. Oppose Inane. BMK (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  24. Oppose - This kind of system could easily be gamed by either supporters or opposers of a particular candidate. The question section of RfA really appears to be the only "accepted" area where an RfA candidate can properly interact with others that participate in a particular RfA. Guy1890 (talk) 07:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  25. No, this is really not helpful, per the above concerns about gaming and first-come first-served. — Earwig talk 09:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. Granted, I've never been through this (and won't be), but either B2 or B3 strikes me as a band-aid at best. I think the real issue is, how much weight is given to !votes tendered against candidates for no reason other than having declined to answer questions? That a pertinent question goes unanswered is certainly cause for concern; however, if an editor opposes a nom merely for an unanswered series of questions with no real impact, that editor and/or his/her sycophants should be discarded by the closer, and the candidate should not believe that a failure to answer the impertinent damages his/her chances. —ATinySliver/ATalkPage 🖖 10:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  27. Oppose It is completely insane to work for increased participation and then prevent the new participants from asking questions because they arrived to late. Good way to build frustration with the system. SpinningSpark 16:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  28. Strong oppose This will only result in increasing frustration, and less editors which are desperately needed to de-stub many stub categories will edit, all for nothing. What if the limit total questions for each candidate is 100, and there are 75 people with questions? How can the questions be answered with 1 question per person and no follow-ups? It does not make any sense, although I am over the fence for B2. Gug01 (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  29. Oppose - This would be a complete pain in the arse!, Questions by the community should remain unlimited. –Davey2010Talk 03:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  30. Can be gamed.  Sandstein  09:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  31. Oppose, gaming and FCFS. Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 09:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  32. Oppose Too easily WP:GAMEable and plus this ruins the point of RfA. Too many questions? Answer some of them later then. For example, in X RfA, there are the 3 default questions, then Y user asks 2 questions related to speedy deletion policy, Z user makes 3 questions, 1 related to the blocking policy, 1 related to edit warring and 1 related to AfD. User A makes 2 questions related to sockpuppetry, B makes 2 questions related to questions 4 and 6, C user makes 3 questions related to page protection, D makes 2 questions related to non-free image use, E makes 3 questions, 1 about WP:AGF and the other 2 about content creation, User F, lastly, makes a question about copyright violations. This proposal will limit too much the way policy questions can be asked. --TL22 (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  33. Oppose I think this goes too far. Wugapodes (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  34. Oppose Please do not deign to tell me what "proper regulation" is needed. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


Comments on B3Edit

  • I am not sure that limiting the total number of questions is the right kind of limit. I was thinking limiting the total number of comments of all kinds, limiting the number of comments per candidate, limiting the total number of words, or limiting the number of words per candidate. BTW, if one of the above ideas gets a lot of support in this discussion, it might be worth an RfC. Are editors allowed to add questions to this RfC, or would they have to post another RfC? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Editors did have the opportunity to add proposals for almost two weeks, but apparently not very many people saw the notice I left on WT:RFA. I suppose people could still add proposals, with the understanding that they may not obtain quite as much attention as the originals. However, that isn't necessarily true, since even the later proposals garnered quite a bit of votes in the Phase I RfC. Biblioworm 23:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I think I might be inclined to support this, but it needs to be a more fully fleshed out proposal first... --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • As per this catalogue of inappropriate questions, we still need to guard against a ridiculous number of questions being asked. Setting a limit however may be WP:BEANS as some RfA are successful with only three or four questions. Many questions are asked by people fishing for technical, content, or policy information that they don't know themselves, but RfA is not WP:EAR and should not be allowed to be. Some questions are asked by newbies who are just trying to be clever and get noticed. Iridescent made some important observations on this subject with regards to the questions asked at Arbcom elections. It also needs clearly pointing out that user questions are in fact optional and that candidates are free to ignore them without fear of recriminations such as "Oppose because s/he didn't answer my question". (a sort of Miranda right). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

B4: Clerking at RfAEdit

After some consideration, it has been decided that the specifics of clerking should be handled in a separate RfC. Biblioworm 01:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: For the purposes of these proposals, a "clerk" is a user who maintains order at RfA. Per Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC#M: Active clerking at RFA, clerks are already authorized to carry out the following tasks:

  • (1) Remove votes that violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. (Clear standards that define uncivil comments and personal attacks can be found at WP:IUC and WP:WIAPA.)
  • (2) "Remove votes and vote rationales that are trying to change policy by opposing those who would enforce a particular policy." (In other words, a person who doesn't like a certain policy cannot oppose a candidate because the candidate supports it and plans to enforce it as an admin.)
  • (3) "Deal with [the problem of] people...removing or editing their rebutted comments instead of striking them or responding to people who had commented on them." (Quote edited for clarity.)
  • (4) "When editors have !voted per another editor and that editor subsequently changes their vote, neutrally inform [the voter] of that and invite them to review and reconfirm or alter their vote and rationale."

Depending upon which other proposals pass in this RfC, their tasks may also include moving all discussion to the talk page and enforcing the limit on the number of questions. In this section, we will discuss who should carry out the clerking tasks.

Comments on B4Edit

  • I'm starting a new section so I can comment on the whole B4 discussion. No one has explained why clerking is even a problem area in the first place. What exactly is it that is supposed to be broken? SpinningSpark 16:51, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
    • In the Phase I RfC, there was an obvious consensus that RfA is a hostile environment. On that note, WereSpielChequers started a new section in the Phase I RfC, suggesting active clerking at RfA. This is hardly a new proposal, and has been suggested as far back as WP:RFA2011. (Perhaps even further.) In any case, the proposal passed with over 60% support, and we are here attempting to reach a consensus on who should be clerking at RfA. If we don't reach a consensus here, we will continue to discuss the issue and build upon the results of this RfC to create better proposals. Biblioworm 17:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
      • It would have been useful if some of that history was in the header of the section. We don't all follow every detail of policy discussions. SpinningSpark 17:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

B4.1: Bureaucrats should be the clerksEdit

We could exclusively authorize bureaucrats to perform the clerking tasks.

Support B4.1Edit
  1. One of the major oppositions in Phase 1 to having a clerking system is that the 'crats should decide which reasons/comments are inappropriate; letting them be the clerks would be the best of both - we do get active clerking for the RFAs and the 'crats do decide what's bad enough to need removal. In fact, I explicitly proposed this in response to one of those oppositions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. My support for this is very weak, per the concerns in the comments section, but I think the community trusts the Crats in this regard, and a Crat who clerks could let a different Crat do the close. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support. After thinking about the possibilities suggested here, I think this is the best and safest one. Bureaucrats have gone through a thorough vetting process and are explicitly trusted to have good judgement in matters related to RfA. Also, in regard to the concerns that have been raised about that issue, the bureaucrat who closes the RfA could be different from the one who does the clerking. Biblioworm 22:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support crats have been thoroughly vetted by the community for their ability to make decisions which are neutral and in the best interests of the project. I don't see how clerking an RfA could make a crat involved since in both instances (clerking and closing) the crat is following community consensus. Best practice, however could be that crats who clerk don't close by themselves (but they can be involved in a crat chat). Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:53, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support - Don't see a problem with either admins or crats doing this. Rlendog (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support - This isn't like SPI where a lot of clerks are needed because 10s of discussions are going on at one time. BMK (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. Not fully in support, but I can't oppose. The principle here is that 'crats are "highly trusted" in dealing with RfA-related tasks. Yes, it's ultimately for determining consensus, but I am not convinced determining consensus and moderating the discussion that determines consensus require very different skill sets. We have enough of them to let some keep the discussion in check and let others wait to close. Plus, they don't have enough things to do already. :) — Earwig talk 09:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. If (and this is a big if) the crats are willing to only. We really don't need a separate body of RfA clerks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose B4.1Edit
  1. The 'crats have the responsibility of determining the outcome of the discussion after it is over. While it's going on they usually keep hands off. IMO they should certainly NOT be managing the discussion while it happens; that could make them WP:INVOLVED. Having one 'crat unilaterally and publicly decide, during the ongoing process, which votes are appropriate and which are not - that seems to me to be contrary to the whole process. --MelanieN (talk) 23:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely not. As MelanieN notes, there's overlap. Further, it's not their job. It's the community's job. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose the community is able to perform this task, and does not need to be hampered. — xaosflux Talk 21:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose We need a bit of separation of powers here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose they were not chosen for their skills in actively running a debate but (at least the ones since things got formalized) closing them. Also, this is a community function, that the community is able to handle (and sitting on their hands is a choice).--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose until the mandate for Bureaucrats is resolved. According to various discussions in various places this year, it appears thar the Bureaucrats might possibly resist being required to do this as it is not expressly mentioned in the remit they were elected for. This is not to say that a new intake of 'crats would be averse to this task, especially if it were to be included in the job description by consensus. Note however that no new 'crats have been appointed for two years. So there's something wrong there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. Oppose RfAs look after themselves well enough. More bureaucracy foisted upon the crats won't do anything positive. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments on B4.1Edit
  • While 'crat tasks have been whittled down considerably with the rise of SUL, I'm not sure we have enough active ones to manage this, and standards are even more absurdly high at RFB that at RFA, for reasons I don't believe I will ever understand. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • While I would support this in theory, in practice there are not enough crats to do the sort of active constant clerking this would need - especially if the result of the RFA reform does actually increase the amount of RFA's - the clerking needed would be a lot more intensive. Ideally there would be some editors (Admins or editors) who would want to do it (specialise). Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm torn here. While I can see the rationale for crats being the ones to clerk, I'm also wary of giving the discussion closers the ability to alter the votes. Sam Walton (talk) 11:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This clerking issue overall is far too important for this discussion and should be handled in a stand-alone RfC where I would certainly support a well thought out proposal that is more than just another attempt at getting a consensus to concur that 'something needs to be done'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

B4.2: Clerks should be appointed and supervised by bureaucratsEdit

As an alternative to B4.1, we could require that clerks be appointed by general agreement of the bureaucrats (perhaps in a discussion on WP:BN). Once appointed, clerks would also be supervised by bureaucrats, who would have the authority to override any action a clerk performs.

Support B4.2Edit
  1. Support. I see that this is a rather lonely support, but if bureaucrats are able to clerk at RfAs, I don't see why they shouldn't be able to give users whom they trust the ability to clerk as well. Biblioworm 22:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. No objection to this, however I'd like to see it as a backup idea in case B4.1 doesn't work or pass. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Acceptable as an alternative to B4.1. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose B4.2Edit
  1. Oppose No no no no no. More bureaucracy isn't going to solve RfA's problems. Bureaucrats appointing clerks to oversee the process is just going to be seen as a negative. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose this is overkill, CratClerks are not needed. — xaosflux Talk 21:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Per the two above, and I really think giving the power to appoint to people who are not answerable to the community by further election to be a very bad idea generally. You wind up with people with real or apparent powers who were not given those powers by the community and who cannot be removed.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose - I don't have a problem with bureaucrats doing clerking, but an extra layer supervising them provides all the disadvantages of involving bureaucrats in the clerking and I don't see any benefits of having an extra layer versus just having the crats do it themselves. Rlendog (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I had to think about this one, but I ended up feeling that it would just create a new complication. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. 'Crats only. BMK (talk) 01:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. This is strange. Why would we do this? Either let 'crats do it or let it be a community thing. Somewhere in the middle and they will have a very weak mandate (although that's just a hypothesis). — Earwig talk 09:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments on B4.2Edit

"Supervised by" maybe. "Appointed by" no. Crats are only supposed to take action when there is a pre-existing policy or consensus that compels them to do so. Making them the ones to select who clerks RFA would change what type of persons we expect our crats to be, so this is a non-stater as far as I am concerned. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

As per Beeblebrox. Perhaps some sort of crat-mentoring program? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

  • As per Beeblbrox. See my vote/comment above in other sections concerning the Bureaucrats. Plus the fact that this clerking issue is far too important for this discussion and should be handled in a stand-alone RfC. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

B4.3: Clerks should be an elected bodyEdit

Alternatively, we might consider electing RfA clerks. The requirements for being elected need not necessarily be high, and "elections" could take place rather informally on WT:RFA. (Perhaps in a similar manner to the way edit filter managers are chosen.)

Support B4.3Edit
  1. ...
Oppose B4.3Edit
  1. Oppose trying to fix an election by adding another election seems absurd and would just create even more useless drama. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Beeblebrox. --MelanieN (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. As Beeblebrox said, this would just create a host of new problems. Biblioworm 00:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. As per above. The idea is to streamline the process. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose as bureaucracy creep. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. Strong Oppose The last thing we need is to open up Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship clerkship. — xaosflux Talk 21:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. Oppose not going to work. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose Have another election to fix the election? Nah. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. Oppose too bureaucratic Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. Oppose next there will be clerks2, who intervene as needed in clerk elections.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - No need for an extra layer. Rlendog (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  13. Oppose per Beeblebrox. We need to avoid bureaucracy ad absurdum and creating more rights for the hat collectors. See comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - as above. Neutralitytalk 20:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. Oppose No, no, no, per all of the above. BMK (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. Oppose, I can only support this if we add another special group of users who decide on the outcomes of Requests for Clerkship elections, and yet another group that clerks in the clerkship elections. Otherwise we simply won't have enough bureaucracy. —Kusma (t·c) 09:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  17. No, this is just silly and would be a massive waste of time. — Earwig talk 09:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  18. Oppose per everyone above. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  19. Oppose – We have enough elections as it is. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  20. Oppose This is close to being the dumbest proposal on this page. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


Comments on B4.3Edit
  • Right now the electoral commission is elected, and our mandate has us doing some clerk-like actions. It would be worth exploring how that is workin out and whether we want to keep doing things that way. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • This clerking issue overall is far too important for this discussion and should be handled in a stand-alone RfC where I would certainly support a well thought out proposal that is more than just another attempt at getting a consensus to concur that 'something needs to be done'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

B4.4: Any editor should be able to clerkEdit

Finally, we could allow any editor to clerk, if they are willing to volunteer to perform the tasks.

Support B4.4Edit
  1. Support. I dont hold with 'non-admins will be bad clerks' as the users below seem to feel will be the result. Likewise 'if we allow non-admins lots of people who are bad will want to do it.' Like any other process involving non-admins on wikipedia, the editors who want to learn do, those who dont/cant learn - either they dont take part or they are swiftly advised to stay away. I dont see this as any different. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support This is, after all Wikipedia, the Enclyclopedia anyone can edit. Anyone that tries underhanded tricks would be seen and , at the sysop's discrection , blocked, banned or t-banned. So I see no issue with allowing non-admins to clerk! KoshVorlon 16:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. In a sense, that's really the status quo. It's in the spirit of WP:BOLD. But if anyone can clerk, then anyone can be reverted, and disruptive misuse of clerking should lead to blocks or topic bans. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support, once we have defined the rules, everybody should be allowed to help implement them. Clerking RfA is unlikely to be more difficult than editing difficult articles, and like everything on Wikipedia, we should aim to make it as open as possible. —Kusma (t·c) 20:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support sure, anyone can be reverted too. — xaosflux Talk 21:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support Yes. In fact, I view this as existing practice. A sufficiently troublesome comment will sometimes be removed, and either moved to talk or a discussion started.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support with limitations: Firstly, the hackneyed mantra and slogan "Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit" was intended to refer to content. It was never meant to be taken so literally as to meant that anyone can interfere with its management, although many would like to see it as such. That's why we do have some special user rights for various things. More appropriately however, clerks should be any established user in good standing who has been registered for X amount of time, and has X number of edits. That said, this clerking issue is far too important for this discussion and should be handled in a stand-alone RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support, as it seems that at worst it will result in flamewars about what was redacted, as opposed to having flamewars about what was unredacted :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose B4.4Edit
  1. Bad clerking is probably worse than no clerking; we need clerks who we can reasonably expect to understand what they're doing and do it well. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. Not every editor may have the skills and knowledge necessary to clerk. I'm sure a good deal of experienced editors could be trusted, but my fear is that we'll have new users who are trying to feel important disrupt the process with bad clerking. I'm still thinking about the other proposals, but for now I'm just opposing the ones that would most obviously be a bad idea. Biblioworm 00:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. It would detract from the actual discussion and waste time to have to actively police clerk actions. They should be experienced with the process and be trusted to do it right. The "anyone can revert" philosophy has its place in content creation, but it isn't appropriate for administrating an often contentious discussion process, especially if we're going to be trusting these users to identify and remove votes that violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. Mz7 (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Any editor can be a clerk now. Stop stratifying users in an attempt to somehow cure things. Stratification is one of the things most harming the project these days. Editors are empowered to make edits now. To make special clerks means you're stripping editors of that power. Stop it. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose my experience with self-appointed clerks at various admin noticeboards has been almost entirely negative. They tend to be busybodies who feel they must "help" with things that do not require any help. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose self-appointed clerks tends not to work very well. Especially given that people reverting the clerks is just going to make the place more disrupted. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. Oppose Chaos. BMK (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. No. BMK puts it well. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. Given that I oppose B4.5, it follows that I oppose B4.4 too. I think this proposal would essentially result in the idea that we can basically just ignore WP:TPO and do what we want on RfA pages. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments on B4.4Edit
  • How about allowing any ADMIN to clerk - not formally appointed as a clerk, but simply doing it? That is pretty much what is happening now - with things like striking votes by IPs and socks, or moving too-long discussions to the talk page. Up to now those actions have not been limited to admins - they have been done by anyone with the experience and clue to see that it needs to be done. But if we are going to formalize the clerking process (which I don't necessarily think is a good idea) we could formalize it by limiting it to admins. --MelanieN (talk) 00:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The proposal has been understood differently by different commenters - is it "any editor is allowed to act as clerk at any time" or "editors who explicitly volunteer to act as clerks" (as a permanent job? for each RfA?) Clerking has been done at RfAs by unappointed editors but not always reliably or consistently. Whichever system is chosen, there should be an agreed guideline to be followed by anyone making edits that affect the contributions of others to RfA discussions: Noyster (talk), 13:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • What, any editor? Surely we should at least limit it to autoconfirmed or something. --BDD (talk) 14:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I'd consider it more reasonable that any editor (any autoconfirmed editor? any editor with a minimum of 100 edits?) could sign up to be a clerk, go through a period of clerking with oversight, and if they seem to know what they're doing then they become a full clerk. I think I saw this "trainee" system in use somewhere else on the Wiki, seemed like a good way to keep the system open to anyone while reasonably weeding out those who aren't cut out for it. —2macia22 (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

B4.5: Any admin should be allowed to clerkEdit

As a slightly less exclusive option than B4.1, we could simply allow any admin to perform clerking duties.

Support B4.5Edit
  1. Support per my comment at the discussion at B4.4. --MelanieN (talk) 02:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support - a pragmatic option. Just Chilling (talk) 03:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Anyone including admins should be allowed to clerk. —Kusma (t·c) 20:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support Sure, as I already supported letting anyone clerk. — xaosflux Talk 21:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support - the right balance. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support I opposed the idea of crats, more elections ain't going to fix this, and the editor body at large could cause havoc; so I guess this is what's left, and for the sake of consistency I support. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. Second preference to B4.4.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support - Don't see a problem with either admins or crats doing this. Rlendog (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support. Admins have been through the RfA process themselves and should know how candidates should be given a humane hearing. Sadly some admins in the past have abused this, but we should AGF that admins are pefectly suited for the task. See comment below.
  10. Support, in case the former option about all users doesn't pass, this is good enough. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. Support more or less following the thoughts of Vanamonde93. I think clerks would help a lot--and I don't believe the "anyone can clerk" solution has proven to work. Clerking apprenticeships work well, I think, at SPI, and I'd also support a system like that, but it might be more bureaucracy than this problem needs, and I don't want to make perfect the enemy of the good. --joe deckertalk 07:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose B4.5Edit
  1. Oppose The current crop of admins are probably the worst people to clerk the main reason for hostile environment at RFA - incivility. Their inability, incompetance and overt sabotaging of the civility policies/pillar over the last few years are the reason we are at this point. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    Er... what did we do? — Earwig talk 09:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Meh, if any editor can, then any admin can, but at the same time, admins should be held to no lower standard than anyone else. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Oh hell no. A process to elect admins clerked...by admins? Crony/cabalism anyone??? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I'd prefer that 'crats clerk at RfAs, since they are specifically trusted in matters relating to RfA. This proposal is incompatible with that preference. Biblioworm 22:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - Admins are wonderful, warm, sensitive, loving people...but no, 'crats only. BMK (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Less vehemently than B4.4, but still, 'crats only, please. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. Opppose: I do not like the idea of any of a thousand or so people being able to carry out the very vague task of: "Remove votes that violate WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA", especially without instructions to leave a record of it somewhere. I don't like the idea of (2) either, and feel that (4) is something any user could do at the current moment if they wished to. Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 23:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, Bilorv, but the idea of clerking already passed Phase I. And voters were explicitly voting on those four provisions, including (2). If someone wanted to oppose that, they had their chance (for almost 30 days) in Phase I. Those provisions are not up for discussion, and besides, I can't see why anyone would oppose them (except, perhaps, for those who want to do the disallowed things). Why would anyone have trouble with enforcing civility and NPA, except those who violate CIV and NPA? It is clearly specified what constitutes incivility and personal attacks, here and here, so the definition is not vague. And why should users be able to oppose simply because they don't like a policy and are upset that the candidate follows it? Policies have already reached consensus; there is no good reason to take out your dislike of a certain policy on an RfA candidate. Biblioworm 16:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments on B4.5Edit
  • I'm not surprised to see the usual show of resistance to progress. I think a lot of middle-of-the-road users are probably getting rather bored with all this routine opposition to all things adminship based on a false premise that admins have too much power already. Any admin is perfectly suited to clerk an RfA. They've been through the process themselves - although to see the occasional comments by some (now desysoped and/or retired) one can sometimes wonder. If we can get RfA cleaned up there would be more candidates of the right calibre coming forward; isn't that what the whingers and whiners ultimately want? That said, this clerking issue overall is far too important for this discussion and should be handled in a stand-alone RfC where I would certainly support a well thought out proposal that is more than just another attempt at getting a consensus to concur that 'something needs to be done'. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm not going to say a lot in this RFC, I've grown weary of getting worked up re: admin issues to see nothing ever change, but I agree that clerking should be a stand alone discussion. I would also say there is no reason that well seasoned (let me repeat: well seasoned) non-admin can't do it. The type that have no interest in becoming an admin and are under no illusion that this is a stepping stone towards that goal. Dennis Brown - 16:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, not all that clearly worded - is it "only admins" or "all admins, along with some or all other editors"? Restricting it to admins would rule out a large pool of others who would do a good job of clerking. It needs a substantial number of eyes to make it likely that someone is on watch throughout the 168 hours of an RfA: Noyster (talk), 13:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    Well, if B4.4 passes, that would automatically include admins. However, if B4.5 were to pass and B4.4 were to fail, then that would naturally mean that clerking would be exclusively for admins. (Since the reasoning is that we should allow all admins to clerk, but not all editors.) Biblioworm 16:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

C: Narrow discretionary rangeEdit

C1: Expand discretionary range to 65%Edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
By a strictly percentage count, 71.2% of participants support expanding the discretionary range to 65–75%. If we applied the current standard for RfA to this, it would be solidly within the discretionary range of 70–75%. Based on a very large number of other community discussions I have watched over the years, this is clearly a supermajority. This discussion is closed as clearly supported. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

We could expand the discretionary range to 65–75%, making it a 10% range, as opposed to our current 5% range (70–75%).

Support C1Edit

  1. Support Clearly, we have a problem. Proposals to make radical changes to RFA have failed. Perhaps this small, incremental change is enough to at leat improve it a little and get us what we need, which is more active admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support Standards have inflated largely because there is a belief that adminship is a lifetime appointment (i.e. nearly impossible to desysop). Yet the question comes up time and time again, for examples of admins who should be desysopped. One problem influencing another. As such, I think the community standards have risen too high because of this factor and need to be lowered. If desysopping is a problem, then that function should be addressed and not increasingly rising standards for candidates. We're turning a lot of qualified individuals as a result. Mkdwtalk 22:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. support this, for the same reasons as above, but I would really like a wider range per C2. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support. This is a good start, although I prefer C2. I'm just supporting this so that at least something can get done in the event that C2 doesn't pass. Biblioworm 23:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support as second choice per Biblioworm. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support - a 2/3 majority is normal in the real world for important decisions. Just Chilling (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support - although agree as per Biblio & Melanie. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. Support: two-thirds is a reasonable level although crats still need to determine consensus. RfAs have passed in this range so it makes sense to make this explicit. BethNaught (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support as reasonable. APerson (talk!) 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  10. The way I see it, Crats are expected to exercise discretion anywhere from 0% to 100%, so it's not like they cannot already take particular circumstances into account at ± 1% just outside the existing "range". But I see nothing wrong with making it explicit that discretion can be used to pass some candidates in the upper 60s. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  11. If we have a discretionary range at all, it should be wide enough to matter. Also per Beeblebrox. —Kusma (t·c) 19:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    Just noting that I prefer 65% to 2/3, but prefer 2/3 to the status quo. —Kusma (t·c) 08:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. Support OK, of course these are not VOTES, and any thing can just be thrown out by the crat. — xaosflux Talk 22:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  13. Support this is still only a 10% range. Hut 8.5 22:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  14. Support a little less rigidity would help. --PresN 22:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  15. Support as close to a two-to-one majority: Noyster (talk), 22:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  16. Support. The current requirement is too high and causes unnecessary stress to all those involved. Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  17. Support absolutely, current range is too high and doesn't allow crats the discretion they need. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 00:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  18. Support. A 2/3 majority should be sufficient consensus to approve tools, given the current level of scrutiny.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  19. Support As close enough to 2/3rds for me.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  20. Support Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  21. Support Theoretically, RFA is not a vote, and crats can throw out anything; widening the acceptable range, I think, brings us closer to the ideal, and gives the crats more room to exercise discretion. It should NOT ever be a hard line. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  22. Support - The requirement for more than a 2/3 supermajority is excessive. Carrite (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  23. Support. Closer to what we need. Rehman 13:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  24. Support - I think this is a sensible range. Rlendog (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  25. Support (either at 65% or, as below, 2/3). StevenJ81 (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  26. Support, if the process is reduced to a vote, a two-thirds majority is quite sufficient for any purpose. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  27. Support. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  28. Support - This "threshold" needs to be lowered in order to successfully reform the RfA process. Roughly two-thirds support is plenty high enough IMO. Guy1890 (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  29. Support - --John Cline (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  30. I like 2/3 because it's a cleaner fraction, but okay with 65% also. A 2/3 majority is fair for concluding the existence of consensus with discretion (and note we are not saying they get an automatic pass here). 3/4 as an upper bound is still fine, I think. — Earwig talk 10:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  31. Support – Consider me a "bandwagon fan"... (Also, 2/3 makes more sense to me anyway... I might even be talked into 3/5, if more people were supporting the one below...) --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  32. At least. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  33. Support 2/3 as a more common fraction than 65%, but would be okay with it either way. -- Tavix (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  34. Support this makes sense. —2macia22 (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  35. Support It's too high at the moment. This could go some way to easing stress. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  36. Support They say friends are forever but enemies accumulate. Currently if you edit carefully, accurately and do a lot of cleanup (deletions, 3RR reports etc) you can easily accumulate enough enemies to fail an RfA. Legacypac (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  37. Support – A two-thirds majority is typically considered enough for consensus throughout the rest of the site, so why not here? If there are major issues pointed out by the other third of participants, the closing bureaucrat can take them into account when making their decision. That's why it's called a discretionary range, after all. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  38. Support. I wrote a comment in favor of a small change in the discretionary range. It would have added a few more administrators this year. I think that it might actually encourage a few more candidates. I think even two/thirds would be an improvement and provide more encouragement while not seriously diluting the standard. Since that it is not an option, I favor this proposal. I feel that the other proposals in this section, C3 and C4 in particular, are too extreme at this time. Donner60 (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  39. Support, but weakly; "discretionary range" would mean a great deal more to me if I hadn't analyzed the voting patterns of RfA over the years, and found that bureaucrats weren't exercising discretion in the first place: almost without exception, every candidate over the line passed, and every candidate under the line was rejected. Ravenswing 05:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  40. Given the trust we put on the bureaucrats, I think this is no big deal—UY Scuti Talk 08:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  41. Support, I think most people who would get through because of this are probably good candidates; if they have big problems with civility or competence they'll likely get more opposes than 35%. delldot ∇. 01:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  42. Support. This is sensible. 65% shows enough community trust to make it worthy of discretion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  43. Support It's a bit of a tight threshold. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 10:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  44. Support 2/3 majority is sufficient consensus given the current level for scrutiny .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  45. Support. Prefer 60%, but this is acceptable if I can't get that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC).
  46. Support. -- œ 09:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  47. Support. --Teukros (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
    Support iff stated as two-thirds. Jonathunder (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC) Moving my !vote to make intent more clear to closer. Jonathunder (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  48. Support, though I would prefer 67% (2/3) to 65%. I'm not as concerned about this letting unqualified candidates slip through the cracks. If there are legitimate issues we always have plenty of voters ready to jump on the oppose bandwagon, and a team of bureaucrats who I trust will be able to spot strengths and weaknesses in the arguments. ~Awilley (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  49. Support 65% is close enough to 2/3 and works for me. I can also go lower. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  50. Support - Let's do this then if everybody favors it. George Ho (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  51. Support We always say things shouldn't be vote based, a higher range for discretion allows well, more discretion... RFA's should be considered more case by case than percentage wise. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  52. 'Crats do consider RfAs that finish below 70% in certain circumstances. And, though my memory may be playing me false, I think at least one RfA was passed at less than 70%. The threshold is not fixed, and 'Crats have been voted in for their judgement in when exactly to hold a discussion. Given that we don't currently have a fixed threshold, is this proposal aiming to make a fixed threshold? So 'Crats would be obliged to discuss every RfA which finished between 65% and 75%? Or is it more of a notice to 'Crats to consider more often and more sympathetically those RfAs which finish between 65% and 70%? If it is the later, then I don't see that as a bad thing, and would support. I am less enthusiastic about making the threshold a fixed one. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  53. Seeing more RFAs fail a bit short of threshold is disappointing. I believe two thirds is a reasonable improvement. Max Semenik (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  54. Support moreinline with a 2/3rds majority. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  55. Support as first choice. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 08:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  56. Support, but 2/3 is better. "Needs 2 supporters for each 1 opposer" is a very nice round and common number. (Guy Macon: excellent catch! :-). 3/4 ("3 for each 1") for the top is fine. Actually it could be more sophisticated. We could have a sort-of Bayesian estimator, that is, for large vote turnouts we could have a rather lower margin, and for very low vote turnout we should have a higher margins. Say, a candidate should probably pass with a 1500 to 1000 vote (60%), but currently falls below the margins; and a candidate with a 4 to 1 vote (80%), should not pass, but currently is above the margin. No, it is not overly complicated, a relatively simple table would do. - Nabla (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  57. Support, also noting that there isn't really a practical difference between 66.67% and 65.00%. kennethaw88talk 04:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  58. Support - basically lowering it to 2/3 but to a nice round number. 2/3 doesn't sound unreasonable at all and would still be discretionary in this system. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  59. Support, but let's state it as ⅔.  — Scott talk 10:56, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  60. Support. The x% measure the candidate, but also the !voters. Evaluating the standard amplitude of the various !voters sets to 10% seems to be an understatement. Moreover, I have not the impression that the admins that have been desysopped for cause were those with the lowest x%. Pldx1 (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  61. Support while I would prefer a 2/3s like Guy suggested below, this is pretty close and seems reasonable enough. It's the reason we have bureaucrats in the first place, to make sure that there is in fact consensus when it drops to this low point (though obviously not the only reasons). Wugapodes (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  62. Support there are really very few RfAs that this would apply to, and occasionally they get a crat chat already or have even been promoted, but I see no reason not to make this change. People worrying over 65% vs 2/3, have you checked how many RfAs you're worrying about? (The answer is "nowhere near enough to justify the fuss".) Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  63. Support I like the 2/3rd number but 65 is fine too. Obviously, there is the danger that lowering the threshold will make vote stacking easier but I think - and I'm probably a minority on this - our admin check systems are robust enough to handle maverick admins. The more the number of admins, the merrier. --regentspark (comment) 22:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  64. Support, absolutely. If more than two thirds (give or take, at 65%) of the people who checked you out decided you can be trusted with a few extra buttons, I would say there's a good chance you can be. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  65. Support Bureaucrats shouldn't have their hands tied when a 2/3 majority is reached (give or take a percent). clpo13(talk) 22:34, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  66. Support. The weight given to an oppose is too great. More discretion means that rationale behind the oppose will be given more attention. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  67. Support A modest tweak, but fair enough. --joe deckertalk 03:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  68. Support as having a wider discretionary range really does show that "RfA is not a vote" and the 'crats will weigh up the strength and weight of opinion if required. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  69. Support if 67% is enough to override a presidential veto in the US, it surely should be enough for a bureaucrat to make a judgment call on a candidate (and 65% is a nice round number). Per SmokeyJoe, the weight given to nonsense oppose votes (which currently need 3 support votes to counter) is too high, so lets give the crats some more room to just the strengths of the arguments. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE
    ) 15:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  70. Support – Per above, a rough two-thirds majority should be enough to justify promotion in many circumstances. The current 5% discretionary range is far too narrow to be helpful, and a stronger case can be made to expand it downwards rather than upwards. CT Cooper · talk 13:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
  71. The ayes already have it by the strength of the arguments. I'm only adding my !vote here to help ensure they also have it by the weight of numbers.—S Marshall T/C 19:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  72. Don't see a problem. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  73. Support - Safe improvement. - Kautilya3 (talk) 13:44, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
  74. Strong Support Per above, 65% and 2/3 are pretty much the same thing here people, maybe 1 in 20 times it would be a difference. More admins are needed as Wikipedia continues to grow. Cocoaguy ここがいい 05:29, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose C1Edit

  1. Oppose. "Discretionary ranges" just mean that outcomes are decided by bureaucrats, not the community. There should be a fixed pass/fail threshold. Everyking (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Everyking. Unlike other factors (like whether there have been "enough" mainspace edits, whatever 'enough' means), this one is easily objective, and if it's possible to make things objective I don't see a reason to introduce subjectivity. Banedon (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose until we have assessed the net impact of any other changes. The range should be the last thing to reconsider when other changes are to be implemented. Leaky Caldron 14:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. I don't know of any real instance where a broadening of the discretionary range (i.e. lowering it) would have helped except to have passed some very borderline RfA which I would have voted 'oppose' on anyway. With few exceptions, those close call cases were decided upon by 'crat chats, and isn't that what we have the 'crats for? Furthermore, and most importantly, we must try not to constantly confuse the pass mark (discretionary range) with 'standards' set by the voter;, that bar is set anew at each RfA depending on who turns out to vote. More should be done to convince such voters that their criteria are inappropriately high. To cite a hypothetical example, while it may be true that the average number of edits by successful users may be around 30,000, (averages are are misleading figures arrived at from the lowest and the highest values) where most users recommend a minimum of around 6,000 edits, it's ridiculous to insist that all candidates should have 30,000. Likewise voters who insist on FA and GA as proof of competence for content work. Such votes are included in the tally, and it is quite possible that they are not discounted by the closing 'crat. WP:RFAADVICE deliberately does not tell or suggest prospective candidates what values of experience or activity they should have, but lists instead enough examples of voters' criteria to give them a good idea. Before changing the discretionary rage therefore, we should also perhaps be considering making an official guideline of the minimums desired requirements for adminship. Emphasis on guideline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - 65-75 makes no sense. 67-75 would be ok. BMK (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose Making it easier for marginal candidates will give you more marginal admin. It won't coax more high quality people to run. Dennis Brown - 15:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. Oppose no shortage of marginal admins Hugh (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Oppose - No need to lower it, I don't mean this in a horrible way but lowering it to 65% could potentionally bring in admins who would be a "crap", Personally I believe it should stay as it is. –Davey2010Talk 03:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - if we don't have enough admins, the answer's not to widen the net we cast, but actively recruit for better admins. There are people being talked up (on their user pages, by their friends) for adminship who would drive editors out of wikipedia given a nice, shiny admin badge and sysop powers, simply based on their asymptotically low civility skills and lightning-quick reflexes with a template or decision that someone's editwarring. loupgarous (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. Oppose: Unprepared or (relatively) inexperienced candidates should not be able to easily pass. Esquivalience t 16:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. Oppose There's a lot of excellent points in the support column of this proposal, but I think if we make changes to RfA in these other proposed ways we may not need modifications to the discretionary range. As it stands now, in my personal and humble opinion, the current range has been satisfactory MusikAnimal talk 23:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. Oppose per Everything. Would empower the bureaucrats beyond what is necessary, and the current range is fine. If it is to be expanded, should be up to 80%, not in the other direction. Coretheapple (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  13. Oppose Why haven't we addressed the inconsistency between the two statements, one that states 70–75 the other stating 70–80? Why do we say "historically" which implies that the numbers are the result of enumeration then have a discussion that appears to be about fudging the historic records? Prhartcom (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - agree with Everyking on this point.--Staberinde (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. If anything, the lower end of the discretionary range needs to be raised, not lowered. With the current "all or nothing" configuration of adminship, admin need to know much more than they did 10 or even 5 years ago. Plus, as Dennis Brown says, this change won't coax more high quality candidates to run for adminship. Nsk92 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. Oppose This takes away the choice from the community. If we said 1% to 100% then it would be all a bureaucrat choice, so the closer we get to that figure the less say voters have. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  17. Oppose Lowering standards would be imprudent when there are no term limits or simple process for removing admin rights. Andrew D. (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  18. Oppose – While the intended result of an expanded 65-75% discretionary range is for more RfAs to be closed as successful, this could have an unintended negative effect of lowering the standards of admin suitability to too great of a degree, with an over-emphasis upon quantity over quality. Essentially, a 65-75% range places a high valuation upon the blanket notion of more successful runs occurring ipso facto, but this also simultaneously lowers the standards of candidate suitability to an ambiguous degree. A lowered 65% minimum to pass has the potential to influence RfA closures in an subjective manner, whereby the lowered percentage could end up carrying more weight in an imbalanced and disproportionate manner compared to the value inherent in evaluating the overall strengths and weaknesses of !votes, arguments and deliberations in discussions. Considerations about a candidate's overall competence, skillsets and experience may be unduly valued less compared to the perceived value of simply meeting the lowered percentage, and bureaucrats would have to reduce the significance of said discussion content in their evaluations and assessments to a degree, per a lowered minimum standard threshold. As such, I support a more balanced 68-75% discretionary range, which is just slightly above an outcome of two-thirds of participants supporting. This figure is devised using a rounded-up 2/3 figure of .6666666666666667 to .67, and then adding one more percentage point. North America1000 13:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  19. Oppose anything less than an explicit two-thirds, but please count this as support iff the minimum is stated as two-thirds, as per many other comments. Jonathunder (talk) 15:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. I've been comfortable with the way the 75–80% threshold has been working over the years, with the bureaucrats giving a little more margin to former admins running again. If anything I think it is a little low; strong candidates running for the first time with a trusted nominator have historically received 95–100% support. We need admins with unambiguous community support, not simply more admins. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  21. Oppose discretion. No uber-people please. Bureaucrats should be clerks, not power-voters. Samsara 21:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  22. Oppose I don't mind shifting the range, but I'd prefer to keep the amount of "discretion" to a minimum. Prodego talk 05:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. I think the wobblers at 75% have been appropriate challenges for the community. There's a significant segment that has trouble with such a candidate even if I disagree with the criteria that the opposers used. Going significantly lower is too much of a compromise. It's also tough to judge some characteristics. Opposing is something that I don't like to do, and I expect most !voters don't like to do it either. I don't see a problem with giving opposition !votes substantial weight. I expect bureaucrats to throw any zany opposition !votes; that's their job. That means that 25% of the community can sink a candidate if they give objective reasons. Admins are a small percentage of the editor population, and I think we have a duty to be demanding and circumspect. Yes, it's no big deal, but coolness, fairness, and competence are required. Not everybody fits the bill. It's really a job interview and not an election. When my group went looking for more employees, if 25% of us had doubts, we wouldn't hire. And sometimes when we hired, the guy ended up being wrong for the job. Glrx (talk) 06:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  24. Oppose because this advisory is silly. Crats already have discretion to do anything that is reasonable, given the discussion - it's just a fact that WP:CONSENSUS as written prefers 100% support decisions and the more that that is moved off of, most often, the less consensus there is (70% is a big move off that). It is also just a fact that Crats are conservative in judging consensus, so they generally promote above 70. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  25. Oppose a bigger range will lead to more ambiguity and more controversy. Gizza (t)(c) 01:45, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  26. Oppose any close which "officially sets" the 'crat discretionary range to 65%-75% (as the initial and now reverted close did). That would amount to officially implementing a new limited range, where no such range existed previously. However, my objections are mostly procedural, and I do support what I perceive to be the spirit of this. The fail here is mostly due to a lack of attention to the details. I will make an alternate proposal below, and good luck to the closer(s) in determining whether the views above can be interpreted to be in consensus support of my proposal. Otherwise, perhaps this can get done with a Phase III. – Wbm1058 (talk) 00:06, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    Actually, there was a proposal just below to make 0–100% the de facto discretionary range, since I pointed out that such was theoretically the current rule, but since it SNOW failed I interpret that to mean that there is no longer consensus for that. Biblioworm 17:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
    You are referring to C4: Abolish the discretionary range completely. Again, that is part of the malformed nature of this RfC. 0–100% is not the "de facto" discretionary range, it is the discretionary range, because there is no policy restricting or limiting the 'crats to any specific range. C4 should have been titled, "Abolish the de facto discretionary range completely." I'm not sure that we commoners can actually do that, since it is the bureaucrats, by their actions, who establish a de facto range. All we're doing here, is reporting what the 'crats have done historically, and, by the way we report that, dropping hints to them about what we expect them to do in the future. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:52, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
  27. Oppose unless the lower end was raised to match 2/3, much as per my vote lower down. Blackmane (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
  28. Oppose I'm not convinced the current system is broken and this seems like a huge change that would not actually change outcomes that much.Pschemp (talk) 00:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. Absolutely not. This has happened before, with disastrous results. We have had many cases where admins who passed at 65% controversially ended up at the wrong side of Arbitration. A recipe for disaster. - Mailer Diablo 08:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    There are no "many cases" that I'm aware of, but rather one ancient one from almost a decade ago. In my study, I proved that no recently desysopped admins except that one passed under 70%. Most had over 90%, actually. Biblioworm 15:55, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
    That was the case I had in mind, and I believe that case while ancient was significant because it fundamentally broke RfA. The other cases I am thinking of are those borderline cases (under the current threshold of 70% but touching very close to failing) which went on to Arbitration. I think lowering the threshold has the effect of making RfA harder to pass due to additional scrutiny, not easier. - Mailer Diablo 17:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
    But there are also admins who narrowly passed and turned out fine. And in fact, the overwhelming percentage of desysopped admins (or those who resigned under a cloud) passed without any controversy, much of them over 90%. Face it, everyone: Keeping a high bar isn't preventing anything, since bad admins will always get through no matter how high we set the bar (even if it were 90%, history shows that we would still have many bad admins.) Furthermore, keeping a high bar is just exacerbating our admin shortage problem. Biblioworm 18:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. Very very bad idea. An admin needs a clear support from the community. 65% is simply too low. Softlavender (talk) 10:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments on C1Edit

  • There is something to be said for a 2/3 (~67%) limit. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    That's what I means by 67-75 being an OK range, expanding from 5% to 8%, but the minimum being a 2/3 supermajority/. BMK (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
    I wanted to make the range a more "even" number, so to speak. A range of 10 or 15 percent sounds more natural than a range of 8%, which just sounds...bizarre. Biblioworm 23:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    A range like "Fewer than 2/3 fails, more than 3/4 passes, and between 2/3 and 3/4 is the discretionary range" sounds fine to me. On the other hand, "Fewer than 13/20 fails, more than 3/4 passes, and between 13/20 and 3/4 is the discretionary range" sounds weird to me. There is no law that says that you have to express the range in percentages instead or ratios. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    I agree with what that guy said. Jonathunder (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Q. "Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. Historically, most of those above 75 percent approval pass and most of those below 70 percent fail. However, the actual decision of passing or failing is subject to the bureaucrats' discretion and judgment..."[1] So, the discussion in this section is over whether to change either or both of the figures "75" and "70" in this guidance? Simply changing these numbers does not change what has happened "Historically". Note that a higher figure is given elsewhere: "However, as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 80% support. Nominations which receive less than 70% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances."[2] "Most RfA's with a final tally of 80% support or more will close as successful, while those under 70% will generally not pass. There have however been important exceptions, with candidates passing with as low as 61.2%.[3] The 70–80 'grey' zone is subject to the bureaucrat's discretion after taking into account the quality of the arguments made by the !voters, the strength of comments in the 'neutral' section, and after discounting any !votes they consider to be invalid. In extremely close calls, an extension to the 7-day !voting period may be accorded, or a discussion ('crat chat) may take place among the bureaucrats."[4]Wbm1058 (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Again, for informational purposes, 4 additional recent RfA candidates would have passed in 2015 if the discretionary range was dropped down to 65% and they had been passed through: Cyberpower678 and Thine Antique Pen (both over 67% support), and EuroCarGT (65.83%) and Rich Farmbrough (65.97%). I have a hard time believing that the project would be negatively impacted by any of these 4 having been made Admins... --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • With my suggested range (2/3 = fail, 3/4 = pass) only two failed 2015 RfA candidates would have been in the discretionary range (Cyberpower678 and Thine Antique Pen). And even then, they would have has to pass the "discretionary" part, giving us even more protection against a bad candidate passing. Plus, moving the bottom of the range to 2/3 (that's 66.6% for those who make numeric decisions based on how many fingers they have) is a smaller change than 13/20 (that's 65% for those who...) and thus is more likely to achieve consensus. If we can't get support for 1/2 (that's 50% for...) right away, perhaps we can get support for smaller changes that slowly work towards 1/2 as the community sees that the world did not end with the last small change. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  • A lot of oppose votes center around the idea that this would create marginal or sub-par admins. I hardly consider 65% support to be marginal or sub-par. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Of course one doesn't, if one is hoping a lower bar would make it easier to be an admin... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
@Kudpung: Comments about another editor's motives are completely out of line here. Please refactor. Jonathunder (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, well (56/0/0) is a thing of the past... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Actually, it's 53 to 14 currently on this proposal, but the vote count has nothing to do with your ad hominem remark. Jonathunder (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm already an admin, and I hardly think 65% is "sub-par." Since when was near-2/3 support or a 2:1 support-to-oppose ratio "sub-par"? Any other body outside of Wikipedia would wonder where we ever got that idea. Biblioworm 17:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • To anyone who thinks keeping the bar high will somehow keep bad admins out: see my analysis of a study I just did, and look at the raw data as well. (It's linked in the comment.) The results were very interesting. Biblioworm 21:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  • There's an excellent question at the top of this section, from Wbm1058, to which I don't see an answer. As far as I can tell, there is no "discretionary range" defined at present in policy. Does this proposal seek to create such a policy definition? If not, what does it seek to change? I can't "support" or "oppose" something I don't understand. What, precisely, is the proposed implementation? Begoontalk 02:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    To directly answer your question, something may have happened historically, but that doesn't mean that we can't institute new expectations. The 'crats don't pass RfAs below 70% because they don't believe the community wants them to. If this proposal passed, it would show that the community now has different expectations and expects the 'crats to at least consider RfAs that are between the now expanded range of 65%–75%. The pages on RfA tell what happened historically, yes, but just because something happened historically doesn't mean that we can't change what happens in the future. The pages should probably be reworded accordingly; it could perhaps read like this: "Generally, the consensus is that RfAs above 75% pass and that RfA below 65% fail. The community expects bureaucrats to use discretion when closing RfAs between 65% and 75%." I hope that helps. Biblioworm 19:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, it helps to the extent that it confirms that this proposal doesn't seek to change any policy. I personally "expect bureaucrats to use discretion when closing RfAs between 0% and 100%", and I think they do that pretty well. I'm not convinced this is necessary - I'd rather see more, better qualified candidates than a 'reduction' of some ill-defined, theoretical "bar". I won't oppose it, because, frankly I think it doesn't much matter - the crats already judge consensus, and RFAs pass outside any supposed "discretionary range" occasionally, which is as it should be. Incidentally, you may also run the risk of some voters judging more strictly if they perceive a "lowered bar", imo. Thanks for explaining the 'intention'. Begoontalk 22:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Curious to see how this concept of a "discretionary range" came about, I've done a little research. The Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Header § Voting gives a look at the thinking back in July 2006. 75-80% appears to be the consensus range at the time, as that range is mentioned five times in the discussion. A wider 70-85% range is also mentioned though. Here is an example of a 2006 RfX Report, which shows a lot more candidates running at the same time, with percentage approval rates all over the map. Note that 70% is yellow, and 69% is red. At the time a bot running on the old German toolserver generated the colors for each point in the range. The current version of this is User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report. See Template:Bureaucrat candidate for the current color map, which was implemented by X! in August 2008‎ – the colors have not been changed since that implementation. Presumably the intent of C1 is to extend the yellow into the upper sixties, but no specific proposal for that is on the table. This August 6, 2015 edit by non-administrator Townlake changed 80 to 75, "to reflect what the bureaucrats are actually doing now", and was immediately followed by this August 6, 2015 edit by bureaucrat Avraham which changed "As a rule of thumb" to "Historically". – Wbm1058 (talk) 11:43, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  • What the bureaucrats were actually doing on August 6, 2015 was promoting Liz with a !vote of 73.5 percent (200/272). So we had a defacto lowering of the bar as a result of one single case? Wbm1058 (talk) 12:03, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    No. That was in the 70-75% discretionary range where a crat or crats could have closed it either as a success or a fail. A de facto widening of the range either by lowering or by raising the bar would either require the crats to fail a candidate with over 75% support or pass one with less than 70% support. Neither has happened in years. If such were to happen one could argue whether or not the crat acted sensibly and whether the exception was justified or not. The range could also be narrowed if for example they always promoted those who got 72.5-75% and always failed those who got 70-72.5% Having two RFAs this summer closed as success at 73.5% and fail at 73.8% simply proves that 73.5-73.8% is part of the 70-75% discretionary range. ϢereSpielChequers 06:33, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • There have been two bureaucrat discussions this year which did not result in promotion, both in July. Their !vote percentages were 66% (95/144) and 73.8% (110/149). – Wbm1058 (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The percentages for the 19 new admins so far in 2015, ranked from highest to lowest:

100
1
98
2
97
3
97
4
97
5
96
6
96
7
95
8
94
9
91
10
88
11
88
12
87
13
85
14
84
15
84
16
81
17
80
18
74
19*

The percentages for the six RfAs which concluded as "no consensus" (Withdrawn, WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW not included):

74
1*
67
2
66
3*
66
4
65
5
60
6

* = 'crat chat

There isn't evidence in 2015 RfAs to support the narrowing of the "rule of thumb" or "historical" range from 80–70 to 75–70, as no candidates finished with between 75–80% support.
And the defacto discretionary range already appears to go down to 65, or even 60, as everything below that level was "snowed". 'Crat chats were conducted for three of the seven RfAs that closed in this range; perhaps more such chats would have been held if supporters had lobbied harder for them. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I looked at this awhile back and the evidence is conclusive that the lower end of the de facto discretionary range is 70% and has been so since at least 2008, no matter when people updated policy pages. See here and here and here for graphs. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:20, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Opabinia regalis, thanks for that. I hadn't been following that discussion and was surprised to find three pages of archives there. I see that your Wikipedia talk:Reflections on RfX/Archive 1 § The top of the de facto discretionary zone is 75%, submitted just three days after the change from "rule of thumb 80" to "historically 75", does indeed strongly support that change. However regarding the lower end, I observe that we haven't seen a result labeled "Unsuccessful" since August 2014, and the fact that the bureaucrats labeled these 2015 closes in the sixties as "No consensus" rather than "Unsuccessful" indicates that the bureaucrats considered these to be inside their discretionary range. So, perhaps what this C1 is really proposing is that the 'crats be more lenient in their discretion of sixties closes by having chats about more of them and passing a higher percentage that they chat about than they have historically. The vagueness of this item continues to bother me. Your chart showing that the proportion of passes hasn't really changed that much over the years is eye-opening. And there were what, twice as many "not now" closes in 2008 as total RfAs in 2015? I'd been under the mistaken impression that nearly everyone who ran in 2008 passed, and that the drop-off in people trying for RfA was related to a precipitous drop in the acceptance rate. Now I think the key question to ask in terms of RfA reform is why so many editors don't want to be administrators any more. Or was the pass rate significantly higher before 2008? Wbm1058 (talk) 00:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Those unsuccessful/no consensus annotations come from these tables, which seem to be maintained by passersby, so I think they're only weakly correlated with the exact wording used by the closing bureaucrat, if any.
Nearly everyone who ran in 2004 passed, but from 2006 forward the pass rate has bounced around in the 30-45% range. I only looked in detail at the post-rollback era, but there's been no precipitous drop in success rates, only a drop in candidacies roughly uniformly distributed across the possible outcomes. I guess I never did get around to looking at the RfA numbers compared to number of active editors, which has also declined, but this is unlikely to be the whole explanation. I think WereSpielChequers had some data on the average account age of admins, indicating that it's been taking an increasingly long time to make the transition. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
For RFA purposes the WMF statistics on "active editors" are unhelpful and distorted. Unhelpful in that the vast majority of the 30,000 or so editors who save 5 or more edits in a month are not going to pass RFA any time soon and distorted because the edit filters have lost us many of the vandals who used to do five edits before they got an indef block and would therefore be in that months active editor total. A much better figure to look at is the figure for editors who save over 100 edits in mainspace there are about 3,000 such editors and I would suggest this group overlaps heavily with our pool of potential admins. There will of course be candidates active in other areas who don't fall into this group, I'm certainly not suggesting that we require RFA candidates to regularly save over 100 edits in mainspace, just observing that this group is going to correlate more closely to the very active community from whom we draw our admins. So to answer Opabina's question about whether the decline in RFA mirrors the decline in active editors, the answer is no. Editors saving over 100 edits a month in mainspace peaked circa 2007 and by the start of this year had declined by about a third, however this year has seen a rally with numbers in recent months higher than 2011-2014 and almost equalling 2010 levels. By contrast RFA has declined by about 90% from its peak and this year we are unlikely to appoint even half the number we did in 2011. ϢereSpielChequers 07:32, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternative C1, or implementation detailsEdit

The current guidance:

  • "Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. Historically, most of those above 75 percent approval pass and most of those below 70 percent fail. However, the actual decision of passing or failing is subject to the bureaucrats' discretion and judgment..."

shall be changed to:

  • "Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. Historically, most of those above 75 percent approval pass and most of those below 66 percent fail. However, the actual decision of passing or failing is subject to the bureaucrats' discretion and judgment..."

Note that it is still true that most of those between 66–69% fail, but this change makes clear the expectation going forward that failure in this range will not be nearly inevitable, even if it's still an uphill battle.

The current guidance:

  • "However, as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 80% support. Nominations which receive less than 70% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances.

shall be changed to:

  • "However, as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 75% support. Nominations which receive less than 66% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances.

The current advice:

  • "Most RfA's with a final tally of 80% support or more will close as successful, while those under 70% will generally not pass.

shall be changed to:

  • "Most RfA's with a final tally of 75% support or more will close as successful, while those under 66% will generally not pass.

And:

  • "The 70–80 'grey' zone is subject to the bureaucrat's discretion after taking into account the quality of the arguments made by the !voters, the strength of comments in the 'neutral' section, and after discounting any !votes they consider to be invalid. In extremely close calls, an extension to the 7-day !voting period may be accorded, or a discussion ('crat chat) may take place among the bureaucrats."

To:

  • "The 66–75 'grey' zone is subject to the bureaucrat's discretion after taking into account the quality of the arguments made by the !voters, the strength of comments in the 'neutral' section, and after discounting any !votes they consider to be invalid. In extremely close calls, an extension to the 7-day !voting period may be accorded, or a discussion ('crat chat) may take place among the bureaucrats."

But, again, under exceptional circumstances, 76–80, and indeed 60–66 are still subject to the bureaucrat's discretion. They are just much less of a 'grey' zone, and much closer to a black or white zone.

The colors used in the RfX Report are changed as below:

Current ····· Proposed
100% 100%
99% 98% 97% 96% 95% 94% 93% 92% 91% 90% 99% 98% 97% 96% 95% 94% 93% 92% 91% 90%
89% 88% 87% 86% 85% 84% 83% 82% 81% 80% 89% 88% 87% 86% 85% 84% 83% 82% 81% 80%
79% 78% 77% 76% 75% 74% 73% 72% 71% 70% 79% 78% 77% 76% 75% 74% 73% 72% 71% 70%
69% 68% 67% 66% 65% 64% 63% 62% 61% 60% 69% 68% 67% 66% 65% 64% 63% 62% 61% 60%
59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% 50% 59% 58% 57% 56% 55% 54% 53% 52% 51% 50%
49% 48% 47% 46% 45% 44% 43% 42% 41% 40% 49% 48% 47% 46% 45% 44% 43% 42% 41% 40%
39% 38% 37% 36% 35% 34% 33% 32% 31% 30% 39% 38% 37% 36% 35% 34% 33% 32% 31% 30%
29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 24% 23% 22% 21% 20% 29% 28% 27% 26% 25% 24% 23% 22% 21% 20%
19% 18% 17% 16% 15% 14% 13% 12% 11% 10% 19% 18% 17% 16% 15% 14% 13% 12% 11% 10%
9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0%

The cliff-drop from yellow at 70 to orange-red at 69 is replaced with a more gradual transition through a new yellow-orange range. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

C2: Expand discretionary range to 60%Edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
CLosed as clearly failed. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could expand the discretionary range to 60–75%, making it a 15% range, as opposed to our current 5% range (70–75%). This proposal is a sort of "middle ground" for those who believe C1 is too little of an expansion and that C3 and C4 are too radical.

Support C2Edit

  1. Support for the same reasons I support C1. This is something anyway, and we've hadno real improvements to RFA in a very long time. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. support this, I believe this is a much more reasonable range given adminship is no big deal. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support. This one is my first preference. I think it's a good middle ground; C1 is still something, but not quite enough in my opinion. C3 and C4 are too radical, for the reasons I stated in the relevant sections. Biblioworm 23:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support as first choice. It has always seemed weird to me that someone can get twice as many supports as opposes, and still fail RfA. --MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Support With the understanding that Crats can still reject candidates anywhere in the discretionary range, and this would not lower the top of the discretionary range. Monty845 03:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Support. As per Monty. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. Support, per Monty. APerson (talk!) 15:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. If we have a discretionary range at all, it should be wide enough to matter. Also per Beeblebrox. —Kusma (t·c) 19:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  9. Support this is still only a 15% range, and bureaucrats can be trusted to make the right decisions within that discretionary range. Bear in mind that candidates to the low end of the discretionary range are less likely to be promoted than those at the high end. Hut 8.5 22:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  10. Weak support. This is pushing a line on the requirement. With a requirement as low as this, it makes the acceptability level better, but almost so better that it's worse. Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. Support I trust the crats to use their discretion appropriately, however it should be rare than an RfA with less than 65% passes. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. Weak support. Some changes are needed, and I could live with this (provisionally). But I think it's a little too lenient. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  13. Support. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  14. Probably. Still quite a supermajority, and 'crats can still find no consensus at their discretion. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. Support as we need to lower threshold. Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. Support as above. Ravenswing 06:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  17. This is borderline, 'crats can be trusted enough to make this decision. This can help when votes rather than !votes pile up. —UY Scuti Talk 08:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  18. Support. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC).
  19. Support as second choice, since 60 is apparently the minimum threshold needed for a fundamental change to the site, it makes sense that RfAs should have a threshold in line with, if not a mite less than, that. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 08:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  20. Support (well, moral, since it's not going to pass). Biblioworm's work on the lack of correlation between vote % and desysopping convinces me that we can even go lower than 65% on the minimum support; 60% seems like a good number, especially since we're talking about a discretionary range, not a "Crat must accept" range. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  21. Support – I think having a 15% discretionary range will give bureaucrats a reasonable amount of flexibility and achieving 60% support these days is not that easy. I would expect that in most cases of an RfA ending towards the bottom of the discretionary range, the bureaucrat will choose not to promote, and that promoting below 60% should be very very rare. CT Cooper · talk 13:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose C2Edit

  1. Oppose - a 2/3 majority is normal in the real world for important decisions. In my view adminship is a big enough deal to need clear Community support. Just Chilling (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose per Just Chilling. BethNaught (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. As a general rule, if a candidate has close to 40% opposition, there is a lack of consensus to promote. But the fact remains that, in a specific example when the raw numbers are 60–40, but a significant number of the opposes are unreasonable, a Crat chat can determine that the consensus is still to promote. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. This is just too low. In truly exceptional cases, the crats already have unlimited discretion. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose too low as a "rule of thumb". — xaosflux Talk 21:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose as below a two-to-one majority: Noyster (talk), 22:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. "Discretionary ranges" just mean that outcomes are decided by bureaucrats, not the community. There should be a fixed pass/fail threshold. Everyking (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Oppose per Everyking. Banedon (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose I favor a narrow discretionary range, and 60% is too low. If we're lowering it, 2/3 seems about the right point. If you can't get a 2/3 majority, I don't think you should pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. Oppose until we have assessed the net impact of any other changes. The range should be the last thing to reconsider when other changes are to be implemented. Leaky Caldron 14:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. Oppose - I think a 2/3 majority (or 65%) is ok, but this feels a but this feels too low. At least we should try 65% first and if that doesn't work discuss reducing further. Rlendog (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - see my comment in the sub-section above. Lowering the discretionary range might give us more admins but it will not give us more admins of the right calibre. It will certainly not address the reasons why candidates are not coming forward. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - too low. BMK (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - This proposed "threshold" is too low IMO. Guy1890 (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. Too low, and I agree with DGG. I can't think of an RfA that went below 65% and above 60% that I thought should have passed. — Earwig talk 10:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. Oppose It's important to have a sensible threshold which demonstrates a suitable level of trust. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  17. Oppose – I supported the move down to 65%, but 60% seems a bit low for RFA. I'd want to see how 65% works before moving the number down any further. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Hugh (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  19. Oppose - Worse than C1!, Fine as it is. –Davey2010Talk 03:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  20. Less than 2/3 isn't the required consensus.  Sandstein  09:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  21. Oppose - if we don't have enough admins, the answer's not to widen the net we cast, but actively recruit for better admins. There are people being talked up (on their user pages, by their friends) for adminship who would drive editors out of wikipedia given a nice, shiny admin badge and sysop powers, simply based on their asymptotically low civility skills and lightning-quick reflexes with a template or decision that someone's editwarring. loupgarous (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  22. Oppose per my opposition in C1 MusikAnimal talk 23:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  23. Oppose per Wehwalt and Just Chilling .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  24. Oppose – sixty percent cannot reasonably be described as "consensus." - Nellis 16:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  25. Oppose - I think ⅔ is reasonable, (though I prefer "Most RfA's with a final tally of 80% support or more will close as successful, while those under 70% will generally not pass" but alas) while 60% is too low.Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  26. Oppose Worse than C1? No thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  27. Oppose in favor of a 2/3 (67%) cutoff. (It doesn't have to be divisible by 5.) ~Awilley (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  28. Oppose oscillating whether I support or oppose a 65% cutoff but I think 60% too low. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  29. oppose 2/3 sounds better. If / when we have a culture where admins are more easily, but still fairly, accountable, then we could lower to near 50%. But now that is too soon. - Nabla (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
  30. Oppose - per Tryptofish. Jusdafax 08:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  31. Oppose – A bit too low. I support a more balanced 68-75% discretionary range, which is just slightly above an outcome of two-thirds of participants supporting. This figure is devised using a rounded-up 2/3 figure of .6666666666666667 to .67, and then adding one more percentage point. North America1000 09:11, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  32. Oppose - Prefer 2/3 slightly rounded down (65%) as the cutoff for discretionary range. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 10:38, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  33. Oppose Lowering standards would be imprudent when there are no term limits or simple process for removing admin rights. Andrew D. (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  34. Oppose. Per oppose to C1. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  35. Oppose It's too low and too wide a margin. Wugapodes (talk) 21:44, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  36. Oppose Too low. Vote stacking will become way too easy. --regentspark (comment) 22:22, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
  37. Oppose Don't go so low. Glrx (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  38. Oppose per my statement on the previous question. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:45, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
  39. Oppose a bigger range is even worse. Gizza (t)(c) 01:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  40. Oppose 66.7% is an appropriate lower end of the range. a 2:1 ratio of Supports:opposes is as low as it should get. Blackmane (talk) 04:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  41. Oppose - agree with Blackmane on nothing less than two-thirds. Jonathunder (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  42. Oppose per just Chillin. Pschemp (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  43. Oppose for the same reasons indicated at C1. - Mailer Diablo 08:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
  44. Oppose. At this rate, why don't we just hand out adminship to anybody? Who needs RfA at all? Softlavender (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments on C2Edit

  • There is something to be said for a 2/3 (~67%) limit. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • @Steel1943:. Did you mean to put your oppose in the section just below this one? You also supported this proposal, and both comments have the same datestamp. Biblioworm 00:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
IJBall, in fact Carnildo's RfA had an unusually high turnout for the times and 110 supports. The unfortunate discretionary pass and the later desysoping are clearly as valid today as they were then and demonstrate perfectly why the bar should absolutely not be lowered now. We should thank Wbm1058 for bringing the example to light. It also shows how ineffective various compositions of the Arbitration Committee can be - he was first severely warned by them in 2008 but it took another three years to do anything serious about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I would point out that this was one incident from nine years ago. I don't think one isolated piece of evidence is enough to prove that we shouldn't lower the bar. Think of all the good candidates in the past that failed in this range because of some minor issue that sparked a pile-on. Think of all the bad candidates who breezed by RfA, some of which passed unanimously or almost unanimously. By that same "one bad apple got through so all who finish in that range must be bad" logic, one could reasonably assert that 90–100% is still too low of a bar. Biblioworm 00:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, Biblioworm, I support you on a lot of things but there's no need for you to start splitting hairs on this one. It's not an isolated instance. If you'd done as much research as I have into RfA you'd know it's not. Propriety forbids me however from mentioning the whole list of admins who got defrocked, and who should be defrocked now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
The question still presents itself: By that logic, if several abusive admins still pass with high levels of support (sometimes around 90% or near-unanimous), what keeps us from saying that 90% is still too low? We have the face the facts, everyone: There is simply no proven correlation whatsoever between performance as an admin and the level of support obtained in an RfA. Some admins with low levels of support do well, and some with high levels of support do bad. Bad admins will always get through, and we're simply hurting ourselves trying to prevent the thing that is inevitable, occasionally. If anyone can prove that there is a correlation, show the evidence. "Propriety" is not an excuse; there are already admins who have been desysopped, so a person could just list those and show that there is strong correlation with low support rates in their RfA. I'm convinced by hard evidence, not vague assertions. If no one else will do the study, I'll do it myself. Biblioworm 17:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Okay, I decided to do the study myself. The results (posted at User:Biblioworm/Desysopping and resignation study) should thoroughly debunk once and for all the idea that performance is somehow connected to RfA support rates. The last successful RfAs of those who were desysopped or resigned under a cloud, along with the respective support rate, is listed there. The data covers desysops from 2012–2015. As anyone can see, the range of percentages is very wide, but as I have repeatedly asserted before, this data conclusively proves that many desysopped or resigned admins enjoyed large amounts of support at their RfAs, very often above 90%. Some didn't get that much support, but the whole point here is that admins from all support ranges have been desysopped, and in fact the number of desysopped admins that narrowly passed RfA is only a minority (how surprising!). To the contrary, the vast majority of those listed passed RfA uncontroversially. This study shows that no matter how high we raise the bar, we will still get people who will misuse the bit. We are simply hurting ourselves by keeping the bar so high, since the number of active admins is declining. In fact, it looks like we're heading for a record low in promotions this year. Biblioworm 21:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. excellent evidence. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
To adjust for differing norms in RfA voting over the years, it would be useful to normalize the level of support as the number of standard deviations over the average for a window of say a year around the RfA in question. However the small number of votes in some of the RfAs would still skew matters.
Assuming there is still a lack of correlation to level of support based on standard deviations, though, I'm not sure it really argues in favour of lowering the threshold slightly for receiving administrative privileges. With everyone aware of the threshold and the support levels at any given time being public, there is an incentive for participants to move the result clearly to either side of the line. A small change to the line will likely push some of the respondents on the fence in the same direction they would have leaned with the previous threshold, yielding the same result. Keeping the straw poll results private until the end would help.
(Although I don't believe this is going to gain support, just to flesh it out a bit: interested parties could still post open opinions that others would proceed to discuss, just like today. On the side there would be a private straw poll held whose results would be revealed at the end of the RfA. The bureaucrats would analyse the results in combination with the discussion to determine consensus.) isaacl (talk) 03:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for making the effort to analyze this. This appears to be unequivocal evidence, that shouldn't stay buried in these long threads, but should be linked from other general forums, to help attract more attention to the issue of how counterproductive a 'stringent' RfA process has become. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:00, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Agree with kudpung. If we don't have enough admins, the answer's not to widen the net we cast, but actively recruit for better admins. People are being talked up (on their user pages, by their friends) for adminship who would drive editors out of wikipedia given a nice, shiny admin badge, simply based on their asymptotically low civility skills and lightning-quick reflexes with a template or decision that someone's editwarring.
Given the present state where there are too few admins, but the ones we have almost all respectful toward editors and reluctant to whip a template out on someone's user page unless there's a pretty good reason, and a future wikipedia adminned by those who can't wait to put new editors or those of us whose editing skills are rusty in their place based on very short exchanges, I'd much prefer we have our present state of few but civil admins. loupgarous (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  • From User:Biblioworm/Desysopping and resignation study, the most dangerous score is..., guess what ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
    The most dangerous score? There were several desysopped admins who might very well have been just as bad who had over 90% support. That's the whole point of the chart; you cannot prevent bad admins just by raising the bar, and by making the bar so high we're just hurting ourselves. There are many good admins who passed narrowly (and are supposed to have many alleged "problems"), and very ironically there are very few desysopped admins who passed narrowly. The majority passed uncontroversially. I'm afraid you're missing the whole purpose of the chart by focusing on that one data point. And besides, that took place nine years ago and involved an admin who had previously been desysopped (I think) after being embroiled in a heated controversy. That simply isn't the case for most good-faith candidates who run. Biblioworm 18:33, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
sco=92 is 90%...93% ; there are nb=3 of them
Dear User:Biblioworm. Let me suggest you that, at first sight, the graph above 'proves' that 100%, not 61%, is the most dangerous score: 11 desysopped! Obviously, a better criticism would use conditional probabilities. Only one desysop at 61% means mostly that very few RfA succeeded at 60%. But 11 desysop at 98% or more means... What does it means ? Pldx1 (talk) 22:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I fail to understand what you're trying to say here. Very few RfAs succeed at 60% because there's some sort of unwritten rule that we shouldn't pass candidates at 60%. What this chart "proves" is not that there is one "dangerous score", but rather that admins from all ranges have been desysopped (although a large part passed uncontroversially). Quite honestly, an argument is rather weak if all it has for evidence is one decade-old incident involving a user who was desysopped in the middle of an extremely heated controversy. Biblioworm 23:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
I do see his point however and one way to address it is to perhaps create a graph, using passed percentage values for the x, and percentage of those that lost their bit for the y values. That should more accurately reflect both viewpoints.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown 23:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Ah, so the point is that 100% of those who passed around 60% were desysopped, so therefore it is extremely dangerous to pass candidates at that point. This might sound like a great argument, but frankly it's very weak indeed. Why is that? Because we have only one person from almost 10 years ago who passed around 60%, and that person had been previously desysopped because of a controversy that was apparently something of a major wiki-war. One isolated incident proves absolutely nothing about general patterns, and would not be taken seriously as evidence in professional statistical research. Now, if we had several candidates who passed around this level and a high percentage were desysopped, then that would be a different story. But this argument attempts to make a blanket statement about all candidates who finish around that point, entirely based upon one ancient (in Wikipedia time) incident involving a previously controversial person. That argument holds absolutely no water; multiple examples should be required for a serious argument. We'll never know the general pattern unless we become more rational, give candidates a chance, and not be so paranoid because of a single incident. Biblioworm 00:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the graph would also give the general idea for the more populated passed percentages. Just a thought. I'm still impartial to this RfC.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown 01:56, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I had assumed that Pldx's "dangerous score" comment was sarcasm :) It's also relevant here that the actions leading to the desysoppings in the example case were (IIRC) mostly unrelated to his usual admin work, which was in an area few admins want to work in. An implicit premise of much of this discussion is that a desysopping for cause means that someone should not have been an admin; it was a failure of the RfA process to identify a bad apple. But many historical desysoppings/"jump or be pushed" resignations involve a) one or a few identifiable instances of serious misjudgment; b) misbehavior due to burnout; c) poor judgment in a highly controversial circumstance, where a similar misjudgment in less fraught circumstances might have been forgiven. Most of those are contingencies hard to anticipate at RfA. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The graph is nice, but to give context you need to do it as a proportion of total successful RFAs. A large proportion of successful RFAs are unanimous or near unanimous, when you take that into account the chance of an admin being desysopped is less if they initially passed with over 95% support than if they passed with less support. Another and in my view more useful way to look at this is to look at previous RFAs of admins who passed after multiple attempts. There are of course some where the candidate literally grew up and started behaving more maturely, but in most cases where admins passed after one or more fails the unsuccessful RFAs failed over concerns about experience. If we had promoted those admins a few months earlier on their previous but unsuccessful run would they have been less useful admins for being promoted a few months earlier? ϢereSpielChequers 06:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

C3: Expand discretionary range to 50%+1Edit

Clearly not going to pass.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown 19:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

C3: Expand discretionary range to 50%+1

We could also expand to range to 50%+1–75%, so that it would then become approximately a 25% range, as opposed to our current 5% range (70–75%). If implemented, bureaucrats could use discretion for any RfA between a simple majority (50%+1) and 75%.

Support C3Edit

  1. ...

Oppose C3Edit

  1. Oppose I believe this discretionary range would be too high and many bureaucrats were not appointed with such a range in mind. The community should have the largest voice in any discussion. Mkdwtalk 22:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. After thinking about it, I think this a bit too much right now. I prefer less radical options like C1 and C2, and maybe we can think about further expanding the range if the more conservative expansions turn out well. Biblioworm 23:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. a bridge too far in my opinion, 60% is reasonable community consensus, 50%+1 is too weak a consensus for adminship. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose per the others above. Too radical. --MelanieN (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose - a 2/3 majority is normal in the real world for important decisions. In my view adminship is a big enough deal to need clear Community support. Just Chilling (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. Too low. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. Not going to happen. BethNaught (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. Oppose, strongly. No way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, too low as a "rule of thumb" . — xaosflux Talk 21:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  10. Oppose 50%+1 is not a very high rule and could be passed with almost as many people opposing as supporting. Hut 8.5 22:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  11. Oppose as below a two-to-one majority: Noyster (talk), 22:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. This is simply too low. The community has to at least come to some sort of agreement that the editor should be an administrator. Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  13. Oppose too low as a line in the sand. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. "Discretionary ranges" just mean that outcomes are decided by bureaucrats, not the community. There should be a fixed pass/fail threshold. Everyking (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. Oppose Too much. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - Essentially permanent adminship should require a supermajority. Rlendog (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. I can't quite see a case where there is a good reason to promote someone over 50%+1, but under 60%, as long as all !votes are reasonable. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  18. Oppose - see my long comment in a sub-section above. Lowering the discretionary range might give us more admins but it will not give us more admins of the right calibre. It will certainly not address the reasons why candidates are not coming forward. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  19. Oppose, too low. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  20. Oppose BMK (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  21. Oppose - This proposed "threshold" is way, way too low IMO. Guy1890 (talk) 07:26, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  22. You begin to lose your mandate at this point, I think. Kudpung is absolutely right. — Earwig talk 10:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  23. Oppose It's important to have a sensible threshold which demonstrates a suitable level of trust. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  24. Oppose – I wouldn't want to see a discretionary range that large. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  25. Oppose - I thought C2 was bloody extreme!, Again no need to lower it. –Davey2010Talk 03:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  26. Oppose, too broad. --TL22 (talk) 15:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  27. Oppose - if we don't have enough admins, the answer's not to widen the net we cast, but actively recruit for better admins. There are people being talked up (on their user pages, by their friends) for adminship who would drive editors out of wikipedia given a nice, shiny admin badge and sysop powers, simply based on their asymptotically low civility skills and lightning-quick reflexes with a template or decision that someone's editwarring. loupgarous (talk) 16:28, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments on C3Edit

I see that it was snowed, but as a member of the Parliamentary Procedure Wikiproject, I can't let this go without comment. The word majority means "more than half" and not "50%+1" as stated above. The two formulations do not name the same number. Jonathunder (talk) 08:24, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

C4: Abolish the discretionary range completelyEdit

Snow fail Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

C4: Abolish the discretionary range completely

Finally, we could simply abolish the notion of a "discretionary range" completely and permit the use of discretion in all cases, regardless of what the support-oppose ratio is. All percentage-based measurements would become irrelevent to the closing of RfAs. For instance, if an RfA gained 45% support, a bureaucrat could still theoretically close it as successful if the oppose rationales were extremely poor in comparison with the support rationales. Theoretically, this is already the case, but the de facto range is 70–75%. This proposal is suggesting that we expand the de facto range to encompass all percentages, and bureaucrats will be expected to weigh arguments and use discretion at all times.

Support C4Edit

  1. ...

Oppose C4Edit

  1. Oppose when I ran for cratship, it was made abundantly clear to me that crats were selected not based on their bold decision making, but on their rock-steady interpretation of consensus. (actually I was told I was not "boring enough", which is the nicest rejection I've ever gotten and something I cherish) This would ask the crats to do something that is basically the opposite of what they were elected to do. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose We need a body to review RFA consensus. Mkdwtalk 22:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose Unless there has been a massive abuse of sock puppets in an RFA, there is no reason why an editor who receives more opposes than supports should be given the mop.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 23:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose. See my comment on C3. Biblioworm 23:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. I oppose this as contrary to the concept of community consensus. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - In my view adminship is a big enough deal to need clear Community support. Just Chilling (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Incompatible with consensus as I see it. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. BethNaught (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, as too extreme. APerson (talk!) 15:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  10. In a way, I sort of agree with this, because I really do want discretion to always be used, regardless of the percentage. But I still think that having an explicit guidance is preferable. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, I prefer having a community identified minimum. — xaosflux Talk 21:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  12. Oppose there would have to be rather exceptional circumstances fir a close outside of the discretionary range, and even then it would start an almighty row. This option works better at venues such as AfD, but they tend to have fewer participants and more rigid standards than RfA does, both of which mean greater discretion makes more sense. Hut 8.5 22:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  13. Oppose as both voters and bureaucrats would be operating in a vacuum: Noyster (talk), 22:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. This is basically another way to propose the creation of Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Administrator, and that is something that should never be done. Administrators need the community's approval to be an administrator, not just the approval of one bureaucrat (since only they can assign admins.) Steel1943 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. Oppose while I trust the crats to use their discretion appropriately we (the community) need to give them guidelines by which to make their decision. I'm also concerned that the WMF wouldn't allow this as enough to be allowed to see deleted revisions. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 01:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. Oppose. "Discretion" just means that outcomes are decided by bureaucrats, not the community. There should be a fixed pass/fail threshold. Everyking (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per Peacemaker67. Banedon (talk) 05:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  18. Oppose Too much. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  19. Oppose - we operate by consensus, not absolute rules. Rlendog (talk) 14:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  20. Oppose per Guy Macon's comment below. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. Or is this perhaps a veiled proposal to to reduce the 'crats remit to simply making bot approvals? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  22. Oppose --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  23. Oppose BMK (talk) 02:01, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  24. Oppose - Getting rid of the RfA "threshold" entirely is a horrible idea, since it really would just come down to who the "crats" thought were "worthy enough" of adminship. Guy1890 (talk) 07:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  25. As above. There is a very real problem if a 'crat sees the need to close an RfA as successful when more than half of the community thinks they shouldn't be an admin. — Earwig talk 10:10, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  26. Oppose – There's simply too great a possibility that a fixed number could be gamed. A process like RFA needs human judgment in factoring out bad opposes/supports and gauging the strength of arguments. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  27. Oppose - God these are getting worse!, Abolishing this would lead to chaos and probably not much participation .–Davey2010Talk 03:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Comments on C4Edit

  • Abolishing the discretionary range completely is simply not possible. All you will do is make it an informal, poorly defined range. No RfA with 5% support will ever pass, and no RfA with 95% support will ever fail, no matter what you say the range is. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Aww, I was going to support this. In the spirit of keeping this closed, anyone who wishes to discuss can ping me, or visit my talk page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

D: High and undefined standardsEdit

D1: Upper limits on oppositionEdit

Closing per WP:SNOW. We will further discuss the issue of high standards at a later time, but this particular method will clearly not gain consensus. Biblioworm 16:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

D1: Upper limits on opposition

To fix the issue of high standards that often vary from person to person, we could set an upper limit on oppose votes of certain types. There are certain basic statistics considered in RfAs (tenure, total edit count, recent number of edits, and content creation). We would set the upper limit for one of these statistics at a certain point. If a candidate who runs for RfA meets or exceeds this upper limit, a participant could not oppose the candidate because of a perceived deficiency in that category. (It's not as complicated as it might sound.) For example, suppose that we set the upper limit for edit count at 10,000. (To reiterate, this upper limit is for opposers, not candidates.) After this, a candidate with 12,000 edits runs for adminship. In this case, someone could not oppose the candidate because they personally require 20,000 edits; the candidate exceeds the upper limit. As another example, suppose that we set the upper limit for content creation at 2 DYKs/1 GA. A candidate who has 3 DYKs runs for adminship, and therefore someone could not oppose the candidate because they think all candidates should have at least 1 FA, since the candidate exceeds the upper limit for content creation. In the event that a participant casts an invalid vote, it may be "flagged" as an invalid vote, and the user who cast it will be notified and given the opportunity to change it. If it is not changed, the bureaucrats will discount the vote.

Finally, two things should be noted about this proposal: (1) It would still be fine to support a candidate who does not meet or exceed the upper limit. The upper limit simply dictates the point beyond which someone could not oppose a candidate. If the upper limit for tenure is set at 1.5 years, someone could still support a candidate who has only 1 year of experience. However, in this case, someone could also oppose the candidate for not having enough experience, since they are below the upper limit. (2) These upper limits would not prevent participants from opposing candidates for an entirely different reason outside the basic statistics covered by the upper limit. For instance, even if a candidate exceeded all the upper limits on basic statistics, they could still be opposed because they're uncivil, were recently warned or had an article deleted, etc. These aspects of the candidate are not covered by upper limits.

We will discuss this general idea and also discuss what the upper limits should be. If you support or oppose the general idea, indicate your opinion in the proper sections for D1 below. Under D2, we will discuss what the upper limits should be. Editors should only support one limit for each category (tenure, edit count, recent edits, and content creation). For instance, under the "Tenure" section, you shouldn't support both the 1 year and 1.5 year proposals. If you support the idea of limits for that category but don't agree with any of the primary ones presented in the proposals, indicate your support under the "Support limit other than above" category and state what specific limit you support. If you oppose a limit for that particular category (e.g., you think that it should remain open to voters' discretion), place your opinion under the "Oppose limit for this category" section for each category. If the proposal for the general idea (D1) fails, then all proposals under D2 fail automatically as a result.

Support D1Edit

  1. support this general approach. There needs to be a point where an editor's oppose is considered unreasonable by the community and is adjusted to be a "comment". Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    Support. I'm convinced that the main problem at RfA is not the reasonable majority, but the loud, unreasonable minority. That is the group that sinks RfAs with their sometimes skillful wording and inflation of minor issues. Even if they don't cause the RfA to fail, they can still cause a good deal of disruption and trouble. I think they're the ones that give RfA a bad name and discourage otherwise good candidates from running. Biblioworm 01:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support as a great idea. APerson (talk!) 15:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Strong Support - difficult to enforce, but actually goes more to the heart of current Rfa issues than many other proposals. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support as this seems like a reasonable way to facilitate Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC#P: Discard or discount high-end oppose votes without picking a specific criterion to discount right off the bat. If one's criteria are far beyond the community consensus, they're asking the new admins to jump through unreasonable hoops, which is not actually helping. RfA is not a competition for the best Wikipedian, it's just a process to get more trusty janitors. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  5. Sort of support This is articulated in an odd way. I would say that I want some baseline objective criteria assigned to people passing RfA. I attempted to write one criteria at User:Bluerasberry/userpage standards. It is not enough to judge a candidate, but it is something objective, and something about which I care. Other people may not feel that this criteria is important, but at least it is a clear objective assessment that could be used to judge a candidate. I would like to see more objective rankings of candidates being cited as reasons for passing or failing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Oppose D1Edit

  1. Oppose. Regular RFA voters have wildly different understandings of what a 'reasonable' amount is when it comes to criteria, (see the arguments over 'content contribution' for example as to how much/how little) - so setting upper limits is not going to work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Strong oppose. Let each participant define her or his own standards; don't preemptively dictate them. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. After considering this, I no longer think it's a good idea. It is too arbitrary and has too many potential loopholes. Hammersoft's comments are rather...strongly worded, to say the least, but he does make good points. Biblioworm 21:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Biblioworm beat me to that sentiment. — xaosflux Talk 21:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose Those looking for a statistical reason to oppose a candidate would find one not yet listed: already we've had "too high % of automated edits" and "too high % of edits in user talk namespace", not to mention "too low number of years since birth". Then these statistics would have to be added to the list, which in time would grow to infinite size: Noyster (talk), 22:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC) Oh of course and the % "correct" AfD votes, a statistic often criticised but still gets trotted out: Noyster (talk), 12:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose In practice, this is going to be a pain to implement. There will almost certainty be exceptional cases where its reasonable to oppose despite someone falling above an upper limit. Additionally, almost any oppose vote is going to have reasons beside the one that violates the upper limit. I foresee endless bickering about whether IAR can be applied to any given vote, or whether an oppose vote should be allowed to stand. This policy will be unwieldy to implement, and will be open to exploitation for the reasons listed above. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 22:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. Oppose. Every editor is entitled to their reasonings for opposing or supporting, regardless if it is redundant to the reason why someone else voted the way they did. Steel1943 (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Anyone who is able to vote should also be able to vote freely for whatever reason they wish. Everyking (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose - as above. Neutralitytalk 04:47, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. Weak oppose. If the community agrees that something which can be measured objectively is desirable in all admins, then a specific bar could be set. However the community must agree, and this is a difficult thing. For example, take the number of edits a candidate has made. It's easy to set an objective limit for this statistic. However if not everyone agrees that this statistic should matter in the first place, then things become complicated. Suppose a 70-30 majority thinks that number of edits does not matter. Someone in the 30% minority then would be forced to support a candidate even if if he or she feels the candidate has not made enough edits. It's arguable that this is a good thing, but consider the possibility of consensus changing in the future. There's a good chance a chunk of the 30% minority would give up the process as broken and stop participating in RfAs. It becomes very difficult to reform the process then, since only those who think edit count should not matter remain. Instead we might see someone start a discussion every other week about how edit count should matter, only to be near-unanimously opposed every time. That will only make RfAs more unwelcoming and stagnant. I will say though that these are my first impressions, and can be convinced otherwise. Banedon (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Gaining adminship is about showing community trust, and members of the community have individual concerns. We should not disregard them lightly. Putting in a rule that opposes are invalid on certain grounds is a bad idea, and would be ineffective, as you won't change the vote, just the stated reason. Just wait for a few opposes to accumulate, look for a likely one, and it's "per SoAndSo". Pointless and less than wise. Please take this as opposing each individual sub vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. Oppose - per Wehwalt and others. Rlendog (talk) 14:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  13. Oppose after considerable thought. I personally get annoyed/frustrated by some people's criteria for opposing; most of us have never created an FA, for example, and I thought it was massively unfair that a recent RfA failed largely because of opposition based on the candidates's age. But I have become convinced that any attempt to set up criteria for what is and isn't a valid "oppose" reason is doomed to failure and unintended consequences. --MelanieN (talk) 14:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  14. Oppose but for various reasons (and this is what comes of having an RfC with far too many sections, sub-sections, and sub-sub sections, so I'mj answering everything here so see my comments in the comments section. - again ::sigh:: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    Indeed... — Earwig talk 10:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. Absolutely not - Not only am I adamantly opposed to the idea of being told why I'm allowed to oppose someone, if this is put into effect, I will simply lie about my reasons, thus demonstrating how ridiculously easy it is to Wikilawyer this silly idea away. BMK (talk) 02:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. Oppose - I think an RfA commenter should be able to decide how & why to support or oppose a particular candidate at RfA. As long as those commenters are explicit as to why they are "voting" a particular way at RfA, I trust that the "crats" can sort out the obvious "votes" that can be discarded. Guy1890 (talk) 07:36, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  17. I can't see this as helping; you are alienating people with real and reasoned opinions. RfA is not an AfD-style analysis of whether an article belongs here by policy and guidelines, where setting standards on what kinds of arguments are allowed makes sense. It's a test of whether people trust you. If they don't for whatever reason, discounting their opinion doesn't make you a good admin, it means you have no mandate. BMK has a good point as well. — Earwig talk 10:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  18. Oppose I believe the other opposes have covered all the problems I see with placing RfA !voters in a little box and giving them less discretion.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  19. Oppose Unenforceable and unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcsprinter123 (talkcontribs) 16:08, 3 December 2015‎ (UTC)
  20. Oppose. Frankly, this is telling people how they should think. SpinningSpark 16:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  21. Oppose – I don't think we should be in the business of telling editors that their opinions are automatically invalid. For example, an oppose based on lack of FAs/GAs can be appropriate for one candidate and completely ridiculous for another, based on what else they have done. As long as opposes based on numbers are backed by common sense, I see no reason why they should not be permitted. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:41, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  22. People should be allowed to have the freedom of opposing or supporting based on their rationales—UY Scuti Talk 08:19, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  23. Oppose - We all judge candidates in different ways, This to be honest would never work here. –Davey2010Talk 04:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  24. Oppose In theory a great idea, but in practice, it would be a complete mess. This policy would be so damn complicated, no matter what standard is chosen, that no one would know what the hell is going on. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  25. Too complicated.  Sandstein  09:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  26. Oppose - Honestly, if someone (say, me) who would make an entirely unsuitable admin runs anyway and attracts strong opposition, that's the way it works - why ask people their opinions at ALL if you're going to cherry-pick for "support" votes? I can't imagine anyone whose candidacy for adminship provoked N+1 oppose votes being less hurt receiving N oppose votes. It's also a helpful cue to the bureaucrats determining whether their discretion ought to be used to admin someone if numerous other editors think that's an issue.
    I think that this sort of weighting ought to fall under the discretionary limits discussed above. That way, the reasonableness of limits being used as a criterion for admin status could be addressed by bureaucrats, who may be best qualified to determine whether a given oppose vote has any validity, while still giving the editors who'll have to deal with the proposed admin preponderant say. loupgarous (talk) 17:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  27. Oppose Experience and trust are not quantifiable yet the primary metric of RFA. People who can't oppose for edit counts would simply oppose over "lack of experience". We would essentially end up with misleading work around discussions. Mkdwtalk 19:20, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  28. Oppose I'm not a big fan of opposes based on a user's ability to meet an arbitrary standard on edit count or number of articles created or participation in GA/FA etc. That said, the problem with spelling out the unacceptability of these opposes will just mean that people who wish to oppose on that basis find a non-quantifiable reason to oppose. If they look at a candidate and say "well, he doesn't have 5 GAs like I think he should", they'll instead just write "unsure about candidate's ability to be trusted with admin tools" or some other very vague oppose. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  29. Oppose, various editor's standards are so diverse that it will be practically impossible to agree on a particular figure. Editcountitis and other meaningless metrics being used as a substitute for assessing an editor's contributions is the problem here, and the solution shouldn't be just adding more of that nonsense. I also suspect this would be impossible to enforce. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC).
  30. Oppose This will incentivize opposers to present pretextual rationales for their opposition, which will degrade the quality of the discussion and inhibit the bureaucrats' ability to accurately gauge community consensus. - Nellis 16:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
  31. Oppose per BMK and others above. Unreasonable.Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  32. Oppose - unreasonable and unsustainable. If we want to define minimum standards for admins, this isn't the way to do it. This is a way to guarantee opposition to perfectly suitable candidates for mindlessly bureaucratic reasons. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  33. Oppose Absolutely absurd. Coretheapple (talk) 21:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  34. Oppose no rationale for this whatsoever. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  35. Oppose on the grounds that it's a bit illogical. If someone is going to oppose a candidate based on some irrelevant or illogical criteria like article edit count then they need to be willing and able to defend their oppose should someone criticise it. Not to mention enforcement of this is going to edge on the boundary of "never". —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 09:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  36. Oppose Clearly the nom doesn't get it. This is a political issue. It doesn't matter if stupid voters are hung up on some albatross; they're the voters. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)


Comments on D1Edit

  • We should befine these limits but still allow all opposition. Opposes based on reasons that should normally be ignored because the community already decided it's an invalid reason should be flagged by clerks (or, if there are no clerks, any participant) and the opposer notified that his oppose is likely to be treated as merely a comment unless he can provide a compelling arguement or rephase the oppose so that the reason is something else, like changing "too few recent article edits" to "only 100 article-space edits in last 6 months if you ignore the 5 articles he has edited thousands of times each". In short: 1) Let people's "invalid" opposes count as if they were comments, and 2) notify them so they can reword their "oppose" so it is no longer "invalid". davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Procedural comment Please add "support limit other than above", "oppose limits for this category", and "comments for this category" for each of the proposed-limit categories. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
    • The proposal is by no means finished yet; it's admittedly rather disorganized at the moment and I was just getting my thoughts down before I forgot them. I'll implement your suggestions and make several improvements I was thinking about. --Biblioworm 23:07, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I find that separating the "is this the right question? Is it worded well?" phase from the "do you support? Do you oppose?" phase works a lot better. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I already see one comment here implying that rather than a restriction on oppose voting, we are actually going to end up with a set of de-facto minimum standards for candidates. How are we going to avoid these standards turning into such a minimum? RFA is already too focused on box checking, and this seems as if it will reinforce just that. Is there a way around it? (Personally, I like the idea that a candidate can be deficient in one area, but make up for it with strong qualifications in other areas, rather than being forced to get the boxes checked) Monty845 03:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
What Monty just said is the actual problem: these will become the minimum limits. DGG ( talk ) 20:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  • After re-visiting this proposal, I see that it has some serious loopholes. As others have mentioned, these may become the de facto minimum standards, and I don't want that. Unfortunately, this proposal was really the best I could think of at the time, but (as many know) it's hard for a person to see problems with something they propose or write until others with fresh minds start pointing out the problems with it. Thus, I'll have to reconsider my support for this particular method of addressing the issue of high standards. But this really is a problem at RfA, and a majority of community members agree with me per the previous RfC. It's a loud minority that wants really high standards, and they complain that if the candidate isn't almost flawless as they demand, he will be an abusive and bad admin. However, evidence does not support this assertion. So, the question comes up: how do we address this problem effectively? Do we start questioning arbitrary and/or unreasonable oppose !votes more? I'd like to hear suggestions from others, some of which could perhaps be discussed in more detail in the future. Biblioworm 20:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I don't think anyone doubts that this tries to adress a very real issue, but no matter what we do there will always be unreasonable people who have unreasonably high standards, and egotistical people who think that the boilerplate questions they have developed are the only true barometer of whether someone is ready for adminship. I really think the only way to lessen the influence of these persons is to lower the percentage required for passing so that they aren't able to sink a good candidate who doesn't meet their arbitrary thresholds or give absolutely perfect answers to their question spam. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Do we not want minimum standards? It seems to me that there was weak support for some kind of minimum criteria, with users continuing to be free to set their own higher standards. At least in that case, we can say to obviously unsuitable candidates "it's too soon" (which we already do), but also we can say to those users with unreasonably high standards that their standards are unreasonably high. A user who opposes because a candidate doesn't have 300,000 mainspace edits should have their vote discounted, but I don't think setting an "upper oppose limit" is quite the right way to implement this. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 21:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Per Beeblebrox, and to repeat myself again: )I don't know of any real instance where a broadening of the discretionary range (i.e. lowering it) would have helped except to have passed some very borderline RfA which I would have voted 'oppose' on anyway. With few exceptions, those close call cases were decided upon by 'crat chats, and isn't that what we have the 'crats for? Furthermore, and most importantly, we must try not to constantly confuse the pass mark (discretionary range) with 'standards' set by the voter;, that bar is set anew at each RfA depending on who turns out to vote. More should be done to convince such voters that their criteria are inappropriately high. To cite a hypothetical example, while it may be true that the average number of edits by successful users may be around 30,000, (averages are are misleading figures arrived at from the lowest and the highest values) where most users recommend a minimum of around 6,000 edits, it's ridiculous to insist that all candidates should have 30,000. Likewise voters who insist on FA and GA as proof of competence for content work. Such votes are included in the tally, and it is quite possible that they are not discounted by the closing 'crat. WP:RFAADVICE deliberately does not tell or suggest prospective candidates what values of experience or activity they should have, but lists instead enough examples of voters' criteria to give them a good idea. Before changing the discretionary rage therefore, we should also perhaps be considering making an official guideline of the minimums desired requirements for adminship. Emphasis on guideline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The options are badly worded. "Oppose limit on this category" doesn't describe the option correctly, and it sounds like at least some people are interpreting it to mean "I oppose setting any restrictions on RfA candidates on this category" while others are interpreting it to mean "I oppose setting any restriction on RfA voters on this category". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

D1.1: Determining the upper limitsEdit

In this section, we will discuss what the upper limit should be. Only supports are allowed in the D2 section, and assuming that D1 passes, the proposals that obtain the most supporters in this section will pass. (If D1 fails, all proposals in this section automatically fail as well, since the general idea behind these more specific proposals did not pass.) Please support only one proposal in each category (D1.1.1, D1.1.2, D1.1.3, and D1.1.4).

D1.1.1: TenureEdit

Tenure is defined as the total amount of time one has been on Wikipedia, starting at the point of the candidate's first edit. The primary options for this proposal are: (1): 1 year; (2): 1.5 years; (3): 2 years. (If you support a different limit, place your !vote in the "Support limit other than above" section and specify which limit you support.) If you support one of the primary options listed above, please place your !vote under the "Support limit for this category" section and indicate which one you support in your !vote (Example: "Support option (1).")

Support limit for this category (D1.1.1)Edit
  1. support option (1). A simple minimum that, when combined with other minimum limits, will ensure overall familiarity with WP. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    Support option (1). A year is quite enough, in my opinion. Biblioworm 01:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support (1). The current practical criteria is actually "one year of active editing", for all intents and purposes. --IJBall (contribstalk) 22:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Support option (3). I would oppose anybody with less than three years editing (looking at the person, not the user account, because they could've had old accounts or used IPs at first), so why not take them out straight away? Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  4. Support option 3 - I always look for candidates who've been here over 2 years (I believe being under a year means more or less you're inexperienced atm), The opposes make some valid points but as I said I do look for a 2+ year tenure so have to stick myself here. –Davey2010Talk 04:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Support limit other than above (D2.1.1)Edit
  1. ...
Oppose limit for this category (D2.1.1)Edit
  1. Oppose. Some editors do not register until they feel the need to. There are plenty of editors who have been less than 6 months as a registered user that can waltz over some who have been registered for years. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose because I oppose the concept in general. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I can only judge by myself. I had 8 months of activity at the time. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose as face-palmingly bad idea. There's no way to determine a person's cluefulness based on how long they've been here. Plus, there's serious slippery slope issues. Such suggestions have been shot down on that alone. Absolutely NO. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I no longer support this general idea. Biblioworm 21:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose We do not need a rule for this; community discussion is more then able to determine if someone is sufficiently experienced. — xaosflux Talk 21:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. Oppose wisdom =/= age Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Length of tenure is possibly one of the worst criteria. Looking at pie charts, one will see that I for example, hardly edited at all for the first few years after registering, and you can be sure that for very occasionally looking stuff up, I hardly ever looked at Wikipedia during that time. Before I registered, I made a few very minor corrections on the fly as an IP, but I would never expect that to count either. That said, I look for a reasonable balance in the spacing and pacing of edits over at least 1 year. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose BMK (talk)
  10. No. Good admins have come after editing for six months, and having registered for years wouldn't make you a good admin if you aren't engaged. — Earwig talk 10:15, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. Per Kudpung—UY Scuti Talk 08:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. Oppose (most of the above make points I agree with) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. Time spent on Wikipedia doesn't mean much in terms of whether someone is familiar enough with Wikipedia policy to be given the bit. They need to be judged not on how long they've been around but on how much they know of policy. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 09:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments for this category (D2.1.1)Edit
  • "Tenure" may be a questionable concept. "1 year" is defined here as "registered 12 months ago," but it can also mean "has been actively editing for the past 12 months". I have certainly seen people Oppose because the candidate had a significant gap in editing during the most recent 12 months, and that may be a valid criterion. Am I interpreting correctly, that such Oppose !votes would not be forbidden under this criterion - that this is only about how long ago the candidate registered? --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    D2.1.3 is relevant. It is specifically about recent edits over a particular timespan, not just over that person's general time here. Biblioworm 00:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    Thank you. Category .1.3 makes it clearer. --MelanieN (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
D1.1.2: Total edit countEdit

Total edit count is defined as the total amount of edits a candidate has performed since they began editing Wikipedia. The primary options for this proposal are: (1): 5,000; (2): 7,500; (3): 10,000; (4): 15,000. (If you support a different limit, place your !vote in the "Support limit other than above" section and specify which limit you support.) If you support one of the primary options listed above, please place your !vote under the "Support limit for this category" section and indicate which one you support in your !vote (Example: "Support option (1).")

Support limit for this category (D1.1.2)Edit
  1. support option (1) 5,000 edits in a year is reasonable. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:07, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    Support option (2). Option one is perhaps slightly too low, but I think 3 and 4 are too high. I don't see any reason to oppose a candidate with more than 7,500 edits because of "low edit count". That's plenty of edits, and takes more effort and time than some people realize. Biblioworm 01:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    Support option (1). Personally I prefer to see 10,000 edits, but many fine admins have passed RfA with fewer, so I think "oppose because I want to see more edits" should set a fairly low bar. BTW this limit would not prevent a commenter from saying "oppose because most of their edits have been automated". --MelanieN (talk) 15:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC) I no longer support the concept. --MelanieN (talk) 05:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support option (2) - the way it used to be. That's manual edits only. Johnbod (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Support limit other than above (D1.1.2)Edit
Support but lower, perhaps 1000, including edits on any other project. — xaosflux Talk 21:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose limit for this category (D1.1.2)Edit
  1. Oppose. Quantity != Quality. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    But ... if anyone protests a candidate because they don't have N edits, and you oppose such protests, shouldn't you really say that you want the limit for this category to be 0? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose because I oppose the concept in general. Plus, there is no particular virtue in huge numbers of bot-like edits. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose. If we were to actually set a minim, all these would be too high. In practice nobody with very few edits (say, under 1,000) does get eleted, and most are closed early, but this is something to evaluate case by case. as we now do it. DGG ( talk ) 19:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Slippery slop and slippery slope arguments. The proposal is slop and we'll badly slip on it. Set it at X edits now, and it will be X + 1000 in 6 months. X + 10000 in three years. Hell no. I would never support this. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I no longer support the general idea. Biblioworm 21:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose. I look for a reasonable balance in the kind of edits, That determines for me what the edit count is worth on a case-by-case basis. It's unlikely that I would supporta candidate with less than around 6,000 edits but there mat be some extraordinary reason to support one who only has 3,000.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
    But this isn't a question of whether you're allowed to support someone that has less than the limit, it's a question of whether you're allowed to require a limit. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  7. Oppose BMK (talk) 02:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Oppose Changed from limited support) We don't need a rule that automatically rejects input. — xaosflux Talk 05:11, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. 20,000 automated AWB/Twinkle edits are far easier to make—and say far less about you—than 2,000 very well-considered content and discussion edits. No on this one. — Earwig talk 10:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. Oppose More edits often indicates better candidates, but there's no hard numbers which can be set in stone for RfA. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. Number of edits don't really determine if one is worthy to be an admin, while the quality does. It's not as if people with low number of edits are getting elected. —UY Scuti Talk 08:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. Oppose An editor can spend 10 years of his (her) life on Wikipedia making 100 edits a day creating stubs, making new categories, recategorizing articles (they could spend weeks on Category:Lamiinae - random comment) and easily step over any barrier, yet have no knowledge of Wikipedia other than those three regions. Another editor could spend ten years making 2000 edits total but in each edit, creating a B-class article or solving a major problem. But that one will be restricted. Bad rule. Gug01 (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  13. Oppose - Edit count's not a problem, I mean if it's over 1 than I'm happy Face-grin.svg. –Davey2010Talk 04:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per Gug01 above. loupgarous (talk) 16:56, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. Oppose absolutely, per Gug01 -- the majority of my first several thousand edits were well-researched significant article expansions. Then I got an automated vandalism reversion tool and doubled that count in a few weeks. The former were way more important to the encyclopedia. Oppose edit counts as a shortcut for almost everything. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per preceding. Also per Gug01 Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Editing and admin tool use require different skillsets. This is like judging a football player on his ability to hit a home run. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 09:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments for this category (D1.1.2)Edit
D1.1.3: Recent number of editsEdit

This proposal is different from D2.1, since these proposals concern the amount of recent edits, not the total. If a candidate meets or exceeds the number the upper limit for this category, they may not be opposed because of "lack of recent experience." The primary options for this proposal are: (1) 300 edits in the past 6 months (avg. 50 edits/month); (2): 600 edits in the past year (avg. 50 edits/month); (3): 600 edits in the past 6 months (avg. 100 edits/month); (4): 1200 edits in the past year (avg. 100 edits/month). (If you support a different limit, place your !vote in the "Support limit other than above" section and specify which limit you support.) If you support one of the primary options listed above, please place your !vote under the "Support limit for this category" section and indicate which one you support in your !vote (Example: "Support option (1).")

Support limit for this category (D1.1.3)Edit
Support option (4). I think anyone who has made 1200 edits over the past year should be exempt from complaints of "not enough recent experience". That's an average of about 100 edits per month, which is reasonable for an admin candidate. Biblioworm 01:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Support limit other than above (D1.1.3)Edit
  1. support 5000 edits in last year, we have to allow for automated editing. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    Comment: if you are going to let people require 5000 edits in the past year, you are going to exclude a lot of current admins including me. For people who DON'T use automated edits, that pace would be extremely demanding. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    This is only relevant for a candidate that has only been on WP for only one year. The question skews the response IMO. I believe you need a minimum of a year on WP, and if you only had one year, I believe you need a minimum of 5,000 edits in that year. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 21:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Oppose limit for this category (D1.1.3)Edit
  1. Oppose. Quantity != Quality. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose for the same reasons as I said immediately above. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose People with very few recent edits do not get elected, and most close early, butthis should be a case to case decision, as now. It matters very much just what sort of edits they are, not just the count. DGG ( talk ) 19:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Just a bad idea in general. How in hell do you judge 100 edits of one editor as being equal to 100 edits of another editor? You can't. It's impossible. Yet, this is precisely what these sorts of proposals do. <censored> no. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I no longer support the general idea. Biblioworm 21:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Oppose No, not a good indicator of experience or not, could have made entire new articles with single edits for example. — xaosflux Talk 21:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. I look for a reasonable balance in the kind of edits, That determines for me what the edit count is worth on a case-by-case basis. It's unlikely that I would supporta candidate with less than around 6,000 edits but there mat be some extraordinary reason to support one who only has 3,000 Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  8. Oppose BMK (talk)
  9. Per above. Says almost nothing about the editor. — Earwig talk 10:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. Oppose per my comment directly above. –Davey2010Talk 04:10, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. Oppose Just because one has a large number of recent edits doesn't mean they'll be in it for the long haul. If anything, it means that there's an article on a current event that strikes their fancy. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 09:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments for this category (D1.1.3)Edit
  • I think that this is directly related to the length of time, total number of edits and content creation. If someone had more time, more overall edits and more content creation than the minimums, this could go down to 1,200 edits in the last year, but given I've supported a minimum of one year, I feel 5,000 edits should be the minimum number of edits in that year for such a candidate. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:17, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
D1.1.4: Content creationEdit

These proposals are about how much content the candidate has created and its relevance to RfA. The primary options for this proposal are: (1): No content; (2): [X] non-stub article(s) created/expanded (In other words, candidates will be exempt from content-related opposition if they create a certain amount of non-stub articles, regardless of whether or not it's recognized content; if you support this proposal, indicate what limit you support. Example: "Support proposal (2) with a limit of two articles."); (3): 2 DYKs or 1 GA; (4): 2 GAs or 1 FA. (If you support a different limit, place your !vote in the "Support limit other than above" section and specify which limit you support.) If you support one of the primary options listed above, please place your !vote under the "Support limit for this category" section and indicate which one you support in your !vote (Example: "Support option (1).")

Support limit for this category (D1.1.4)Edit
  1. support option (4), this is essential to understand content creation. 2 GAs isn't much to ask really. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
    Support option (2), with a limit of two articles. I don't think a person who has created or considerably expanded two substantial articles (regardless of whether or not they're GAs/FAs) should have to deal with complaints of "not enough content creation". Biblioworm 01:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Support option (2), with a limit of one rounded, fully sourced article. We need admins who will contribute in different ways to Wikipedia and shouldn't eliminate those who will make a great contribution in ways other than content creation. However, because admins delete other editors' work it is important that they appreciate just how hard content creation is. Also admins should be able to write and source up a full article even if they don't intend to do much of it. Just Chilling (talk) 04:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Support limit other than above (D1.1.4)Edit
  1. ...
Oppose limit for this category (D1.1.4)Edit
  1. Oppose. Content creation is not always a useful indicator. Also depending on the area the admin tends to work in, it may be entirely unrelated to what they intend to do. While it is *useful* to have admins skilled in everything, not everyone can be a generalist, and frankly you cant make an admin do work in an area they dont want to. Setting a limit just makes another hoop for prospective admins to jump through, the point of the RFA is to reduce the hassle and increase the likelyhood of passing RFA, not introduce more criteria which are required to pass. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  2. Oppose. As much as I think that some editors do indeed set overly rigid criteria regarding GAs and FAs, let them do it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  3. Oppose I had no GAs and never intend to have any, because I work with improving/removing the lowest stratum. Admins are here to deal with the problems, not the GAs. This is to a lesser degree true of article creation. I have frequently argued that some experience at this is desirable, to see what mew contributors have to deal with, but it shouldn't be an actual requirement. But I also oppose admins who work only on content creation and show no interest in anything else, because they do not need the tools and have no experience with the problems which can arise. I'd even be prepared to argue that anyone who can produce multiple GAs andespecially FA's would best serve the encycopedia by creating more of them. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  4. Oppose Bad idea. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I no longer support the general idea. Biblioworm 21:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  6. Strong Oppose no way. — xaosflux Talk 21:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  7. It goes without saying that I Oppose this, esp. (2) as certain topics only lend themselves to the creation of a Stub article (and I can think of more than one type of article where this is true...). --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
  9. Oppose BMK (talk) 02:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  10. No, sorry. DGG (as usual) makes a very good point. Arbitrary goalposts solve nothing — Earwig talk 10:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  11. Strong Oppose per DGG's points. I've got no interest in trying to move "my" articles to GA or FA status because I'm not willing to exercise that much ownership to protect my work from changes. I prefer cleanup and broad planning of how articles should fit together. Legacypac (talk) 01:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  12. Every single contribution to Wikipedia is valuable. While GAs and FAs can account for their dedication, never should it be a criteria for becoming an admin. On a lighter note, admins have a helluva lot of other works to do. —UY Scuti Talk 08:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  13. Strong Oppose I would hate a lack of content creation to count against anyone willing to wield a mop, it would create an inappropriate bar for those that may not be creative but are good at following, discussing, understanding and applying rules, procedures and guidelines. As for requiring GAs on top, that is, frankly, ridiculous! Stephenb (Talk) 18:22, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  14. Oppose - I know editors here will agree with this but IMHO I don't believe you need to create content or have FA/GAs to be an admin, I mean if you can delete an article and not cause a nuclear disaster then you'll be fine as an admin. –Davey2010Talk 04:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
    Davey2010: Everybody on Earth could delete an article without causing a nuclear disaster, so your criterion is rubbish and extreme. It's about judgement of competency and trust. Rcsprinter123 (engage) 18:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  15. Oppose This is going too far. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 10:52, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
  16. Oppose there is no consensus on this and setting a limit not good. It is not a consensus that content-building is a part of adminship, and people who feel it should be can vote oppose at the time. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. Content creation is generally irrelevant to one's ability to use the tools. At best all it shows is that they know how to write articles. Writing an article and performing admin tasks use completely separate skillsets. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 09:05, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments for this category (D1.1.4)Edit

As worded, "created/expanded" is given lip service but only "created it all" or "created most of it from a stub" really count. A Wikignome who rewrites one paragraph on each of 10,000 articles and does a great job of it is counted as less of a contributor than someone who creates 7 GAs and 3 FAs. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

That is absolutely true, in my experience. A good chunk of my recent activity has actually been trying to get BLP Stubs -> Start-class, and Starts -> C-class, but I'm pretty sure this kind of thing is discounted in favor of the GA, A-class, FA "content creation" stuff. --IJBall (contribstalk) 23:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I would even argue that bringing a really bad article up to C class is more valuable than bringing a C class up to A class or GA. Yet, according to multiple RfA voters, the former doesn't show admin potential while the latter does. I would argue that experience mediating disputes at WP:DRN would be a better indicator of admin potential than either, but no DRN volunteer mediator will ever become an admin, because attempting to resolve conflicts between users creates enemies of the sort who consider any disagreement a personal affront and consider it their duty and obligation to "expose" the person they fixate on. It's kind of pathetic, but they can't quite seem to figure out why no one else sees their actions as heroic. This is the same reason why no sane admin wants to go through RfA again. 90% of them would lose because of the enemies they have made while doing their job, Remember, It takes three support votes to counter one oppose vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
This is absolutely true,Guy, and it's what I've been saying for years, but as long as up to 50% of the voters on an RfA are there for the fun of a MMORPG, and as long as the community deliberately allows RfA to be the one venue where PA and disingenus comments are overtly welcomed with impunity, nothing will change. But this is where the community buries its head in the sand because it doesn't want to lose its playground. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:28, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
"Imagine a model for building an encyclopedia where all the editors are carefully vetted up front before being allowed to write. We called it Nupedia. It failed. What we learned from that is that for things which are reversible, it's better to be open. It's better to give people a shot, because they'll generally do good work and they'll learn as they go. Another thing that we learned is that the vetting process didn't really work at finding good writers and excluding bad ones.
Now look at how we manage the admin process. Everyone is so carefully vetted up front before being allowed the admin tools. And guess what? For things that are reversible, it's better to be open. It's better to give people a shot, because they'll generally do good work and they'll learn as they go. And the vetting process we use very likely selects for some wrong things, i.e. it doesn't necessarily really work at finding good admins and excluding bad ones.
I think admin rights should be much more easy come and easy go." --Jimbo Wales, 9 December 2015

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.