Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC

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

NOTICE: This 30-day RfC, which began at 00:00, 15 October 2015, has ended. Please do not cast any additional votes.

Closing Statement

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.

I'm closing this following a request from the RFC closure board. Firstly a comment; this discussion has contribution from a lot of people; nearly 200 in fact. That's pretty good going for a community RFC! Further down the page I see a bit of dis-enfranchisement with this RFC, and the feeling that there is an expectation of a Rubber Stamp on the result. I think that's unfair on the people who contributed a lot of time and effort - so I intend to write out a proper close that does your contributions justice.

Clear consensus

The discussion shows clear consensus on the following questions:

C: Hostile environment
D: More participants
I: Ease the load on admins
O: The discretionary range is too narrow

The community clearly believes that admins need more clear support from experienced editors and should brainstorm on how to do this. It's also clear that the community thinks that the RFA process is becoming a bit of a walled garden; improving the engagement of the wider editorship and the general attitude during an RFA will encourage more good candidates to step forward. The "discretionary range" question was closer, perhaps ironically falling short of the current discretionary range... I think it's safe to say the community consensus is that the range could be raised (to 80, for example) but that lowering it would be more contentious (although still well supported).

Mixed Results

A: High standards

This was very close, with good discussion on both sides. A very large part of the community does feel that standards are too high - particularly looking for lots of non-Admin activities (which they hold to be unrelated). Opposition argued that it was important to have some standards and a significant portion of the opposition affirmed their support for strict standards. However, a good portion of the opposition talked about the vagueness of the question and in some cases even lightly supported the idea of some defined standards. It's likely that some well worded proposals in the next phase will find consensus, so I think this is valid to pass to the next phase.

B: Undefined standards

Broadly, I think that the community supports the idea of some standards for potential Admin candidates RFA. In the discussion two formats were discussed: minimum standards before RFA can be attempted and guideline standards to help during votes. Opposition to these ideas was mixed; but the overriding concern was that a) the only real standard was that a user could be trusted and b) that any guidelines would risk becoming discriminatory. All valid concerns. I think it's fair to say this question "passed" too and that proposals based on this question would be worth having in the next stage.

E: Difficult to remove admins

A complex discussion that needs discussing in the next phase - but with care. The community is interested in revising the RFA process, that is clear, but it is less certain it want's to implement community Adminship removal as part of that. According to my reading of this discussion, it would possibly be an overreach of this process to try and implement that during the later phases.

F: Unbundle the tools

This is a perennial discussion. In this case it was phrased as follows: "Currently, it is too difficult for candidates to pass because they are being trusted with a large toolset. If we unbundled the tools, candidates could simply apply for the particular right(s) which they would personally find most useful and/or have the most non-admin experience in." The wording is important because it's effectively asking the question; "Should we consider unbundling options in the next phase as an option for improving RFA". The consensus here seems broadly to be "no". At this stage it's probably not worth proceeding with this line of thought in Phase 2.

J: Oppose votes carry too much weight

This is a specific variation of O (I appreciate O came later). As it stands I think the community consensus is against this question, but elements of it may be relevant in Phase 2 in relation to O.

M: Active clerking at RFA

This was a nuanced discussion. I think the community would like to discuss the idea of clerking at the next stage of the RFC. The valid concerns are that it would lead to stifling of discussion and force !votes to be less candid. So these are things to look out for in the next phase.

P: Discard or discount high-end oppose votes

This is a specific variation of A. I think it's no consensus at this point, and one of the more hot button topics. It's unresolved really in this discussion and might benefit from careful incorporation into the next phase.

Clear Opposition

G: RfA should be replaced
H: Leave as is

These two questions are interesting; whilst there is clearly no appetite in the community to completely scrap the RFA process, it's also fairly uncontroversial to say that the current implementation of the process doesn't work.

K: Allow limited-charter RFAs
L: Minimum requirements for voters
N. Determine granting of adminship based on consensus of pros and cons

Most of the remaining failed proposals were more specific ideas/changes. Which got quite a bit of opposition on those grounds (this being a broad overview process). There was a lot of valid opposition too, it's worth adding. Some of the ideas and concepts from these proposals might be supported or revisited in later parts of the process.

Summary

7 items passed through to the next stage. One item is in the "discretionary/advisory" range where I suggest that, based on community comments, care is taken if incorporating into Phase 2. The remainder of the questions failed to attain consensus to move on to Phase 2.

Passed: A, B, C, D, I, M and O Discretionary: E

I hope everyone finds this close acceptable and complete. I've tried to be, as requested, as lenient as possible in pushing through items. But applied common sense in terms of topics that clearly would have no use in the next phase. Item E is really up to you, there's not enough there to judge if it would be beneficial or problematic to use in the next phase. Please let me know if you have any queries or concerns. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Introduction

Purpose

The intent of this RfC is to broadly identify the problem(s) with our administrator election process. As was mentioned just now, we are focusing on broad issues here. Assuming that any of these issues obtain consensus (as described in the "Instructions for closers" section), there will likely be a second RfC that will follow this one, so that we can narrow our range of focus and expand on the issues discussed here.

Instructions for voters

There are eight proposals to start with, but additional proposals may be added. (Note: Please do not add duplicate proposals.) Editors are to support, oppose, or simply comment on (in the "Comments" section) the proposals accordingly. To represent the highest level of consensus possible, participants are encouraged to vote on as many proposals as they are able.

Instructions for closers

The completely uninvolved closer(s) shall have the discretion to determine which proposals attained consensus. They should, however, be lenient when determining which proposals should advance to formal consideration, since it would be beneficial to discuss as many potential issues as possible (except those which clearly did not attain consensus).

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.

Voting

A: High standards

Participants at RfA generally expect too much of candidates (e.g., have excessively strict criteria). Those who !vote at RfA should lower their expectations and understand that the majority of candidates will be less than perfect.

Support A

Support The current expectations of !voters are unrealistic. Several years of experience, tens of thousands of edits, accurate participation in all admin areas, the right "hit rate" at AfD. It's nonsense. My idea of the right admin candidate is simple: the candidate has been around for a time (about 9 months to a year), shows no signs of habitually making personal attacks, and has demonstrated knowledge of basic policies. Some oppose for extremely petty reasons not grounded in policy. We were much less strict previous years, and Wikipedia didn't plunge into ruin. --Biblioworm 00:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – in general, I find this to be true. The most extreme version of this is those voters who have already expected candidates to have participated in virtually every facet of the project before supporting for RfA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perfection is impossible. 100s and 100s of good edits, and an opposer will pin point one bad CSD or AfD nomination. That doesn't really make sense. And the next thing is asking for GAs and FAs. It should be understood that not all editors are native or professional English speakers and it is hard for non-native or non-professional English speakers to promote articles to GAs or FAs. Plus less or no content creations doesn't necessarily mean they have little or no idea on policies. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 04:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The "requirements" people look for are the source of the problem. Adminship is not about content creation and is not about being "right" in a discussion. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 05:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Well, alright, I'll support this. But what effect will supporting this have? It seems like a petition, or maybe an Arbcom principle. Are we going to vote on the "purpose of Wikipedia" like Arbcom? Well, anyway, I agree. Let's just focus on one aspect of high expectations: numbers of edits. Someone with 6500 edits would probably be told they need more experience, but that's enough to put you on the list of 10,000 most active Wikipedians of all time. There are only 2100 people have more than 30K edits total, and there are only 3300 people who make more than 100 edits per month on English Wikipedia. I think people probably should have some kind of experience with content creation, voting at AfD, new page patrol, and speedy deletion. But these should be indicators of suitability, not a checklist of "must have" qualifications. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I agree with the premis for promotion suggested here but overall we do have unreasonable expectations for candidates. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with everything stated by Biblioworm and NinjaRobotPirate, above. Also, the backlogs on Wikipedia are getting worse. — Cirt (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. One year and 5000 edits are more than enough if they come with clue, and perfection is something we should not expect from anybody. The ability to achieve something great without asking for immediate perfection is central to Wikipedia's success. —Kusma (t·c) 09:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
we have moved from a system where people check the candidate's edits and come to a view as to whether they would make a good admin to one where few really check edits, not least because the expectation is that candidates should have too many edits to be checked. So some expectations are higher and unrealistic, others are lower. I don't believe that overall the standards are as effective at screening out people who would make bad admins, but some arbitrary bits such as edit count and tenure are higher. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
support, though I have no idea how this will lead to an actionable recommendation. Protonk (talk) 13:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: the "NOTNOW" opposes in this RfA (a recent prominent example) show just how unreasonable people's base expectations are. But in RfAs that are close to passing, we hit a different problem: lots of people have very high standards in a specific area. So some people expect unreasonable levels of 'content creation', others value AfD stats too much, others expect candidates to make X posts to random admin boards Y and Z etc. These are significant enough minorities to cause an RfA to fail, so for a candidate to pass they have to appease every single one of these groups, leading to a requirement for them to pass every single high standard if they want their RfA to succeed. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support All a candidate has to show is a good level of experience, competence and confidence. That doesn't translate into perfection or haughty standards. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 15:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the main question we need to answer, in order to vote in an RFA, is: Are we better off with this user handling the issues (s)he claims (s)he will, or without? Obviously, if the user would do the job badly, then we're better off without. However, a user needs not to have any experience beyond what's necessary to understand the policies behind his/her planned areas. For example, having written an FA makes a user no better at recongizing edit warring or sockpuppetry, or at assessing the level of notability of the topic of a specific article, etc. And age is certainly of little value - I doubt a 5-year-old could possibly edit on an adult level well enough to pass an RFA, but a 15-year-old who can certainly should be able to run with no disadvantage due to age. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While trusting a user with the tools is a subjective judgement, there are cases where the standards of voters are simply too high. Requiring featured articles, 10K+ contributions, a certain number of contributions to AN & ANI, digging into problematic edits from several years back, are standards that show up at RfA and are generally higher than should be necessary. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Everyking (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support.By and large, those who vote regularly, intelligently, and objectively at RfA practice a code of criteria that a vast number of editors of the right calibre for adminship easily exceed. We must be wary however of those who apply ludicrous barriers to adminship, vote against the system rather than against the candidate, and those who just never seem to get it right. Some fairly recent newer regular voters to RfA appear to have brought with them some ridiculously high demands for edit count. Even if some arbitrary statistic might have shown that most successful candidates have 33,000 edits or whatever, it is absolutely possible for a candidate of the right calibre to have demonstrated within the right dispersal of 6,000 or so edits that they do indeed understand what is required of admins. Other newer voters insist on GA and even FA. One downside to this is that it makes adminship a meritocratic process - a trophy for good work or it simply forces candidates into half-hearted superior quality content work while they may already be more than satisfactorily helping us to build this encyclopedia.. Naturally a handful of medium sized, immaculate creations would be a plus, because I do ascribe the theory that 'Anyone who wants to police pages should know how to produce them' to be a quality for potential adminship. BTW, NOTNOW failures have nothing to do with any of this; they are generally the result of people simply refusing to read all the advice before transcluding an RfA, or strangely believing it does not apply to them. Such RfAs are the least of our worries.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support. Adminship eligibility shouldn't be based on number, or frequency, of edits. It should be based off the decisions made, the clue levels shown, especially during the last few months. No-one should be refused adminship due to a mistake years ago. Eman235/talk 01:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support. I wouldn't say it's so much that the criteria are excessively strict, but that there are -- and have been for the better part of a decade -- far too many RfA regulars who demand allegiance to their personal hobby horses for a Support vote, and that failure to have enough edits in a particular area, conformance to notions of cooldown blocks, a high enough percentage of edit summaries, or whatever the issue de jour happens to be ensures an Oppose. Ravenswing 20:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I still don't think anything is going to come of this. RFA is dead because of issues that could've been handled years ago. Mitch32^{(Scenery is fine — but human nature is finer.)} 20:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)e[reply]
Support, definitely. The idea that any minor transgression or lack of experience in any single area of the encyclopedia can entirely derail a nomination is an enormous problem with the process. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:10, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I want prospective admins to be experienced, but expecting admins to have broad experience is often unrealistic. When I was an admin, I was one of only a handful who closed FFDs and PUFs. There should be more understanding and acceptance that many candidates gravitate toward one or two specific areas of admin work. I did 30k log actions here, and didn't go anywhere near AFD or do much at RFPP for example. INeverCry 03:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Perfection seems to be expected. Some of the AfP discussions look more like a Senate confirmation hearing, with attempts to uncover any minor deviation at any time since the prospective admin's first ever edit, every slip of the keyboard and every forgotten edit summary. This is why I am not interested in becoming an admin - who needs the stress of fending off attacks? Davidelit (Talk) 05:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support No one's perfect.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I know I'm perfect, but I don't expect everyone else to be as well..we have lost many-a-candidates over the last 6 years who i feel would have been perfect as admins but were forced to 'leave' or 'never run again' due to these unsubstantiated high expectations..and personally, I do not mind an admin who attacks other users or is seen as rude or generally a PITA, as long as they are getting the job done..we need leaders, not politicians.--Ste moc 11:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not only are they too high, they are rising over time. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, high standards are good, the problem is excessively high standards, which are now at a point where they are almost impossible to meet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Limited Support. I think standards should be high, but at the same time, we should actively-via-clerk disallow "country club" rationales for oppose !votes. Lack of participation in GA's and FA's should be taken completely off the table, for example. An editor can do amazing work in the Wikipedia without having ever once touched these processes. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a spin-off proposal based on this !vote. See P: Discard or discount high-end oppose votes. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Many of the !votes in the oppose section seem to assume the present criteria actually being applied are more lenient than they really are. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support most recent RfA's I've watched are nothing but a rolling character assassination, with many editors looking for any slip or poor judgement call to oppose the candidate. No wonder many good potential candidates won't even apply. What is needed is a lot less "random" gatekeepers using apparently completely made up criteria they have developed in their own mind to decide their vote. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Standards are too high and keep on rising, i'm not suggesting that we start letting in any user with a couple thousand edits under their belt, but highly qualified users shouldn't be disqualified because they haven't had tens of thousands of edits and so on with the rationale. - SantiLak (talk) 01:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It seems that nowadays large amounts of content edits are required to be an admin, despite the fact that an admin role when it comes to content is to be strictly neutral with regards to it. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support A correct statement. Debresser (talk) 15:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gamaliel (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The whole process will be better if we can make it easier to both promote new admins and to remove existing ones. Deli nk (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Don't see how this statement can lead to improved selection. A nomination was brought to my attention. I examined it, not remembering the nominee, who was being grilled over every edit s/he had ever made. This seemed a bit much IMO. Student7 (talk) 18:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't feel many of the criteria used by editors actually correlate to how good the admin will eventually be as an admin.--Aervanath (talk) 19:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support I don't believe the problem is the standards per se; the problem is the perception of standards, which ensures that the number of serious RfAs is small. Additionally, I would feel more comfortable agreeing that "admins need not be perfect" if the removal process were not next to impossible. The selection process and the removal are linked, and can't be separated; we can't loosen one without also making the other easier. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Support Mainly along the lines of Vanamonde93 above. The problem is that the requirements are strong now because of the difficulty of removing the bit. I dont think admins need to be perfect, have GA's or FA's. They need to have had some time editing, to know policy, have a respect for consensus, and have a little common sense. AlbinoFerret 22:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support. Whilst I agree that the candidates must meet high standards, the voters and people reviewing the candidates (at times) get very unrealistic and exceptionally tough. I recently came across a RfA candidate Ktr101. The user is Account creator, autoreviewer, Education Program Coordinator, File mover, IPblock-exempt, Mass message sender, Reviewer, Rollbacker, Template editor, OTRS member, has 100,000+ edits, 1,180+ page creations, has been on Wikipedia for over eight years and guess what - his RfA nomination was denied five times. Now I am asking myself, if he cannot be an administrator, then should I even aspire to be an administrator one day? The irony is that whilst all high standards are expected from RfA candidate, the voters have no experience required or set standards. I am sure some of you will agree that lots of times people just get into "splitting hair" and get over critical of a candidate. Just about anyone can walk into a RfA process and ruin is for someone who has been working hard for years. Not talking about RfA process, but I have noticed that people just go for "popular opinion" when voting. This is very evident in AfD discussions often. The credentials of the people voting is never under discussion? During the past few years, we have been unreasonably tough with the RfA candidates. This is clearly evident from the RfA statistics and the result of this can be seen at the administrator stats table. From a high of 1,011 active admins in Jan 2008, we are down to 583 and the count is constantly shrinking. In Jan 2008, Wikipedia had appx 2.2 million articles which translated to 2,200 articles per admin. In Oct 2015, we have 4,994,931 articles with 583 admins. This means every administrator has burden of 8,567 articles i.e. admin burden has increased four folds. We are horribly short of administrators and need few urgently. It is my humble suggestion that;
1. The "pass criteria" for RfA should be made more realistic.
2. Please create a minimum edit / experience threshold for RfA voters. Allowing a very new user to vote is unfair both for the voter and for the candidate and is just like asking a Kindergarten kid to decide if his older brother should apply for a college or not (pardon me for being curt).
3. During the process of voting, one must not be able to view the votes already casted and the comments by other voters. This will avoid the herd mentality and will allow voters to form their own and genuine opinion rather than getting influenced by the majority opinion. Final votes can be made public once when the RfA process gets over.
4. Standards need to be defined for RfA process. We cant leave everything to voter's imagination.
5. Like we welcome the new users and always ask everyone to AGF towards the new users; same principle should be applied for RfA candidates. The environment is very hostile for RfA candidates and (on the pun intended side) it appears that they are going to Vietnam War.
I hope that this message will be taken in the right spirit and will also catch attention of some senior editors / administrators. Cheers, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per the above sentiments, although I do feel the need to clarify AKS.9955's argument in that two of those were done when I was not really ready, and the third could also fall into that category as well. I do think that subjecting people to a cross-examination that essentially amounts to a public trial and having people comb your history for anything that might be viewed as an issue is not something we should be promoting here though, because it brings a lot of unnecessary stress to candidates and gets the rightful analogy of being called a meat grinder. I hope something does come out of this eventually as well, but I am skeptical of anything happening, as I have seen prior initiatives die off in previous years after starting with great promise. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support — Jimbo has stated in the past that adminship should be no big deal. I agree with that. We admins are not meant to be some kind of aristocracy. Adminship should be something that ALL active users with a reasonably clean record (i.e., no vandalism) should more or less be entitled to expect, should they desire it. To put it another way, anyone opposing an RFA should be able to come up with a damn good reason why the candidate is unsuitable. David Cannon (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - RfA should answer one question and one question only. "Can an editor be trusted to use the tools to improve the site and will not abuse them." That is it. It's not a forum for discussing how many edits to an namespace someone has had, or criticizing every minor blunder they may have had. David Cannon makes a very good point, it's something any active user with a reasonably clean record should expect to be able to obtain if they want to help the project in an administrative capacity. We wonder why the number of active editors has been dropping, I suggest it's because we've made a very big deal out of something that was never intended to be a "big deal" -- Tawker (talk) 22:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support It appears that obtaining the Congressional Medal of Honor is easier than passing RfA. New England Cop (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can support this in the sense of being advice that all participants in RfA should think seriously about. I have frequently been dismayed at what I think are unfair criticisms of candidates, so as far as that goes, I do think this statement is an accurate description of what exists. But I would not want to enforce a lowering of standards. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I don't know about "generally", but too many expect too much. Johnbod (talk) 18:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Without a clear set criteria, people are free to interject their own bias into the discussion based on their own prior experiences with their own RfA or interactions with other admins. Tiggerjay (talk) 15:53, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - !Voters often demand experience in areas that candidates have no intention of working in, and experience that is totally unrelated to the performance of admin duties. Candidates are often rejected on the basis of criteria whose ties to admin performance are tenuous at best. Criteria to be used against a candidate must be shown (not assumed) to be relevant to admin performance.—Swpb^talk 20:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I've watched the criteria creep higher and higher over time despite no compelling evidence that this creep was solving a problem. When I joined the criteria was "been around for a while and is not engaged in attacks or other counterproductive activity." This was no only more in line with our values as a community, it was more effective. —mako ๛ 21:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I mean, yeah, this is a problem, but I don't really see how to "enforce" it. In counterpoint to the comment just above, I do believe that in the past the standards were too low and that the realization of that led to a backlash and we have now swung much too far in the opposite direction. Somewhere between what it was like in 2001-2007 and where we are now is a reasonable level of scrutiny and vetting of candidates. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - definitely part of the problem, Sadads (talk) 16:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I don't see how this could be enforced. Mkdw ^talk 18:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ironholds (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This kind of goes without saying. 10:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Support Clearly true. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It seems a quite high standard of editing frequency and content creation is required of someone whose new tasks would include neither of these. Wouldn't a history of civility and correctly gauging consensus be more important? Though, I don't see where voting on this leads. Daß Wölf (talk) 15:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but this is motherhood and apple pie. This is not really a proposal. Fiddle Faddle 22:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too many opposers seize on one mistake out of thousands of fine edits and argue that we cannot allow anyone who would make such a mistake to have the bit. Too many have a particular model of what the pattern of activity should be, such as wanting all the time to be spent creating articles or creating articles which get some cachet of quality. The process is a snake pit. Edison (talk) 18:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for obvious reasons. epic genius (talk) 14:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - What I have never, ever seen mentioned is the assumption of 'good faith' on the part of the candidate and the reviewers. It's as if we are looking for minuscule traces of possible bad faith in the process. Bfpage |leave a message 10:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While I suspect that it would be difficult to formulate this proposal as a policy, I've seen too many oppose votes based on personal criteria that are not supported by the wider community. My own criteria can be summed up thus: Has the candidate done or said anything that makes me think they would misuse the tool set, or would not take the job seriously? Oppose votes based on the lack of GA/FA work, or lack of work in various drama-boards, or at XfD, or even because the person's ratio of edits within various name-space areas does not meet a particular editor's criteria, all seem silly to me. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 21:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Though I don't foresee any (easy) actionable recommendation coming out of this, I think some of the expectations are way too high. Yes we need knowledgeable admins, but we do not need perfect ones (I tend to suspect of 'perfect' people, most time they are dissimulate). - Nabla (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A

I want admins to be seasoned. A year is a minimum. Usually, usually, a significant number of article edits, some article creations (not redirects or stubs), that's a minimum too. Come on--we want an admin to have judgment, to have a feel for the community and for its members, to know what it's like to write an article so they know what it's like to get one's work deleted, etc. Drmies (talk) 00:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Current policy WP:Consensus ("try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense"), WP:Administrators ("Any editor can comment on a [RfA] request, and each editor will assess their confidence in a particular candidate's readiness in their own way.") is extremely broad in considering individualized factors gauging judgement of "trust" and "common sense" -- so are the instructions at WP:RfA. By measure of policy then, the support arguments for this proposition must fail. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RFA has no shortage of editors who will comment upon (and ridicule, if appropriate) overly strict and/or unreasonable criteria for adminship. Neil916 (Talk) 01:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While we certainly shouldn't expect prospective admins to have the gift of the gab or a golden tongue, we should certainly expect them to have experience in mediation, negotiation and conciliation especially those that work in contentious discussions. Blackmane (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that becoming an admin is "no big deal" is a remnant from a different age, and is not relevant today. Admins need to be well vetted. Although it's easy enough to find faults in the current system, this is not one of them. BMK (talk) 02:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOBIGDEAL is a big deal now. If you want to talk about being too strict you can review our GA and FA criteria, and the effort it takes for a sole person to achieve those goals in comparison to what it took many years ago. The same is true with adminship, its criteria has grown stricter as the project grew large. Candidates should know the ins and outs. Overall I don't think our expectations are excessive or unreasonable given the circumstances, but that's not to say an RfA won't be a harrowing experience, but it can be, but for different reasons — MusikAnimal ^talk 05:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear how this is supposed to work. For example, Biblioworm opposed Montanabw's recent RfA while I supported. We were both aware of a general issue - her feisty behaviour - but took a different view about it. Was our judgement too strict or too lenient? It seems impossible to say because there are no standards or measures for this. My impression is that, if we were to be more relaxed about this then we'd use a significantly different system which would be more automatic - like autoconfirmed or autopatrolled status. That would be more efficient but we'd then need term limits and a better process for removing the tools. Andrew D. (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cats do not go back into bags - Wikipedia is no longer small, irrelevant potatoes, and we can't treat it as such. Wily D 12:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since administrators are effectively lifetime positions, removable only in case of egregious misconduct, it's only natural that users are difficult and exacting in RfAs. Even without that factor, users have a right to expect editors who have some experience in content creation. If the tools were ever unbundled, that might not be necessary. If the procedures for removing admins were made less onerous on all concerned, the process itself might ease. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While the "high expectations" are somewhat of a problem, the solution is to respectfully ask voters with these expectations to reconsider them. If they continue to vote with high expectations, it's their standard, and since RfA is based on community consensus, they should be allowed to vote with such expectations. I personally believe that the general standard (~10,000 edits and 2 years of editing on average) is fine. Esquivalience ^t 21:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RFA can be strict at times but for the most part I'd say overall it's well balanced, Whilst I don't expect every potential admin to know everything here I do expect them to have atleast some knowledge of things. –Davey2010^Talk 00:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too often in this Trophy Generation, people equate "having standards" with "having high standards." It's OK to have standards. Townlake (talk) 01:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Makes little sense, as drafted. Telling people who !vote that they have to lower their standards when there is no benchmark standard doesn't get any where near the "is this practical" test. It isn't. My standards might already be low. I'm not going to agree to lower them further just so that a few popular editors can be scrape through. Leaky Caldron 15:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By and large, those who vote regularly, intelligently, and objectively at RfA practice a code of criteria that a vast number of editors of the right calibre for adminship easily exceed. We must be wary however of those who apply ludicrous barriers to adminship, vote against the system rather than against the candidate, and those who just never seem to get it right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Moved to support.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal has no practical effect because those opposing a candidate do so because they do not think that candidate is suitable at this time—many would be quite happy to accept less than perfect but they would still think that a particular candidate was not suitable. RfA does not need motherhood statements. Johnuniq (talk) 09:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe most !voters have reasonable standards. I may not agree with those standards, but I can respect them. I don't want to impose my judgment values on others, and I don't want others to impose theirs on mine. Glrx (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lowering standards absent clear evidence that qualified individuals are regularly failing to pass their RfA. RO ^(talk) 17:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What defines "excessively strict criteria"? I feel this question is badly worded. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This could have done with being better worded, but from my perspective, most RfA participants have reasonable standards, which is why most "serious" RfAs have more support votes than oppose votes – most fail because the support percentage simply isn't high enough. CT Cooper · talk 20:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Different standards and evaluation criteria should not be mindlessly/mechanically equated to standards that are "too high" merely because one may disagree with them. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wording is far to vague. As a general rule, lowering standards does not improve situations, but instead mushrooms problems. Admin should have to conform to standards, minimum number of edits seems reasonable. Arbitrary time-frame of say a year, seems pointless, as one can be "on" wikipedia for a year without making any edits. At a minimum, Admin should understand the processes and have an overall idea of how it works. I have been on here a year, have written literally hundreds of articles, promoted 3 to GA and still have no idea how the system works, what 1/2 of the acronyms are, etc. Time is not a valid criteria, experience is. SusunW (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose People vote based on trust, in my view. I am opposing all proposals to shift standards because I doubt they will have any practical effect, and I don't think they are a good idea anyway.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's good to have tough standards for admins. It keeps Wikipedia honest. John Nagle (talk) 06:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Administrators need to have a lot of experience. It needs to be demonstrable to the community that they have this experience, and that they have been making good decisions. SpinningSpark 20:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MusikAnimal and John Nagle. We have too many admins, already. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support high standards, but we do not have "too many admins" by any means. Jonathunder (talk) 18:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on how you define it. At (over?) 1,350 users with Admin privileges, you could definitely argue that there are too many Admins (personally, I think there are). But of that 1,350, only about 300 are actually active Admins, with maybe another 150 being "semi-active". That means we have 900 users with the "bit" who basically never use their tools or help clear backlogs (and a significant percentage of those who only edit one or twice a year). So it's a dual problem: too many Admins, and not enough active Admins. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose - lower the standard and we risk lowering the quality. Candidates need a sense of community and also need to know what it's like to create and edit articles under a variety of circumstances. They should have GAs and at least 1 FA under their belt, too. --Atsme^📞📧 21:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Let me know when the community can remove adminship, just as they can approve adminship. Until then, the community is going to have high expectations. - jc37 22:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - If we lower the standards, there will be more semi-passive admins abusing this right to push their POV agendas.Zezen (talk) 13:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's more complicated than that. Most !voters don't have super high standards. The issue is that different !voters have a variety of standards (sometimes contradictory) and it's impossible to meet them all. This gives the illusion of RfA participants all having super high standards. Brustopher (talk) 18:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose firstly as fundamentally unworkable , one editors high standard might be another editor's minimum. Think significant periods of service / edit count are a good thing as they give an editor a long time to avoid pigeon-holing themselves into certain areas rather than possessing a broad understanding of enWiki as a whole. Fenix down (talk) 13:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the standards for adminship are much higher than they once were. Some seem to remember those halcyon days with fondness. However, the demands on the role are much higher now, and the community has a right to demand that admins know what is going on and have a significant proven track record. --ℕ ℱ 01:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. When adminship is essentially a lifetime appointment, and the community does not have a credible process for removing the tools, standards ought to be high. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until a realistic balance is created between ease of appointment and ease of removal. Intothat darkness 19:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - This proposition has got to be a joke. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The problem is not high standards, the problem is undefined arbitrary standards. HighInBC 16:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. For all practical purposes adminship is a lifetime appointment, and admins do have a huge amount of power. I'd like to see a substantial degree of unbundling of the tools and some form of community de-admisnhip process enacted. But until that happens, high standards at RfA are fully justified. Nsk92 (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on A

1) Unless RfA is changed from "consensus about whether other editors trust the candidate" to "consensus on whether the editor fulfills a community-crafted checklist" every editor will have his own standards and some editors will have standards that others consider unreasonably high. 2) It's very very unlikely that RfA will be anything other than a "consensus about whether other editors trust the candidate" any time soon. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, though I cannot see how any checklist could ever work, as every editor is different. Adminhipfor life combined with no process for community desopping means the expectation will continue to be high. - jc37 22:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have always found it very amazing indeed that this is so difficult to see for some. We rely on the admins elected back in the day when the standards were lower. There is no question that they were. As recently as a few years ago, we still had admins being elected with only about a year of experience and less than 15k edits. Wikipedia did not crash amist all the alleged abusive (or incompetent) admins that are supposed to result when we're not incredibly strict, right? In fact, without them, Wikipedia would have tanked a long time ago. Several admins that were elected back in that time are still active today, so the effect of standards increases may not be extremely obvious. But, inevitably, these old-timers will retire, and with the strictness of today's process, we will not have anywhere near enough to compensate for our losses. Mark and remember my words: eventually, in a few years' time, this will happen and everyone will see that we annoying "gloom and doom" predictors were right after all. But really, is there any evidence to suggest that we had loads of more abusive admins from the older period than we have now? Bad apples will always get through, even if we set the bar at 90% and made our standards even stricter. Of course, it should be realized that there will almost certainly be more desysopped admins from the older period, since there have been more years since they were elected and therefore they have had more time to do something wrong and lose their tools. But the same thing will happen in a few years to those at least a few of those who we elect now. I suspect that over time, the ratio of admins elected in a given year that are desysopped to the total number elected in that year stays even. In fact, I'm compiling data on this offline right now, looking for an even way to present the data. --Biblioworm 03:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the two "sides" here have extremely different ideas of what "unreasonably high" is. shoy (reactions) 12:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Davidwr: nails it: every editor has their own standards. Often that standard is, "did this candidate piss me off personally?" Another standard is, "what is the position of others that I can adopt without looking into the situation myself and doing my own analysis? I'm not saying this is entirely wrong, but the reality is that RfA cannot survive with no changes at all. As it sits, any admin who has been on-wiki will, almost inevitably, have things in their "past" that can be targeted and then dogpiled. Some sort of decision must be made as to what is allowable discussion of a past record and what is impermissible trolling, dogpiling and character assassination by the disgruntled, some of whom had a WP:BOOMERANG hit them and are out for revenge?(Full disclosure: I had an unsuccessful RfA) Montanabw ^(talk) 01:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any evidence that lowering the standard will increase the number of suitable admins? Many users with ≥10,000 manual edits and reasonable tenure pass RfA easily; there were two 2015 admin promotions by editors with less than that (~9,500 manual edits including old blocked sock; 7,000 edits at RfA and 6,000 edits). Esquivalience ^t 23:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I, personally, don't recall ever looking at a valid oppose at an RFA and thinking "this standard is far too high". No one has unreasonable standards; many have reasonable standards that, when taken as a whole, become unlikely. So for editor A to expect X is reasonable, and for editor B to expect Y is reasonable, but X and Y may be in vastly different areas, so few editors will have both. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved my vote from oppose to support due to the ambiguity of interpretation of this section's proposal and people in both the support and oppose departments often saying the same thing. For example, I'm absolutely sure that Drmies and I both want the same thing but with my move we are now on opposite sides of the fence. Anyone closing this will have to ignore the traditional support/oppose split and draw their consensus on the strength of the total of the comments. I feel sure that the proposer means that voters' criteria should be lowered from some of the ridiculous targets they are demanding, not that the overall criteria practiced by the majority of serious, intelligent voters who vote regularly and generally match the result. No one can match the result all the time, even I don't, but it's around 88%, whereas anyone who votes regularly but only gets it right 44* of the time (and usually votes 'oppose') may be using a scale of evaluation that is not very accurate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "Serious, intelligent voters" don't really focus on their RFA match-result percentage. Townlake (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is too broad in phrasing for its own good (for it to be expected to pass), because it's all too easy to oppose it on the grounds of "quality first!". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal is right on the money. I've been on-wiki for nearly four years, and have nearly 40,000 manual edits, but I wouldn't go near this process with a barge-pole (despite encouragement to do so from others) because I edit in a contentious area (under ARBMAC cover), have one short-term block and a couple of slaps in the back of the head for incivility in that time (all deserved I might add). Some voters would build that imperfection into something equivalent to having authorised the Sack of Rome. I've been watchlisting the RfA process for all that time without making a stink about how truly screwed up it is, but there are people on here who need to grow up a lot. Maybe I'm in the minority being nearly 50 rather than nearly 20. Some sort of voter entry requirement would be a good place to start. Make people show they are a serious editor before they can even ask questions of people who clearly already are. And exclude applicants who haven't proven their commitment to WP. At least 1,000 manual edits on a registered account before being able to vote on RfAs would be a great start, and twice that requirement to even be able to apply. No IPs voting, ever. I'm happy to be judged by people who have been on-wiki and editing in contentious space for half as long as I have (or twice as long for that matter, as they are still out there), but I baulk at some snot-nose with 100 edits and no sense of reality even having a say as to whether I should be an admin. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The way adminship works is that if you became one, you'd still be practically unable from using admin tools in the same topic area (WP:ARBMAC) because you're an easy target for claims of WP:INVOLVED. It effectively means that you get to use the mop on the most egregious of cases in that topic area, and are required to venture outside the topic area in order to use the admin tools in a significant manner. It is burdensome for the prospective admins, but could be understood to be good for the encyclopedia as a whole. The real issue is practical - do we have a sufficiently large pool of suitable candidates to be able to maintain this high a standard? We probably do, but if we are also ridiculously draconian with all the other prerequisites for adminship, we might not have it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea above about keeping the votes (and the tally) private until the RfA is over...there is a significant pile-on of "me too" votes. I think the tally influences some people's choices. Seeing someone with a lot of opposes might trigger a potential supporter to stay away as much as inspire a schadefreude vote of "i must add to the candidate's misery by adding my two opposing cents". People should vote blind to what others say, develop and articulate their own rationales for their votes (i.e. more than just saying "support, per nom" etc.) and shouldn't see the tally until it is over. Please consider this--secret ballots would single-handedly change RfA for the better. JackTheVicar (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People will have whatever expectations they have. A load of people saying they should have lower expectations isn't going to change anything, so I can't see that this proposal is going to make any difference even if it gets the support of a majority. --Michig (talk) 15:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B: Undefined standards

Participants can support or oppose candidates using any criteria they like, some of which are not based in policy but rather personal opinion. This system is not used in other areas of Wikipedia. Arguments for keeping/deleting an article at AfD, for instance, are given weight according to their basis in policy

Support B

Support – minimum standards, either in terms of edit count, or time of active editing, would be an improvement to the process to my mind (as it would mostly eliminate WP:NOTNOW candidacies). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I think is a problem is that expectations keep shifting and its difficult for a prospective candidate to gauge whether their face fits at the time they are planning a run. I agree opinion is good but we should offer more consistency. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Agree with Spartaz, above. More specificity and increased standardization and increased uniformity would be a great thing to provide ease of mind to both our candidates and the community. It would also set certain standards for the future. — Cirt (talk) 08:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the heart of the problem. We don't have this issue with other rights such as Rollback where we have agreed a criteria. Frequently RFAs degenerate into discussions not about whether the candidate would be a good admin, but whether admins need to have x months tenure, an FA or be an adult. If this was a job interview you would have some things set out in the job ad. You'd know if the candidate had to have a clean driving license or other qualification and you could then concentrate on other issues. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support...sort of. If ATA is the model, I'm not super hopeful for a resolution, since I don't really want the oppose section of an RfA to be filled with meta comments about ATARFA. The alternative is to have roving clerks/crats remove opposes based on this, but I can't see that ending in any other way than a huge shitstorm. Protonk (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The community needs to decide what it wants in an admin and set those standards. Right now a minority can force their view of what admin should be even though the community at large rejects the idea. Arguments that goes contrary to the expectations of the community should be given less weight like everywhere else one Wikipedia, otherwise we are picking admins by voting, not by consensus. I disagree with those that say this would be hard to define, I am sure for example we could come to a clear consensus of the age issue. If a topic is not covered at all then it is naturally left to opinion, if it is divisive then we can have a nice talk about it and amend our expectations. HighInBC 14:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this would certainly help. Comparable processes involve judging specific situations against generally agreed upon policies and guidelines. Without that people are free to make up whatever standards they like, however unreasonable. This would reduce the number of such comments at RfA and give bureaucrats clear authority to discount them. Hut 8.5 20:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support minimum standards, to cut down on WP:NOTNOW nominations, and to highlight that the standards are not impossible. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: This is the only one of the multiple “contentions” that this RFC seeks to evaluate that I will address because I believe it is the root of all the ills of RFA. The other contentions are merely symptoms of a lack of agreed upon standards (no matter how objective or subjective, no matter how rigorous or liberal) for selecting or not selecting an editor for Admin tools. Until there is an agreed upon set of standards, all the other things perceived to be wrong about RFA will continue and there will be no solution, no matter how hard we try, to those ills.
Freedom of men under government is to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power vested in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, when the rule prescribes not, and not to be subject to the inconstant, unknown, arbitrary will of another man.
— John Locke
If the ultimate qualification to become an admin is that the community has confidence it can trust the editor with Admin tools, the community must decide what are reliable indicators (objective and subjective) that engender that confidence and trust?; and hold all admin candidates to the same standards. As John Locke reminds us, arbitrary standards and norms are contrary to the health of any enterprise.
Apart from the readily apparent ills of RFA that a lack of standards causes, it also causes editors who aspire to be admins to possibly behave in ways or venture into elements of WP and make big mistakes which are eventually held against them in RFAs. My contention is that those kinds of aspirational mistakes might never happen if we had a consistently applied set of standards that editors must meet to be selected as an admin. I would relish to opportunity to participate in a standards discussion about this. --Mike Cline (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Clear standards will benefit both candidates and !voters. Also per Mike Cline Montanabw ^(talk) 01:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support some general, broadly stated standards. There's always IAR. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – To me, this is a simple factual statement. On what its implying, there will always be differences in opinion on who would make a good admin and who wouldn't, but I think the line needs to be drawn somewhere – opinions that are clearly offtopic should be discounted. CT Cooper · talk 20:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support some standards. AWB permissions have standards. Adminship should too. Eman235/talk 01:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Having read through the other input, I find it interesting that there are those who oppose because one will be unable to express an opinion if there are standard requirements. That makes zero sense to me. Just like AFD, it *is* one's opinion whether one meets the guidelines. It *is* one's opinion whether any weight should be given to an essay, whether a blog by a noted authority is still a blog, whether multiple single line statements that carry the weight of notable accomplishment add up to sufficient, adequate notability. In the same manner, it will still be opinion if guidelines are established for admin. Surely guidelines which includes an analysis of whether one has demonstrated an ability to lead and is familiar with Wiki systems will allow one sufficient room to express varying opinions. SusunW (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
20-Mule-Team Support: Abso-freaking-lutely. People oppose because a candidate is foolish enough to admit ignorance in a project area in which the candidate says outright he'll never work. People oppose because a candidate disagreed with them on their (allegedly) "optional" question. Anyone remember how Kurt Weber used to blanket oppose anyone who dared to self-nom? And so on. These spurious popularity votes carry just as much weight as the most serious participants in the RfA process. Ravenswing 20:04, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Many of these de-facto standards have nothing to do with what the actual work administrators do. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should be abundantly clear what the requirements are. Those that submit themselves to this process have to endure hell. They should at least be aware of what is coming. SpinningSpark 20:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on principle. For as long as we aren't actually implementing the whole WP:CONS principle at RfA, but instead a poll with a strict minimum requirement, we have to work on determining the criteria for those !votes, otherwise the process tends to devolve into a mess - almost all the criteria are aimed at the candidate and almost none at the voters. But the candidate is a volunteer, not an employee of the voters! If we eliminated the voting threshold, we could eliminate the need for other vote standards - but the former is unlikely to happen. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The way it is now, it's too easy for someone to support or oppose mostly based on personal preference. We need adminship standards so we can evaluate candidates a little more objectively. Some parts of the standards should be subjective (not just numbers), but we also need specific requirements like: successfully resolved a dispute, participated in AFDs giving reasons, etc. Kind of like the FA criteria, a mix of objective and judgment-based standards. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is precisely one of the major issues with AfD. Personal preferences should be irrelevant, there should be clear minimum requirements and if you meet them, you're in. There also needs to be a probation period, during which egregious actions can be overturned by an admin in good standing, and the mop suspended for a period. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Any argument that is not primarily policy-based should have little to no value; that is all that adminship should represent. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 04:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Arguments should be based in both policy and sound decision-making, not random stuff. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not to imply that people's personal synthesis impression of a candidate's suitability should be discounted, but it should be secondary to a well-defined set of basic 'metrics'. Currently, many opposes ride entirely on one or a few personal criteria while expressly ignoring what tentative base criteria there are (x k edits, x years, sanction history). This would benefit from being codified.-- Elmidae (talk) 19:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The standards are different from editor to editor. There is a need to have specific criteria. This will also have a better chance of attracting people to be admins. As the criteria is not specifically spelled out and some may not even apply thinking they may be missing something, and have others improve in required areas before applying. AlbinoFerret 22:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Please see my detailed comments here (point 39). Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: By the look of it, any old average Joe can become an admin. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Uniform standards are appropriate. New England Cop (talk) 02:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It seems that any balance of content / curation / project space work will attract oppositions. Some consistency will be helpful. Der yck C. 12:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only as a minimum standard to avoid NOTNOW. Would add credibility to the process and a gateway to RfA but would not influence decision making. Fenix down (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, mainly per Peacemaker67. APerson (talk!) 15:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support subjective opinion & gut feel has its place, but we need more uniform base expectations. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support there is a clear need for some standards, but beyond simply objective ones such as edit counts, time on the project, etc... but there is also room for subjective criteria, however that doesn't mean undefined - for example, showing Good Faith in comments, particularly when dealing with conflicts -- which is a subjective assessment, based on a concrete standard. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (weak) - I had to think a while on this one. I think that the community should be free to be very flexible in determining a candidate's suitability for adminship, and indeed each participant may have and apply their own criteria to each candidate. However, with that in mind I think that some semblance of standard basic criteria would improve the process, in the sense that we have WP:NOTNOW for candidates who are clearly unsuitable, so long as participants are free to apply their own higher standards; consensus ends up being somewhere in the middle of everyone's standards regardless. But if we did have a set of basic criteria for adminship, then they would serve equally as basic criteria for a standard de-adminship process (or standard recall, maybe) and lack of such a process is very frequently cited as a problem with our current RfA. I don't have any such criteria in mind, and as I said below it's premature to start talking about what they would be if there's not a clear agreement that we should have them in the first place. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this seems to be closely tied with the need to unbundle the tools: noone newish can reasonably expect to have the range of experience in community processes that we were able to acquire even 3-5 years ago: the backlogs are simply too long, and its really easy to get isolated in a topic area. Sadads (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support In particular, I would like to see RfA officially defined as a process to determine if the user can be trusted with the admin tools. All !votes should be focused on whether the candidate can be trusted or not trusted with the tools. Everything else is just one facet that helps determine trust: experience, temperament, knowledge of policy, and so on. If comments are not framed in terms of trust, they should be discountable by the closer. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Trilobitealive (talk) 01:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is not to say that personal opinions aren't relevant to an RfA process, but those personal opinions should be grounded with clear on-wiki support of said opinion. A user is more than welcome to oppose an adminship, but if that opposition comes from baseless personal animus, then I would consider that a black mark against the user voting, not the candidate. Heterodidact (talk) 04:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ironholds (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support it is important for votors to have their own criteria and for there to be flexibility on how candidates are assessed. I not that some opposers also support this idea. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose B

If there's any place where Wikipedia should allow for "opinion" it's this. And this question is problematic: you can't say "I support candidate X because they have reliable sources". You can say "I support candidate X because they seem to have the right temperament for the job", and that's the kind of thing one should say. If RfA turns into a rubric...well, that will be the end of Wikipedia. Drmies (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Current policy WP:Consensus ("try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense"), WP:Administrators ("Any editor can comment on a [RfA] request, and each editor will assess their confidence in a particular candidate's readiness in their own way.") is extremely broad in considering individualized factors gauging judgement of "trust" and "common sense" -- so, are the instructions at WP:RfA. By measure of policy then, the support arguments for this proposition must fail. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with each editor determining for themselves what's important in an admin. For one thing, it allows for the possibility of more diversity in elected admins, which would not be the case if a single standard were imposed. BMK (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a consensus-driven project, and applies to every corner of the wiki. Adminship accounts for a suite of tools and responsibility that I don't think can be put into a definitive set of standards, and requires broader input. If you want a rough guideline you can refer to WP:RFAADVICE, which I fear many candidates fail to review — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Editors need to apply their own life experiences and common sense to the process. There should be no arbitrary "standards." Coretheapple (talk) 15:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Common sense should apply - Personal opinions are IMHO fine if they're relevant to the candidate but Supporting this would only see stupid reasons!, –Davey2010^Talk 00:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The question everyone must answer for every RFA is "Should this user be trusted with the tools?" Everyone gets to their answer a different way, and that's fine. "Is this person trustworthy" does not lend itself to rigorous criteria that applies and is conclusive in every circumstance. Townlake (talk) 02:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we could define an objective standard for RfA, we wouldn't even need RfA. The problem is: it's too hard to objectively judge a candidate under a defined standard; it may lead to wikilawyering; and community consensus isn't adequately represented. Esquivalience ^t 20:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURO is a core part of Wikipedia—there can be no set of rules to define the features needed for a candidate to be successful. For one thing, if such rules were enforced, the hat-collectors would go crazy ticking all the boxes without showing any clue about how things actually work. A set of rules could be developed, but they would be far too generic to be useful ("candidate must have demonstrated they have a clue" would be near the top of my list). Are there any known examples of failed RfAs where this proposal would have helped? There are probably many such examples where a candidate would have been successful with this proposal, but who is to say that would have been a desirable outcome? Johnuniq (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused by the statement (what is support supposed to mean? any standard is OK? there must be a standard? no standards?), but I'll come here with the notion that there should not be a uniform policy decision. A significant portion of my judgment is about the candidate's skill, personality, and judgment. Some of that is objective, but a lot is subjective. A candidate might be exceedingly polite, but may not let something go. Another might be polite most of the time but blow up once in awhile. Are those enough to oppose? Possibly. Sometimes the words are mostly right, but something just does not seem right. Glrx (talk) 17:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is begging the question, as community consensus determines standards, and that's how it ought to be. RO ^(talk)
Oppose. Everyking (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - you can't compare content issues to user issues in that way. All content issues have core policies where each voter simply has to express his/her opinion on how the policies apply to the article in question; with user issues, the question is the level of trust the community members have with the user - and these can't be reduced to a list of policies. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Community consensus is a key part of Wikipedia, without it many policies that we have wouldn't even be in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose to the extent this formulation appears to authorize users to indulge impermissible personal biases such as race, religion or gender. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:58, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure the above isn't meant to be a "support", based on what it says? LjL (talk) 16:00, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, as written the statement declares that a !vote saying, for example, we have too many female/black/Christian/LGBT admins somembers of such groups should be rejected will be treated as legitimate by bureaucrats. If that's true (and I don't think it is) our first step should be to purge those bureaucrats. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trust is the only real criterion. Very few votes would be shifted by such a proposal, and after a little practice, people who wouldn't vote for a candidate because of grudges will shift from "Reluctant oppose" to "Reluctant oppose, does not in my view meet criterion 5(b)(4)(iii)--Wehwalt (talk) 20:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is almost akin to going strictly by a candidate's statistics. Unique votes from experienced editors and admins add valuable depth and perspective to RFAs. INeverCry 04:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Like I said in my limited support of A, we need to actively-by-clerk disallow "country club" rationales for opposing nominees, but that doesn't mean we should have a strict and/or complete list of standards. Much of the decision process is "gut feel", and I'm afraid implementation of this idea would take away that necessary component. When you're giving someone the keys to power over other people, this cannot be entirely objective. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mild oppose There should be room for the overall impression here more than elsewhere. Debresser (talk) 15:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is a political issue; editors vote for whatever damn reason they want. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Afds are supposed to be judged by weight of argument. I have yet to see this happen. They are always judged by quantity. Student7 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The only valid criteria is "do you think this admin would be a good admin?" Until we see some kind of statistics that correlate a candidate's accomplishments as an admin with their actions before their RFA, we have no objective basis to create consensus criteria.--Aervanath (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - comparing behavioural to content disussions is truly apples and oranges. And consider also the behavioural RfCs (WP:RFCU) has been deprecated for several reasons including this. - jc37 22:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose — as per my comments above. Adminship is ssimply the lifting of a few security features. Give users the benefit of the doubt unless they have engaged in vandalism or the like. They should have to demonstrate proof of wrong behaviour when opposing an RFA. Yes, I know, in real life politics we can vote against politicians just because their hair-do is back to front, but adminship is NOT a "political" position. At least, it's not meant to be. David Cannon (talk) 11:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problem with one editor caring especially about one thing, and another editor caring especially about something else. Candidates need to be able to juggle complicated demands. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there are uncountably many reasons that would make someone unsuitable for adminship - proposals like this simply must not be allowed to try and bind the hands of the community in this silly way. --ℕ ℱ 01:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Anything discriminatory should be taken out of consideration if not struck. i.e. opposing someone on the basis of the gender. Mkdw ^talk 18:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's important that editors can say what they think about the candidate, freely without looking at set standards. It's the bureacrats' job to sort the comments into a consensus, so it's OK as it currently is. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) 10:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is akin to liking an article and thus saying it should not be deleted. Fiddle Faddle 22:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The various !voters each have their own concerns, and no list of criteria is likely to be agreed on by consensus. RfA clearly needs fixing from the 10 or so I've watched, but making a checklist of criteria as the only issues relevant will not help attract new editors to become !voters. I think Phase II needs to focus on other areas than this.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on B

There will always be cases of relevant non-policy reasons why someone would support ("has been an admin on the Commons and French for years and was elected a Steward two years ago, no history of problems on those other projects") or oppose ("Met him at Wikimania last year, he was supposed to give a talk but bailed with a lame excuse, plus he got drunk and got a DWI, it was in the local papers[citation goes here]. Therefore not trustworthy.[link to candidate's own publication of his real-life identity goes here so there are no "outing" issues]"). So, even if I were to generally support this I cannot absolutely support it as written. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Biblioworm: I actually cannot tell whether this section is intended to be an affirmation of current fact or of what the goal should be. ~~Once I can tell whether I should be supporting or opposing, I will respond there.~~ —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 05:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Despite that I never received a response, I have made a proper support. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 04:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of community standards, why don't we encourage individual editors to state their personal standards? This would let candidates get more of an idea of what RFA participants are looking for before they take the plunge. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This used to be a thing, see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Standards/A-Z. With the exception of the very last sentence my standards generally still hold. Thryduulf (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Od Mishehu and עוד מ: Re your oppose above, can you provide an example where the community might not trust a potential admin that isn't based in some part on past transgressions that violated some aspect of the Five Pillars, Policies or Guidelines? I ask the question because I wonder if it OK to say I don't trust someone for reasons completely unrelated to the Five Pillars, policies and guidelines? --Mike Cline (talk) 17:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The last RFA I opposed was on the basis of inexperience in project space. It wasn't a lack of trust per se, it was lack of evidence on which to base a judgement of their trustworthiness and understanding of the admin role (iirc they had fewer than 10 contributions to XfDs in total, all related to a single topic area). Thryduulf (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like the idea of everyone supporting an admin fo reasons like "he was good on the French wiki" or stuff like that. I will support if a little bit more specific.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you wanted to post an RfC that requires the candidates meet a certain criteria you would need well over 50% support. But if you want to simply shoot down every candidate that doesn't meet your criteria, you need maybe 25% -- less if there are a few good-faith oppositions for other reasons. Furthermore, a candidate who is otherwise supported by everyone can be shot down if 15% oppose anyone without a dozen FAs, and another 15% oppose anyone who has fewer than 50,000 edits; multiple invalid criteria each with support in the single digits can combine to shoot down a candidate with overwhelming support from the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reliance on personal opinion and the degree of consensus needed for the request to succeed should be related. If personal opinion can be a factor, then the person closing the discussion should be free to not require a high degree of positive votes to decide the request is successful. But considering the "just say no" attitude that is prevalent, I think personal opinion should be disregarded as a remedy to overcome the bad RfA process. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should force users not to opppose/support just because there is some standard. A *descriptive* (statistic) of measurable data about (un)successful RfA's wouldn't hurt. That is, "(un)successful candidacies usually have X to Y edits (per namespace), T years active, regular voting on n XfD venues, etc." - Nabla (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

B.1: Standards or Criteria - Potential Development

The community requests that interested Users create a WP:Essay at Wikipedia:RfA standards and criteria laying out standards and criteria for RfA participants consideration. Possible future action may then include, in no particular order:

- Normal editing consensus.
- Possible borrowing or repurposing of text from other pages (including, for example an individual user's written criteria). It is also suggested that the essay readily cite to Wikipedia policy and guidelines.
- WP:Dispute resolution with respect to content of the essay.
- Seeing if people actually find it useful, perhaps by looking at links to the essay in RfAs or elsewhere.
- Gaining consensus to include appropriate reference to the essay at the WP:RfA page.
- Gaining consensus to promote the essay to guideline or policy (or guideline, then policy).

Support B.1.

I can support further discussion and the B.1. path is a Wikipedia way to do that (I cannot support the conclusory B., however.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose B.1.

Oppose a dozen essays exist with a variety of opinions. There's no reason to change this system. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose no need for that, do we need several hundred essays? Do most voters even think to that depth? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on B.1.

Good luck. There've been attempts to reform RfA for years, and they've all come to nothing. Ravenswing 20:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain. I think it would be a good thing if it could be done but I am convinced that it cannot be done because there can be no agreement between the opposing camps on this and related issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The cart goes behind the horse. There's not even a rough consensus above (yet) that lack of common standards is an issue with the current process. Jumping into discussing what those standards should be is premature by a long way here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

C: Hostile environment

The environment of RfA is hostile toward candidates and is discouraging for those who are contemplating a candidacy. Incivility, lack of WP:AGF, and excessive (or intentionally deceiving) interrogation are too common. Furthermore, candidates are unable to defend themselves and will garner opposition whenever they attempt to do this.

Support C

Support The general environment at RfA seems to be "assume bad faith" rather than "assume good faith". (The latter is a community-approved guideline, for the record.) This is shown by the skeptical, excessive asking of questions and the tendency to oppose for the slightest issue. --Biblioworm 00:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support While there are certainly many times voters will cast a !vote to support/oppose per Editor X, the RFA environment is nonetheless hostile. RFA regulars may view that as fairly standard but at least, in my eyes, some RFA's descend into something that is just this side of a brawl. Blackmane (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I also find it to be, on balance, an "assume bad faith" environment among far too many of the participants. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the biggest fix that I think is needed; the questions and votes too many times do not assess the suitability of the person for the job, but are veiled personal attacks and attempts to play "gotcha". I don't know yet what to do about it, but to say that the general tenor of RfA is not "lets find suitable candidates for granting admin tasks to", it's "Someone wants to be an admin, that means there must be something wrong with them. Expose them now!" It has to stop if we're going to keep the admin corps going. --Jayron 32 02:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We are here to build the encyclopedia. One good faith contributor means a lot. And an experienced editor, who is ready for an RfA, means more. Even if he's not ready for the mop, hostility or incivility or ABF is not really a way to address them. Facing all those nonsense, he'll retire or loose interest in contributing. Congrats community, we've lost one valuable asset. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 04:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. This is a corner of the site that I have stayed away from participation in simply because of all of the toxicity reported, and though I've been silently watching, I regret not arriving sooner. If there's only one thing that needs to change, it's the desire to sharply oppose for small things, and I additionally agree with the proposal's words in regard to self-defense. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 05:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We should better enforce civility at RFA. It's better than it used to be, but that doesn't mean that we should allow anything to go. I'm not talking about trick questions or assuming bad faith of the candidate. I don't really care about that. I mean passive-aggressive hostility, outright personal attacks, and aggressive badgering. You can ask as many bad-faith questions as you like, but remain civil while doing so, that's all. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support It can be hostile, very hostile, but that's expected anywhere there's community-wide discussion. Here it's just a matter that we have a sole individual at the center of it, who has to take a beating if the discussion goes sour. It probably wouldn't hurt to have some additional ground rules on conduct at RfA, or rather we just better exercise the existing fundamental policy on civility. However I think the ability to see past the imminent nonsense and have the strength to deal with it is yet another expectation or valued asset of an aspiring admin – this prudence shared with the bureaucrats who should discount frivolous opposition. Genuine opposition doesn't collect on it's own, though, there's reason for it, and if the candidate is well-suited there should be plenty of support to make up for it in both the eyes of the community and the closing 'crat — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, strongly, per Biblioworm and NinjaRobotPirate, above. Unfortunately, RFA can be a poisonous, toxic environment. Increased standards for civility and professionalism that are standards which would be uniformly applied to increase standardization — would go a long way towards ameliorating this significant problem. — Cirt (talk) 08:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron32 says it well. —Kusma (t·c) 09:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The most effective way to derail an RFA is to give a clear civil oppose with two or more reasons supported by recent difs, showing why the candidate is not yet ready. There are some who seem to believe that adding invective and overstating their case makes it stronger, at worst they then ramp up the invective instead of taking the smarter route of making their oppose more focussed on reasons why the candidate is not yet ready. I've seen at least one RFA sail through because the opposer was so incivil they were counter productive. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, RfA should not be a place where editors take their hatches to. Fix the hostile environment will allow more candidates to be willing to come forward. - Mailer Diablo 13:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RFA can be hostile - Sometimes RFAs can go well and at times they can get completely derailed, Not sure how but I too a point think this perhaps needs fixing. –Davey2010^Talk 00:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The bureaucrats foster and encourage a hostile environment for close-call RFAs. Townlake (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, going through an RfA is frequently described as running a gauntlet, and very good users are put off by the hostile environment. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support this as a statement because it is one of the two reasons why I launched WP:RFA2011. It's actually reundant as a statement though because it's something we already know and it's the main reason why all candidates (except the hardest nosed and those who just cannot fail to pass) are staying away. For some odd reason which no one has ever ventured to explain, RfA has traditionally been the one accepted venue where editors and admins alike can be as spiteful, vindictive, and downright insulting as they like with total impunity. I don't know why this is either, but if progress is going to be made, we have to find a way to put an end to it. Probably by either potty training the participants, or showing them the door. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: No one in their right mind would want to go through what I did. (raising the question if anyone accepting a RfA nom in the current climate is in their right mind, but I digress...) This per my own experience at RfA which, my personal strengths and weaknesses aside, included doxxing, on and off-wiki canvassing, stalking, false accusations, character assassination, raising issues related to newbie mistakes many years in the past, and so on. Relevant mistakes, particularly when recent and supportable by on-wiki diffs, fair game. The rest, only for the truly iron-spined, and even then, it's an open question if the heat tempers the metal or warps it... Montanabw ^(talk) 01:33, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some RfA candidates are universally acclaimed, but for others, insults, chasing, and incivility are the status quo. Montanabw's RfA is an excellent case-in-point; although I had to oppose due to valid concerns, I considered weakly supporting just for enduring the seven days of angry mobbing. Esquivalience ^t 22:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Everyking (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Absolutely spot on. No one should have to tolerate what some RfA candidates have to go through, and in my experience, what goes on in some RfAs is worse than what most active admins ever deal with. CT Cooper · talk 20:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- if what's being suggested here is less hostility. The statement is rather ambiguous. Eman235/talk 01:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. RfA should be a civil discussion to determine a candidate's suitability for adminship, not a venue to make unsupported allegations against an editor with no comeback. Thryduulf (talk) 12:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a general feeling, Wikipedia is a hostile environment. Very little support for editors, a lot of egos. It is not a welcoming, friendly environment, where the goal is to assist others. But that being said, in evaluating whether or not one is qualified to be an administrator, opposition comes with the territory. There will be various input which may be contentious or supportive. Isn't that the reason for debate? The problem in an RfA when civility is not maintained is that people who wish to avoid drama will not participate, myself included. SusunW (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Full agreement. RfA definitely brings out people with axes to grind. Not only generally; if you've made any enemies in your time in Wikipedia, RfA is where they always seem to emerge to lead the charge against an admin candidacy. Ravenswing 20:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Much of what I've seen in RfA is more like a hazing ritual than anything. Not sure why anybody would want to go through it in its current incarnation. Eeekster (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree with this. I could probably do some good as an enwp admin if I were minded to do it, but I know damn well that my work on Commons has been controversial enough to disqualify me almost immediately. I don't want to deal with that, so I wouldn't run. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:50, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the statement, I don't know how anyone would even argue that it's not a hostile environment. To some degree it is natural and necessary - this is a venue where the community evaluates an individual's suitability to be permanently assigned the project's highest powers. It is thus natural and necessary to discuss the individual's conduct and character, and some of this by our usual definitions falls into the category of personal attacks. We need to be fairly lenient at RfA, but not to the degree that we allow free reign for commenters to make unfounded or unsubstantiated attacks on a person. The goading and veiled attacking through the endless asking of pointed questions needs to stop, and equally the endless badgering of any well-reasoned opposition needs to stop. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some of the interrogation of prospective admins is nasty and scornful. Davidelit (Talk) 05:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Light Support Some hositility is needed to insure everything is found and taken care of. However, too mud hostility, which happens in most admin discussions leads to many personal attack and so on and so on.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 10:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I for one would never willingly put myself through the hell that is RfA, and there are many others who have expressed the same opinion. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. The reason that RfA is so difficult is that the entire community can come along with any old issue that they happen to have an axe to grind on. It is like the worst job interview that you have ever been through - thousands on the interview board and all asking those irrelevant difficult questions that come from human resources who can't ask a sensible question because they don't understand the actual workings of the business. SpinningSpark 21:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is an inherently contentious process, the acrimony of which is all too easily exacerbated by the very heterogeneous nature of the !voter pool. The issue has grown progressively worse over time, while at the same time I don't think I've seen a proportionate practical increase in new admin quality (which could be an excuse). --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if it weren't for fear of being fried over my past incidents, I'd have run for RfA in the past. Simply put, !voters are mean to candidates. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It sure is a hostile environment. The least we can do is admit it. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the current process is akin to "hazing". Cruel, childish and counter-productive. There are a lot of people involved who need to grow up or leave it to the adults. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 00:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support; this largely ties into the same issues Positions A (editcountitis) and B (Opposes/Supports with no sane or relevant rationale) discuss. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Gamaliel (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I've communicated with experienced editors who would make great admins, but just didn't want to go through the hazing process. Jonathunder (talk) 18:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's hazing alright. Don't see how this can be controlled, though. Student7 (talk) 18:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support From the once I have looked at, I tend to stay away from even commenting because of the ABF. AlbinoFerret 22:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As a 10-plus year editor who's been asked a couple times to run for admin, this is the single biggest thing holding me back. Just not interested in going through a hazing experience. Brianhe (talk) 01:53, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Just from reading this page, RfA is something I would avoid getting involved in, in any way. I came on here to help write and edit articles for relaxation, not to argue with people about ill-defined "opinion" criteria not based in a clear rule or policy. This whole process sounds like a great way to turn off otherwise worthy candidates and participants. TheBlinkster (talk) 04:23, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Please see my detailed comments here (point 39) for details. Thanks, Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 06:49, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — I think the RFA process puts the burden of proof on the candidate. That violates Jimbo's "no big deal" directive. The burden of proof should be on the person opposing the RFA.David Cannon (talk) 11:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm sure there can be a civil way to ask questions for a would-be mop manager but the current RfA environment is the opposite of civil. New England Cop (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, from personal experience. APerson (talk!) 15:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that this is the case. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - yep, impossible to defend your own RfA and if you try, you would be seen as confrontational and hostile...pathetic.--Ste moc 05:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Broadly support I'm not sure it's impossible to defend yourself, though I agree it's not easy. I have some sympathy with the oppose voters who call it trial by fire, but I think they are wrong. Not all admins follow a path that exposes them to hateful interactions with other editors. I was an admin for 7 years and never received the sort of treatment from the vandals I blocked that some regular editors seem happy to dish out on RfA. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Support. I think it's less hostile than it used to be just a few years back, but it's still not unusual to see bad behaviour among the electorate. The way I see it, this is the #1 problem with the current RfA process. — sparklism ^hey! 12:21, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a recent candidate I mentored got hit pretty hard with excessive attacks on minor actions in his past; we treat Admins with extraordinary scrutiny, near the level of harrassment, especially when we consider We are all volunteers, Sadads (talk) 16:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I'm surprised there are editors who do not think this to be the case. I wonder how many of them have undergone an RFA themselves. Mkdw ^talk 18:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportTrilobitealive (talk) 01:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ironholds (talk) 06:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Too right this is true - there would be many more candidates if only it weren't such a harsh experience (and portrayed as such). Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) 10:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This looks like the main issue that discourages potential candidates from applying. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RFA is like showing up for an interview to become a volunteer for some good cause, and then it becomes a forum for attacks by the playground bullies who hated you in grade school, your angry exgirlfriend, and the crabby neighbor who doesn't want you to park in his half of the block. Edison (talk) 18:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It looks like the sheer number of opposes at some RFAs prevents some otherwise-qualified people from even running. epic genius (talk) 14:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are clear and reasonable standards for civility that are imposed on all types of courtroom and parliamentary discourse. They can and should be implemented at RfA (and, I believe, throughout WP at large). SteveStrummer (talk) 22:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose C

Sorry Biblioworm, but the "tendency to oppose for the slightest issue" is more than balanced by the tendency to "support per editor X". I should know; my own RfA was full of those (and I thank you all very much for them). That editors Y or Z got a hard time at RfA may well mean that they deserved to get a hard time at RfA. Drmies (talk) 00:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Current policy WP:Consensus ("try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense"), WP:Administrators ("Any editor can comment on a [RfA] request, and each editor will assess their confidence in a particular candidate's readiness in their own way.") is extremely broad in considering individualized factors gauging judgement of "trust" and "common sense" -- so are the instructions at WP:RfA. By measure of policy then, the support arguments for this proposition must fail. AGF cannot require someone to assume a particular person should be an administrator - moreover, the framing of this proposition violates the neutrality requirement of WP:RfC - in fact the proposition, itself, generally assumes bad faith by those who pose questions. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In actuality, my experience is that the atmosphere is not hostile to the candidate, per se, it's hostile between those voting "support" and those voting "oppose". That's one of the primary things which makes the process so unpleasant. BMK (talk) 02:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it were the case, its fair to say that being an Admin can be very challenging and we need people doing the job who are robust enough to deal with the pressure that even the most routine admin actions can engender. I personally think the level if unpleasantness depends on the level of controversy around the candidature and the more marginal the candidate the harder the ride. Whether that is a good thing I'm not sure but it does serve to test the level of resilience. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's the opposition that gets too much heat, in my experience. This can be quite intimidating and this risks distorting the process. Notice that, when you have a secret ballot, as in the arbcom elections, you tend to get a higher level of opposition. Andrew D. (talk) 11:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a "hostile environment" for editors who probably shouldn't be up for RfA in the first place. I've seen many slide right by. Coretheapple (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "hostile environment". If there were, all RfAs would be fought over and lead to lots of discussion, but many don't. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ian.thomson (139/9/3), Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Opabinia regalis 2 (118/22/5), Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Abecedare 2 (119/0/0) etc. Especially in the last one, which was unopposed, where is the hostile environment? Hostility ensues, for example, when blatantly unsuitable candidates appear, and get support !votes from their cronies, and then the community makes an heroic effort to avoid an exponential increase of future drama... Kraxler (talk) 11:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An admin must be able to engage with people who are in a heated battle without emotional stress. If people say nasty things, the solution is to respond to the core issue and ignore any over-excited rhetoric—exactly what an admin would have to do. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A difficult RfA is the first test to see if an admin can handle the stress of dealing with difficult editors and difficult situations. If RfA is too tough for the candidate, that candidate is a unsuitable. RO ^(talk) 18:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can be rough and several recent ones have been toxic: lots of bickering has been moved to the talk page. Lots of heat has been directed at the !voters rather than the candidate. Overall, I expect candidates to cope well with conflict. Glrx (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If someone has skeletons in their closet, it isn't assuming bad faith to let others know about it. As an admin you have to take responsible for your past mistakes, say what you learned from them if asked, and move forward. I agree with the above as well, that as an admin you have to be able to stay calm through a heated discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Admins have substantial power on this site, and it's quite difficult to remove those powers. That's why it's so challenging. mikeman67 (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is one standard, and that is trust. Wikipedians are very smart people. If you tell them their vote must fit a mold, you won't change the vote, but they will ensure it fits the mold.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Sometimes there's a few to many questions, and some of the voters are harsh or unfair, but candidates need to be able to deal with pressure and difficulty to be decent admins. If an admin does enough deletions and blocks, he or she will definitely run into abuse and arguments from blocked users and creators of deleted content. INeverCry 04:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I agree with the comment above "...being an Admin can be very challenging and we need people doing the job who are robust enough to deal with the pressure that even the most routine admin actions can engender." One of the main requirements for adminship is the ability to keep one's head when all about you are losing theirs. Admins who fail at that make things worse. John Nagle (talk) 06:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Nonsense. I recall Anne Delong's RfA sailing through. Unqualified or questionable candidates have a bad time at RfA, as well they should. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Editors in this discussion appear to confuse trust must be earned with ABF. As well as, AGF doesn't mean to continue to do so when fact is presented. (No need to assume, if fact shows differently.) That said, if a particular editor may inappropriately ABF, then that should be dealt with in that case-by-case basis. - jc37 22:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not my experience. Yes there are the RfA trolls but obvious ABF tone is obvious and should be quickly observed and dismissed by other participants in the RfA discussion. For the applicant, dealing with such comments with good grace is to me a key indicator of the temperament required of an Admin. Fenix down (talk) 13:10, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if you can't cope with the pretty mild experience of being asked to make an account of yourself at RfA, you certainly will not be suitable for the demands of the role. --ℕ ℱ 01:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - At present, with the unbundled toolkit, each admin is entrusted with a good deal of power over the encyclopedia and the editors who work on it. Editors should be allowed to inquire about and express any good-faith reservations about entrusting a candidate with that power. Besides, as noted above, admins should expect to be called to account for their on-wiki actions as a matter of course, and I don't see why candidates should be treated any differently in this regard. There is a saying where I'm from: "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen." -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while some opposes may be ABF or simple attacks, it's fairly common for people who oppose an RfA to be attacked by supporters of the candidate. If this is acceptable, there are bigger issues at work here. Also, if a candidate can't remain cool in this situation, how would they handle an actual dispute? Intothat darkness 19:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oppose bad admins are big contributing factor to making Wikipedia hostile to editors. If RfA is hostile, it's probably because the candidate is not suitable for very good reasons. Commenting or harassing voters for their votes needs to stop. If I feel the way I feel after observing the situation and gathering the facts I need, I vote the way I think right and no moron should get to harass me for voting that way. The same problem pops up at AfD. JackTheVicar (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above user has been checkuser indef blocked for socking (see Talk page). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 05:30, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In my observations, the "hostile environment" at RfA is primarily propagated by aggressive badgering of the oppose voters by the supporters of a particular candidate. Nsk92 (talk) 03:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are there some hostility? Sometimes too much? Yes and yes. Is it RfA specific? I doubt it. - Nabla (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on C

While I acknowledge that this is true, I also acknowledge that it can be necessary to a degree. A few years ago an RfA was nearly passing until about day 5 or 6 when someone dug up some policy-related "dirt" which rightfully caused the nomination to tank. By "rightfully" I mean if the info had been stated up front the person would probably never have crossed 50% much less 75%. I don't remember the details but the revelation itself - an the feeling that participants had been duped - had inherent elements of hostility in it. If "hostility at RfA" were banned, such an editor may be promoted because late-arriving RfA participants who know there is relevant "dirt" to be found may be afraid to bring it up. Having said that, we should expect everyone to behave as politely as reasonably possible under the circumstances with allowances for human emotion to intrude a bit in certain circumstances such as the one from a few years ago (sorry I can't remember the particular RfA, and it wouldn't surprise me if such things have happened more than once). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This kind of thing is a common problem in RfA-related commentary. "Something bad happened this one time, I don't really remember exactly what, but it was definitely bad, and we should definitely make sure something like that doesn't happen again! Or something." I appreciate this is just a thinking-out-loud comment here, but really. Everything on this project is logged. Evidence-free speculation shouldn't be necessary. If it's not worth the time to search for what you're remembering to refresh your memory, is it worth the time to write the comment? Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that "hostile environment" is even correct. Some admin candidates are challenged more than others, but that's because their qualifications are questioned and there is concern. Coretheapple (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I make these comments as a matter of opinion or different perspective, not for the purpose of dispute or argument. I am not sure how the "tendency to oppose for the slightest issue" is more than balanced by the tendency to "support per editor X" unless editor X is supporting for some minor reason or slight issue or the later supporter is simply relying on the previous supporting !voter or !voters, due to reputation, friendship or whatever, and not on their reasons. If one or a few editors write comprehensive, well-written comments and give good reasons, is it incumbent on later !voters to write these out again or can they simply say: editors X, Y and Z express the same position and give the same reasons as I have, or in shorthand, per editor X, without their vote being questioned in some way? Oppose !votes also are made per another earlier !voter's reasons. In the final analysis, this point may not be important with respect to the value of this proposition or overall, but I think it is incorrect to suggest that !votes should be discounted, whether support or oppose, if they are per previous !voters' well-written and persuasive comments. And I do not think that !votes per another editor's position necessarily balance !votes on the other side that are based on a narrow issue - especially when comparing oppose !votes to support !votes when oppose !votes are worth 3 to 4 times the value of support !votes. Perhaps an affirmation of the later !voter having given an independent look or a statement that the previous expressions cover the later !voter's position would help the credibility of such !votes per earlier ones, if that is necessary. Yet, the need for such statements would not seem to be something that could become well-known, much less required. This may be a minor point in the overall scheme of things but I would not like to think that the original comment on this point would be taken as a given without some further discussion. Donner60 (talk) 02:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I should note that Kraxler's examples conveniently glide over an important fact. This fact being, two of examples he chose are examples of successful RfAs from very highly experienced (both tenure and edit count) candidates. The other, although she admittedly had a much lower edit count than average, got more objections as noted in the final tally. But, she also had previous experience as an admin, so I'm sure that worked in her favor. However, we're talking about candidates who didn't have it so easy, and of these there are many. In fact, the whole point of discussion is that it shouldn't be only near-perfect candidates who have it so easy. There are many candidates who might have been good admins but failed and had a very bad experience at RfA, and we see candidates fail much more often than not. It should be a civil, productive experience for every candidate, not just the candidates we decide are "good" with our unreasonable expectations. In fact, according to policy, an admin candidate simply should have been active for at least a few months and have shown that they respect and understand the policies and practices of Wikipedia. --Biblioworm 15:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This comment above If "hostility at RfA" were banned … (and similar opposes), the implication of which is that we should tolerate hostility at RFA, brought this famous America orator’s 1978 speech to mind:

But you can't hold a whole fraternity responsible for the behavior of a few, sick twisted individuals. For if you do, then shouldn't we blame the whole fraternity system? And if the whole fraternity system is guilty, then isn't this an indictment of our educational institutions in general? I put it to you, Greg - isn't this an indictment of our entire American society? Well, you can do whatever you want to us, but we're not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America. Gentlemen!
— Otter, Animal House, 1978

If we are willing to tolerate "hostility" or uncivil behavior in any form in RFA discussions regardless of target or topic, then we can hardly expect the community at large to behave differently. In my dead serious view any tolerance of "hostile", uncivil discussion in RFA is contrary to Wikipedia:Civility, one of the WP:FIVE --Mike Cline (talk) 15:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is too nebulous for me to !vote on. I think we should concentrate on actionable or near-actionable proposals that improve the RfA process and as part of that, hopefully reduce forms of disallowed hostility (i.e. personal attacks). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I think some degree of skepticism is to be expected when you are nominating yourself. On the other hand, it is often overdone. Debresser (talk) 15:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A proposal must propose something. This proposes nothing. Fiddle Faddle 22:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Users can already be warned for not assuming good faith {{uw-agf1}} and a variety of other behavior-related issues such as harassment {{uw-harrass1}} and personal attacks {{uw-npa1}}. Editors need to start enforcing the policy and guideline-backed standards of behavior; in particular WP:Civility and WP:AGF with more regularity and less tolerance. Habitual offenders should be topic-banned from RfA. There's only one way to clean up behavior and that's by informing people of appropriate vs inappropriate behavior and having consequences if they act inappropriately. The infrastructure already exists to do this so I'm asking those that read this to start issuing those warning templates and support issuers if the user fights back (and often will). Jason Quinn (talk) 11:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can be hostile, just like any other discussion, but I don't see a proposal for actually changing anything here. Everybody just agreeing it isn't perfect isn't actually going to change anything, and that has been the problem for years among the 'RfA is broken' crowd. --Michig (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

D: More participants

RfAs should be advertised more widely than they currently are. Different !voters, rather than constantly the same ones, would result in a wider and fresher range of opinions. This would also make RfAs more representative of the community's opinion, rather than a small subset of it.

Support D

Support Although I don't think this will fully "fix" the process, it would be good to have a wider spectrum of opinions from the wider community. --Biblioworm 00:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wish we had a quick and easy bulletin board where we could see this stuff--this, and major changes in the interface, ArbCom elections, what not--and not those irritating pop-up kinds of things. Drmies (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the obvious reservations about making things too open, and possibly find !voters drawn in from some other site to support of oppose a candidate. John Carter (talk) 00:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support More often than not, the voters tend to be those who are familiar to regulars on the admin boards. The consistency with which some names appear at RFA to support/oppose certainly give the impression of a cabal promoting their friends, even if this is not the intention. Blackmane (talk) 02:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's never going to be anything wrong with getting as many voters out to participate as possible, although I will say that I'm constantly surprised that many of the names I see voting on RfAs are of editors I've never heard of before. BMK (talk) 02:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RfA has become a walled garden of regulars who have axes to grind with adminship in general, and we need fresh voices to fix the system. Not sure how to do that, but having more people invovled would certainly help a lot! --Jayron 32 02:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - I would go so far as to have random messages go out to experienced users, such as "one out of every 100 editors with over 3 months of editing and 1000 edits total and 10 edits in the last 90 days will get a message about a current RfA or RfB candidate, assuming there are any RfA/RfB's in progress," with a method to turn this off in the user's preferences. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Better outreach and advertisement with the RfA process would do many good things (as stated in the initial proposal). It would encourage a wider and more diverse range of voters that would provide new/different opinions and insight. An even more important reason to support expanding outreach and encourage new/more !voters is because it would help "shift" the norm that the RfA is comfortably used to sticking by - something that usually does not occur when the same long-term participants, and only the same long-term participants, cast !votes. All you need to do is simply look at the last 100 RfA's, as well as the many attempts to change the system in RfC. A majority of RfA's close with (generally) the same reasons and with many editors mentioning how badly it's broken, and when a well-thought-out RfC is started that would change things with RfA, it fails... every time. I believe that expanding outreach and encouraging more editors to participate and vote in the RfA process is a solution that would begin to break this entire cycle. If anything, it's a perfect place to start and we really have nothing to lose. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that getting more opinions is generally a good idea, and I don't see any harm in better advertising RFAs. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with one suggestion being to add RfA as a category of the feedback request service. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 05:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "New blood" in these kind of important discussions on Wikipedia is almost never a bad idea IMO. Guy1890 (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The more the merrier. We could consider a watchlist notice, or for starters transclude the RfX report on more visible pages. — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, strongly, per Bibliworm. This is an excellent idea, for excellent reasons as set out, above. — Cirt (talk) 08:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, in international comparison our participation rates are embarrassingly low. If at least half of active admins could show up at RfA, that might help. —Kusma (t·c) 09:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree, getting more opinions by advertisements will be a net profit. Jim Carter 12:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More community input means a more diverse opinions. It will bring up great qualities of a candidate which other never know and vice versa. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 13:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - It makes sense. More participation means more varied opinions. This has many plus points and would a net positive change. Yash! 14:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there needs to be a mechanism to inform people of pending RfAs. On several instances I've learned of RfAs that just ended, purely by happenstance, and was sorry I hadn't had a chance to participate (mainly to vote favorably, by the way). Coretheapple (talk) 18:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Advertising this in a larger scale should hopefully bring in new editors so thus you'd have new & varied comments - Sounds a great idea. –Davey2010^Talk 00:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I echo Coretheapple and Davey2010 (above). I usually find out after the fact that editors I know have run the gauntlet, wishing I'd voted them up. I'd welcome a notification system for users with a certain number of edits, or who have shared editing history and/or interaction with the admin candidate (as discussed elsewhere). Notification has the potential to both enlarge and democratize RfA culture; it might help people understand what admins do, improve their own behavior, and encourage more to consider doing the job. Vesuvius Dogg (talk) 01:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Each RFA should be linked in the Centralized Discussion box. This process absolutely needs more eyes on it. Townlake (talk) 02:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not everyone checks WP:RFA, so other ways of spreading the message should be considered (CENT, Signpost, a notification system, etc.) ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I strongly feel that if fresh eyes come to RfA they will quickly settle one way or another many of the perrenial disputes the usual crowd(me included) keep rehashing. Having a greater cross section of Wikipedia will give us fresh input on the community's view of administrators. It will reduce the amount of power minority views have to derail an RfA. Most importantly I hope it will replace the repetitive arguments at RfA discussions with fresh new ones. HighInBC 14:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comment below where I suggest a candidate to self-identify any WikiProjects where they work and thus an automated, neutral message that says that "editor foo, a member/participant of this wikiproject, has an RfA" would be generated. Likewise, others could also note this RfA on any wikiprojects where the candidate had a "history" - thus making it neutral (in my case, pinging WikiProject Horse racing may have generated support, but pinging WikiProject Opera may have generated opposition - arguably, pinging both projects would have been appropriate). Montanabw ^(talk) 01:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Coupled with a "de-weighting" for editors with under 250 total edits under their belts as being unlikely to have had enough administrator contact to have the slightest idea about the process. Historically under 2% of the voters fall in this category (too much time to go back to the beginning though), but in the last case it represented 4 out of the 58 "opposes" which was a significant percentage in that case. (a difference between 67% yea and 73% yea) Collect (talk) 14:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is hands down the best idea on this page. Increased participation dilutes block voting that is currently too influential at RfA. We need the whole community to decide RfA, not a small group of regulars. RO ^(talk) 18:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The more opinions that are cast upon a candidate the better as there is more to take away from the discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I have nothing against "RfA regulars", particularly given that I used to be one, but presuming the current system is kept, RfA would have more credibility and probably a higher quality of discussion if a larger and more representative segment of the community participated. CT Cooper · talk 20:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- something like the feedback request service? Eman235/talk 01:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Completely agree with more participation by varied users. Yes, it would be hoped that editors who have familiarity would be those commenting; however, unless wide community support is sought a few editors end up controlling the process for everyone. On the other hand, there may be plenty, as I have said before, who came, saw all the drama and chose not to become involved. SusunW (talk) 17:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The more we dilute the votes from those with unreasonable criteria, the better. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for the sake of getting more voices included, which is a matter of basic fairness. Anyone who would oppose this should ask themselves whether effectively keeping this process exclusive is prudent. However, I don't think doing this solves the main issues with RfA, although it may ease some. This is a "worth a try" idea and doing it harms nothing. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - how about we get something like WP:FRS for RfA? Just as I had typed this, I checked and saw several other people have mentioned the same thing. :) --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We need more participants who evaluate candidates using defined standards. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think they should all be advertised at the top of the page. That will draw more editors that have actual experience of interacting with the editor in question, not just trolls going through their history to find something they don't personally like. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Peacemaker67.--Tomandjerry211 (alt) (talk) 11:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support wider advertisement. I don't know if it will help, but I also don't think it will do any harm.--Aervanath (talk) 19:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. It's getting somewhat clique-ish in there - rarely a good situation. A broader base of participants would be desirable. However, I doubt it's a smart idea to broadcast RfAs onto the widest editor base; that's a recipe for crashing the signal/noise ratio, and more work for those who have to decode the result. Competence is Required applies (although harder to define here, natch). Is there such a thing as notifications that fire only for editors with x+ edits?-- Elmidae (talk) 19:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Though, while I strongly support this, we should still follow WP:CANVASS rules. I've personally seen several times how "votestacking" can be a legitimate destroyer to a discussion. - jc37 22:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support More community involvement is a good thing. The more comments on any topic are more likely to come to the best result. AlbinoFerret 22:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — RFA's should be advertised at the top of the page (as per Peacemaker). That way, every active Wikipedian will be reminded of his or her opportunity to vote on the nomination, rather than a few people who make RFA their hideout. David Cannon (talk) 12:02, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — We should make it more diverse. Zezen (talk) 13:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Or else Wikipedia will always be stuck with the same old "Cabal that is not a cabal"[1] ruling the day and no real major changes will ever happen. Brustopher (talk) 18:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - A balance needs to be created between involving editors in process and avoiding promotion that indicates excessive bureaucracy, but it is not easy for new and newish editors to navigate the internal workings of enWiki. Some form of light promotion here or on one or more of the subpages might be useful. Fenix down (talk) 13:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree with Aervanath's reasoning. More light promotion wouldn't hurt. APerson (talk!) 15:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can very weakly support something like a watchlist notice, because I guess it seems helpful in principle, but I am skeptical that it will really have much of a positive effect. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I'm not sure how useful this will be. The other issues need to be fixed as well, or any new users may pick up the bad habits shown in the current process. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
support should be widely advertised. --ℕ ℱ 01:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
support and dare I say: perhaps some automated methods might be a good idea as well. Similar to an RFC Bot that will post about RFA announcements to talk pages of editors who appear to be constructive and active. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - "More eyes may help" is part of our culture. Jonathunder (talk) 18:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, mostly per Peacemaker above. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per Peacemaker, whose comments make a lot of sense to me. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ironholds (talk) 06:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Biblioworm. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) 10:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think more people raising different concerns would at least change the pace in RfA, where it seems everyone now raises the same concerns every time. Fresh editors with fresh viewpoints might fix the broken process.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 10:21, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I strongly support efforts to publicize *all* significant wiki votes and proposals, and RfAs certainly belong at the top of any day's morning briefing. The input of committed editors is the true strength of the project, and the more of it we can get inside deep-wiki arcana like RfAs, the better. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why not? Gamaliel (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Quality over quantity argument makes no sense here. Making RFA more prominent doesn't mean we'll start promoting unqualified candidates. It means there will be more candidates, and with more candidates, will come more qualified ones. It's how schools work. The quality over quantity argument only speaks to changes to the standards in which we promote candidates, not how much we promote applying. Mkdw ^talk 20:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose D

RFA is not going to hold widespread appeal for most of the users of Wikipedia. Editors who have the familiarity with issues that matter at RFA are going to be aware of the process, they may just not choose to participate, just as an editor may be aware that there is a process of deletion, but it's not a process that interests them. I don't think RFA participation rates are unreasonably low. Don't overlook that a count of the number of participants only includes the number who have actually commented on a candidate, not the number who have reviewed the RFA, considered the supporters and opposers, and chose not to comment because the RFA was already going in the direction they would have preferred anyway. Neil916 (Talk) 01:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
People who are interested will watch WP:RFA and those who aren't won't. Advertising is simply going to randomise the expectations even more then they already are and encourage inexperienced users to dive in with out of field thoughts and opinions. There is very litter evidence that involving more random people has ever solved anything. Just look at the reactionary cesspit that is AN and ANI. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thiunk that lack of participation is a result, not cause, of the RFA trouble. When fewer users run at RFA, fewer users will keep an eye on it and vote in the new discussions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A short lesson in History: To increase the overall voter base has not led to any significant change in history. When women conquered the right to vote in New York in 1918, politicians were afraid that they may vote for new parties, bad candidates, or women, but actually nothing changed. Although the total number of votes doubled, they voted for the same people as the men used to vote for, and only two women were elected for 1919, one Republican and one Democrat. At some time the voting age was lowered from 21 to 18 in Germany, with the same result: no big change. On the other side, when Jacob D. Fuchsberg (a lawyer without experience as a judge) started to campaign for a seat on the New York Court of Appeals, which had never before been done (the judges were nominated by the parties, and voted for without campaigning) and defeated the party nominees, the seats were made appointive. Apparently the voters are won over by the candidate who spends more money, and makes the funnier TV commercials, not by the more experienced and qualified candidate. Kraxler (talk) 11:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The turnout at RfA has never been so high. We don't want extra publicity to attract even more trolls to the process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quality over quantity of voters. Quality of voting needs to be addressed before quantity. Esquivalience ^t 20:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people assume that if we only got a different batch of voters, they'd be ever so much more thoughtful and reasonable than the extant RfA regulars? They are far more likely to have similar prejudices, similar voting patterns and hobby horses of their very own. Ravenswing 20:11, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
When the electorate keeps saying no to you, the answer is not to change the electorate.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I'm putting this here because although I agree with the sentiment and encourage more participation, this is demonstrably not a problem with the process. RfAs frequently pass the 200-participants mark, and that is very hard to achieve in any venue on this project. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Quality over quantity. INeverCry 04:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is about the worst thing that could be done in terms of encouraging more people to request adminship. SpinningSpark 21:33, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, if reluctantly. RfA participation as it is only really attracts those most interested with the internal workings of the project, who by virtue of that generally know what to look for (even if their standards are warped) and are familiar with Wikipedia's policies. Given that we have a fair amount of users who either don't care to see how the sausage is made or who have been put through the meat grinder to be made into sausage and are gunshy as a result, this position is, for all intents and purposes, untenable. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There's no evidence that more voters is better for the process. In fact, we ought to start making qualification requirements for voters to keep Wikipedia insular. (No, I'm not kidding.) Chris Troutman (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — ditto on what Esquivalience said: quality over quantity. Also, ditto on what Ivanvector said: the number of people participating is rarely the issue. Furthermore, just using anecdotal evidence when it applies to countries, increased visibility of an election appears to do nothing to enhance the quality of the arguments raised in the election (and if anything seems to dilute and lower the quality of arguments—the antithesis of what RfA reform aims for). --slakr^\ talk / 07:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeTrilobitealive (talk) 01:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
One, RfA is one of the most participated venues in WP; Two, if anything, number of participants seems to be a symptom, not a cause.

Comments on D

Although I support this idea, care should be taken as this invites SPAs, and votes rather than discussions i.e., Supports and Opposes not based on contributions.—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 04:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Neil916: If they don't comment, then they shouldn't be called a "participant". —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 05:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@KarasuGamma: That was sort of the point I was trying to make, I probably didn't word it as clearly as I could have. Restating the point: You can't look at a completed RFA, and determine that only 126 users determined the outcome. Many more people would have seen it, may have formed an opinion about the candidate, and did not post a comment about it because it did not add to the discussion, and it was clear that the apparent where the candidacy was headed. This is especially true if a candidacy is heading for defeat, as many experienced contributors don't like to pile on in opposition. Neil916 (Talk) 19:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether to support or oppose: I oppose the header but support the statement underneath it. We need different participants. We do not need more. Roughly 100-200 !voters per candidate is more than enough. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about having an automatic watchlist notice every time an RfA or RfB starts? This should be possible using Lua without having to resort to a bot. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could the automatic watchlist notice wait an hour or two after the RfA has been transcluded to avoid bothering people with obvious NOTNOW RfAs? — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 14:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that shouldn't be too hard. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding SPAs, they find their own way to RfA if their "single purpose" includes that. As for the arguments that we don't need greater numbers of people I agree, but what we do need it not to have the same people every time. Right now there are more than a few people that go to RfA to oppose the process of RfA itself or to push a minority view by opposing at RfA. More people will reduce the power these minority views have to disrupt RfA(no I will not mention names). HighInBC 14:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per JAaron95, I would echo the caution about anon IPs and socks. I had a clear anon IP and a SPA try to !vote or comment on my RfA, and I strongly suspect the came from one or two now-banned sockpuppets where I had a role in "busting" them. That said, I also think there needs to be some way to "advertise" an RfA to those who might actually know the candidate's work and be in a position to offer clueful comments. One idea might be for a candidate to self-identify any WikiProjects where they work and thus an automated, neutral message that says that "editor foo, a member/participant of this wikiproject, has an RfA" would be generated. Likewise, others could also note this RfA on any wikiprojects where the candidate had a "history" - thus making it neutral. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We need a bot that sends an invite message to all active, experienced editors who have had a talk page interaction with the nominee. One main reason I don't participate is that I generally don't know most who are nominated. This bot would fix that issue for me, and I hope others. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The worst excesses of the RfA process are caused by the fact that the entire community can take part in the "interviewing" of the candidate. Of course the community should decide on the process and the requirements for administrators, but it is completely hopeless to have them all there for every individual interview. It kind of makes it a political process. But the job is not a job for politicians, it is a job for technocrats. If you want politicians, just carry on this way. SpinningSpark 22:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out by Guy Macon, I'm currently running a roughly similar straw poll to inform eligible arbcom voters that they can vote [[2]] - with the exception that I am not proposing a general policy change, but instead seeking feedback on the appropriateness of using my own admin toolset to carry out my idea this arbcom election cycle. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral...more doesn't mean better. Better voters are needed. There needs to be minimum standard for voting in an RfA (edit count, no biased connections or suspect interactions with the candidate, etc.), maybe make voting a permission or right like autopatrolled or rollback. If that were the case, have a bot select 50 or 100 eligible voters to participate and let them decide by secret ballot. 60% support wins. JackTheVicar (talk) 16:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E: Difficult to remove admins

The current process by which we remove admins (namely, WP:ARBCOM) is too long/bureaucratic/difficult. The community should have an easier and more community-based method with which admins can be desysopped.

Support E

...Weak support maybe policy or guidelines could be adjusted in such a way as to make WP:AE or something similar a way to remove admins, probably with a fair number of opinions or !votes on the removal required before action could be taken? John Carter (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think this point can be worded better to illustrate that "RFA is hard to pass because participants know it is so hard to remove a seated admin". I agree with this, and in the current system, it causes participants to be very cautious about who makes it through the process. Neil916 (Talk) 02:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree. I think that, if bans and editing restrictions can be imposed upon a user by community consensus (such as what you will see occur regularly on ANI), then surely there can be the same process of establishing community consensus to have an administrator desysopped (given that legitimate concern is brought forward with supporting evidence, enough editors are involved, there is enough community participation to comfortably assert that consensus has been reached, etc). Or, maybe an "Request for De-adminship", or something similar? Where filing one against a current admin would require evidence of numerous failed attempts to resolve the matter in question and/or evidence of numerous failed attempts to correct the action(s), and maybe 10 supporting nominations before moving forward. If it does, then there are questions that the admin can answer in order to explain the concerns. If enough support votes are attained to establish consensus then the "RfD" closes as successful and a crat proceeds with desysopping. Just another idea... ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support BMK (talk) 22:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though I don't have much to add; my opinions are closely aligned with those of Neil916 and Oshwah here. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 05:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There needs to be a more widespread community recall procedure for administrators on Wikipedia. No where near enough current administrators are really open to voluntary recall efforts, and I think that the community would get better general behavior from our administrator corps (and improved confidence in them over time) if we all knew that being an administrator wasn't a "lifetime appointment". Even a few Wikipedia administrators that feel like they are above reproach can cause a lot of damage to this project over time. Guy1890 (talk) 06:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with a good idea put forth by John Carter, above. — Cirt (talk) 09:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support without reservation. IMO one of the big causes of RfA problems is the eventual realization by the community that adminship is essentially indefinite. We can talk about how it isn't a big deal or how opposes should be moderated on the basis of this or that, but so long as people understand the structure of the underlying game, they're going to be strongly risk averse. Protonk (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is a major underlying reason for the reluctance of users to elevate editors: that being an administrator is a roach-motel lifetime position. The process for removal needs to be made more civilized, less drama-ridden for all concerned. Also, within reason, users bringing complaints against admins in such proceedings need to be given "whistleblower" protection and not subject to retaliation unless their complaints are utterly groundless and made in bad faith. Coretheapple (talk) 15:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve seen this proposed a lot, and I think that allowing a more streamlined, community centered way to remove admins is a good idea. I think it would also increase the number of successful RFAs, since the community would be more willing to give the mop to editors if they knew they could take it back with relative ease if the editor started to misbehave or failed at his or her duties. I would like to make two caveats though. First, I would like to see some protection put in place to ensure that admins aren’t being desysoped for purely political motives, and that outside groups such as GamerGate aren’t able to hijack the recall system to get revenge against admins who make sound, policy-based decisions that are to the disliking of the outside group. Additionally, I oppose limited terms. I feel that if an admin is doing their job well, then they should be allowed to keep the mop as long as they keep up their good behavior. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A community based board/discussion sounds a brilliant idea - Not everything needs to go to Arbcom. –Davey2010^Talk 00:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - but it will never fly because a) nobody wants to come up with an idea and launch it at RfC, and b) if they do, the professional anti-everything mob turns up to derail it including the noisy back benchers and those former functionaries who believe that bullying the participants is the best tactic.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I've been unsure about this one, but after considering it I think it would be best for the community to have a more direct voice in dealing with admins who need to be dealt with. --Biblioworm 17:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Taking the mop back should not be more difficult than giving it away. RO ^(talk) 18:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Everyking (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, having seen this problem. There should be Requests of Adminship and Requests for De-Adminship. Simple. Eman235/talk 01:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I Support the principle, but this has been proposed before without a suitable procedure being devised so I'm explicitly not supporting any specific method to achieve this (at this point). Thryduulf (talk) 12:09, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Why shouldn't there be a process exactly the same as RfA, but for the exact opposite effect? It could be called RfU(nadminship). Or something like that. Very similar procedures, with an attempt for consensus. But right now it's way too hard to remove an admin, and relatively easier to make someone an admin. Admins have immense power on WP, there should be no reason why they aren't accountable. mikeman67 (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support On Commons we have de-sysop requests (basically de-RFAs). Mine worked like a charm... INeverCry 04:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, although I don't see the relevance to RFA. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Support. Per Super Mario Effect (explanation in comments) --Guy Macon (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen admins that were horrible — more interested in POV-pushing than in Wikipedia's major policies, and in helping allies, threatening, harsh -- yet they will be admins for life. -- Ríco 17:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support There are many bad Admins out there, who seem to enjoy using their Admin status to threaten and ridicule others. Make them stand for re-election each year and they would be far less likely to behave that way. (Be sure to post the re-election schedule somewhere where anyone they have ridiculed can find it.) StuRat (talk) 19:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support! Yes, RfA standards are too high (A) and !votes are too strongly weighted (J), but why? RfA voters and closers are wary of rubber-stamping admin candidates precisely because bad admins are all but impossible to remove. Even admins who don't break the rules can be counterproductive, and even blockable offenses are not always enough to earn a de-sysopping. Improvements to RfA itself will help, but the best way to boost the size and quality of the admin pool is to introduce a straightforward, consensus-driven de-sysopping process. —Swpb^talk 20:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, while it doesn't directly have to do with RfAs, this would be a huge help. This would let more candidates, good and bad, pass, but then, people wouldn't have to worry about horrible incivil arrogant admins that are about impossible to be desysopped. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support there should be a system of probation, where three uninvolved admins can suspend a probationary admins mop for specific infractions. Probation for say, three months. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've seen alot of situations where people with an axe to grind with a Admin have misused some of these process. I could see a form of peer review as useful. Other Admins reviewing an Admins actions similar to what some doctors do in a medical inquest. There may cases where an admins actions shouldn't lead to a block but there actions should be corrected. This could do both.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 08:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a more community-based method with which admins can be desysopped. Tim Smith (talk) 13:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's seems close to impossible for an admin to get desysopped unless they've gotten themselves WP:INVOLVED and committed wrongdoing. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The whole process will be better if we can make it easier to both promote new admins and to remove existing ones. Deli nk (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per above.--Catlemur (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A permanent Arbcom has been established for the sole purpose of enforcing politically correct language and permanently banishing people deemed "offenders". Okay. I don't care for a lot of WP:SOAPBOXing and WP:FRINGE either. This one, however, designated non-admins to "nominate" people for a "blacklist", which would make me eligible for "participation" in the Arbcom which was throwing out a half dozen editors a day. I disagreed in pure innocence (so help me!) with editors on the discussion page and one put me on the blacklist. I took the hint and unwatched the article. This seemed thuggish IMO. Anything that can prevent non-admins from assuming the mantle of a prosecutor would be appreciated by me. Student7 (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If this is structured in a sufficiently abuse-resistant way, it alone might be sufficient to prevent many precautionary opposes.-- Elmidae (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The task is hard, and only in extreme cases is it possible to remove an admin. AlbinoFerret 22:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of the past 7 admins to be desysopped by Arbcom, 3 were resigning and trying to get desysopped on purpose, one was scamming a whole bunch of Indian students , and another caused a national political scandal a month before a general election by making close to baseless accusations against an MP. If this is the level of abuse you need to reach to get desysopped there's clearly a problem. Brustopher (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there is one thing that could be done to make more editors comfortable supporting RfA candidates, it would be to make those editors more confident that mistaken supports would be easily corrected. I believe strongly that we need to make it easier to remove bad administrators without making it easier to hassle the good ones. But I also think that ArbCom is continuously getting better at accomplishing this, whereas it is very difficult to design a community-based system that would really be better than ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I doubt this is the key issue. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - This key concept is continually shot down by existing admins, many of whom gained their extra buttons years ago and would not be able to pass an Rfa today. Going to be interesting to see what the final percentage of opposers to "E" are admins, a quick survey reveals the number at over 50% as of this post. I agree with Tryptofish that this is the single most important solution towards breaking up the current logjam at Rfa. Jus da fax 12:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. When you unbundle the tools, you make it easy to add and remove rights at a moment's notice. Problem solved. Viriditas (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support: if the community wishes to bring back the days of NOBIGDEAL, this is one thing that absolutely must be done. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. These days, anyone with the ability to block a user's access to a site is seen as powerful, and thus a "big deal." Wishing this wasn't so won't fix that. Arbcom does act in specific circumstances, but Brustopher does a good job of illustrating the level which must be reached before this happens. We need something better. Intothat darkness 19:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportTrilobitealive (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
support in principle. We need a workable solution, and it must involve admin rights being subject to recall for abuse or misconduct. Admins should have their bits suspended during review. Admin rights should not be a life tenure. There should be some form of reelection process. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above user has been checkuser indef blocked for socking (see Talk page). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Possibly the biggest reason that RfAs have evolved into such desperate affairs is that it's clear that admins, once installed, are rarely removed. This policy of effective lifetime appointment should be reviewed (and changed), but it's also absolutely necessary to secure and expand the community-based recall option. SteveStrummer (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. OK, here's an example: Neelix. I guess you could say that the system is working, as he's currently at WP:RFAR. However, this is only because a motion to desysop him failed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose E

RfA is too hard by desysopping is also too hard...? The recent past has seen a number of admins desysopped, and while that usually takes a bit of time, that's the proper way. And if desysopping is so hard, I wonder what one makes of the case of Malik Shabazz, who got his tool within a few hours (or less?) yanked after one tiny little infraction, being baited by racist commentary. Drmies (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say this has it 100% backwards. The reason why adminship is too hard to take away is that the community treats it as too precious. If it were already easier to become an admin, we'd have more better admins, and wouldn't feel the need to make removing it so hard. --Jayron 32 02:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is that admins who step over the line are having their bit removed - if the Malik Shabazz case shows anything, its that Arbcom are too quick to yank the bit. People who claim abusive admins are inviolate rarely provide the names and evidence to back up their assertions. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: ~97% of administrators who have passed RfA have not been removed from their posts by ArbCom. Unless a body of evidence can be provided showing there is some significant number of admins that should not be admins that have not been de-adminned by ArbCom, then this idea is moot. Everyone likes to think that a community based de-adminship would solve what ails RfA. There's no evidence to suggest it would. Meanwhile, there's significant evidence to suggest it would decimate the standing admin corps and reduce the ability of this project to function. I am not opposed to a community based de-adminship process. I am opposed to attempting to implement one without evidence to support there is a need for one. Taking a poll is not evidence, just opinion. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - In theory, there are only 2 options for desysoping in case of misbehavior: community or a selected committee. I believe that in this case, the community would tend to remove the very best sysops (the ones who handle the most controvertial issues), so we need a selected committee - and ARBCOM seems like the best option we have for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Desysopping isn't exactly rare. Five admins have been desysopped for cause this year, and more resigned under a cloud. Nor does it really have much to do with RfA: the promotion rate has taken a nose dive while it hasn't got any harder to desysop people. Most concrete proposals for an alternative desysop process have major flaws. Hut 8.5 20:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a popular meme with no apparent basis in fact. I'm not aware of recent difficulties removing problematic admins. Townlake (talk) 02:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The statement is just wrong. Several admins have been desysopped by motion within a few days, lately. You better withdraw this, or reword the statement. Anyway, any admin who is active in AfD would be mobbed by those who got their articles deleted, if there was some community desysop procedure. There's a reason why in civilized places people who are suspected of breaking the law are tried in a court of law, not by their neighbors. Kraxler (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Desysopping has become significantly easier (and more common) over the last ten years, while becoming a sysop has become harder. (Maybe we should make desysopping harder? Would that make becoming a sysop easier again??) —Kusma (t·c) 13:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really that hard to remove unsuitable admins; it just may take a while. Esquivalience ^t 20:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose per several of the above comments and my own observations that many admins who make serious mistakes voluntarily resign the mop or quit wikipedia altogether. It isn't that difficult to deysop, actually it's easier than getting the mop in the first place these days. My thinking is that if there is any actual problem, just clarify the grounds for a desysop - any weakening of the process is just bait for the disgruntled trolls who love drama. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with hard to get the bit and modestly difficult to remove it. My impression is that wheel wars were very common in the past and have become less common in the present. I don't buy into the theory relaxing standards to give more editors the bit. Glrx (talk) 18:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, in the current climate of RFA. A side effect of the demanding nature of RFA is that those who are promoted are *very* good candidates. If getting the mop becomes easier, then we should talk about making taking it away easier. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 23:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose I don't think leaving this in the hands of the community is the best idea. For all the bad admin out there, what is stopping a lynching for an admin that might have done something minor? The people voting to desysop an admin would have their votes weighed in by strength of argument right? If so then by who? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I'm not against a community led process to remove problematic admins, but I haven't seen much evidence of it being too difficult to remove the tools from problematic admins. ArbCom is far from perfect, but they are generally effective at yielding their power to remove admins that have lost the trust of the community. I certainly do not believe that the removal of adminship is the core problem with RfA today. CT Cooper · talk 20:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither attaining adminship nor losing it should be taken lightly. Standards should be followed. SusunW (talk) 17:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: If people sought desysopping for better reasons than the all-too-typical "That rat bastard admin did something I don't like!!!" that'd be another thing. I'm quite comfortable with making things tough for the lynch mobs. Ravenswing 20:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It should be somewhat difficult to remove admin privileges once given. Otherwise, admins will be timid where they should be energetic. The tools should be very hard to obtain, so they wind up only in the right hands. Once they've been granted, there should be a significant burden to carry before they can be removed. Think: life tenure for federal judges in the U.S. David in DC (talk) 20:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ArbCom is adequately handling cases of actual misconduct. Anything else is moaning "oh, I don't like Admin X because they're mean". Such a system would require, at a minimum, significant procedural safeguards against mob action, and we have that with ArbCom (though they are not immune from poor conduct against people either, I'm thinking specifically what happened to the (missed) Elen of the Roads. But I'm not thinking of chucking ArbCom out the window for it.)--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I don't think this has much, if any, effect. Even where admin standards are lax (hi, I'm from Commons!) far more admins are lost due to inactivity than to bad behaviour. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose again because although I support the sentiment, I don't think it's a problem with the process, or rather it is an entirely separate issue. That it's too hard to fire someone isn't a valid criticism of the hiring process. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Process Oppose as this has nothing to do with RfAs. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Indeed, I struggle to think of what sort of logic justifies this position in an RfC that seems to be ostensibly about why we're facing an administrative logistics hell. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Townlake and Jéské Couriano. Gamaliel (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I feel like the judicial-like investigative process of ARBCOM is actually the fairest way to remove the bit.--Aervanath (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Adminship is not an "office". It's simply a lifting of security features. The Arbcom already has all the power it needs to removed admins. Making it easier to remove admins would, in my opinion, make many admins fearful of carrying out their responsibilities such as page protection, blocking, etc., as such actions create enemies — who would then have the knives out for the faithful admin. Let's not empower people who have grudges —I fear this proposal leans heavily that way. David Cannon (talk) 12:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As others have stated, the problem is actually at the other end. If the community would agree to stop treating adminship as some office of high power and prestige, which it most certainly is not, it would be easier to get adminship and we wouldn't be so worried about losing the ones we have. It's a culural problem, not a "rules" problem. It would certainly be easier if this were a problem that could be fixed by an RFC, but it just isn't. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as a matter of principal as this point is not related in anyway to the RfA process. Fenix down (talk) 13:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — this is a perennial complaint that's perennially rebuked. It has no business being snuck into discussions about RfA reform, because there's no evidence that the ease or difficulty of removing admins in any way translates to the ease of adding them or increasing the quality of discussion of a candidate. Historically, you could even say it's been quite the opposite: admins were more easily added back when there wasn't even a process of formally removing them. --slakr^\ talk / 08:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The idea that admins are hard to remove is demonstrably false. Nobody has ever been able to provide current examples of admins that need to be desysoped by have not been. HighInBC 16:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, changing admin status should be not-too-hard (easy is not good), but the current process mostly works. And I am a firm believer on the merits of representative democracy, any (direct) "community desysoping" I've seen is a variant of mob-rules. - Nabla (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I haven't seen any admins that need to be desysopped still with the tools. ArbCom clearly can respond to cases and it seems those complaining about making it difficult to desysop admins only seem to have that opinion because they fundamentally don't like the person over abuses of the tools. Unless someone can name a few admins that need to be desysopped but cannot because the process is "too hard"? Mkdw ^talk 20:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on E

My solution to this is for admins to serve limited terms, say 5 years, after which they would go through a process similar to RfA, but where the passing level would be pretty low, say 45%. (This is to compensate for any accumulated grudges.) For the occasional admin who oversteps his bounds, or approaches their work with a bad attitude, knowing that a re-confirmation process is coming up might be a impetus to behave better. Or, admins who just slip by could serve "probationary" terms of 2-3 years, while those who pass with high percentages perhaps serve 7 years before having to be confirmed. The point is that a lifetime appointment does not seem to me to be a good idea. Certainly it protects the admin from unwarranted reprisals, but it also shields them from the displeasure of the community. BMK (talk) 02:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse limited-term adminship, BMK's idea of retention elections is not the best but it is better than we have now. I do like his idea of shorter terms for those who start off with lower support ("admins who just slip by"). I think another Wikipedia (German?) already has fixed-term admin elections. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the problem with RfA is that the hostility of the environment makes it too hard to add new admins to the admin corps, the solution to the problem is to now take the existing corps and subject them to the same unwarranted hostility so they can be allowed to continue responding to RFPP requests? And that's going to fix the core problem? --Jayron 32 03:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you are referring to those elected prior to any change to a term-limit, we would have to handle "grandfathering in" existing admins in some form or fashion. This may mean leaving them with the "lifetime bit," it may mean leaving them with it as long as they remain active as an editor and/or as an admin, or it may just mean "declaring them elected for a full term" so they won't have to worry about running again for awhile. But that's a discussion for another day. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Our problem is too few admins, we need to encourage more candidates to run, the last thing we need is to get rid of good experienced admins. Most of our currently active admins have been admins for more than five years, and with RFA so nasty these days, this is a disruptive process that would do a lot of harm for no discernable benefit. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re Hammersoft's concern: I am not surprised that 97% of admins, if that accurate, don't get kicked out. I hope not, nor do I expect that not to be the case. I don't believe that proponents of making the desysop process easier believe that admins ranks are saturated with bad apples. However, all you need are a few to cause real damage and to create a burden for other editors. Right now at RfArb a case is coming up, still active at last look though probably not to be accepted, revolving around an admin who supposedly abused his tools. Such occasions are tough on all concerned, and should be handled in a less drama-ridden process. Coretheapple (talk) 20:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on some evidence over the last week. I've been seeing some interesting results. I don't have anything hard at this point, but there seems to be a case to be made that RfA is an extremely poor predictor of later failure of admins that are forced out. This makes me wonder if the inverse, a system to remove admins, would also be a very poor predictor of which admins should be removed. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a poor predictor, just as it was in the case of Pastor Theo, Wifione, and some other prominent ones whose names I can't mention because they are still with us and for some reason are still allowed to participate at all. Those who loudly insist that all admins are bad are doing more harm than good and most of their complaints are just righteous indignation and they don't have long lock logs for no reason; that's why although there needs to be a fast track system for making admins more accountable, it doesn't always need to end in a removal of the tools and I'm very much averse to the notion that an easier desysoping process should be used as a witch hunt to whittle out more admins under the flimsiest of accusations. I thought that kind of thing went out with McCarthy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has been the basic problem from the start: I think it is because it is so difficult to get rid of abusive admins, that RfA has become so toxic.
A possibility is to allow new candidates for RfA to *only* have the tools for, say, 3-4-5 years. In such cases I think the community would be more, shall we say, benevolent, as one would know that we could easily get rid of them in 3-4-5 years, if they turn out bad, Huldra (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In videogames, The Super Mario Effect is as follows: When Mario gets a power up that turns him into Super Mario, a mistake that would normally kill him as ordinary Mario simply turns him from Super Mario to ordinary Mario, then he has to make another mistake to be killed. Likewise when an administrator does something that would get an ordinary editor indefinitely blocked, he is desysopped, turning him into an ordinary editor. Then he has to do something else wrong to be actually blocked. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a bit too generous, to me, and goes away from the standard assumption that "Admins are just normal editors with access to extra buttons". Imagine if we did this is the real world, where a policeman who commits murder isn't arrested, just loses his job. (This may be what often happens as a practical matter, but at least it's not enshrined in the law.) I agree with what was said earlier about making RfA easier but make staying an Admin harder. As for accumulated grudges, if an Admin is pissing off more people than he is helping (who would presumably support him), then he should not be an Admin. Just speaking with people with respect is a simple skill many of them seem to totally lack. StuRat (talk) 20:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is the effect that some people claim to have seen. I'm not sure they are right, or if so, maybe partially right. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 06:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Strong support I know it is hard to be an admin, but as an experienced editor of some 8 years, I have seen to many incompetent admins, it is shocking The most important improvement to choosing admins, is to make it clear that they can be easily removed! Debresser (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some hospitals will form a medical inquest when patient dies to see if there were any issues that could have been prevented. Various things can happen in these. I'd suggest something along the lines of an admin inquest in addition to what's already here. When questionable comes up a place where other admins can review there actions. To correct their behavior and if necessary to deysopp.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 18:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already have that in ArbCom. An RfAR contains an evidence collection phase. An RfA like process to remove admin privs would not have that. Any process that does not include an evidence phase is just a (lack of) popularity contest. Any process that does include an evidence phase needs people experienced in sifting through such things to reach appropriate conclusions. Having a process entirely open to anyone to vote removes that. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is nothing actually being proposed here. In any case removing admins is not directly related to the RfA process. --Michig (talk) 15:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed above, but I think that we should increase accountability and "visibility" (for the lack of a better term). Maybe there should be some form of '(dis)liking' admin actions, and some better statistic than averaging them. Maybe a better logging system. Maybe... amny things I can not think of, but surely we can improve accountability, and thye ease to understand if that one poor judgement we just notice is a one of case, that will get solved easily with a conversation, or if it is part of a pattern of (arrogance, misjudgement, ...). - Nabla (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

F: Unbundle the tools

Currently, it is too difficult for candidates to pass because they are being trusted with a large toolset. If we unbundled the tools, candidates could simply apply for the particular right(s) which they would personally find most useful and/or have the most non-admin experience in.

Support F

Support – Of course. It's inevitable. It's only a question of when. That said, this is tangential to the overall thrust of Biblioworm's RfC, and should probably be dropped as it's a separate topic. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Some candidates could easily be trusted with page-delete/undelete but their past behavior (e.g. interaction bans, short temper, etc.) means they probably can't get 70% support to have the "block user" user-right, and vice-versa. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but depends on which tools, and what are the standards, for each. — Cirt (talk) 09:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support AS ALWAYS. It's silly to keep tools bundled beyond the minimum necessary for legal issues. block/protect/delete are different classes of tools and can be meted out through different processes. Protonk (talk) 13:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support I support unbundling in principle, but I don't think it should be unbundling just for the sake of unbundling. I don't think it would make sense to unbundle something that is almost always used with other admin tools during normal admin duties, but if there are cases where the tool is usually used by itself, then unbundling would be a good option. One example that springs to mind is closing AfD discussions, which normally only requires delete and viewdeleted. Of course, viewdeleted is the right that requires community vetting due to the legal implications for the WMF, but it still may be more attractive for some candidates to run for a deletion-only RfA than to run for the current incarnation of RfA. There may be more scenarios like this that I haven't thought of. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that if the tools were unbundled it would make the whole process much easier on everybody concerned. An editor who can recognize and block vandals might not be qualified to engage in intricate sockpuppet investigations or rule on complex ANI complaints. Coretheapple (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're correct that being competent at vandal blocking doesn't require competence at ANI and sockpuppetry-related issues, but it does require the same technical tools. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, block and protect. People might think these are roughly the same level of importance, and therefore that they should be given out together. But, as an example, people often oppose RfAs for reasons relating to how someone deals with deletion (i.e. CSD and AfD), when actually the user just wants to deal with vandal fighting (block, protect, and the occasional delete). Yes, some jobs need mixtures of these tools, but then you can post to the relevant noticeboard—that's what happens anyway when the user has none of the three rights. I would be open to a variety of ideas about how these tools could be given out individually (based on an RfA, some kind of mini-RfA, something closer to requesting rollback etc.), but I definitely support the idea of unbundling them somehow. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We've had several successful unbundles in the past, and could do more. We need some strong content creators on the DYK queues, and it might probably makes sense to make that a separate right or role similar to the way FA runs. There is a proposal elsewhere on this page to unbundle a very limited delete to everyone. I'd also support unbundling block providing it didn't work on accounts with more than 100 edits. But each unbundling needs to be thought through, not everything can be unbundled Ϣere SpielChequers 18:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Some of the admin rights (suppressredirect, tboverride) have less potential for disruption than rights available to autoconfirmed users or at Requests for permissions, others such as undelete should only be available to users who need them, not just because they are only available bundled together. Peter James (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: At the very least, there should be a split between the "people" toolset (block, unblock) and the "pages" toolset (protect, delete, etc.). --Carnildo (talk) 23:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support to the extent that it complies with Wikimedia Policy. The admin tool bundle is huge and many admins really just want to specialize in a few areas (e.g. updating sections on the Main Page). ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Bilorv and WereSpielChequers. Carnildo also makes a good point about categorizing the rights. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 02:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but as any admin who has worked at WP:PERM will know, it will add another shelf to the millinery. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Unbundling the tools will reduce the need for admin privileges, but for more controversial actions (e.g. deleting, blocking), confirmation by another user with the same right should be required. Esquivalience ^t 20:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: There are tools related to wikignoming tasks related to article and project content that would be very nice for trusted content creators to have, particularly regarding article protection, moves, deletion and so on. The other set of tools, and in my own experience the source of the drama, are those with the ability to block users. Split the content from the behavior. I sometimes wish —desperately—that I could protect, delete, undelete or move articles over redirect (and load DYK, ITN and so on). Though trolls are annoying, AIV actually is a pretty fast process for the truly harmful or dangerous users most of the time. I wanted the wikignoming set, could live without the banhammer if I could simply do my content work with fewer hassles. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle, but it remains to be seen if any specific tools are suitable for unbundling. RO ^(talk) 18:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support especially for IP-blocking, seeing deleted pages, and placing articles under semi-protection. Collect (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If this were separated from the rest as an action item, it seems like something that might actually be doable. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: All too sensible, even if similar proposals have generally failed. It would certainly cut off a bunch of RfA habitual opposers at the knees for those candidates who don't intend to practice in the areas of their hobby horses. Ravenswing 20:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The world did not end when we unbundled rollback. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on principle. It should be possible to get any bundled admin tool separately, which will allow new people to more gradually advance through the tool set. Not sure what it has to do with the RfA process, though, because it's really orthogonal - we'll still have a bunch of existing people with the bundle, and people who we as a community want to enlist^Wencourage to take up the whole bundle. -Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this really is a no-brainer. Many potential candidates wouldn't even want all the tools. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support You can do alot with this. You could give a user blocking rights for instance but you could limit them to blocking people where there is a consensus to do so such as AN or ANI. You might allow them to do so under certain other circumstances. Make no exceptions to these rules that are set.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support While I understand the argument against, un-bundling would really fix the problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Different tools require different skill sets, different knowledge, and different levels of trust. Editors who can narrow their focus to one type of admin work will be better at that work (on average) than all purpose admins. Deli nk (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support If this idea gets enough support, obviously there will then be an RFC about what to unbundle and what new bundles to create. But I think it's a great idea.--Aervanath (talk) 19:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Promote focused artisans rather than fail to find universal geniuses.-- Elmidae (talk) 19:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I would like to see this happen and perhaps tools be added by need and experience. AlbinoFerret 22:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified support — it's a good idea in principle. I would, in principle, support doing away with the whole "admin/sysop" class and letting users apply for whatever tools they want. Having said that, I would also want anybody opposing the granting of a particular tool to have VERY good, demonstrable reasons. After a minimum period of time and a minimum number of edits, most tools should automatically be made available to any active user, with a clean record, who wants them. David Cannon (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - Elves aren't enforcers. There are people who DO NOT WANT and WILL NOT ACCEPT powers like the ability to block other editors, but would still be willing to help out with more mundane tasks. Darmokand (talk) 13:06, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Article tools should be separated from user tools. Binksternet (talk) 06:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is clearly a good idea, and it clearly will not happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Agree with Tryptofish. My view - as long as admins are allowed to !vote on proposals that affect their status, we will have no reform in this direction. Jus da fax 16:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's 2015, not 1968. Centralized, hierarchical management is about as relevant as a pet rock and a lava lamp. And like pet rocks and lava lamps, our current batch of admins do close to nothing. Unbundle the tools, and you distribute needed tasks in a decentralized approach that enforces power sharing and democratic solutions. Of course, this is what the Guardians fear the most. The current RfA process is a good example of what happens when right-wing libertarian ideas are allowed to thrive. You get Somalia run by warlords who think they have the divine right of kings. End RfA now. Viriditas (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support as a matter of general principle, but whether I would support a particular unbundling plan depends very much on the specifics. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support blocking, applying user rights and deleting content are seperate sets of tools, that I have rarely ever needed to use in tandem. It would be useful to unbundle, simply to un-concentrate the demand for Admins, Sadads (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. That's the only reasonable way to go forward. The project has grown and continues to become increasingly complex, and it is crazy that the admin system has not changed accordingly. I would rather grant specialized permissions to deal with specific tasks to users who have demonstrated competency in a particular area (e.g. deleting images, dealing with copyvio issues are good examples of areas requiring specialized skills) then to continue the current "all or nothing" system. Nsk92 (talk) 03:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. I'm not saying that every single tool needs to be unbundled and handed out like candy on Halloween, but certainly there are non-admin types that have demonstrated a commitment to the project who can be trusted to use the tools correctly. (In the interests of brevity, I'm going to respond to some of the specific oppose votes in the comments section below.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 21:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose F

Nope. Any level of trust required to grant one of the tools would be required for all of them. If I trust a user to block someone, I'd also trust them to delete an article. If I don't trust them with the ability to block someone correctly, I also wouldn't trust them to use protection correctly. --Jayron 32 02:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admin tools are for Admins. We currently have some of the unbundled tools and that is sufficient. Unbundling all of 'em will lead to more chaos and confusions. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think, we give the admin bits on the basis of competence and trust. A candidate applying for a single tool must have both, as well as a candidate applying for a complete tool set. Simply in the latter case, it is AGFed (based on trust) that the candidate won't use the tools in which he is incompetent haphazardly. Secondly, all the tools are needed in tandem, unbundling will be chaotic as more semi admins would be required to take on an IP hopping vandal, moving and vandalizing pages. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 05:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the ones that are worth unbundling have been. Delete, block, protect, etc, if you can be trusted with one of those you can be trusted with the others. We've been through this far too many times anyway to no avail, let's focus on other solutions to improve the RfA process — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if you believe RFA has problems, proposing replacing it with multiple RFAs is, frankly, stupid. Wily D 12:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, vandal fighters need block and protect and delete and viewdeleted to work properly, speedy patrollers need delete and block. RFPP patrollers need block and protect. I can't think of a major admin area where people with access to only one of the three key tools would be all that helpful. —Kusma (t·c) 12:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - One of the main areas we need more admins for is deleting. And with deleting comes undeleting (necessary to allow a user to undo his/her actions), and we run into an issue where the Wikimedia Foundation has said absolutely not. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - No need to unbundle - If you wanna delete, block, whatever then become an admin .... –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd only support this if every current admin also had to re-stand for their police powers, and that ain't happening. Townlake (talk) 02:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main areas of contention seem to be block, delete, protect. Often an admin uses 2 out of three of these on any given case. I think ungrouping these three would be an ineffective use of resources (editors), if someone can delete a recreated page, but then has to go to RFPP to request its protection (for example). I can't think of any other commonly used tools I have as an administrator that would be worth unbundling, not to say there isn't. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 15:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful for what you wish. I think this adds complexity without solving the problem. Except for technical admins, I use the same judgments for the tools. If you rate one, then you rate them all. Someone who can close an AfD can also recognize vandals. Glrx (talk) 18:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I remain open minded about this, but I think the tools most suited for unbundling (rollback, file moving etc.) have already been unbundled, and at best, this can only play a small part in resolving the problems with RfA. The main admin tools (block, delete, and protect) are often used together in situations admins deal with, and unbundling them could result in an inefficient use of resources, and would needlessly complicate things by requiring mini-RfAs and the like. CT Cooper · talk 21:56, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. While a limited and not terribly important groupd of individual might might appropriate to "unbundle", the key administrative tools all require demonstration of a high level of competence and community trust. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Either someone is trustworthy or not. Either they have the knowledge and experience to be an admin, or not. Seems a waste of time and confusing for the remainder of the community to have to figure out which admins have which tools. SusunW (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Simple reason (and nothing to do with trust), you will need more than one tool sometimes, better you have a full toolkit in case you need a given tool than have a screwdriver but find you need a hammer to solve the second part of a problem. The idea is far from bad, just that the possession of one tool often involves the use of another at some point. tutterMouse (talk) 19:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is no tool that I would trust someone with unless I could trust them with the others.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - like my other oppose comments, I don't see this as a problem with the process, and like several above me have said, the selection process for various unbundled tools would look very much like the current selection process for all of them. That would in fact make it much harder to select admins, because we would need multiple RfA-like processes. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The tools are bundled for good reason. I often had to block spammers or VOAs after deleting spam and vandalism, or protect pages after blocking vandals and socks. INeverCry 03:47, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Process Oppose as this has nothing to do with the RfA process. I would be happy to consider specific proposals on this, however. I myself would like to use a few of the tools without becoming a full admin as I really don't want that unpaid job. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Achieving a goal, such as dealing with vandalism, editing a popular template, or dealing with a tricky merge, require a variety of tools, and the toolkit required is constantly changing. This will leave regular editors with enhanced tools stuck in the middle of achieving a goal because the list of tools changed since the last time the editor did it. This is why a reasonably comprehensive set of tools must be made available to trustworthy editors with one request. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; let's move on. (That said, I do support the unbundling of cop badges and rollback on the grounds that those are available to non-admins in the first place.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A recipe for more bureaucracy and procedures. Gamaliel (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per CT Cooper. Essentially all of what can be unbundled logically has been already. Spencer^T♦C 21:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the tools (and the usage thereof) are too interdependant for this. This should onlly be done as parrt of a "package" of tools. But let's cut through the obscurity. The two main packages repeatedly asked for are blocker/vandal patroller (behavioural-related admin tools) and gnome/moderator (content-related admin tools). Neither of which seem to get out of committee... - jc37 22:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - many tools (rollback, ipblockexempt, account creator etc) have already been unbundled over the last few years. I see little use in further unbundling. Der yck C. 12:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as fundamentally adding to beaurucracy. There are enough unbundled tools available now anyway. Additionally I think this would create a more diffcult RfA process if an editor applies for toolsets A, B and C with some respondants only wanting to grant A and B whilst others want to grant B and C. just don't see how this makes things simpler. Fenix down (talk) 13:18, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Admins are needed for things like arbitration enforcement and discretionary sanctions, which encompass a large understanding of policy and procedure across several permission sets. Furthermore, in edit warring situations, for example, a case can result in blocking one or more people, but just as frequently page protection may be more appropriate (or vice versa). Someone able to block a user but not protect a page (or vice versa) will inherently be more inclined to use the tool they have rather than the ideal one. We saw this before revision deletion was a thing, whereby admins deleted and then selectively restored page histories as a poor-man's emergency oversight. --slakr^\ talk / 08:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose while I have contemplated this idea for some time, I believe the right place is to keep them primarily unbundled. Those elements that can be trusted discretely such as file mover, account creator, etc., have already been broken out. Many of the balance of the tools such as blocking and deleting are such broad tools, that even for someone with a focus on vandalism, still should undergo the full RfA as the block tools have more implications than simply resolving "simple vandalism". Tiggerjay (talk) 16:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admins need the full range of tools, or, when faced with a problem, will resolve it – not necessarily the most effective way possible – with the limited tools they possess. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeTrilobitealive (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ironholds (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It should be all or nothing - that's trust. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) 10:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Unbundling was a good idea but it has already gone as far as it can go without compromising safety. Account creator, IPBE, rollbacker, file mover, and template editor cover all of the admin acts that don't require a higher level of trust. Blocking, unblocked, deleting, and restoring all require the ability to read deleted content, deleted content often contains sensitive information. We need to establish a high level of trust before giving out the remaining tools. HighInBC 16:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we trust <editor> to ban but not to delete, or to delete but not to ban. C'mon, it is hard enough to make a sound bet on a good/bad admin prospect, how will we chose in advance if X is ok for tool "T1" bit not tool "T2". Instead, we surely should grant adminship to someone that wants to and looks ok to do one thing (say, fight vandals - revert/block) but we are not sure if they are good at another (say, deletions). If they then start deleting at random, we can desysop - Nabla (talk) 00:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on F

@Od Mishehu: regarding his "oppose" of 19:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC) in which he said "And with deleting comes undeleting (necessary to allow a user to undo his/her actions), and we run into an issue where the Wikimedia Foundation has said absolutely not." If I recall, the Foundation said editors could not see deleted material without going through an RfA-like process. This would not preclude an "undo delete" button. Having said that, any "undo delete" tool would have to be very constrained in order to prevent abuse. I don't see the Foundation having a problem with allowing a vetted editor who has not gone through an RfA-like process to delete pages and then being allowed to "blind undelete" them provided the undelete 1) was done by the same editor within a few hours of the deletion and 2)there were no changes to either the page title or the deleted revisions since the deletion. Such a "pseudo-userright" could be implemented via a proxy admin-bot now if the community desired it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How about the following: A page deleter deletes an article under A7 or G11; several hours later, someone asks the user to explain his/her actions; the user may not see it for several more hours (or even a day or 2). How is the user supposed to respond to it? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:58, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Good point. The most expedient way I can think of would be through a special use of WP:Request for undeletion: If the page-deleter can't explain his actions because he forgot the details, either he, or if he doesn't reply within a day or so, the person who objected should go to WP:Request for undeletion. Any administrator there can look at the page and say "bad call, I'll un-delete it for you" or "good call, and here is why I agree." Presumably, the vast majority of such requests will be turned down, and any page-deleter gets too poor of a track record he may find himself losing that privilege. If this became a frequent issue I would expect someone to write a script to assist page-deleters, so they could type in an extended reason why they believed the page met the criteria and record it in a log and/or on the page-creator's talk page. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Blindly unbundling the entire toolset is just about the worst idea ever for reforming RFA. The tools are indeed a set, they work together. Any experienced admin can tell you that. If all you can do is block, all you will do is block, even if deletion and/or page protection is the right response. A real admin with all the tools can choose which is best for the job and act appropriately. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What your argument conveniently ignores is that an editor that just wants to "Vandal fight" will often garner more than enough opposes to sink their RfA candidicy on the basis of "They only ever work at AIV – they have no XfD experience, no ANI experience, have 0 GA or FA's under their belts, and have only created 3 stub articles." IOW, they'll never be granted the toolset in the current environment because, to use BMK's oft heard argument (i.e. he's not the only one who says it), "They aren't applying for a portion of the toolset, they're applying for the full bit, and [we] won't vote for someone who hasn't shown experience to the full range of tools." It also conveniently ignores the ton of us editors who will never run in an RfA because we'd only want a portion of the toolset, not the whole thing. But, hey – if the current Admin corps is actually convinced that the current system is the only system that should exist, then I guess they really don't need our help after all – get to those backlogs, fellas!! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That many opposers have the wrong approach to adminship is a reason to educate the opposers, not a reason to rip apart tools that belong together. —Kusma (t·c) 20:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I'm sure we'd all love it if the process was patronized only by thoughtful, reasoned voters who took some effort to assess candidates' history and qualifications, but heck, wouldn't we all love it if the only folks who edited Wikipedia were of like mind? It'd put NPP, XfD and ANI out of business in moments. Unlike with vandal fighting, XfD, new pages' patrol and the like, however, there is zero redress at RfA for thoughtless voting. At least at XfD a closing admin can rule for policy against consensus. A closing bureaucrat at RfA never, ever does. The "We have to educate the opposers better" has been a proposed solution for years now. Not only has it failed categorically, I've never seen any sign that it was ever attempted. It's long past time to stop wasting time with pious hopes that the electorate will smarten up and just admit that it's not going to happen. Ravenswing 20:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And sometimes an edit filter or checkuser is the right response, and the administrator needs assistance. Similar an editor responding to AIV or UAA reports, or patrolling new pages, can request assistance if deletion, checkuser or other action is needed. Peter James (talk) 23:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have to unbundle the whole toolset? Why not just certain tools, like semi-protecting pages? Eman235/talk 01:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No one is really talking about "unbundling" the whole thing – certain Admin rights, such as Revdel, will never be unbundled, and I doubt very much anyone is particularly interested in something like that anyway. There are probably two ways to unbundle: but specific userright (which is pretty much how Rollback and Pending Changes Review came about I gather, and which seems to be the only version of the concept that seems to have any support among the Admin class), and by "job" (e.g. Vandal Fighter, Page Mover – which would probably require a package of userrights to work). But, no – no one is talking about "unbundling" the whole thing, or replacing the position of Admin with "unbundled" rights. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about some rights never being unbundled, but bad example. I can see cases where a hypothetical pair of userrights called "24-hour-revision-deletion + revision-undeletion-only-of-revisions-you-deleted" (without any need for "viewdeletedrevision") would be very useful to experienced, trusted editors who deal with attack-type pages that need to be temporarily taken down immediately pending further investigation. Since it wouldn't involve seeing hidden content, I doubt the WMF would have any privacy issues. BUT, as you say, this will probably not get community support any time soon. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Apply for the particular right(s)" doesn't mean a separate RFA for each, only that the request doesn't have to be for all, which probably invalidates some of the opposition to this proposal. Also RFA is not only about whether an editor can be trusted not to use the tools inappropriately, reasons for opposition may be based on the candidates views on blocking "the unblockables", or deletionism or inclusionism. Peter James (talk) 11:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but "assuming" that mini-RfA's will be required for all of the unbundles (which of course didn't happen with any of the current "unbundles", not even Template Editor, save perhaps Edit Filter...) makes for a convenient strawman to base one's oppose on. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the bundling of the toolset has much to do with it. Or, if it does, then the solution is to have sub-admins who would receive a limited toolset for specific purposes, while full admins would get the whole thing. In any event, I'm extremely doubtful that any such change will alter the nature of RfA, which has to do more with the type and quality of the editorial community than anything else. BMK (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion about the whole thing is that the two biggest pieces of the admin toolbox - the tools related to page deletion (incl. RevDel) and the tools related to blocking - will never be unbundled on the grounds that both need to go through an RfA-style process first (the deletion tools because the Foundation requires it; the blocking tools because they're too powerful to use absent one). Rollback has already been made independent of the mop. CRASH officer has already been made independent of the mop. The only other tools I could think of that could feasibly be unbundled are those relating to page protection, and even then an argument could be made that it requires an RfA because it's powerful. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In discussing their reasons for casting oppose votes, several editors stated that if they trust a user with one of the tools, they would trust them with all of them. The problem is that someone active in anti-vandalism might not have the overall experience necessary to pass RfA, but still be quite competent to recognize when semi-protection of an article is warranted. Really, one need not have participated in the promotion of several articles to GA/FA status in order to recognize that the repeated blanking of a political figure's bio, by several IP users, is something that could be nipped in the bud with a timely semi-protect. One need not have created x-number of articles in order to recognize disruptive activity that might require temporary full protection on an article. And if a non-admin who is active in anti-vandalism should happen to notice that an IP user is adding the same image to random articles, at an average rate of one article every 22 seconds, should it really be necessary to have participated at XfD for some minimum period of time before being able to apply a temporary block to the vandal? I'm not saying to provide the exact same set of tools to a non-admin; 72-hour limits with some kind of auto-logging of those actions would be enough to halt and minimize disruption, while leaving the larger set of tools for those who have gone through RfA Please note that any unprotect or unblock option that comes with this set of tools should only allow the non-admin to reverse his/her own actions, not the actions of others, which would still require a full administrator to do.. The rights could be assigned by current admins, at their discretion, with processes in place for removal, as was done for rollbacker rights and template editor rights. This would not solve the issues at RfA, but would reduce (at least slightly) some of the current admin workload, and allow the current crew of admins more time to deal with the larger issues. It would also allow potential future admins the chance to gain and demonstrate competency in handling additional responsibility, prior to ever subjecting themselves to the gauntlet at RfA. (And it is this side-benefit which makes this an appropriate candidate for discussion within the context of this RfC!) Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 23:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

G: RfA should be replaced

The current process by which we choose our admins is fundamentally broken. No amount of reform will fix it. We must discontinue it and replace it with a different system.

Support G

See User:Application Drafter/Sysop applications draft. Agent 73124 (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It sure is. We have many years of experience, and a great deal of evidence to prove, that the community can't be trusted with this vital process. It's time to take it out of the community's hands. (It was, honestly, time to do that years before.) Ravenswing 20:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – this is a "pointless vote" at this point, but isaacl, probably inadvertently, has got me thinking that the current "consensus" based way of promoting to Admin is unworkable. I also tend to think all this grand talk about RfA's proving community "trust" is a canard, as I don't think the current RfA process does that at all (nor does it demonstrate that it speaks for the broader "community" of en Wiki). I also agree with Ravenswing that we now have at least half-a-decade of experience that the current system, 1) is incapable of changing (for the better), and 2) is incapable of promoting the number of Admins the project needs (esp. in the absence of further "unbundling"). The more I think about it, the more Beeblebrox's(?) idea of a committee to promote Admins (hopefully made up of as many trusted non-Admins as Admins) after a proper "vetting" process is the way to go as it would normalize this process and make it more like a proper "job interview", instead of the tedious, pointless, mean-spirited "hazing" the current RfA process usually turns out to be. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The first "RfA is seriously broken" Wikipedia-wide RfC in which I participated was in 2008 ... a year in which over fifteen times as many admins were created as was last year. Ravenswing 03:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, although what to replace it with is an open question.--Aervanath (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle — I think all active users should automatically be given most of the admin toolset (except the power to block), unless there is a good reason not to. In fact, I would even endorse the principle that they shouldn't need to apply for them — they should just get them after a certain number of edits unless the Arbcom has flagged their account with a restriction. The blocking power, on the other hand, should be one they have to apply for. David Cannon (talk) 12:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — After bogged down with an RfA system that resulted in many of the same problems we've seen here, WikiHow created a new administrator election policy (detailed at the bottom of this page) that basically involved a much more lightweight nomination process and a concept of a 3-month "trial" adminship. I'm not sure this is the exact process for us but some set of structural changes like this seem like the direction of out of the morass we've found ourselves. Would a system like WikiHow's be a complete replacement or modification of RfA? You could argue either way. I don't care if you call it a replacement but I do think that we need big change. —mako ๛ 21:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have first-hand experience on that wiki, and even held advanced permissions there. I resigned and retired because of issues related to the way the site was run, which would include their method of electing admins. The only part I think might be a good idea is trial adminship, but I would never support the rest. The main problem was that it gave exclusive power to admins when electing new admins. A user could only be nominated by an admin, and the voting was held on some obscure secret wiki, of which no non-admin even knew the web address. That was one of the very reasons I left that wiki in preference of this one; Wikipedia is more open and the community is more involved. --Biblioworm 16:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. In addition to unbundling, David Cannon touches upon a proposal many of us wanted to see implemented years ago. I doubt most of us will ever need to block another user (and in fact, blocking can be eliminated altogether in a variety of ways); it makes zero sense to connect user blocking to rights like page protection or page deletion. Anyone who opposes this is clearly trying to obstruct the natural progression and growth of the site. Viriditas (talk) 07:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle if someone comes up with a better idea. Jonathunder (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose G

Oppose I support the concept of RfA, which is namely that the community have a direct voice in electing its admins. I can't think of any other alternative to the basic structure of admin selection that would be more bureaucratic or "elite" (in that the selection of admins is put in the hands of a committee). --Biblioworm 00:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opposeish I think the current system should be replaced, but I'm afraid the replacement would be (on paper) pretty much exactly like RfA is supposed to work on paper. That is, if I were to create a set of rules to select admins, it would look like what RfA's rules look like (for the most part). The problem is that what we need to do is flush the entire current system, and create the same system we have now, minus all of the bitterness and negativity. --Jayron 32 02:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm with others in that we can focus on making the experience a little calmer. I'm not talking about legitimate opposition perceived as being harsh, but the unbridled negativity some bring to the table that can steer an otherwise promising RfA off course — MusikAnimal ^talk 06:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It used to work ten years ago, so it can work, but maybe not with the current Wikipedia community. —Kusma (t·c) 18:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RfA isn't particularly unusual: people leave comments supporting or opposing a proposal, with some scope for them to have discussions, and the debate is closed using headcount with some weight given to strength of argument. Most of our other decision making processes work in a similar way without attracting nearly as many complaints. Hut 8.5 20:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non-starter. RFA is the worst possible system, except for every other system that's been suggested. Townlake (talk) 02:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppoe. Absolutely not completely broken. Any system that could replace it will be blighted by the same phenomena unless they can be controlled. And if they can, we don't need to replace the current system. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RFA works, even if it has become a somewhat flawed process. If we replace it, we have no guarantee that the new process won't be even more broken. We should be focusing on reforming the existing system rather than replacing it. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Without a specific example of what would replace it, this question is too open-ended and malformed. RO ^(talk) 18:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The alternatives to a community-based process for selecting admins would be either an automatic assignment (any user who meets certain criteria); an administrator selection committee (how would this committee be selected? We run into the same issues here; alternatively, we let ArbCom do it - but I think that the community is generally better at deciding these things, and ArbCom has more important jobs to do); or let the administrator group be a self-selecting group (such as the Mediation Committee). I think that the best choice here is a community-based process - that is, a reformed version of RFA. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Difficult, selective, or hostile does not imply broken. Are the results bad? Some get promoted and then quickly desysoped. Those are failures, but I don't think there have been a lot of them. Those who don't get promoted usually have more than 25% opposing. Some of them should have been promoted, but which ones? There's a difference between disappointment in a result and something being broken. Glrx (talk) 18:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As hard as it is to find consensus for changes to RfA, it would be so much harder to find consensus for a total replacement. And a total replacement just doesn't seem necessary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – Per the above. CT Cooper · talk 22:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- just fix it. Eman235/talk 01:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Badly worded question per above as there is no other system to compare to. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - this is jumping to a conclusion before we know what the problem is. If we don't know what the problem is, then whatever fresh process we come up with is likely to suffer from the same problems. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The same editors who shoot down all RfA reform proposals (this one included) would shoot down any attempt to create something better. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:30, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is the let's-give-up-before-we-even-try option. Mend it, don't end it. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as others have said, this would be a last resort. The RfA needs to be reformed, not replaced. It's a good format. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at present. I'm willing to accept that RfA is utterly fucked, but I adamantly refuse to accept that it's so bad as to be unchangeable. Unless and until I am proven wrong, this is a nonstarter. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you can't gain political support and keep your cool during RfA, you stand no chance with the mop once you're an admin. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A real effort to reform RFA (including some of the option proposed here) should be given more chance first. Deli nk (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Reform of the existing system is a better idea, starting from scratch is fraught with peril. BMK (talk) 22:18, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Better to try and fix what we have, where we recognise issues that can be fixed. If something new is put in its place we may end up with more or different problems. AlbinoFerret 22:52, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current system is not 'broken' despite there being room for improvement. Binksternet (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on principal as no alternative system has been put forward ever that has seemed likely to be a workable replacement. Yes, I would like the current system replaced with one that has no issues and is accepted almost universally, but that is not realistically going to happen now in a community of this size. The only way forweard is piecemeal fixing of the various problems. Fenix down (talk) 13:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Spirit of Eagle. APerson (talk!) 15:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But replaced with what? Like democracy, it's the worst possible system, except for all the others. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — statistically speaking, RFA does work and works pretty decently. The issue raised by others is that it's ostensibly too rigorous and excludes otherwise-qualified candidates. Thus, a proposal to trash-and-start-over is akin to trashing an ostensibly-overly-rigorous background check on federal agents in favor of some vague, arbitrary process to be discussed once it's gone. --slakr^\ talk / 08:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is the most effective model we have and it works pretty darn good. Some tweaks and tune ups are all that is needed. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in the absence of any credible alternative proposal. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeTrilobitealive (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Just fix it somehow, because what replacement could there be? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) 10:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A pointless proposal that offers nothing. Just magically replace it with something that works better? No idea is being presented in which to support. HighInBC 16:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current system is an appropriately communal one, suitable for the project. It needs amendment, for sure, but scrapping it and disavowing it is not the right way to proceed. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Our current democracy-like !voting system allows people to !vote for RFA based on candidate suitability. This has worked historically, so no need to change it. epic genius (talk) 14:55, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd be open to this discussion if there was a better alternative. Mkdw ^talk 20:39, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It doesn't need replacing ... It just needs fixing!. –Davey2010^Talk 02:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on G

There are a few user-rights, such as seeing deleted pages, which the Foundation will require and RfA-like process, so for editors seeking this user-right, we are kind of stuck with it. For users seeking other user-rights like block, delete-to-make-way-for-page-move, delete-and-"content-blind-undelete" (useful in history merges), and the recently unbundled edit-filter-manager and template-editor user-rights an RfA process is not required by the Foundation and, as we have seen with edit-filter-manager and template-editor, may not be required by the community either. Disclaimer/selfish conflict of interest: If the tools needed to do a history-merge are ever available without going through RfA, sign me up. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, this only means that there is no process that they could come up with, other than RFA-like, which would be acceptable; however, it's theoretically possible that some user will surprise them with a totally different process that they would approve of. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:44, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on this one. I think that RfA could be reformed successfully while retaining something close to its current incarnation, but I would also support well-though-out proposals that look nothing like the current RfA. The devil is in the details - just because we ditch RfA doesn't automatically mean that we will get a system that is better. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ArbCom elections seem to work quite well. I suggest a (say quarterly) election where any interested candidates can put themselves forward to be a life-term admin. People vote, and anyone with a specified percentage of support gets the bit. There is no quota of new admins to fill, just a ballot where they can be elected democratically. Only an idea. Rcsprinter¹²³ (tell) 20:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not fundamentally broken, but the "chumming the water for the sharks" approach needs to be fixed. Montanabw ^(talk) 01:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:IJBall, I deliberately raised the issue of consensus not scaling well; it's something I've discussed in various venues. I have also previously discussed empowering a working group to generate proposals designed to satisfy the most people. I did not submit a proposal in this RfC for the working group approach since it doesn't seem to have much support. But to break the struggle with consensus in a large group, either the community will have to shrink enough so consensus is workable, or a different approach to decision-making will have to be taken. isaacl (talk) 05:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It hardly seems consensus-building to propose blowing things up yet giving zero alternate proposals. It sounds like an obstructionist option. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Replace it with what? Unless there's a replacement being proposed this is going nowhere. --Michig (talk) 15:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

H: Leave as is

The process with which we select our admins is completely fine as is. There are no problems with it, and no change is needed at all.

Support H

This is a loaded question, but RfA in itself isn't broken. It's being trolled, sure, but that goes for every page on Wikipedia. There is no better process than community approval: this is what we are, this is what working in a collaborative environment is all about. There is no metric for determining whether someone is going to be a good admin or not; it cannot be automated. Drmies (talk) 00:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll put a vote in here. I've been participating (off and on) in Dank's RfCs about RfA for a while now, and in my opinion a lot of the collapse in RfA is due to a shrinking pool of long term editors. The decline in long term editors can be more moderate than RfA decline, in fact I'd expect it to be, and can drive both candidate and voter behavior. We can and should reform RfA, but no reform will be magic. Protonk (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Those who say otherwise are failed candidates, and voters who didn't get it their way, a small minority of users, overall. That's the reason why all proposals of reform have been voted down so far. Kraxler (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Qualified Support The way this is drafted I don't quite know whether to support or oppose, but to be on the safe side I support. I favor various methods of unbundling as proposed here and making desysopping easier. But if that doesn't happen then no, I don't favor any change in the current system. Coretheapple (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not totally convinced that anything really needs to be done, except of course increasing participation, which isn't really a change to RfA so much as a renewed effort to advertise them. RO ^(talk) 18:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We haven't given as many people admin rights in recent years because we haven't had as many suitable candidates wanting to become adminsitrators and we have perhaps been more careful as a community regarding who is given admin rights than in the early years. No amount of 'reform' of RfA is going to change that and I'm not convinced that the RfA process is a significant deterrent to suitable candidates wishing to become admins. --Michig (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strict support. Almost every grievance is misattributed to RfA. They should be attributed to a subset of the participants. Esquivalience ^t 22:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Technical support I'm really voting here because I do consider this a loaded question per Drmies, and feel this will be dragged out for the next 5,666 RfA change proposals with "oh, xx% don't like the current system". This really isn't a discussion question, it seems designed for a straight vote. So I'm dropping the percentage a bit.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I don't know if I'd say there isn't a problem, but to say we should do something hasn't always worked. Mitch32^{(Scenery is fine — but human nature is finer.)} 21:01, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support It's not broken so why is Biblioworm trying so hard to fix it? Chris Troutman (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — The process is fine; the bureaucrats, on the other hand, simply aren't actively ignoring or otherwise striking irrelevant issues. I very passively raised this issue a looong while back somewhere and it was parroted on the RFA talk page: that, in all reality, many of the woes of RfA could be solved by simply encouraging bureaucrats into proactively striking bad !votes and bad "questions" that aren't grounded in policy. For example, de facto requiring an admin to "submit to recall" by forcing the question into the RFA is a question that should be outright removed the second it's introduced, as it's not grounded in policy (and contradicts it). Similarly, any question/!vote seeking to weed out candidates based on wiki-ideologies (like deletionism or inclusionism), or statements/questions/!votes over issues related to self-nominations or article creation experience should similarly be struck, as they, too, are not grounded in policy (at all; there is zero requirement for active admins to build articles or have experience with doing so). On the flip side, issues with civility or poor requests for administrative action, on the other hand, are examples of actual red flags that might reflect a lack of adherence or understanding of the policies and guidelines the would-be admin would be expected to follow themselves. --slakr^\ talk / 08:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose H

Oppose The very obvious consensus amongst the community is that RfA needs some sort of change. I think enough has been said. --Biblioworm 00:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While RFA itself should continue to exist, the existing process needs change. An RFC was recently proposed to look into adopting a DE-WP style system. While on merits it looked good, it wouldn't work here, but it certainly sparked, along with a large number of other RFC's, a great deal of discussion about the whole RFA process and the subsequent management of administratorship. Blackmane (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose-ish It has its problems, but do not take this "oppose" to mean the status quo is worse than whatever will come out of this discussion or that the status quo will automatically have less community support than any particular proposal here. In other words, even if 80% of the community says "the current system is broken" but no single proposal or group of mutually-compatible proposals has more than 20% support, then we must acknowledge that the current system is still "more popular than any other viable proposal" and either leave it as is or have a second "up or down vote" RfC to see whether the community preferred to keep the current RfA process or the new proposal with the most support. Do not "close" the discussion by saying "oh, the current RfA has only 20% support so we will have to ditch it, let's see, the highest-supported proposal has 18% support so we'll go with that one." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Something has to change. The current process is broken and we *do* need a reform. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 05:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Biblioworm, above. Change is needed to improve this site. — Cirt (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't agree that RfA is totally a broken process but I think there are things which can be reformed/changed. Jim Carter 12:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it worked in the past, it seems to no longer work for the Wikipedia we have today. —Kusma (t·c) 12:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We need more admins, and the current system isn't creating them. Something has to change. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A change is certainly needed although to be totally honest right now I'm not sure what does need changing. –Davey2010^Talk 00:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing this since I supported a couple things above. Townlake (talk) 02:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per everything stated above and my comments and !votes in earlier sections. Kind of a silly proposal as anything can be improved. ;-) Montanabw ^(talk) 01:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - RFA isn't producing enough admins, as can be seen by the backlogs getting bigger. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – This is a very sweeping statement, as even a good process can be improved. The problems with RfA are well known and I believe that the vast-majority of those in the community with an opinion would like to see the process changed in some way. The main problem has been that, so far, no agreement has been reached on what to change. CT Cooper · talk 22:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- per all my above comments. Eman235/talk 01:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose RFA as currently constituted is not fit for purpose. Thryduulf (talk) 12:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No system is ever perfect. It is ridiculous to even think that it would not benefit from change. What I see is constant frustration by admins that there is far to much work to be done and not enough people to do it. SusunW (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeRight now we need more admins but the thing is that it's just turned into a giant cantankerous lump of old hands supporting their friends and the like and the sheer amount of distrust bred there for pathetic reasoning like lack of FAs created from scratch or too many automated edits. It's ridiculous what someone can oppose you on, often spurious reasoning and sometimes simply asking for so much that only 2% of active editors could hope to reach that standard of spotless editing history but they're all writing articles thank you. Reform of RFA is needed, steer it hard away from content being king and more towards technical knowledge and general conduct without dredging up the long forgotten past. tutterMouse (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Here, Supporters. Here's the hole in the sand into which you can stick your heads, while annual new admin totals continue to plummet. Ravenswing 20:21, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my oppose to Section G. The problems with RfA need to be evaluated before we make such a conclusion. Maybe we will end up concluding that RfA is fine, or that we can't fix the problems without creating new ones, or whatever, but shutting down the discussion before we have it is certainly the wrong course of action. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. What we are doing now is stupid. Stupid as a stone that the other stones make fun of. So stupid that we have traveled far beyond stupid as we know it and into a new dimension of stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid cubed. Trans-stupid stupid. Stupid collapsed to a singularity where even the stupons have collapsed into stuponium. Stupid so dense that no intelligence can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot summer day on Mercury stupid. Our current RfA process emits more stupidity in one minute than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. It cannot be possible that anything in our universe can really be this stupid. This is a primordial fragment from the original big stupid bang. A pure extract of stupid with absolute stupid purity. Stupid beyond the laws of nature. I must apologize. I can't go on. This is my epiphany of stupid. Duh. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because of what spurred this RfC. This didn't appear out of thin air. There are problems with RfA. Pretending they don't exist isn't prudent. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the statement is not only very broad, it's also ignoring that we're apparently constantly battling increasing backlogs on admin noticeboards. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not an option. SpinningSpark 22:39, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, absolutely not, RfA is currently a horrible torturous process. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose please no. It needs a rebuild with specific criteria, probation, unbundling tools etc. A strict requirement re: civility etc. Leave it the same and you will continue to exclude sensible editors with heaps of experience who just won't submit themselves to a stupid, unnecessary and childish "hazing" process, and give tacit support to the haters and trolls. The current system is patently ridiculous and counter-productive for the project. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 01:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As I constantly say on #wikipedia-en-help, 5,000,000 articles + 1,000 active admins (and that's a liberal estimate) = logistical nightmare. Something has to give, whether it be the current (and frankly horrifying) RfA process or article:active admin ratio worsening to such an extent that new admins have to literally be drafted by the Foundation or new article creation and drafting is completely shut down even for a second just to get rid of the chaff. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not consistent with the facts. Gamaliel (talk) 16:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly people are not happy the current system. The trick is getting us all to consensus on what it is that needs fixing. [WT:RFA]] is one of the longest talk pages on the site and has not managed to alter the process much in the last 10 years.--Aervanath (talk) 19:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Neither extreme (doing nothing, or starting from scratch) is the right pathway. BMK (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are issues. Lets fix the issues and make the process better. AlbinoFerret 22:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Status quo is numerically unsustainable as has been shown with copious evidence by Biblioworm in his 9/30 Signpost op-ed. - Brianhe (talk) 01:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — the system is broken. The number of admins has hardly changed since 2007 — I personally know some VERY good editors who don't want to apply because they think people will vote against them for silly reasons. The whole setup needs a good overhaul.David Cannon (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose More active admins (not necessarily more total admins) are needed and something needs to be done to enable this. I am sure there are comments in this RfC that will help with that and I don't think anyone here, regardless of the degree to which they support or oppose any of these proposals feels that a completely replace / leave as is binary response is practical or helpful. Fenix down (talk) 13:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There are obviously issues with RfA. APerson (talk!) 15:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should always be willing to improve. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose God help us if this is the best we can do. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. No, it's not fine. Jonathunder (talk) 02:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think I've ever seen the process that couldn't be improved. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) 10:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Judging from the activity here, it is clear that something is wrong. Daß Wölf (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Biblioworm, et al. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on H

Question: What is the German system? BMK (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: See Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-10-22/Special report. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I read it, but I'll have to digest it. BMK (talk) 15:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was a bit vague with my remark. I read the RFC that concerning it, but I couldn't remember exactly where it was. I'll have to do some digging for the RFC. Blackmane (talk) 03:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, no. The number of users who believe that no changes whatever (no easier desysopping, no unbundling, no anything) are a very small minority indeed. Anyone will be extremely hard-pressed to show serious evidence that a majority of users believe that our system is perfectly fine as is. Reform RfCs are voted down because no can agree on how to fix the issue, not because they think we don't need any reform at all. --Biblioworm 15:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I: Ease the load on admins

The admin load can and should be lightened with carefully considered changes to procedures and/or by creating bots and scripts to assist and possibly in a few specific cases replace admins.

We've already done this with Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 19#RfC: Proposal to allow non-admin "delete" closures at TfD 3 months ago, effectively allowing editors to make all of the decisions and do all of the work except actually hitting the "delete" button.

Here are two hypothetical examples:

Encouraging established editors to "second" speedy-deletes and giving admins a tool to flag those CSDs as "seconded by an established editor" would free the admin up to do a 2-second sanity check before hitting "delete," freeing up his time for more involved tasks.

Creating admin-bots to allow editors to delete a page they created in their own User: space if it meets certain other conditions (e.g. never been edited by anyone else, never been moved, etc.) would free up admins to do other tasks.

Note: "support" or "oppose" on the general idea that we should work towards lightening the load of admins, not on any particular method. You can be dead-set against having a special group of "CSD second-ers" or having admin-bots to delete user:-space pages but still support lessening the load of admins.

Support I

Support as creator of this section. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We have the technology. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 05:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, most sensible ideas. — Cirt (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I like the idea, I can't imagine any major problem with this idea if applied. Jim Carter 12:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support In the long run, this is one of the better solutions, but very few bots come out of committees. :| Protonk (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure, these are good ideas. I don't think they should be should be a substitute for reform of RfA itself, however. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Why not? These are amazing ideas. Yash! 14:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: this can and should be done, even if it will not solve the problem in its entirety. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 15:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support we should certainly allow users to delete their own work without needing an admin. A large proportion of U1 and G7 requests could be automated, computers can easily scan through hundreds of edits to see if a page has been moved. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:29, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - These are all great ideas. Automation would reduce mundane button pushing work while setting up a vetted queue of actions seconded by established users would both speed up admin efficiency and give those who seek adminship an additional chance to prove their worth. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yes, good idea, and makes sense especially in a package with unbundling. Coretheapple (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Of course! If the load can be lightened it should. RO ^(talk) 18:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - there are probably some classes of tasks which can, at least to a significant degree, be handled by bots with a reasonably low false-positive rate. Tasks like self-evident G7 and U1 deletions are an obvious example. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I agree that there is potential for more of the workload to be handled by non-admins and bots, though this can only really mitigate, not resolve, the consequences of the problems at RfA. CT Cooper · talk 22:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support, if it's rolled out correctly. Certain bots, scripts, could certainly loosen things up. Eman235/talk 01:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. These actually look novel. bibliomaniac 1 5 08:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I am very much in favor of increasing technological processes to lighten the load of work. I am not and admin and would never choose to be one, but I can say that there are way too many tasks that require human gnoming on Wikipedia which technology could serve. I spend hundreds of hours adding data that a bot could do much more efficiently leaving me free to create content, so I cannot imagine why rote admin functions should not be automated. SusunW (talk) 17:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in part There are, I suppose, bots that might help admins. But I'm opposed to the extent that this carries any mandate for a change to RfA.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but this won't fix RfA. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this could help. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Don't ease it too much. But let users delete pages in their own userspace if they aren't article drafts and meet the criteria proposed under "hypothetical examples" above. Jsayre64 (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Perennial proposals#Grant non-admins admin functions within their user space for an explanation as to why it won't fly. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but I feel that the best way to ease the burden on admins is by unbundling the tools, which is covered in a different proposal.--Aervanath (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative conceptual support, but the devil is in the details. BMK (talk) 22:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is plenty editors can do to help. I have been closing RFC's as an editor. More tasks like this should be opened up to experienced non involved editors. AlbinoFerret 22:56, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a good idea. APerson (talk!) 15:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, by all means, and there are plenty of potential ways to do this. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Great idea. — sparklism ^hey! 12:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Tiggerjay (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - worth exploring. Jonathunder (talk) 18:19, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. Active admin count has dipped below 500 and soon we will cross 5 million article mark. In 2008, we had 1,000+ admins with 2.2 million articles. Admin workload (average article per active admin) has increased by more than four times. Wikipedia quality will start to suffer due to low admin count. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 04:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I

Support in principle but I think that this is not a way to reform RfA. Sure we can lighten the load on admins and we should where we can, but that doesn't make RfA better. If the idea is that easing the load on admins would make editors more willing to lower their standards, then this has already been proposed. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Process Oppose as this has nothing to do with RfAs, but I can see where there would be less of a need for new admins if current ones had a much lighter workload. But I don't know how doing that would affect the RfA process. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the grounds that this is essentially impossible. Even if you were to do something insane and unbundle Rollback/CRASH membership the biggest backlog issues are mainly deletion-related and block-related. The former mandates an RfA, and the latter is too powerful of an ability not to mandate RfA. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 07:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pending changes reviewers are already unbundled if you mean someone doesn't have to make it through the RfA process to get this power. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean completely disassociate the cop badge and rollback from the admin toolset entirely. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but I would like to see a separate RfC about the merits and demerits of doing this. It seems to me that we already have close to enough reviewers and rollbackers, but I'm willing to look at any provided statistics and changing my mind if necessary. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
According to the categories, there's 2,770 Rollbackers and 2,057 CRASH officers. However, I am aware that those categories must be added by the user, so going by the actual user roster, we have ~5,500 Rollbackers and ~6,500 CRASH officers. (Count is by number of pages when the user roster is set to show 500 results per page, hence the reason the figures are approximate.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:15, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. This will help if there's ever an RfC about this. Also, I was unaware of these categories and so I've added myself, since I'm in both rosters. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Note, however, that just having the Rollbacker or CRASH flag doesn't mean the user's active. Any examination of those figures will also need to identify how many of those users are actively editing/using them. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think no system of government can work decentralized. There has to be a strong distinction between admins and no-admins. Debresser (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - not really sure how this is in anyway related to RfA. The only way I can try to tie it in is to wonder how attractive adminship would be to people if it was just a delete / block button. Think this would probably reduce interest. Fenix down (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — This is way outside the scope of a discussion about RFA. Bot Requests for Approval already exists and is already available for adminbots. --slakr^\ talk / 07:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Without specifics about how this "easing" would look, I don't feel comfortable supporting. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposePerhaps you could create a voting bot too? Trilobitealive (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Admins need to use their judgement before deleting. Even if other editors have said it is good to delete the responsibility for the deletion is on the admin. This really does not accomplish much, any admin worth their salt would not put less effort into such a review. Users who cannot see deleted content will have difficultly judging some CSD criteria. As for a bot deleting stuff in users own user space this would not help much as this is not a significant part of admin burden. What is more it could be gamed by moving something into one's own userspace and asking the bot to delete it. Once again admin judgement is needed. HighInBC 17:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, although easing the load may be good, and some ideas are interesting (like 'seconding' CSDs). But if "anyone" can make the decision to delete something, than maybe we should make "anyone" an admin and let them help 100%. Having editors act as almost admins is a workaround for users that don't want to go through RfA, but Rfa will get better after this, right? - Nabla (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on I

I like the WP:U5 adminbot idea, but that would require considerable input and well-established consensus. We do have ProcseeBot, who makes about 300-500 blocks a day, so this kind of powerful full automation is not unheard of. From my own experience, however, what we really need is more recent changes patrollers. This task is ongoing and of extreme urgency. A TfD that stays open for an extra week is absolutely fine, but the wiki will be useless if we can't keep it from being defaced. If all I had to do was clean out AIV than it would be an amazing, rewarding day and I'd have a few less gray hairs. Instead most of my blocks are from patrolling, since during peak hours we seem to be lacking that much needed help. Meanwhile the unfounded reports at AIV grow and grow, but I digress — MusikAnimal ^talk 07:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced that taking away more of the "easy" part of the workload is going to make a day of admin work any more fun. As MusikAnimal said, it may help with some less important backlogs. However, to deal with user-requested deletions is actually the relaxing part of CAT:CSD patrol (you sometimes even get nice thank you notes for it). If you take that away, only the stuff remains that will make people shout at you or that is difficult to sort out. When I do speedies, I like it that some things are easy and some are hard. Probably just me, though. —Kusma (t·c) 10:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to oppose this because I don't think it would be a bad idea, but I don't think it would make much difference either. The workload of processing U1 deletions isn't very much, and any other tasks which could feasibly be replaced with adminbots would also be fairly low workload. I don't see this approach having significant impact on the total demand for admin time. Hut 8.5 20:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- My back of an envelope calculation was that automating the uncontentious G7 and U1 deletions would remove the need for an admin from as many CSD deletions per year as the average admin does logged admin actions in a wiki career. If that's correct it is the equivalent of appointing an extra admin a year from now on, and sad to say that is a big difference. But more importantly in my view, if we'd allow people to delete a page we should enable them to delete a page. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I worked with the TfD regulars to write the original version of the TfD RfC, so obviously I support this in principle, and I especially support it in cases where it's essentially tradition and social expectation rather than a genuine need for admin tools that puts a particular task into the admin queue. But I'm not convinced it would be a win to turn low-volume tasks currently done in a decentralized way by whoever has ten seconds to spare into tasks that require small groups of active bot developers and maintainers. And as the others above say, there's a psychological effect at work. Most admins get their warm fuzzies from doing things that help other editors be more productive, though we may disagree on the best ways to do that. If we think of 'admin time' as an undifferentiated mass resource, and try to reallocate it toward the most difficult of the current admin tasks, we'll just end up with less aggregate admin time because most of those things are no fun. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question: what are some other examples of cases where this could be done by process changes rather than by development of new tools? Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No substitute for human eyes. Bots are wonderful, and they will continue to be developed, but the blocking and revdel functions require human judgement. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question - based on this being the only proposal so far that seems to have broad support, I think that I've missed something, because I don't see how the level of difficulty of administratorhood is in any way a problem with the process of selecting administrators. Is it the idea that being hard makes it so that the community has too-high standards, or maybe it's that fewer candidates apply given the extra workload? For the record I completely support automating some of these processes if it will lighten admin workload, but I don't get how that's an issue with the selection process, and that's what I thought this RfC was supposed to be about. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

J: Oppose votes carry too much weight

As Biblioworm said in their Signpost op-ed, due to the average of 75% support necessary to pass an RfA, oppose votes carry about three times as much weight as support votes. That is, if an editor gets six oppose votes, it will require at least 18 support votes to cancel them out. Most voting systems only require 50% plus one vote for a pass, and as Biblioworm also points out, at 67%, even getting the U.S. president's veto overturned requires a lower percentage of support than RfA. Closer to home, the German Wikipedia require ~~50% + 1~~ 67%, and it doesn't seem to have blown up their wiki. For a fairer system we should reduce the discretionary zone from 70%–80% to something lower.

Support J

As creator of this section. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Something that should have happened a long time ago. Yash! 14:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. A candidate with 2/3 majority (or even 3/5 majority) is still going to be widely trusted. —Kusma (t·c) 14:13, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Obviously. --Biblioworm 14:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we need to lower the majority level.—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 15:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I think we should determine if there's consensus to change the values in this RfC, then hold another RfC to determine what, exactly, the new numbers should be. Otherwise, we'll be endlessly arguing back-and-forth about minor details when there's consensus for change. I think that if someone can gain a 2/3 majority, they have consensus on their side. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per NinjaRobotPirate. The target numbers don't matter yet; the fact that they need to change does. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 02:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the 67% or 2/3 majority is plenty, and worth an experiment to see if it fixes the "not enough admins" problem (and FWIW, my RfA/1 ended at 60% so if I really am an Evil reptilian kitten-eater from another planet I would have failed under this standard as well—LOL). 75% is the "states vote to amend the US Constitution" standard and really far too high for an experienced user—those of us who have been around for awhile will most likely have pissed off a few people, let's not give the trolls so much power. I'm OK with a supermajority (though I personally would have loved a 50% standard, of course!) Montanabw ^(talk) 02:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I think we can reduce the threshold a bit. I think that 60-67% is a good range to aim for. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:38, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Everyking (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – The current threshold effectively allows a small minority with very high or abnormal standards to control RfA, which is clearly problematic and is out of step with other processes on Wikipedia. I would argue that a two-thirds majority is easily a sufficient mandate for promotion, and I would even be open to lowering it further. As a side-note, I would bear in mind that changing the threshold will probably change how people vote e.g. some may be less hesitant at opposing a nomination, if opposing had less numerical weight. CT Cooper · talk 22:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- this is a crazy rule. Eman235/talk 01:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Absolutely true. Despite people claiming that RfA isn't a vote, it's absolutely a vote. Over the past three years, there've been 74 successful candidacies, and 105 unsuccessful candidacies. Every single candidate who had 74% or better passed. Only one candidate who failed to get 74% (that one was 71%) succeeded. And this is nothing new. To quote myself from a RfC on the subject in 2008: "In the last year, 331 candidates have passed RfA. Only 14 passed with less than 80%, and only three with less than 75% - and those three had 73, 89 and 176 Supports respectively. By contrast, not one single candidate who hit 75% and did not withdraw failed to gain nomination. So ... could someone explain to me again how this is not 100% a pop opinion poll, pure and simple?" Leaving aside the stark fact that three times as many candidates passed RfA from June 2007 to June 2008 as have passed in the last three calendar years combined, it's proof that it's ALWAYS been a straight popularity contest. Ravenswing 20:38, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If there are a few people who actively dislike you, it is far too easy for them to derail a nomination. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - oppose votes have too much weight, not because of the high bar, but because of the pile-on effect. One well-reasoned oppose usually leads to a number of pile-on opposes with no reasoning at all, and because there's only a very narrow range of voting results where we ask the bureaucrats to evaluate the votes, unfounded opposition rarely gets discounted. And unfounded support, for that matter. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. If you wanted to post an RfC that requires the candidates meet a certain criteria you would need well over 50% support. But if you want to simply shoot down every candidate that doesn't meet your criteria, you need maybe 25% -- less if there are a few good-faith oppositions for other reasons. Furthermore, a candidate who is otherwise supported by everyone can be shot down if 15% oppose anyone without a dozen FAs, and another 15% oppose anyone who has fewer than 50,000 edits; multiple invalid criteria each with support in the single digits can combine to shoot down a candidate with overwhelming support from the community. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 67% It should still be a supermajority for a near-consensus decision, but 75% is ridiculous. We need to realize that editors attract haters along their journeys, even when they do the right thing for the Wikipedia. Let's give the haters less power in RfA, and avoid minoritarianism as much as reasonable. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - lowering the minimum from 3/4 to 2/3 makes sense in that it will not make a difference in case of truly acrimonious debates, but will make the idea of applying a bit less daunting for prospective admins. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:24, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support make it 60%. The current threshold makes it too easy to derail the process via a handful of trolls and editors with bizarre criteria they probably wouldn't meet themselves. No wonder many experienced editors won't nominate. Politicians get elected to parliaments the world over on 50% +1 of the vote, people. Hello! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The threshold should be no higher than the threshold used to permanently turn on CRASH for good. (For the record, that's an absurdly low ~60%.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 60% as a minimum, 75% as an automatic pass. Ideally, 60-75% would be the discretionary range for bureaucrats, with promotions under 60% or failures above 75% being subject to community review.--Aervanath (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I understand how we got here. Back in 2001-2005ish, it was very, very easy to become an admin. In most cases literally all you had to do was ask. This created lots of new admins, and a number of them turned out to be extremely ill-suited for administrative work. Some just were not good at interpreting policy or knowing when it was best not to act, others were outright abusive. This was the era in which the wheel warring policy had to be created, to stop the madness. And so, as is often the case, the backlash against this trend went a little too far. The era of 2007-2010 saw RFA getting gradually harder and harder to pass and things have stayed that way up until now. It's time to let off a little. There's no way to force RFA particpants to be more reasonable, so lessining the threshold for passing is about all we can do. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and I completely agree with Ivanvector's reasoning. APerson (talk!) 15:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, with the level of scrutiny and the clear history available, the huge "safety margin"is not necessary. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
In general. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support With the required percent to pass rfa the oppose carry to much weight. If you have been active for awhile, those that you have pissed off may come back to bite you and disqualify a good candidate. AlbinoFerret 18:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. The current standard is unrealistically high. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ironholds (talk) 06:25, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The bar seems set a bit high. I concur with other editors suggesting 2/3rds. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 10:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think that the current criteria should be used for immediate promotion. Every 3 months we could promote those who had the highest support but failed immediate promotion so as to increase our admin ranks. We need to establish at least a "break even" population of admins one way or another. HighInBC 17:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The threshold for a successful RfA should be reduced to around 67%. Guy1890 (talk) 06:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose J

This is just a backhanded way of stacking the deck in favor of getting more admins. Since people have well-grounded concerns, change the rules. No dice. Coretheapple (talk) 15:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is untrue that it is 75% to pass (it is about 70%), so per WP:RfC (the requirement for neutral statement) this RfC should fail for being misleading. Admins need very wide demonstrated support, if anyone can believe, in the least, they are trusted by the community. It is nonsense to suggest that 70 is somehow unfair but 67 is not. This proposal displays fundamental dislike of deciding things with even a semblance of WP:Consensus("A consensus decision takes into account all of the proper concerns raised. Ideally, it arrives with an absence of objections, but often we must settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached. When there is no wide agreement, consensus-building involves adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal" (emphasis added)), because apparently 'consensus is hard', which is the usual claim of people who just do not believe that Consensus matters. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's untrue that it's 70% to pass, but then I actually counted. See my Support. Ravenswing 20:31, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What, you say someone passed at 71% and the same count was done before this discussion, in the last two years 100 percent that fell between 70% and 75% passed. And going back three years several passed under 70%. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ONE person passing at 71% out of over a hundred failed candidacies is indicative of nothing; that's what someone who's flunked Statistics 101 still recognizes as an outlier. Over the last three years, that's the only person who passed at less than 74%; anyone who claims otherwise has either not looked, has screwy methodology or shaky math. (I haven't looked further than three years back, but I rather think we can agree that what went on in the RfA process four or more years ago has little bearing on current practices.) Ravenswing 03:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So, no one above 70% has failed, and several below 75% have passed - so 75% is no bar. Can you point to any who went the distance, who failed above 70%? Alanscottwalker (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you're understanding: "one" ≠ "several." Ravenswing 19:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pre-RFA vote-stacking / canvassing via "nominations" is routine. The solution to this issue is not to make the routine cheating more effective. The simple fact is, good candidates still pass RFA. From a "hasten the day" perspective it would be great for massively problematic candidates to pass at 60%, but that's not really good for the project. Townlake (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opposing !votes attract opprobrium. To cast them, an editor has to have some courage and also some technical skill in finding and presenting supporting evidence. The supporting votes tend to be comparatively lightweight. For example, consider the recent RfA for Thine Antique Pen. Yngvadottir presented good detailed evidence but did not have the courage or confidence to make this an oppose. On the support side, we had lightweight support !votes such as "I owe him one". In such circumstances, it seems properly prudent that the final score of (118/58/11) was found to be inadequate. In such close cases, the behaviour of the participants would change, if the threshold were lower. Candidates would not withdraw so quickly when their RfA wasn't going well. There would be more pile-on votes to make sure of a negative result. And the support votes would be challenged more often if they were given more weight. The result would be to raise the temperature so there would be more bad-feeling and drama. Andrew D. (talk) 07:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me, but this made me laugh. Neither courage nor technical skill are required, and in fact I have seen many RFAs opposed by persons clearly entirely lacking in both. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
THis is one of those suggestions that is often made by, and certainly relished by those who just wanr it made easier for them to get the bit and grab some power - or have something to boast about in the schoolyard. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite understand -- isn't the entire point of RfA reform to make it easier for people to get the bit? —Kusma (t·c) 20:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. For some of us the point is to get more admins, and most of those extra admins would be people who won't currently run not because they aren't qualified, but because RFA all too often is a demeaning hazing ceremony that they don't want to dignify with their presence. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Make it easier to become an admin" and "make it so that more people become admins" are almost the same in my book. —Kusma (t·c) 21:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lowering the percentage would probably mean alot more canvassing & god knows else what, It's fine as it is IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 21:55, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Oppose lowering the threshold to allow more borderline cases to pass. We should be passing only the very best candidates. RO ^(talk) 18:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Admins are a small population, so a large supermajority is appropriate. I wouldn't want to be blocked by somebody who one-third of the community did not trust with the bit. Glrx (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We don't vote. We !vote. About time people understood the difference. Leaky Caldron 15:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If anything, some bureaucrats are already too ready to discount oppose arguments, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd rather take the opposite approach, given some controversial closes and crat chats and eliminate discretion.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We should not allow candidates to pass who have had significant problems highlighted, regardless of whether or not they got a majority of votes. SpinningSpark 22:43, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't get a significant number of editors to oppose a candidate because of alleged "significant problems", that is strong evidence that the alleged problems aren't as significant as you think they are. Why oppose having those "significant problems" subject to consensus like everything else? Why allow a few editors who see problems that don't bother the vast majority to have absolute veto power? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a pile-on opposer, I oppose this suggestion. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Admins need to have very broad support - this proposal is a recipe for getting more of the type of admins that cause most of the current concerns about admin quality. Legitimate opposes need to be given real weight (illegitimate/frivolous opposes are already discounted by closing bureaucrats). Deli nk (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Definitely not. Many RfA regulars appear to feel almost angry about oppose votes, but if there weren't any oppose votes, we'd just be handing out the bit to anyone who asked. (More about that in another section). BMK (talk) 22:23, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose - I'd like to see the support section entirely removed. Anyone with evidence (positive or negative) posts that evidence, and then the community discusses and the bureaucrats close. Long, long, ago I lost my good faith that every editor investigates a candidate's edit history. They don't. And they acknowledge they don't. Supports have about as much substance as "I like it", these days. - jc37 22:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Firstly, I always thought RfA, like AfD wasn't a vote. It's the arguments behind the vote, not the yes / no choice that count. Once any troll votes / votes without significant comment have been discounted, it really should be fundamentally obvious who is of admin standard or not. Oppose votes that mean anything will fundamentally point to behaviours that are undesirable and if they are not adequately countered then they certainly should count for a lot, particularly against "they don't seem to have done much wrong so why not" support votes. Fenix down (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not true, so long as Crats have discretion. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd like to see (some) better opposes, but they should be given their weight. Even now, there are more pile-on supports. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - oppose votes are critically important, and must not be ignored in this way. The idea that 49 percent of the community thinking someone is unsuitable, and them being given the hammer is insane. --ℕ ℱ 01:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — While the number shouldn't matter, the consensus, as always, should. The 75% number is usually the threshold for "obvious" consensus simply because usually the field of issues is, all things being equal and everyone !voting with policy-based reasons, narrow enough to clearly see that the vast majority of people agree that the support outweighs the opposition without needing extensive analysis of each individual !vote. As I mention above, bureaucrats are falling back on the number to avoid controversy, when they really need to be more actively discarding bad !votes and questions (i.e., those not grounded in policy). As such, yes, it theoretically should be entirely possible for someone to only have 60% numeric support if the rationales behind the opposes are non-policy-related (e.g., "doesn't have enough article creation experience" is an oft-used oppose and is completely unfounded in either policy or statistics on pre-admin versus post-admin behavior). --slakr^\ talk / 08:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as long as adminship is effectively a life-long appointment with no credible community-based process for recall, I will not support changes that discount community members' objections to a given user becoming an admin. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Starke Hathaway, just above. I agree with every word. Jus da fax 16:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The number is set to reduce the cumulative stochastic effect of poorly thought out changes. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tryptofish. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) 10:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on J

Looking at recent German de:Wikipedia:Adminkandidaturen, it seems to me that they use 2/3 or 70% as the cut off point, not 50%+1. There is no bureaucrat discretion involved. —Kusma (t·c) 14:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma: Has this changed since 2012 when the Signpost op-ed I linked above was written? I may need to strike that part of the proposal if I have outdated or wrong information. Unfortunately, my German isn't good enough for me to check on the German Wikipedia myself. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it appears that I just misread the op-ed. If I am understanding this correctly, the percentage has always been 67%, and the thing that changed in 2009 was the addition of a re-election and recall procedure. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 14:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From de:Wikipedia:Adminkandidaturen/Statistik it appears that it has always been 2/3 (sort by "Prozent"; "wurde Administrator" and "erfolgreiche Kandidatur" are passes, "wurde nicht gewählt" or "... nicht bestätigt" are fails, while "Abbruch" is a withdrawn candidacy). I also understand it that the thing that happened in 2009 was a forced recall procedure that leads to a new election (there have also been many voluntary re-elections). I don't have a lot of time right now, but can dig to answer specific questions if you have any (I am a native German speaker, but almost inactive on the German Wikipedia). —Kusma (t·c) 14:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that 70% is near the rock bottom of the discretionary range. An RfA almost never succeeds in this range without a 'crat chat, and it is not uncommon for such RfAs to be closed as unsuccessful or no consensus. I say that 75% is the bar because, reviewing RfAs from previous years, I have seen virtually no RfAs that have failed above 75%, while the number that passed between 70-75% is split quite evenly. Under 75%, closes are typically very drawn out and controversial. --Biblioworm 16:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they are "controversial" there is little point in claiming a consensus that does not exist - if the crats find an oppose so compelling that they declare it prevents consensus on a candidate, it is because the oppose is compelling by community standards. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a kind of circular argument. It is controversial because we have made successful RfAs in the low 70s controversial by grabbing our bar randomly from the ancient VfD process. Almost any other group outside Wikipedia would not imagine the low 70s to be controversial by any stretch of the imagination. If a presidential candidate were to win the popular vote by 70%, it would go down in history as a complete landslide win; the same applies for virtually any other candidate of whatever sort. Also, the Supreme Court makes verdicts by simple majority; it doesn't matter if the tally is 5-4: it still passes. --Biblioworm 16:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a "discretionary" range. How many people have been passed by a bureaucrat chat who failed to get enough community support? In the last three years? Zero. Ravenswing 20:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are ridiculous analogies, none of those instititution work by WP:Consensus. It just goes to demonstrate the hostility to WP:Consensus in this proposal - on Wikipedia for example, not a single one of these RfC questions on this page will be adopted without a super-majority. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question of which proposals will be adopted is in the hands of the closers. And if a person really cares about consensus, as you claim to, they wouldn't be so obsessed with insisting that we keep and strictly adhere to the current bar for passing; rather, they would be flexible and willing to consider a wide range of possibilities. (Look, really: does giving a narrow 5% window for discretion really make something a consensus-based discussion?) Resolutely defending the current bar without the will to even consider anything less does not show respect for consensus: that's voting. Consensus, by its very nature, as defined by the policy you keep getting selected quotes from, is flexible and varies on a case-by-case basis. You cannot "pick and choose" from the policy; you must accept all of it. --Biblioworm 22:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Consensus. It requires no one to agree with you. I'm sorry if that bothers you. I've seen enough closes of policy RfC's to know how they work. The preliminary concern addressed is whether participation is broad enough for the matter addressed, and then if in the aggregate there is an agreement by the users, based in current policy, and common sense. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is my fundamental misunderstanding of consensus? One of the central tenets of the policy is that arguments are judged on their strength. It doesn't reflect very well on a person to constantly get selected quotes from a policy and then quickly reverse their opinion when a central point of the policy becomes inconvenient. In my comment, I said that because consensus is a relative and dynamic process that relies on the strength of arguments rather than percentage bars, it makes no sense to claim to defend the policy and then turn around and insist upon keeping a strict, narrow percentage-based bar and so-called "discretionary range" (about 5%), which is not consensus, but voting with a small window of "discretion" just so that people can have an excuse to call it a "discussion". Real consensus is much more open-ended. So, I'm very much at a loss to understand how I am showing a fundamental misunderstanding of a policy by using one of its central principles to make a point. --Biblioworm 00:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your fundamental misunderstanding is that "strength of argument" is not judged by some omniscient alien, it is fundamentally judged by the community in what they see as good to accept and not good to reject. One of the very reasons policy is important is it is recordation of consensus of what the community has accepted and rejected. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but someone must close the discussion (they're not "omniscient aliens", by the way), whose job is in fact to judge the strength of the arguments. The process described in WP:CONSENSUS is that editors make arguments for their view, and then someone closes the discussion according to the strength of the arguments. So, it seems to me that by saying "'strength of the argument'...is fundamentally judged by the community", you're suggested that the community should be judging the strength of the arguments they make, which would result in all kinds of disagreement, bias, and circular chaos. The community's role is to voice comments on the proposal; the closer's role is the determine the consensus. And finally, consensus can change. It's not set in stone forever. --Biblioworm 15:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want understand the community dynamics, that is your loss. Strength-of-argument is not actually the platonic form magic, you surmise. Any closer, who does not see a split community, where and when it is staring them in the face, is in for one heck of a time. Your citation to consensus-can-change just makes the point that the community is in charge of the changing and the consensus, no one else - most particularly by virtue of function, the closer is not in charge. (I think, we have discussed this meta-stuff sufficiently, so I'll move on). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and after this comment, I will move on as well. I happen to be getting quite tired of this discussion. But, to be quite frank, I see this as an attempt to say "I'm sorry that you don't understand" as a blanket statement so that challenging points can be avoided. I do understand community dynamics; I simply interpreted the consensus policy that you kept getting quotes from. I don't see how your comments disprove my point. I think the interpretation of the consensus policy is rather clear: in proposals, the members of the community voice opinions on the proposal, and the job of the closer is to determine the consensus of the community. Of course, the closer is not the consensus, but rather the interpreter of the consensus the community reached, according to the strength of the arguments presented by the proponents of the respective positions. This is what I was saying all along, so I don't see where I ever denied it. In the spirit of true consensus (not a very narrow and artificial range of 5%), according to the policy, bureaucrats should have much more leeway to weigh the strength of arguments on both sides "as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." There is a tendency at RfA to treat as a vote outside the discretionary range of approximately 70–75% and only allow the weighing of arguments in that narrow range. This is not a true application of the consensus policy, which states that arguments should always be weighed when closing a discussion, not just within a narrow percentage range. The point is, RfA is much more vote than it is discussion and true consensus. That must change. I rest my case. --Biblioworm 18:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also getting very tired of hearing this complaint about the "neutrality requirement" for the RfC and that the RfC should therefore fail. First of all, it's a logically invalid argument in that it attempts to cheaply discredit the argument by criticizing the way it is written rather than addressing the substance of the issue. By this logic, all RfAs should fail, because the nominator doesn't write a neutral statement; all RMs should all fail, because the proposer is "advocating" that it be moved to a new title and is therefore not neutral; finally, pretty much all other RfCs should fail, because the proposers often write at least a few lines showing why he thinks the proposal is needed. I should also note that I wrote all the proposals here favorably for the side concerned, so I did not write it well for my "side" and write it poorly for the position that we should leave RfA as is. --Biblioworm 16:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. RfC policy is clear you can't stack the deck, just because you want to ask leading questions, include misinformation and get a skewed answer that supports your apriori conclusion - it makes no sense to do it your way, in light of what an RfC is actually suppose to do. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I put headers for each of the topics that were to be voted on, and I wrote a brief summary of the beliefs which the holders of said position possess. It was not written in a "this is the way it certainly is" manner, but rather written to describe the beliefs of the position's proponents. I wrote it even-handedly for all the proposals, and represented the positions involved as well as I could (even those I disagreed with). How else was I supposed to write it? I had to put some description there, because a simple header might not be sufficient for voters to fully understand what they're voting on. By your logic, proposals G and H should be getting more support than they are, because the "skewed" opening summary supposedly biased in favor of the position should influence the result. But they're not. The positions are obviously not gaining consensus. This shows that the opinions being expressed are actually the opinions of the community, and not the "skewed" result of the opening summary. This is precedent for this, you know: WP:RFA2013 did it the same way. And finally, Mr. Stradivarius started this section anyway. If you object to the way the opening summary is written, go talk about it with him, not me. --Biblioworm 00:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I should also address Alan's constant citing of WP:CONSENSUS, namely his implication that we cannot lower the bar because proposals should ideally have complete support. But the wording there is very vague and allows a broad interpretation; it nowhere says "somewhere in the 70s is acceptable". In fact, I think I once read that our bar for RfA was actually just arbitrarily grabbed from the old VfD process. I will offer a quote of my own. WP:CONSENSUS says that: "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." Therefore, since many oppose votes are not based in policy but rather personal, arbitrary criteria, their arguments are being given too much weight. Therefore, the proposition that we should allow all editors to oppose as they please "must fail". --Biblioworm 16:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, no. According to your analysis we must throw out most the supports in RfA. But you are wrong. They are based in policy - policy explicitly asks for the individual User's judgement of "trust", based among other things, "common sense". Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:28, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, no. If the support votes are based in policy (Example: Support User follows the CSD policy/is civil and competent/meets all the expectations set forth in WP:ADMIN/etc.), then they should not be discarded. Supporting per the rationale of a user who made a policy-based argument would also be legitimate, since the supporter is saying that he agrees with the policy-based reason the supporter in question gave and that he simply sees no reason to write it all over again when it's already been said. On the other hand, many oppose !votes are based upon purely personal and sometimes unreasonable expectations (doesn't have at least 20,000 edits/hasn't been around for at least 2 years/hasn't written at least two GAs or an FA/etc.), which have no grounding in Wikipedia's policies. A proper oppose vote should show relevant examples of the candidate actually violating policy. --Biblioworm 00:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I see this as Alan simply going in circles with an argument that's basically "policy can't be changed because it's policy". —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 02:56, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If 67% were the "bar", the following additional RfA's would have passed this year: Cyberpower678 and Thine Antique Pen; two more are just outside this range: EuroCarGT (65.83%) and Rich Farmbrough(65.97%). While this may be a good idea in its own right, we need to be realistic that it's not a "magic bullet" that is suddenly going to produce "dozens" of extra Admins each year... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the idea of lowering the pass percentage is to make it more attractive for candidates to run. Hopefully the effect wouldn't just be two extra admins, but several, due to the increased number of candidates overall. Also, I'm not proposing that the bar be 67%, just that it be something lower than it is now. Actually, my personal preference would be 50% + 1, although I also like the idea of dropping the vote counting altogether and deciding things purely on the strength of the arguments. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion one way or the other on this proposal, but I do have an important response for the comments in the Oppose section made by @Alanscottwalker:. He brings up an important point about Consensus building, but there's a fundamental difference between the sort of consensus building being discussed in the text he brings up, which speaks to "adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal"; this is all about finding reasonable compromises to allow article text to meet standards acceptable to differing viewpoints. RFA's don't fail because those who oppose a candidate and those that support one can't come to an agreement on how to promote the person properly. As much as we want RFA to be a "consensus building process", it simply isn't. It's a vote-with-rationale. But we shouldn't pretend like there's a middle ground here that the traditional "consensus building model" is designed to achieve. This is a rationale-weighted vote, and nothing more, because there is no "third way" on an RFA vote: either a candidate becomes an admin, or they do not. It's like the old canard about being "partially pregnant". You either become an admin or you don't. There's no compromise to be made. So the "consensus-building model" noted above is woefully inadequate for dealing with the nature of these votes. --Jayron 32 20:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, no, many opposses explicitly (and implicitly) argue that the candidate is not suitable at present, not for all time. Moreover, the consensus for passage does emerge sometimes at a later date (sometimes even within the seven-day period, but sometimes at a second or third proposal of the candidacy) when the concerns are addressed. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my point at all, so let me restate it in different terms. I'm sorry it was too obtuse. A single vote, for a single candidate, is not about consensus building because there is no middle ground to build consensus towards. You can't "part way" make someone an admin. That is all. If anything else I stated made you think I was discussing anything differently ignore it like it was never said. All that matters to my point is "there is no compromise between promoting a candidate or declining to promote them". All else is irrelevant to my point. --Jayron 32 21:51, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But that way of looking at it is not how people pass or fail, they do so in the aggregate of all comments (not the individual support or oppose). There is a compromise of concerns, and the community either finds it or it does not. And even with the individual support or oppose or neutral, the particular raised concern may be ultimately compromised enough, in the course of that discussion or in a later proposal of the candidacy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that not a single opposer of this view has ever directly addressed the rather obvious fact that we give opposers triple power (or, at the very least, almost triple power) over the supporters. Why in the world should naysayers be getting so much weight? Think about this: only a little more than 1/4 of the participants must oppose to sink the RfA. If there were ten participants, only three need to oppose. (A bit less, actually, but I just rounded up the number since we obviously can't have a fraction of an oppose.) Furthermore, it doesn't matter how outrageous the argument is; it still counts. Aren't we sort of assuming that the candidate would be bad? Isn't paying so much attention to the negative side a violation of WP:AGF? --Biblioworm 16:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Supermajorities are normally required for certain important decisions, and RfAs understandably require a very high one because it is a powerful and lifetime post. That does inherently give the opposition power. The supermajority custom in RfCs is one reason admins are able to block, as they did quite recently, proposals to make it easier to desysop them. I don't like it, but supermajorities are not unusual and that's how it is. Coretheapple (talk) 17:42, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least make it a 2/3 supermajority (what Congress uses) and make the discretionary range about 60–65%, which would be more reasonable, instead of the unrealistic and Wikipedia-unique approximate 3/4 supermajority required to pass an RfA. --Biblioworm 19:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Stradivarius makes a point with which I agree though I suppose there can be no evidence for it unless it is tried. Lowering the bar might encourage more candidates to apply. So such a change would not just have resulted in two or a few recent candidates passing but more candidates applying. I don't agree with 50% + 1 as a passing percentage nor do I think that a substantial lowering of the passing percentage would be needed. If all candidates receiving 75% or above (not "most" as the RfA page now states - implying something more such as 80% is needed to pass) were assured of approval and the discretionary range were 65% or even 67% to 74%, I think the bar would not appear to be so high. In fact, I would favor lowering the assured passing percentage to a lower number such as 70% while making the discretionary range a narrower 65-69% but even the slight change that I led with might have a favorable impact without unduly disturbing most of those who want to keep a high bar. Donner60 (talk) 01:45, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with leaving the support percentage at 70-75% provided we have clerks to get rid of the most unpleasant opposes as per proposal M. My fear if we leave the system as is but lower the required support threshold we could get more unpleasantness and more off site canvassing on badsites. Also there have been some candidates who have got 60% or more who I don't think were ready or suitable. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We should only be passing the very best candidates. Well, that won't make us many admins, will it? And, as I have mentioned before, there is no evidence to show any correlation between the percentage of support in the RfA and the candidate's subsequent performance as an admin. Candidates with unanimous or near-unanimous support were desysopped for tool misuse. Candidate who just barely made it through and had many supposed "problems" turned out just fine. Percentage means nothing. --Biblioworm 18:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it could be true that candidates who had difficult RfAs take the feedback seriously and work more cautiously than they might have if they'd been waved on through. The fact that percentage and performance are uncorrelated doesn't imply that percentage is meaningless, either. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In regard to Leaky's comment, we do not !vote: we vote. RfA is a vote, except when it falls within a tiny little 5% range. This is not really a discussion, but rather a 95% vote a tiny little window of "discretion" for bureaucrats so that people have an excuse to call it something that it's not. Note that this system does not follow the process described in the WP:CONSENSUS policy or the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy. (WP:NOTDEM, in particular.) Consensus is supposed to apply at all times, not when it falls within a narrow percentage range, which in itself still relies on voting since the whole thing is based upon percentages. --Biblioworm 18:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothwithstanding the clarification, the real issue with current RfA voting is the initial pile-on of popularity based friends blindly adding support before a question has been answered. Leaky Caldron 19:21, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - That might very well be a problem, but pile-on opposition sparked by poor and/or trivial oppose rationales (sometimes "supported" by cherry-picked diffs that ignore the context) is also a problem. Good support votes should show that the candidate follows policy, or cite rationales that do so; good oppose votes should show where the candidates has truly violated policy. Since we are to WP:AGF, the burden of proof should be on the opposition to show that the candidates habitually violates policy and would therefore be a poor admin. ;) --Biblioworm 19:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - the burden of proof should be on the opposition to show that the candidates habitually violates policy and would therefore be a poor admin. One could be a bad candidate for adminship without "habitually violat[ing] policy", and oppose voters are not required to demonstrate this beyond reasonable doubt as if this were a court proceeding. Why is the burden on opposes? The burden should be equally on supporters to demonstrate that the community should trust the candidate. In fact, that's why RfA's get so negative. Supporters demand so much proof that they end up badgering opposers into piling it on to make their case. RO ^(talk) 19:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen things that would make me think the percentage requirement is too high, and I've seen things that would make me think the percentage requirement is too low. Neutral. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

K: Allow limited-charter RFAs

Allow candidates to run on a "limited-charter" RFA in which they ask for permission to use only certain tools or only use them for certain purposes, subject to sanctions (summary desysopping in most cases) if they exceed their "RFA charter."

If they want permission to use additional "sysop" rights in the future they can run again to expand their user-rights.

Procedurally, this would not be "RFA light" - it would run the full 7 days and would have the same "process" of a full RFA, but it would eliminate the "Oppose: the candidate says he will focus on deletions and I trust him for that but I don't trust him not to block someone incorrectly."

In the future, if and when tools are un-bundled or if the community decides that "customized userrights packages" are desirable, those who hold the sysop bit merely because they passed a "limited-charter RFA" will lose the sysop bit in favor of less powerful user-rights unless doing so is technically impossible (e.g. if they still need a user-right that hasn't been unbundled). Since the unbundled rights may include rights that aren't needed in their charter, tey will still be limited to "admin-type behavior" listed in the "RFA charter" unless they apply for additional rights using whatever process exists at the time.

Support K

Support as creator of this section. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support – I preferentially support unbundling, but failing that, this is the next best option. No matter how much people around here want to bury their heads in the sands about "all encompassing Adminship", there is a substantial subset of productive veteran editors who aren't interested in the whole "bit" but in just a "subset" of the tools (e.g. moving or deleting, but not blocking), and who will never submit themselves to a "full" RfA because they know they will be rejected for exactly that reason ("But you have NO WP:AIV experience!!1! J'OPPOSE!!"). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, either in lieu of or in combination with any level of unbundling. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 03:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Yes, I think this is a very good and creative idea. Coretheapple (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support: If they can't unbundle the tools, this would be a simpler version of "open to recall" - the candidate declares the tools they need, if they use any others, then smackdown! I could live with that. Montanabw ^(talk) 02:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Let people run as, say, "no block" admins if they want to, with automatic desysopping if they block someone. What's the harm? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:48, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support only if tools are unbundled. If tools are unbundled, this becomes a reasonable method of deciding which tools should be granted. If the tools are not unbundled, it becomes a nightmare to enforce.--Aervanath (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support - A very interesting idea, but I can't get 100% behind it without some more thought about its consequences. BMK (talk) 22:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a very promising idea. It accomplishes some of the good things that are intended by proposals to unbundle the tools, but it adds a potentially enforceable way to make sure that there is no over-reaching. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as an admin who has recently voluntarily limited his own charter. — Scott • talk 11:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support What's the worst that can happen? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) 10:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. There are some instances where running for RFA for a limited toolset was required, e.g. Trappist the monk's and West.andrew.g's. Limiting admin toolset would reduce the risk of abuse while improve editor functionality. This should probably go under a new policy like Wikipedia:Requests for limited administrator privileges, which would be similar to Wikipedia:Requests for rights except for a more trusted position such as abuse filter or researcher. epic genius (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose K

I don't want to vouch for another ~RfA when the current process is badly damaged. This only leads to more chaos and troubles. If this happens, ArbCom and AN/I will have more work to do. And as I said in section F, Admin tools are for Admins. —☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As noted above, if I don't trust the user to block someone, I wouldn't trust them to know when to properly protect or delete articles. The suite is packaged together for a reason. --Jayron 32 20:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too complicated. Townlake (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too complicated. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:22, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This effectively proposes a hat shop. Esquivalience ^t 20:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too complicated. –Davey2010^Talk 21:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Counterproductive. We want admins who as they get experienced move on into various other areas of adminship, we should be encouraging trusted editors to help out in other areas not trying to confine them to what happened to interest them at the time of their RFA. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Too complicated and counterproductive. RO ^(talk) 18:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is bit splitting. Glrx (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mistaking the map for the territory. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Totally against dilution of accountability. Leaky Caldron 15:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above. Would needlessly complicate the process and what interests a candidate when they are running for adminship, and what they do after they get adminship, are often rather different. CT Cooper · talk 22:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per WSC, RO, and LC. Unbundling wrapped in gift paper is still unbundling. The community is shooting down yet another unbundling package as we speak. Admins are free to restrict their activities and many do, for one reason or another.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:24, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per others above. This requires a system of policing new admins to hold them to their "charter" and would definitely be open to gaming. Admin candidates are either suitable for the suite of tools or they are not. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I appreciate this idea conceptually, but I think implementation would be too arduous to develop and maintain, when we really have a lot more important work to do here. It might be a good idea to have a page where editors can ask if any admins would like to volunteer to concentrate on a particular set of admin tasks that aren't handled by any other request page. If we already have such a page, please pardon me not knowing every last nook and cranny of this site. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, too complicated. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, let's move on. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Until such time as the tools are actually unbundled (which I would support, actually) this proposal would be a nightmare to enforce.--Aervanath (talk) 19:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)~~Given that unbundling is one of the proposals on this page, I am changing to a conditional support.--Aervanath (talk) 19:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We don't need admins that need to be baby-sat. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If you cant be trusted with all the tools, why should you be trusted with only part of them? Fenix down (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No real benefit. For people who are going to be responsible, they'll do the right thing... For those that are borderline or questionable there are some dangerous possibilities -- the first is that (1) something close to Volkswagen emissions scandal where they will act proper initially, but once unleashed, they will be less than good; or perhaps more concerning (2) that it will lead to hyper critical review of the admin (similar to going through RfA all over again). Tiggerjay (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeTrilobitealive (talk) 01:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see the advantage. The areas that we need more admins in are the areas that need difficult decisions. The easy to do stuff is not a problem. HighInBC 17:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on K

@Townlake: Why do you feel it's complicated? One simply deconstructs admin functions, so that Category 1 allows, say, only page moves and Category 2 allows page moves and CSD deletions. Etc. It doesn't have to be complicated. Coretheapple (talk) 16:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Monitoring compliance would be a nightmare, and WP:IAR would be an easy excuse for breaching charter. Townlake (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If there is a technical reason the tools cannot be unbundled, I see the potential for this to be akin to a "probationary" period; if there is a clear criteria (checkboxes would be handy) and the candidate is very specific about what tools they need and agree not to use any others, perhaps with an automatic desysop if they exceed the parameters of their agreed-upon toolset, I think this could be a very good idea; it addresses the "trust me" versus "can't be trusted with the tools" !votes. Give them the mop (or the WP:ROPE) and see if they can earn the trust of the community. Montanabw^(talk) 02:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You're supposed to earn the trust of the community before you ask for the tools, not after. Townlake (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly! RO ^(talk) 18:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

L: Minimum requirements for voters

Currently all but IPs can vote at an RFA. This leads to inexperienced editors and newbies influence a process of which they have no idea about. There ought to be a minimum requirement for voters

Support L

Currently we have an unclear but effective minimum requirement for voting, and newbies who vote are at risk of being treated as SPAs. Effective in the sense that it deters the vast majority of newbies, but I would argue it is far too effective and deters lots of people who we would want to participate at RFA. A clear but low voting requirement such as 100 edits would be less intimidating to newbies. DE wiki has a written rule and in my view that explains why they have a higher turnout in their RFAs. Ϣere SpielChequers 09:01, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I also think this would be a good idea. It's akin to an "age limit" in regular elections. But, if such a level is introduced, it should be mild – perhaps 200(?) edits to vote. All that said, I don't think "newbie voting" is really all that prevalent, and it's certainly way down the list of things that are causing RfA's to be such a relative cesspool. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:36, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support As I mentioned above, we don't want a horde of meatpuppets supporting populist candidates. Wikipedians made Wikipedia and remaining insular is important. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for a significantly higher minimum - Experience helps. Not to be too obvious, "anyone can edit" is about editing, not about governance. BMK (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I have little doubt that socks and SPAs are a constant issue at RfA. I'll spare everyone the beans. That said, edit-counting is a bad idea. So, yes in theory, but not sure what criteria we could use. If necessary, the arbcom election criteria might be a place to start the discussion. - jc37 23:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
String support. There must be a threshold for voting for RfA. People need to be well aware about what they are voting for. If we can have threshold for Auto-patrolled, Article creation, edits (semi-protected pages) and other functions, then I dont see a logical reason why should we not have a threshold for RfA voting. I think 1,000 edits / 90 days (whatever is higher) should be the limit. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 13:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Anything up to say 400 edits. What is a vote from someone with 30 edits worth? Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Use the same criteria as for ArbCom elections. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) 10:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We have seen cases of sockpuppets !voting at RFAs. They often have to be stricken out. Why not prevent that in the first place? epic genius (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose L

Oppose. Personally, I don't often see newbie voters at all, and I don't think they're really a problem. The true problem lies in the group of experienced voters who get away with incivility and their completely made-up and unreasonable criteria. --Biblioworm 05:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think that newbie voters are really a problem, and fail to see a need to effectively disenfranchise them. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Solution in search of a problem. Townlake (talk) 14:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We need increased participation, and I reject the notion that newer people are inherently unable to provide meaningful feedback on community leaders. RO ^(talk) 18:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if an anomymous user has some comment with merit - we should allow him/her to express it. As long as there is no suspicion of sockpuppetry, I see no reason to stop it. And sonce the newcomers rarely vote at RFA, it wouldn't solve much, anyway. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:34, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'd be more in favor of an activity guideline, meaning the voters had to have made an edit in the past 12 months. It's a little nuts when someone who hasn't edited from their account for years, suddenly pops up to (usually) oppose a candidate and then disappears again. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – While I can understand the general principle behind the idea, I think participants should be judged primarily on the merits of their arguments, as there will be occasions when a newbie has something important to bring to the table. Only those that are blocked or banned should be blanket barred from participating. CT Cooper · talk 22:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Liz and Biblioworm. Thryduulf (talk) 12:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per RO, mostly. I think activity standards would affect few, and if there is a problem here, it really wouldn't solve it. If there were many RfAs in which large numbers of people come out of retirement to vote, that might be a reason to reconsider (I'd have to see what they were saying, and would then want to give it further thought.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - It's embittered veterans nursing grudges who are the problem. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:54, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hells no - WP:ANYONECANEDIT; subject to the very basic accountability of requiring voters to log in, any member of the community should be able to offer input on its administrators. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 00:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have seen no evidence that this is a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as there are better ideas on the table and those should get the focus. I would like to see some RfA participation statistics before I would even consider this proposal. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In theory, this sounds problematic. In practise, RfA is populated mainly by experienced editors who are involved to some extent with the "backstage" areas of the project. New users very likely wouldn't know of its existence unless it was spelt out for them. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think any further requirements are needed.--Aervanath (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:ANYONECANEDIT. I'm not in favor of restricting voting rights. I doubt that many new people have flooded the process, and the ones who did get involved are not going to learn anything about the process if they are not allowed to be part of it. TheBlinkster (talk) 04:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, if based on edit counts. They're not a good measure of the worthiness of an editor. If based on time here, well, there are plenty of rogue editors that have been here for a long time. Conversely, there can be editors that are new, but that read the rules, and are more interested in following them, and seeing them followed, than in gaming the system. -- Ríco 02:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Firstly, WP:ANYONECANEDIT. Secondly, if this is a problem, and I'm not sure that it is, this is a problem with the assessment element of RfA, not a problem with the process general editors / applicants have to go through. I'm not aware of an instance where someone gained the mop because a load of new editors left support votes that contributed nothing to overall discussion beyond votes. Fenix down (talk) 13:36, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not strongly opposed to a small restriction along these lines, but I do not see a problem in actual RfAs in this regard, and Crats can still disregard clueless comments. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose No indication this has been a big problem, and the cons outweigh the benefits. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trilobitealive (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It seems counterintuitive to desire more input, then limit who to accept input from. Either more !voters fixes the problem, or it doesn't. At least give that a shot first. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 'Crats are not stupid. They know how to properly weight brand new users. HighInBC 17:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't think disenfranchising people is the solution. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:11, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'd probably reconsider if the proposal were changed to require that someone be autoconfirmed prior to the start of any particular RfA; beyond that, no. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 20:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would concur with this specific limitation, as it would make sockpuppetry at RfA more difficult.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm against most anything that makes WP more exclusionary, so I'm against this on principle. But I see a particular lack of utility in this proposal: are large numbers of new users gumming up the works at RfA? I don't think so. SteveStrummer (talk) 22:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per HighinBC - Crats aren't daft - They know what !votes carry weight & what doesn't. –Davey2010^Talk 03:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on L

Yes and no. We need to indent, strike out or remove votes that come from single-purpose accounts, which already happens. So we already have a minimum requirement, which is "anyone that probably isn't an SPA". But I don't believe we need to go further than that, because I have never seen any evidence that "newbies influence a process of which they have no idea about". I also don't think this would solve any of the problems with RfA discussed above (e.g. too high standards), which seems to be mainly what we're debating. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 08:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- But as a newish editor how do you know whether your vote would be accepted or you would be seen as too new? Ϣere SpielChequers 13:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - As a newish editor I'd be very surprised if you knew about the SPA rule. But I think this is a pretty rare situation anyway, and if the user thinks they stand a chance of their !vote being 'accepted' then they might as well try. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 17:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably support something like this, but it's just not specific enough, yet it seems to rehash only one component of the "Undefined standards" issue above. It should be a connected issue - if we raise the bar for prospective admins, we raise the bar for voters, and vice versa. That would make the system more fair to everyone, or at least more predictable. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose this in principle, though as others have noted it seems to fix a problem that doesn't really exist. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

M: Active clerking at RFA

We have clerking at other contentious areas such as Arbcom, active clerking at RFA would do much to take heat and incivility out of RFA. There is the argument that crats can ignore incivil votes, but simply leaving them to stand worsens the atmosphere at RFA. It could also resolve the problem where people sometimes try to change policy by opposing RFA candidates who would follow or enforce a particular policy rather than try to get an RFC to change that policy. So RFA clerks should be appointed, perhaps by election, with a remit to:

Remove incivil votes including unevidenced personal attacks (leaving the word redacted if there are already responses to them). Editors who had made unevidenced personal attacks would be told their vote had been removed and they could still vote, providing they did so civilly and/or with a diff.
Remove votes and vote rationales that are trying to change policy by opposing those who would enforce a particular policy.
Deal with the recent problems we had at a recent RFA where people were removing or editing their rebutted comments instead of striking them or responding to people who had commented on them.
When editors have !voted per another editor and that editor subsequently changes their vote, neutrally inform them of that and invite them to review and reconfirm or alter their vote and rationale.

Note there is a difference between opposing because you think a candidate is not applying a policy correctly and opposing because you disagree with the policy that they are following.

Support M

Ϣere SpielChequers 13:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, strongly. Civility must be enforced and those who make abusive comments should not be able to get their way. --Biblioworm 15:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, strongly. It's an excillent idea! To maintain civility on RfAs I think clerking is the best idea. I really think this particular proposal will get opposes only from those who has a background of making uncivil or invalid !votes/comments at RfAs because other than those people, I don't see any problem with this. And I agree civility applies at every corner of Wikipedia, including RfA. I really hate when people says, "leave it to 'crats". Semi-real time patrolling by clerks at RfA pages will be more helpful than "leaving it to 'crats." Jim Carter 16:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - having a dedicated group to keep the RFA process civil and reasonable would probably do a lot to improve the atmosphere there, bringing in more candidates. By the way, perhaps the 'crats should serve in this job? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This would make everything easier to follow, and Jim Carter makes good points about why this shouldn't be opposed. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 06:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support RfA is no exception to the rules that are civility. ^My^name ^isnot^dave (talk/contribs) 12:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, we should have an enforced way to keep the discussion on track. This would take some of the heat out of RfA if we manage to choose wise clerks. —Kusma (t·c) 13:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – There are dangers with having clerks, but I think that is outweighed by the potential benefits. RfA as it stands is too much of a free for all; the atmosphere would be much more healthy with active management of off-topic or policy violating comments. RfA can by its nature, get rather personal, but there is still a line on what should and should not be tolerated – blatantly obscene remarks and serious accusations without evidence are over it. CT Cooper · talk 22:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- goes hand in hand with proposal C. Eman235/talk 01:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Firm and fair clerking will put a lid on the worst excesses of RfA. I hope there will be volunteers to do the job. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The incivility that is present deters involvement. If what is wanted is the same people to continue controlling the overall environment, then the system will remain hopelessly flawed.SusunW (talk) 17:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Absolutely. And to the Opposes below who claim that the bureaucrats already ignore such votes: really? Would you care to cite me some examples over the last few years? I could find none. Ravenswing 20:43, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but it isn't going to happen. I have been asking the clerks to enforce the existing word limits for years, with no result. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as this is eminently reasonable. If this can cool the waters and take out inapplicable votes, we can arrive at calmer, clear-headed decisions. I imagine though that the process for selecting these clerks will be fun -- who will clerk those? :) Also, there should be some kind of check against this becoming heavy-handed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:46, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support if it works at the other contentious venue - ArbCom - we should try it at RfA. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, this would help tremendously. I would consider applying for the job of RfA clerk. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Yet another good idea, it does work at ArbCom. Scotch the trolls and incivil comments, as they occur. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Why aren't we doing this already? Gamaliel (talk) 17:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Gamaliel. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only by bureaucrats, or by non-crats under the direct instruction of 'crats. BMK (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support for crats only in extreme instances where such comments are derailing the whole application, but I do think that these BTL comments shouldn't / don't really influence the overall outcome of an application and should be something all successful applicants should be able to demonstrate their ability to handle with a level head. Fenix down (talk) 13:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think this would be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sounds like a good start for improving the toxic environment at RfA and maybe getting some more candidates. Brianhe (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's worth a try. Jonathunder (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — This is basically something I've suggested that bureaucrats do proactively whenever this discussion has arisen. I've mentioned it elsewhere above and somewhere in the RFA talk page history years ago. Questions and !votes in RFA should be grounded in policy, not wiki-ideology and arbitrary personal opinion. RFA is to find policy-based issues that reflect whether an admin is trustworthy as reflected by their actions in adherence to, and understanding of, policies and guidelines. --slakr^\ talk / 09:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Support the concept, but not necessarily the specifics of implementation/criteria. We need a balance of civility and uncensored. My bigger concern is the semi-automated processes of cleaning up inappropriate !votes, not because of their view of the nom, but because of opposes based on their objection to the process/policy/etc., as well as things more technical in nature, such as properly striking out changed votes, etc. I think some clerking would be good, but with a huge double-dose of AGF along the way to the editor. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Ironholds (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Somewhere along the way the community developed a culture of anarchy at RfA. Basic standards of behaviour need to be enforced. We need to do a better job of showing people who use RfA as a form of activism the door. HighInBC 17:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport. This could alleviate a few of the problems highlighted in other parts of this RfC. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, conceptually, though this could raise issues that people did not "get their voices heard." That issue is kind of minor, since ArbCom also uses clerking to weed out other inappropriate comments. epic genius (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Decorum is still in short supply throughout much of WP, and RfA is one of the most needy areas. This would be a responsible way to provide some kind of supervision. SteveStrummer (talk) 01:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sounds like a good idea. APerson (talk!) 14:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose M

Civility policing has a place, but it's not at RFA, where the 'crats expect oppose vote rationales to be candid and on point. One person's candid is another person's incivil. Townlake (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The community has all but rejected enforced civility, so the RfA process ought not be different from typical community interactions. RO ^(talk) 18:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Elections are flawed, so let's have more elections? I think the 'crats can think for themselves. Any clerk would essentially be telling the 'crats what they could consider. Glrx (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about if the 'crats are the clerks in question? And they be allowed to consider votes removed by other 'crats? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, isn't that the way it is now? 'Crats looks at the !votes, throw out the pink elephants, and then consider the result. Truly outrageous material gets snipped before the close. The problem isn't the clerking but rather disagreements about whether some comments should be relevant. Age was a recent example; some think it relevant and others do not. A clerk won't help if the criterion is in doubt. Some !voters post vendettas, but the community as a whole is capable enough to see the merits and toss the dross in such posts. What would a clerk do? Toss all vendettas even if there is some truth in them? If the claims are unsupported, other editors quickly demand diffs. I also think that most of the community is smart enough to look at !voter bickering and ignore it. Glrx (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They don't throw out the pink elephants in the missle of the RFA running, they simply ignore them when making a decision. I'm proposing that they actually keep an eye on things and throw away the pink elephants as soon as possible. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the thing that would make RfA better is more fights about civility "enforcement". Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The stuff about policy disagreement has nothing to do with civility and shows how the clerk position would be used to improperly influence the process, by discounting votes on such specious grounds.Andrew D. (talk) 20:14, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is a recipe for more drama than there is already. The dividing line between strong and incivil opposes can be narrow, considering that we are dealing with the attributes of individual editors, and we don't need squabbling about where that line exists. Coretheapple (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per Opabinia. bibliomaniac 1 5 08:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No. No one has been given a mandate to censor other people's votes and I would oppose them doing so. I saw (and experienced) some at a recent RfA and felt that it was very heavy handed. Not a solution, and would likely lead to more problems. I personally would abolish the crats, and have expressed my views on this (they haven't even managed to get rid of Raul654, who departed very much under a cloud but for coming back long enough to keep his bits). I would oppose them, very strongly, being made into tin-plate censors.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this would make much of a difference.--Aervanath (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Bureaucrats do this just fine. - jc37 23:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oppose - I can't agree to this license to badger voters. --ℕ ℱ 01:30, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm all in favour of a less hostile environment, but I fear that this would just bring additional drama and isn't the solution to incivility at RfA. — sparklism ^hey! 12:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vehement oppose The solution to the bureaucracy of RfA is to...increase the bureaucracy. HELL NO. Two, the more we stratify the userbase the worse things become. I'm sick of all the hats. If something shouldn't be done by a regular editor at RfA, then it shouldn't be done by a clerk either. If someone is being uncivil, then take it to WP:AN/I. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per opabinia regalis. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crats should be doing most of the listed tasks when needed. Credating a new body to do it.... no. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I had to think hard about this one, but Opabinia and L235's comments tipped the scales for me. We already have informal clerking at RfA by way of users who collapse the deep threaded discussions and move them onto talk pages. Blatant incivility can be {{redacted}} by any user, although at RfA this happens rarely, and with good reason - it leads to drama. I don't think assigning users to this role will help versus continuing to let the community police itself. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose By this point I have realized that some of the really poor ideas here aren't jokes. That is pretty frightening. Trilobitealive (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not necessary and will take up too much of people's time to maintain a process of maintaining a process. Keep it simple, right. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) 10:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - You can't please everyone and to be fair RFA isn't always a shitty place - Vanjagenije's RFA is the perfect example of that!. –Davey2010^Talk 03:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on M

To the contrary of what Townlake said, civility applies everywhere. We have a clear standard as to what incivility is: WP:CIVIL. RfA should not be the exception, and there is no place in the policy I just linked that makes it the exception; making it the exception and permitting ABF and veiled verbal abuse is what makes the place so unattractive and nasty for candidates, especially ones that might be unperfect and have some enemies with an axe to grind. --Biblioworm 15:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- RFA is unique in that editors are asked to comment on other editors' entire history of work and temperament. Personal comments will be made. You have to allow some latitude for feelings to get hurt. The alternative would be milquetoast nonsense where bullies and intransigent oafs who are popular with the cabal get free passes through RFA because nobody is allowed to call them out. Townlake (talk) 16:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't confuse effective opposes with incivil ones. Requiring diffs and civility does not stop us from opposing bullies and oafs, it just makes life difficult for bullies and oafs who want to oppose people without bothering to do research. Ϣere SpielChequers 00:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - A common fallacy on Wikipedia is to translate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA to mean "You always have to say nice things about every other editor." This is utter nonsense; the relevant sentence in NPA is "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki." (Emphasis mine.) It is not impermissible at RfA to state one's opinion that a candidate lacks experience or demonstrates lack of knowledge in a key area, or to point out objectionable or uncivil behavior with relevant diffs. Ravenswing 03:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N. Determine granting of adminship based on consensus of pros and cons

Current general practice for determining the outcome of a Request for Adminship proposal treats the submitted votes as a straw poll. If the support percentage is below a certain threshold, then reasons are sought to adjust the percentage by changing the weight given to specific votes. This is not reflective of a true consensus process, though; it treats the RfA process as a vote.

In the real world, when a group is deliberating on a consensus decision, typically the group will determine what criteria will be used to evaluate the possible options, and the importance to be given to each criterion. The options are then ranked based on these criteria.

Each candidate for adminship has his or her specific strengths and weaknesses, and they should be weighed based on how strongly the community values each. Accordingly, the Request for Adminship process should be structured to determine consensus views on the pros and cons of a given candidate, and the relative weight that should be given to each. Once these have been determined, closers can judge if a candidate would be a net positive in the role of administrator.

By focusing on pros and cons and how they should be traded off against each other, the process is depersonalized, which reduces acrimony. In addition, much redundancy can be eliminated from the conversation, since each pro or con can be discussed in a single, consolidated thread. This will make easier for community members to participate, as it will take up less of their time and simplify following an ongoing discussion. As a result, it will be easier to get more people to participate.

Support N

Support. This system sounds so much more efficient and straightforward, and is worth trying. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 04:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is the ultimate solution to the problem of votes based on spurious criteria. Rhoark (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - but it'll never happen. You're not going to break people's want of the feel-good "I Like it". But yes, this should be: present the nomination. Then the community presents evidence (positive and/or negative). Then the community discusses. Then bureacrats close. QED. But it'll never happen here. - jc37 23:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle because this is the way that it is supposed to work. However, it does not work this way, and tends very much to function as an unqualified two-thirds-majority election, not a consensus decision. This is certainly an identifiable problem. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose N

Idea sounds great in the abstract, but there's a reason the votes are numbered and a consensus % range has been established. Consensus-based decision making doesn't scale; it works at AFD, but it does not work at RFA, and the process has had to evolve to account for that. Townlake (talk) 17:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reinventing the wheel? RO ^(talk) 18:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be an effort to make the percentages much less relevant. In other words, same old, same old, it's too hard to pass so we must lower or fuzz the standards. No.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose NOTNOW. Perhaps when someone creates a detailed proposal. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Too big of a change. Let's try some other ideas on this page before considering massive changes. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 16:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, not right now. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at present. Everything I said with regards to position G applies here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This will leaed to more wrangling, not less. BMK (talk) 22:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Can see how this could be useful if a system could be created that did not significantly increase bureaucracy, but don't see sufficient detail here to suggest that at the moment. Fenix down (talk) 13:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this would be an improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this suggestion is a horrific fudge designed to allow unsuitable candidates to be appointed despite there being a significant opposition and no clear and unequivocal consensus support. --ℕ ℱ 00:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose based on huge implementation concerns and complexity... However the concept of a matrix or individual criteria has merit. The way I see it, there should be an establish criteria that each !voter is compelled to consider for each nom, such as "can we trust them as an editor" "do they understand policies" "are they civil and handle conflict well"... etc... And those establish, yet subjective area, are things we want every !voter to consider, instead of leaving them to simply evaluate on an arbitrary set of metrics. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Would definitely reconsider if presented with a much more detailed proposal for how this would actually work. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Trilobitealive (talk) 01:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) 10:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - IMHO doesn't have a chance in hell of working. –Davey2010^Talk 03:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on N

Regarding whether or not the Request for Adminship process is a vote: if it is indeed deemed to be a vote, then the process should go all the way: no individual discussion of votes, and no re-weighting of votes. Make it like the arbitration committee voting: each participant simply votes support or oppose. Discussion can be held on specific pros and cons raised, again avoiding redundancy by consolidating conversation. isaacl (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the problems with using consensus decision-making in a large group, I fully agree and have written about the issues. It is unfortunately a catch-22: a consensus decision is required to divert from general community practice, but the problems with consensus decision-making hinders this. As long as the community wishes to continue to attempt using consensus, though, decision-making can be broken down to make it more amenable to this method. Focusing on reaching consensus for more concrete, smaller scope items is easier: is person A strong in X? is person A weak in Y? isaacl (talk) 17:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the comment on reinventing the wheel: since this Request for Comment page is soliciting views on problems with the Request for Adminship process, I think it's within its purview to discuss how the process is problematic in trying to fit different purposes. It is structured partially as a vote and partially as a multi-threaded discussion, which does not do a good job at supporting either a straight vote or a consensus-based decision. And the way votes are re-weighted now places too much emphasis on arguing with individuals to change their vote, instead of focusing on the pros and cons of the candidate. isaacl (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding making the percentages less important: the key concerns are to focus on what are the pros and cons of the candidate, instead of arguing with people about their individual vote, and to make the discussion more effective by eliminating repetition. The bureaucrats can continue to use a percentage-based means to determine consensus on the candidate's pros, the candidate's cons, and the relative importance that should be placed on each. There is no intent to alter any of the community's standards for approving a candidate; the idea is to make the same decision with less acrimony and redundancy. This should encourage more people to participate, both in applying for administrative privileges and in expressing their opinions on candidates. isaacl (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding having a detailed proposal: as this RfC is supposed to identify the key problems with a later RfC discussing solutions, I did not want to overburden this section with too many details. Also, given previous discussion threads, I did not feel the community was ready to move forward with this proposal, and so I did not think that additional elaboration was needed yet. However, for a bit more about how this could work, see my previous proposal for a discussion phase and more details in a later thread. isaacl (talk) 23:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "too big of a change": I appreciate that the community continues to support a voting-based approach, and is wary of moving away from it. However, if it wishes to pay more than lip service to the idea of using a consensus approach, it should structure the RfA process to support generating consensus, as it is done everywhere else outside of English Wikipedia. If it's really not a vote on the candidate but a discussion of the candidate's benefits and drawbacks, don't make it a vote on the candidate; vote on the benefits and drawbacks. If it really is a vote, then don't badger people about their votes; let them vote as they please. Either way, focus on discussing issues, and not individual voters. isaacl (talk) 23:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding horrific fudge: there is no proposed change regarding who should pass; if there is no consensus support, the candidate is not approved. The intent is to reach this conclusion with minimal repetitiveness in the discussion and keeping focus on the issues, not the voters. isaacl (talk) 01:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding implementation concerns: from the participants' perspective, basically the same discussion would take place as today, but with less repetition, since the threads would be organized by topic, and not in response to votes. The bureaucrats would have to organize their closure process a little differently, but one advantage is that the community's consensus view on the relative weights for a candidate's characteristics is largely reusable from one RfA to another. Thus once a few RfAs were completed, there would be a good baseline, and discussion would be expedited. isaacl (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

O: The discretionary range is too narrow

The discretionary range at RfA, which is roughly 5% (70–75%) is too narrow. In the spirit of making RfA based upon true consensus, we should widen this range and give bureaucrats more discretion to weigh arguments.

Support O

Support. I think this is good alternative to lowering the bar; instead, we give less importance to percentages and structure RfA more in the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS. The policy (yes, it is a community-approved policy which has gained consensus itself) states that discussions are to be closed according to weight of the arguments, but in RfA this only occurs within a very narrow 5% range. This is not true consensus, but is rather 95% voting with a tiny window so that it can be called a "!vote" (not vote) and "discussion". Really, we are deceiving ourselves and called RfA a discussion when it is, in fact, mostly a vote. Do we want this? People repeatedly assert that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and voting is a feature of a bureaucracy, so I think we need to make RfA much less about voting and percentages and more about the strength of arguments. (WP:NOTDEM is also applicable, which clearly states that decisions are to be reached by discussions and not votes.) Both of these are also policy. Note that this is not about "lowering the bar", but rather permitting wider discretion. See this comment for more detail on this topic. In summary, this idea is thoroughly supported by policy. --Biblioworm 18:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Edited @ 18:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Biblioworm, especially the comments below. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 06:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very good points. --Fauzan ^{✆ talk}_{✉ mail} 11:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support 5% is an extremely tiny margin and turns the "discussion" into a vote in the vast majority of cases. Decision-making processes on Wikipedia are, as a rule, not votes. This gets even worse if the bureaucrats interpret RfAs towards the lower end of the margin as being unlikely to pass, and ones to the higher end as likely. Hut 8.5 21:59, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support – Widening the discretionary range does not mean lowering the bar anymore than it means raising it. However, I think both lowering the bar and widening the discretionary range has merit, such as having it at between 60% and 70%. The current discretionary range of 5% is very narrow and means RfA functions as a vote in almost all cases – allowing the bureaucrats more leeway to judge the merits of the arguments presented may help improve the creditability of the process. Opening the discretionary range to 10% would be a start, though I wouldn't necessarily be against having it at 15% or even 20%. CT Cooper · talk 23:01, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Support. RFA should not be a vote, and the very narrow discretionary range makes it too much like one. I think a discretionary range of about 65%-85% would make for much fairer outcomes for all involved. Thryduulf (talk) 12:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We've got to expand the range for bureaucratic discretion. This can allow more good candidates who've just missed the mark..—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 18:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I already said this in one of the proposals above, as the narrow discretionary range allows flat, unsupported oppose votes to bend an RfA into the failing range. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 01:09, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only if the support votes are more than 60, if the outcome is between 60-65% and the candidate has atleast 60 support votes, it should be left to the crats to decide the outcome, anyone that gets over 60 votes in support must have some good qualities ... but since its rare for candidates to pass by more than 110+ support votes nowadays unless its an outright win, we have to lower standards and give crats more authority in deciding the outcome..--Ste moc 11:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Makes this more of a consensus decision and less of a vote. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:56, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support lowering the bar per J and this in tandem with that. Squeeze out both the haters and the me-happy-too !votes via enhanced discretion. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:29, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others above. I would like to see a 15% range. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 23:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support agree with 15% range. Too prescriptive and votish at present. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 06:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a 60-75% discretion range. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 08:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support a 60-75% discretion range, as I have stated elsewhere on this page.--Aervanath (talk) 20:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Technically, due to the trust placed on bureaucrats, the range is already 0-100. That said, I believe most bureaucrats adhere to what they see as a community-respected range. Which is usually somewhere between 2/3 and 3/4. And in practice over the years has had a fairly solid extreme threshhold of 60-80. - jc37 23:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — anybody who gets above 60 percent should be in the discretionary range. David Cannon (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Standard consensus interpretation allows for intelligent assessment of the validity of arguments advanced. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
60-75% is fine. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 03:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per discussions above. There are too many candidates I have seen that have very slim margins, and deserve a neutral evaluation, to ensure opposes are reasonable for the role. Sadads (talk) 16:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support We need good admins and not perfect admins. increasing the range will allow good candidates in when one area may need improvement and that improvement is possible. AlbinoFerret 18:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think discretion should permit the bit be flipped all the way down to 50% support. However, I would only continue my support for this proposal if the bureaucrats are required to provide reasons when they apply their discretion, and if said reasons are fully reviewable.Heterodidact (talk) 04:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Also a good proposal. Daß Wölf (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Abolish the discretionary range. This was originally added as an observation of how previous RfAs have turned out. Somewhere along the line it became a rule, even though RfA is not a vote. Well, it is a damn vote and we need to fix that. 'Crats should judge consensus based on WP:CONSENSUS and not a vote count. This never should have even become a thing. HighInBC 17:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Like HIBC, I think bureaucrats should judge consensus. Widening the discretionary range is a small step toward making that a reality and turning RfA into less of popularity contest. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support an increase to 10% range or something. epic genius (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support: As to that, it'd be nice to see some sign that there IS a "discretionary range." As it stands, the evidence is clear: RfA is 100% a popularity vote, it has been for the better part of a decade, and bureaucrats effectively HAVE no discretion either to refuse candidates who clear 75% or accept those who fail to reach 70%. Ravenswing 19:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, as per HighInBC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Over time, the discretionary range has become so narrow that !votes are votes. Jonathunder (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unreasonably high standards at RFA need to be countered with lower margins to account for essentially standards inflation. These high standards are only making becoming a sysop a big deal. Mkdw ^talk 20:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose O

We just recently narrowed the range from 70-80 to 70-75. I should know, I'm the one who introduced the edit to the page. This suggestion is just a sad attempt to backdoor in a lowered passing threshold. Cute. Townlake (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No to discretion, no to weighing arguments, no to super-votes. Everyking (talk) 14:48, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Townlake. The problem isn't the threshold, it's the unsuitability of some of our recent candidates. RO ^(talk) 21:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I am of the opinion that there is no such thing as the "discretionary range". I really don't care about percents. bibliomaniac 1 5 08:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The "discretionary range" is not absolute, if there was a good candidate who got less than 70% support, the bureaucrats still have the authority to let them pass, if they can explain why. Most good candidates get hardly any opposition, anyway. Kraxler (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Wasn't impressed by how the crats handled the last one, and then some. Neither was the community, judging by how the RfC that would have given the crats additional roles tanked about then. And I think Townlake's analysis is very sound.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This just means that whoever has the discretion decides, rather than the community. We shouldn't have any range at all. StuRat (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless by "widening" we mean restoring the 80% upper threshold. Coretheapple (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose lowering the bottom, OK with raising the top. BMK (talk) 22:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If an applicants actions on enWiki have caused disgruntlement to the point that 1 in 4 or more of people who voted on an RfA said Oppose then it's probably safe to say that the applicant has made one or two mistakes of such significance that they probably still need to learn from them or regularly rub people up the wrong way somehow and as such perhaps are not quite ready. Fenix down (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Crats can use discretion whenever they judge that it is necessary, and we should not be using the bandwidth of the zone to raise or lower the passing bar. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - if you have a wide discretion you might as well not bother having a vote, because there is nothing democratic about appointing people who did not carry a clear and unequivocal consensus of votes. --ℕ ℱ 00:54, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Mainly per BMK. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:36, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeTrilobitealive (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on O

Cute? I did not suggest that we lower the bar for passing, I suggested that we give bureaucrats more ability to do what policy says closers of discussion should do. (Which is namely to weigh arguments according to strength: [1][2]) An exemption for RfA is not included in any of those policies. We can start small; sudden, sweeping changes are not required. How would expanding the discretionary range by a little to, say, 65% or so (a mere change of 5%) cause any fatal harm to the project? We could experiment and see how it goes; we'll never know until we try. I do not see, Townlake, how defending clearly worded community-approved policy about consensus is in any way "cute". This is perhaps one the of the suggestions that has the most policy-based support on its side. --Biblioworm 00:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'Crats can and in very rare cases should WP:Ignore all rules and, after a serious and sober 'crat-chat, reject or re-list/extend the discussion for candidates with over 75% or even over 90% support if circumstances warrant (usually this would be a late-breaking "show-stopper" evidence that would result in a desysop or ARBCOM hearing or, if known at the start of the RfA, would have doomed the nomination anyway). Likewise they can and in very rare cases should follow that same policy and promote or re-list/extend the discussion for those with below 70% or (in the face of strongly suspected-but-unproven large-scale sock/meat-puppetry and/or unproven-but-strongly-suspected off-wiki canvassing or similar abuse-of-process to stack the !votes) even below 50% if it's clearly the right thing to do. By "very rare" I mean "I wouldn't be surprised if such things haven't happened at all in the last few years, and I wouldn't be surprised if they don't happen in the next few years either." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Townlake, you probably mean you just recently edited the documentation to reflect the fact that the de facto discretionary zone is 70-75% and has been so since at least 2008. We had a case of documentation lag, not a recent substantive change. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the change was to reflect a reality that the community had clearly already accepted. Townlake (talk) 06:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure about this one. It really depends on how the bureaucrats interpret their jobs. Recently they have seemed to take a fairly conservative approach to promotions, which means that arguments are only looked at when the numbers fall into their narrow "discretion" range, so it might be useful to tell them their discretion range should be larger. (For example, I think it would have been entirely defensible to promote Thine Antique Pen, as there were quite a lot of purely age-based oppose votes). Also, bureaucrats exercising unexpected discretion has historically been a way to prolong the flamefest that some RfAs are for another week, and I can see why bureaucrats would not want to do that. But then I also feel that the "strength of argument" thing is so inherently personal and hard to measure objectively that pure voting would actually be preferable, and then there should be no bureaucrat discretion at all. —Kusma (t·c) 09:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't the threshold, it's the unsuitability of some of our recent candidates. First of all, as I have clearly stated several times, this is a proposal that is supported by policy. It shouldn't matter whether or not you think it's a problem; our policies say that our current system is a problem. (Not explicitly, of course, but considering the extremely vote-based nature of RfA it's plain that it is not in line with the procedures for determining consensus described in the relevant policies.) Secondly, why were all the failed candidates unsuitable? Because they failed RfA, and therefore they were unsuitable? That would be a circulus in probando fallacy, because it reasons that the candidate must be unsuitable because they failed RfA, while ignoring the fact that the very point of discussion is that RfA is not working properly. That's defending RfA with its own results, although there is widespread consensus that something is wrong with the process (there may not be widespread agreement on what is wrong, but there is widespread agreement that something is wrong). Therefore, your argument defends a broken system with its own output. How do we know that the candidates were unsuitable? Might they not have been good admins, if they were given the chance? Pile-ons in the oppose sections are not uncommon, so surely some RfAs have failed when they shouldn't have. Why should you have the authority to say that recent candidates were unsuitable? Given my argument just now showing the flaws in it, don't I have just as much right to say that many of our failed candidates were not unsuitable? In summary, there are many problems, both with policy and logic, in that one sentence. --Biblioworm 22:19, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're going a bit too far in your incessant badgering of commenters here, particularly when you overanalyze their statements to the point of calling them fallacies. Don't forget that to invalidate every oppose comment by calling them fallacious is in itself a fallacy (the fallacy fallacy). For example, it's not faulty logic to say many of the recent candidates failed RfA because they were unsuitable. Many of them were unsuitable. I didn't say or intend to imply that every single one that failed was demonstrably unsuitable, which is where you had to go to invalidate my input. A major reason RfA I so confrontational is the badgering of editors who dissent, just as you've been doing here. I suggest you take it down a notch, and let this unfold as it should. RO^(talk) 22:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is simply calling a fallacy a fallacy a fallacy? (*head spinning*) A "fallacy" which says that it is incorrect to question an argument because it contains a circular fallacy (one of the worst and most obvious of all fallacies) is itself fallacious. But you're simply reiterating your same argument. Why were they unsuitable? Because you decided they were? And I'm also not a believer in "badgering" at RfA. Ones who oppose candidates should have to explain and clarify their rationales appropriately when questioned. In fact, I think a major issue at RfA is actually the stigma that comes with asking questions of opposers. I apologize if a can sound too aggressive at times, since that is never my intent (it's difficult to convey tones through a text medium), but I'm a very logically-minded person and spend a good part of my life dealing with it and analyzing the validity of propositions, so perhaps it spills over a bit more than it should here. --Biblioworm 22:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again, this is needlessly rude. The "fallacy fallacy" is a form of denying the antecedent, and you are assuming that a statement is unequivocally false if it's been defended with a fallacy. That's simply not true or logical. I'll give you the last word here, but please try to avoid insulting people you disagree with. It just makes you look bad, and it drives people away from offering their input. RO^(talk) 23:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Argumentum ad logicam (e.g., fallacy fallacy) - "Argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false." Your argument was: The problem is not the threshold, but rather the unsuitability of recent candidates → We don't need to change the threshold. To commit the argumentum ad logicam fallacy, I would have to state that your conclusion ("We don't need to change the threshold.") is false because of the fallacy, but I never said that. I pointed out a fallacy in the reasoning (defending a broken system with its own output), but it actually merely a supporting factor in my larger argument. In the other (top) part of my comment, I showed that we really do need to widen the discretionary range (which is actually not the "threshold", in its strictest sense), because policy rather undeniably shows that we do. These two things combined were intended to show the issue with the statement, but the policy issue is the most important of them. By showing the fallacy, all I did, and all anyone can do, was show that the premises, because of their logical faults, did not support the conclusion. In itself, you are correct, this does not show that the conclusion is false; but the policy examples do. And finally, calling me rude is rather serious allegation. Am I rude because I honestly attempt to show errors in an argument? There is a difference between rudeness and honesty. However, as I mentioned, I never intend to be rude. Sometimes, being honest can be mistaken for rudeness, especially when communication is strictly through writing. I always strive to abide by WP:CIVIL. But, I will drop it. --Biblioworm 23:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Why were they unsuitable? Because you decided they were?
      - Consensus decided they were unsuitable, and by definition a suitable candidate is one that can earn the trust of the community. Candidates that cannot earn the community's trust are unsuitable for RfA, even if technically capable. Suitability and capability are very different concepts. I'm sure some admins who get desysopped are technically capable but deemed unsuitable, even after passing RfA and temporarily earning the trust of the community. RO ^(talk) 23:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Consensus did not decide they were; numerical, percentage-based voting did. RfA almost always does not truly follow WP:CONSENSUS. If it really were consensus that decided which candidates were elected, invalid votes not supported by policy would be ignored (all the time, not just in a 5% window). But, unfortunately, they're not. --Biblioworm 23:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

P: Discard or discount high-end oppose votes

Oppose votes that depend primarily on the nominee having not been involved in high-end Wikipedia activities (e.g., GA or FA) should be discarded or discounted.

Support P

Support While I strongly value the work of those who have taken articles to GA or FA, as well as those who participate in these processes, the vast majority of the work in the Wikipedia is not at this high end, and to expect a nominee to have been involved in these high-end activities, while there are myriad possibilities for amazing work they have done elsewhere, is essentially pretending that the admin crew is a country club rather than a group of able, trusted leaders from all corners. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Bringing articles to GA or FA has nothing to do with the jobs administrators are elected to do. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Content work generally has little bearing on whether or not one can effectively use maintenance tools like deletion or blocking (especially the latter). I could see a more compelling argument if admins were permitted to exercise both administrative and editorial judgment in a particular topic area, but this is explicitly forbidden by the administrator policy. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Potential admins should have experience creating quality articles but should not be required to participate in particular processes like DYK, GA, or FA. Gamaliel (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support knocking this out as an acceptable rationale for an "oppose". Article creation skills are important. Article improvement skills are probably even more important at this stage of the project. From what I've seen of my partial (still unfinished) foray into the WP:FL process, it doesn't seem to teach any skill that isn't learned from the previous two skill sets, nor does it seem to impart any special "Admin-type" skill. You don't have to participate in the GA, etc. process to have demonstrated good "consensus article work" skills. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't feel that any of the admin tools have to do with article quality at all. Gaining admin tools doesn't help you improve articles, it helps you do the cleanup tasks that enable other editors to focus on writing quality articles.--Aervanath (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Any argument that is not primarily policy-based should have little to no value; that is all that adminship should represent. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 21:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support I do not see how bringing articles to GA and FA status have anything to do with the duties of an admin. It would be good if they had a basic understanding of what GA and FA are and how you get there, but that's a much lower threshold than expecting them to actually go around improving articles into GA and FA, something that not everyone is interested in doing. TheBlinkster (talk) 04:35, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support on principle. When I was becoming an admin, I don't think we even had the GA category, and I had never been involved in a FAC, and did not become involved in one until half a decade later. It clearly meant nothing to other Wikipedians who never came to complain to me about it. Using it so bluntly against a prospective candidate today would strike me as plain old mean. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Citing facts to a reliable source is a basic skill that all admin candidates should be able to demonstrate, and FA and GA contributions are a huge plus for an admin candidate, but opposes simply based on lack of an FA or GA are unhelpful. The !voters who do oppose on such grounds seem to judge candidates on a very simplistic basis, sometimes I suspect without even a cursory look through their contributions. If we set a criteria for adminship, and FA and GA writing was simply one way to demonstrate skill and commitment, then it would avoid the interminable RFA threads as to whether or not an FA or GA was needed, more importantly we might get more of the editors who currently oppose for lack of audited content to actually audit the contributions of the candidate they are !voting on. The more RFA !voting is based on statistics and the open book exam that is much of the Q&A session the less effective it is as a way of sorting good candidates from bad. Not accepting votes that simply assert the candidate lacks audited content would hopefully encourage more of our FA and GA writers to actually check edits made by RFA candidates and either oppose for reasons that might actually derail an RFA or support and perhaps even encourage the candidate to submit some of their work to the GA process. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:59, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support — as per Jimbo's "No big deal" directive. David Cannon (talk) 12:20, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - A well written article does not mean a GA / FA. Applicants may be working in creating articles in areas that do not attract too much attention and so might not be nominated by others. Other applicants, such as myself, am more interested in creating articles out of interest in the subject and have no particular concern with badges or ratings. Furthermore taking an article to GA / FA is often the work of a number of editors. I don't think placing any really weight on "hasn't created any FA / GA articles" aids the idea of community development and infact encourages WP:OWN amongst potential applicants. Fenix down (talk) 13:49, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I view high-level content creation as a plus, but I've never seen its relevance to adminship. --Biblioworm 15:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support though I suspect this would be very hard to implement, involving judging primarily, and rather encourages people to be disingenuous in their comments. Johnbod (talk) 18:06, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support administrators do need to have an understanding of Wikipedia's basic content policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:BLP). However the skills required for creating high quality content, such as detailed knowledge of the manual of style and an ability to write well, have essentially nothing to do with the vast majority of admin work and so possessing them shouldn't be a requirement. Hut 8.5 23:05, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support — until creating GAs or FAs becomes part of the admin conduct policy, it's 100% irrelevant. Ditto goes with "not enough content creation" opposes. This madness has to stop. --slakr^\ talk / 09:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - adminship is, IMO, more about WikiGnoming than about creating content, so GA/FA standards are irrelevant for adminship. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:31, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is, was, and will continue to be a spurious reason for opposing someone for adminship. Not everybody wants to get that involved with a single article, and while we do expect some content work from a good admin candidate, administrative work has nothing at all to do with the FA or GA processes. If adminship is not a trophy, candidates for it should not have to display the correct "pre-trophies" to get it. I don't know how likely this idea is to ever be enforced, but it is a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support These badge-collecting games have nothing to do with adminship. — Scott • talk 11:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. While I'm generally in favor of letting people actually vote for or against candidates (i.e. express their preference without giving a reason, or giving irrelevant reasons), expecting or even requiring HQ content creation capabilities from admins is severely wrongheaded. To me, FA/GA stars are definitely a plus (because they show that the candidate is a fairly capable and experienced editor, and capability and experience are needed for adminship), but they are not sufficient, nor are they necessary. GregorB (talk) 14:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This I think is the most obvious current problem at RfA. There are some editors who use content creation as some sort of litmus test for the candidate. That has to stop. Knowing when and how to use the tools is largely about judgment. While experience can help inform judgment, FAs and GAs are not the only way to gain experience and many editors work in other areas. Votes based solely on lack of content creation should discounted in a close RfA that goes to crat chat. This gives a buffer zone that allows good candidates on the wire to pass. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support We should not require our janitors to be great writers. There is no policy that requires admins to be great writers and to discount otherwise qualified candidates because of something not related to their job hurts Wikipedia. HighInBC 17:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Writing is not that important if the candidate wants to go into areas that are not about writing. An example is AN/I, you dont need to be a great writer to block a purely disruptive editor, knowlage of policy is more important. AlbinoFerret 18:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SupportTrilobitealive (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems like a good way to solve the problem. Daß Wölf (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I would apply this conservatively i.e. an oppose simply saying they want to see more content contribution should not be struck. However, some of the most ridiculous standards need to be tackled. The number of FAs/GAs/DYKs etc. a candidate has bars no serious relevance to their suitability for adminship, and it's grossly unfair to judge an admin candidate on such measures, in the same way that you don't judge a fish on its ability to climb trees. CT Cooper · talk 00:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, absolutely. The notion that one has to be a successful FA writer to sensibly apply administrative rules and policies is quite simply incorrect and not grounded in reality. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Support: Absolutely; this is just another one of the absurd hobby horses that people jump on. Ravenswing 19:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, even though I personally didn't run into much opposition based on this at all, I still think that GA and FA work should not be used as the primary basis for an oppose vote. APerson (talk!) 14:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support - The GA/FA opposes and the content creation opposes are OTT and IMHO they need to stop, You don't need to have Good or Featured articles or have created an article to be an admin, As long as you participate in adminish areas then that's all that should matter IMHO. –Davey2010^Talk 03:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose P

Oppose. A non-starter. The community has a right to expect, as adminship is currently structured, that admins have familiarity with article creation and the process of bringing articles to higher status. If the tools are unbundled it will be a different situation. Coretheapple (talk) 14:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The way it is currently structured - most of WP:ADMIN makes no positive reference to content, none of the WP:ADMINTOOLS are used for content creation, and most processes at WP:GAN and WP:FAC do not require any admin intervention. The only piece of the structure that is relevant seems to be that admin user right is needed to edit fully-protected pages in a technical manner - to implement consensus reached through those processes. Can you please explain what exactly makes you think that participation in those specific two processes, as opposed to general participation in everything else that requires WP:CONS, is specifically relevant to RfA? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll be happy to explain it. Participation in the GAN/FAC process is a key indicator that the admin candidate has more intelligence than a warthog. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would submit that it doesn't require Mensa-grade intelligence to handle admin duties. 25,000 live mainspace edits (as only one example) demonstrates pretty darn good intelligence. I will reiterate that the admin crew shouldn't be treated like a country club. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:44, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "the community has a right to expect", do you mean you believe that Good Article or Featured Article creation should be a mandatory criterion to receive administrative privileges? isaacl (talk) 22:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that people judging a potential admin have every right to give that significant weight. We're not using a "religious test" or some other irrelevant criteria, to paraphrase a nonsensical comment someone made. Writing or elevating articles is not rocket science. It's pretty minimal stuff. Yeah, one can have accumulated a million edits just vandal fighting I suppose, but I wouldn't trust a vandal-fighter to close an AfD if they hadn't done much content work. Or even if they have, in some situations if they act like jerks or have behaved weirdly. Coretheapple (talk) 22:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that helps. Your previous wording seemed to imply that (a) for candidates to be approved, they must have brought articles to Good Article or Featured Article status; and (b) without this, it's difficult to evaluate the intelligence of candidates. isaacl (talk) 23:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is specifically about FAC and GAN, and you're talking about general experience in content creation. Why would e.g. ample participation in RfCs and AfDs not be a sufficient indicator of ability to build consensus (and by extension, prerequisite for the ability to enforce consensus), why do you have to insist specifically on FAC and GAN? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No I was specifically talking about FAC and GAN. Perhaps my phraseology wasn't clear. Allow me to reiterate what I said above: writing or elevating articles is not rocket science. It doesn't take a genius. Editors have every right to expect that admins can engage in the simple effort required to bring articles up to GA and FA status, so as to equip them to do the full range of duties admins can and should do. If they can't or won't do content work, including bring articles up to GA and FA status, then they have no business seeking the tools in my view. I think GA and FA work is important, as it is possible to create stubs and say "wow I've done content work!" Coretheapple (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK. So you basically want admins to be very experienced in pretty much everything before they take up admin work. I think that position sounds logical on the face of it, but it doesn't take into account two things. First, it doesn't take the same skill set to deal with admin tasks and to deal with editor tasks. So if you select a good editor, you won't necessarily get a good admin; conversely if you eliminate a 'bad' editor, you might lose a good admin. Secondly, to engage in all these simple tasks in the requisite volume requires a lot of time, and then the same person also needs to have even more time to volunteer to do admin tasks. OTOH it's a requirement that can implicitly favor people who have been here a lot of time, so they could amass experience over time. So you can select a persistent person, or one with ample free time, but that won't necessarily make them good admins; conversely if you eliminate less senior people or those with less time, you might lose good admins. These things will be seen as arbitrary ways to cull candidates. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right on the good editor-bad admin bit, but what I had in mind was some familiarity with the process, some FA work, some GA work. At least, that would be my criteria. Others may differ. Coretheapple (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, we've had admin candidates with zero GA/FA experience and not much content experience either. All I'm saying is that you don't have to be Shakespeare to do that, and making it impossible to take such things into account makes no sense. Coretheapple (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there wouldn't be this much acrimony on this point if one were simply to say that a total sum of content experience from a candidate is required to be large. Going into the specifics is what appears to stray from the overall point. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Where is it in the community's remit to tell people how they're allowed to vote? Some people expect admins to have a history of content creation. Some expect a good record at RfD. Right or wrong, editors can have the expectations they want. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chris troutman and Coretheapple. Individual expectations are part of establishing community consensus. RO ^(talk) 18:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I don't require FA/GA, but if it is there, then it is a plus. I don't see why others should not also take absence as a minus. Say 30 percent of the RfA !voters decide they want to see a candidate do a GA. Isn't that the community stating that if you want to be an admin, then go find some article and bring it up to GA status. Is that an onerous requirement? I view those who demand FA/GA experience as simply demanding some simple evidence that the candidate knows how to source statements and write coherently. I've run into at least one editor with tens of thousands of edits but no interest in adding sources. I won't reject a candidate for lack of GA/FA, but I probably would oppose a candidate who doesn't source edits. Pillars are important. It certainly is no secret that some RfA !voters want to see GA/FA. Some !voters look at the number of articles created. That's pretty low-end stuff, but it can also be looked at as a right of passage. I don't require article starts, but I have started articles that were tagged for deletion within minutes after I started them. I can understand why !voters want article starts; it's good for candidates to be on the receiving end of what they are going to do. I don't require article starts, but I do take a negative view of any candidate who too quickly tagged articles for deletion. I haven't required too much in the way of content in the past, but I'm leaning that way now. If one isn't doing some significant content work, then (1) they are not displaying their writing and organizational skills and (2) they don't have much opportunity to get into conflict with difficult editors. I weigh conflict experience heavily. When candidates answer Q3 with they haven't been involved in any conflict, I wonder what they have been doing and why they think they are qualified to be an admin. One can get a lot of mainspace edits reverting vandals, and that is one of the reasons that many !voters discount automated edits. Still other editors want to see AfD and CSD experience even if deletion is not mentioned in Q1. That's not my requirement, but it is not unreasonable for !voters to require some broader experience even for candidates who claim a narrow interest. Generally, I want to see evidence that the candidate can think and behave well. Those traits can be hard to pick out, so I don't have any trouble with !voters using particular criteria to discern those abilities. Although I do have a few automatic oppose triggers (e.g., calling a good faith edit vandalism), I usually must see two problems ("bumps") to end up in the oppose column. I would not want to see a GA/FA !vote struck when it was coupled with another (possibly weak) oppose reason. Overall, I don't like to oppose, and I suspect that most !voters in the oppose column don't like to be there either. Glrx (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Say 30 percent of the RfA !voters decide they want to see a candidate do a GA. Isn't that the community stating that if you want to be an admin, then go find some article and bring it up to GA status", the answer is no. That would be a clear (70% to 30%) consensus against. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Guy Macon: Actually it is, because 30% oppose is enough to torpedo basically every single RFA candidate's nomination. shoy (reactions) 13:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – I'd argue that previous content work is important for potential admins, as it demonstrates skills such as the ability to collaborate with other editors and the ability to handle stressful situations. Those of us with experience at FAC and other processes know that they can be nerve-wracking, which can't hurt for anyone interested in entering RFA. However, I would say that the !voters (from what I've seen) generally don't do a good enough job of digging deeper than a candidate's raw FA/GA/DYK/article creation totals. If an editor chooses to expand or otherwise improve articles that already exist, that should count in their favor much more than it currently seems to. If somebody wants to oppose a user over a lack of creations, it only seems fair for them to check for the user's frequently edited articles and any related substantial improvements. Let's not act like new articles are automatically more valuable than the ones that are already there, and that edits that don't bring an article to GA or DYK are completely meaningless. Giants2008 (Talk) 21:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure you wanted to oppose? That sounds a lot like a support argument. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I didn't phrase that very well. What I was trying to say is that I do think connections can be made between content work and potential usage of administrative tools, and when they are I don't see why an oppose would lack validity. It's just that RFA voters should be willing to consider factors other than pure accomplishment counts (like here, where some detailed article inspections changed the course of the RFA). I'm against a blanket discounting of such rationales, because every potential case is different. The rationale can be fine sometimes (when it represents a lack of any content experience) and ridiculous other times; I'd hate to see one standard apply for all possibilities. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note my use of the word 'primarily' in the stated proposal. The discarding/discounting would be if lack of GA/FA work is the primary reason for voting against. I make no statement about whether this consideration is a non-controlling piece of the RfA voter's arguments. Also, I have no issue with an RfA oppose based on the nominee's lack of improving articles in general -- but it seems to me a requirement like 25,000 live mainspace edits ought to prove that, and that can be easily checked. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 20:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Every Wikipedian should have the right to decide for themselves what requirements make the best admins. The last thing we need here is more groupthink. BMK (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Potentially the thin of a very nasty and abusive edge. Leaky Caldron 17:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's not something I use as a voting criterion, but people are entitled to their own opinions on what makes someone a good admin. On a website dedicated to making an encyclopedia, adding quality information to the encyclopedia seems like a fair requirement. Brustopher (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - a fairly large subset of the community (myself not included) views exceptional content work as an excellent indication of admin suitability, and they should be allowed to. I don't, but that's neither here nor there. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although I actually do think that some editors place too much emphasis on GA/FA, we don't need to make this formulaic. There is room for a variety of editor opinions and criteria. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - quality content creation is the reason we should be all here. It is entirely reasonable to oppose candidates who have no knowledge of or interest in content creation. --ℕ ℱ 00:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's perfectly reasonable to let editors use their own criteria when deciding how to !vote at RfA, IMHO. — sparklism ^hey! 12:15, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. An understanding of content creation (which GAs/FAs may reflect) is a perfectly reasonable thing for voters to weigh in RfA decisions. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the premise of censorship, however I do believe that a better established set of admin criteria is in order. It is important to realize that admins are more of a MOP than a GOD, and should be treated as such. Someone with extensive experience in WP:RM for example works with complex cases requiring the use of the delete mop, should be trusted with the tool (given everything else checks out) even if they're not a robust content creator. Most of the tools don't have to do with content creation. Although it can be said that they are "anti-creation" tools, and thus they need to at least be able to see and understand good content, and how their actions can negatively affect good content from being introduced. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:41, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tryptofish. Jonathunder (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per BMK. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Tryptofish. Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (intone) 10:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose admins who have no experience in content creation seem more apt to abuse content contributors. If they aren't in the process of writing the encyclopaedia, how can they understand what happens in the sausage making. While it shouldn't be mandatory to have GAs or FAs, a solid record of quality content and MoS compliance, research, sourcing, can only benefit an RfA candidate's suitability. And a portfolio of good content could sway my vote favourably on a weaker candidate when considering their suitability and intentions regarding the project. I would oppose an admin candidate if they don't write articles or have not substantially improved articles. Gnomes are admirable, but content improvement is desired. I'd support a good RfA candidate if they have a solid record of bringing stubs up to B-class or are good at fact checking or copyediting. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@JackTheVicar: Do you have any evidence of systemic abuse of "content focused editors" by administrators who don't have some arbitary level of content experience? Personally, I don't think that what you are describing exists, but if you've got hard data to the contrary I'm willing to change my mind. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

All the standards for adminship that you list are viable. Problem/proposal P merely seeks to disable a high-end requirement related to content. Of course it's fair for one to look for "a solid record of quality content" and "bringing stubs up to B-class" in a candidate, as they should understand what they are administering over, but is it reasonable to require GA/FA-level work at the expense of all other considerations? Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Stevietheman ... A GA or FA on an RfA candidates résumé is just a good thing in general. It shows a serious effort at building the encyclopaedia. I hate RfA candidates who only do administrative tasks, lurk around the dramaboards, or stick with comma-fixing gnome edits and lack any serious efforts to build articles. There are fights in content creation...you need to understand that dynamic as an admin and there is no better way that understanding it from within. I've observed too often, admins and admin wannabes who lurk at WP:ANI (often the hat collectors) who don't really do articles get it seriously wrong shooting from the hip in judging content disputes. That is not good for the project or the community. As for FA/GA as a requirement...I wouldn't insist on it, but it shouldn't be discarded as a fair reason for support or opposition. FA or GA writing should be encouraged as it can only bolster or round out a good nomination. I'd ask a candidate what are ten articles you've improved and what were your specific contributions to them. If you had two qualified candidates for a job, but one went to Haverford, the quaker liberal arts college in Pennsylvania, the other excelling at Harvard, you'd have less reservations about the Ivy Leaguer. JackTheVicar (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
'P' is about not letting anyone insist upon FA/GA, so it nearly seems you are in line with this. Anyone would be able to have any other criteria of their choosing (including extensive content work), and even make FA/GA part of their reason. 'P' seeks to discard/discount FA/GA as a primary reason for opposing. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 19:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above user has been checkuser indef blocked for socking (see Talk page). Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 13:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, kind of. Some people have high expectations. Admins should embody certain such expectations, such as decorum and competence. epic genius (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose People are allowed to support without giving any reason at all. Andrew D. (talk) 23:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per my comments in other sections. Ending a rationale for opposing will just change the rationale, not the vote. Because, ultimately, it comes down to trust.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on P

One recent admin candidate received significant opposition just for expressing the opinion that content creators should be held to the same rules as everyone else. There is absolutely no reason why Wikignomes should be excluded from becoming administrators. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see which RfA that related to. I've seen some real horse's butts nominated for admin from time to time, generating revulsion that is expressed in a number of ways. But on this general point, what I think you're dealing with a fairly reasonable sentiment among people at RfAs. Remember that it takes visible, extremely bad conduct to get an admin desysopped, utilizing a public hazing process that is unpleasant for everyone, hence the view that this is a lifetime appointment so we have to be careful. Coretheapple (talk) 17:04, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I realized that I didn't word the title as a problem. The problem is the potential rejection of admin nominees based on a lack of specific high-end activity, and the potential stifling of those willing to go through the admin process because of this. And as Guy Macon says (and this isn't the first place I've seen it), it can be problematic for a nominee to even say that the myriad other aspects of the Wikipedia that don't have to do with particular high-end activities are very important. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 18:05, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The single most disruptive rationale for "opposing" lately. It's done nothing but cause needless RfA drama, and has no basis for being needed in the Admin skillset. This rationale needs to go as an acceptable "oppose" reasoning. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:25, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A thought experiment: try replacing "no GA/FA" in the first three oppose votes with "not belonging to religion X" or "not being a member of race Y". Notice how the arguments are still valid? That's because the oppose arguments are arguments saying that no oppose vote should ever be discounted for any reason. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
that's a disingenuous straw man argument...claiming the "oppose because of no GA/FA" crowd are equal to bigots is ridiculous. JackTheVicar (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The difficulty of this whole thing is that what we really need is a cultural change in the way RFAs are handled, but it isn't possible to force a cultural change. You can encourage it by raising awareness, this is the reason smoking is less and less popular in the developed world. Cigarrettes are still perfectly legal, they just aren't welcome in most places. This idea probably won't fly, but I support the spirit of it nonetheless.

I've been an admin for six years, and my complete lack of a single GA or FA I can put on my "trophy rack" hasn't hampered me one bit. I respect the good people who do excellent content work and are able to bring those articles up to such a high level of quality, but I have no respect for the idea that if one doesn't do that they can't do administrative drudge work. Those that hold such an opinion don't seem to understand that admins, gnomes, vandal fighters, etc are all part of the team that supports and maintains their creations. That's what makes this place work, we need all those types of editors to succeed. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

General comments

What a mess of a discussion. If one is truly trying to design a survey, this is a poor effort. Carrite (talk) 05:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, maybe the discussion could help Biblioworm and the other folks interested in actual change to design something useful on Survey Monkey or something... ? Montanabw ^(talk) 07:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- One day, the community will have to realize that consensus doesn't work well with a large group, and even under the best of circumstances, consensus requires patience. So yes, if everyone wants to be able to weigh in, it's going to be a lengthy, verbose conversation that takes time to work through. And unless the participants agree to follow a moderator's direction, it's also going to spread out into multiple parallel branches. For better or worse, most of the people who are active in these threads seem to prefer this form of discussion over various other formats that have been tried or proposed. isaacl (talk) 19:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think isaac1's general comment is true, that there's a limit to the size of a community which can be effectively governed by consensus, just as there is a limit to the size of the community in which a town meeting is useful, or a limit to the size of a tribe under the tribal-chief system. The vast majority of consensus discussion on Wikipedia take place on article talk pages with a small number of editors involved. The consensus discussions in which the close is disputed are almost always those which involve large numbers of people. BMK (talk) 22:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At least this separates the contentious proposals from the proposals with very little support. That alone will make this a valuable guide as people continue the create new RfA reform proposals and every single one continues to go down in flames. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:04, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that this is just now popping up on my watchlist and the three days to submit a position are past. Not exactly fair. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Stevie. The reason for this was actually supposed to be helpful, since proposals added later will naturally get less attention. I suppose that's not for me to decide, though, so I guess I'll delete that part. Go ahead and add your proposal(s). --Biblioworm 20:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I accept that reason completely. It's just that I wasn't informed of this process via the Watchlist alert until today. I don't have any watches on administrative pages to know when these things are happening, and I don't wish to have such watches as most matters are things I don't have time to consider. Anyway, I entered my concern above before looking at the proposals, and the one I have in mind might be considered a subset of A. I want to end "country club" rationales for opposition per my "Limited Support" of A. I would appreciate any advice on how to proceed. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 21:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an interesting idea off the top of my head: Gather statistics on the following four groups of editors:

Those who oppose all or nearly all proposals to reform RfA.
Those who support all or nearly all proposals to reform RfA.
Those who oppose all or nearly all candidates for RfA.
Those who support all or nearly all candidates for RfA.

Then, topic-ban the lot of them from all activity regarding RfAs.

This idea (though half-baked at the moment) has the advantage of not needing a support/oppose vote. Arbcom could do it. What makes it half-baked at the moment is that I have no idea whether any of the four groups of editors I picked out of the top of my head have any members. A good count and some statistics would fix that. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, would this mean that I (who is absolutely acting in good faith) would be topic-banned from RfA? After all, I support most proposals to reform RfA. (Well, not all of them, but the vast majority of them.) --Biblioworm 20:52, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt you thought about what you were saying when you wrote that. Silencing the people who want RfA to change will have the direct effect of keeping RfA as it is. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 21:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? You think that we should pay attention to someone who supports or opposes every proposed RfA reform, no matter how good or bad it is? I am not talking about just the proposals on this page, which have already had the really bad ones weeded out. Perhaps I didn't make that clear. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You said all or nearly all, which would strictly include Biblioworm, the author of the bulk of this page. And yes, I do think that anyone who puts effort into coming up with something that might potentially fix the process should be allowed to have an audience for at least as long as it takes to determine whether they have merit. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 02:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see zero evidence that Biblioworm supports all or nearly all RfA reform proposals. I think he rejects the obviously bad ones. If he or anyone else actually did support all or nearly all RfA reform proposals (which would include supporting a fair number of bad ones) then , yes, his opinion should be ignored, same as someone who opposes all or nearly all RfA reform proposals. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The analyst part of me loves the concept, but the implementation is very dangerous. I love looking at the data, and it is interesting to see the trends. I would agree that there are clearly those people who want change, and those who flight against it. There are certainly those who are "dug in" with their ideas, and others who are more open minded to evaluate everything proposed on its own merits. For better or worse, that is part of the process. And even in the US that is the way the laws are created. Choosing a democracy over a dictatorship looks a lot like this. The only difference might be this... the US system is a representative system, not a direct democracy, with a finite amount of people working a problem. Versus this RfC and RfA too, where there is an infinite amount of contribution. From people involved, as well as those not normally or directly involved. In general we presume a level of competence and responsibility from our elected representatives, and there is a cost of they don't represent correctly (or at least theoretically there is). In our current method of RfC and RfA, there is no cost or consequence to irresponsible or uninformed !voting, there is no basic requirement of competence or even understanding the process. As a result I would be very curious to see some raw data about the RfA !voters... Tiggerjay (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen some RFA's were it seemed could literally oppose because the sky is blue. Cutting down on any patent nonsense would be helpful. It would also be helpful if perhaps there was some involvement criteria set. People with an axe to grind from to or 3 years ago don't really need to be there !voting. That is not to suggest that they shouldn't be allowed in the discussion.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In spite of Wikipedia's consensus-based approach to decision-making, why do so many people prefer having the RfA process structured as a vote, without discussion threads consolidated by topic? In essence, it caters to drive-by voters: they can quickly write down their thoughts, and return to see comments on their votes, without having to read the other votes and threads. If a more informed discussion that takes less time is desired, then the process should stop favouring itinerant participants over those willing to engage the community in conversation. The process should avoid multiple threads on the same topic, and focus on the candidate's characteristics, not on trying to discredit voters. isaacl (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A consensus modeled decision making process would be a great idea.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can have a consensus modeled decision making process, or you can have a process where an oppose opinion is counted as equal to three support opinions and a 25% minority has veto power, but you can't have both. :( --Guy Macon (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voting can be a component of determining the consensus view, and in the most literal sense, a consensus is something that everyone can live with, so each person has veto power. Of course, this strict approach is not possible to follow once a group grows beyond a small size; we should try to determine if a sufficiently large portion of the entire community will be satisfied by a candidate being approved. But the process of reaching consensus should be based on discussing the qualities of the candidate, not on trying to change how votes are weighed. In the real world, consensus decisions aren't made by assigning a lower weight to someone's vote. isaacl (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If your response is Support -Signed Steve- or even with some half ass response, your vote should be ignored. If you can't respond intelligibly and with some justification for your vote that makes it actually seem like you read what was being asked then your vote should be ignored.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:33, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point of focussing on how the pros and cons should be balanced. If someone's view is diametrically opposed to the community's consensus on the appropriate balance, then their opinion is inherently given less weight. isaacl (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If we change RfA, every admin needs to run again. We need to end "life tenure" of admins. There is presently no accountability for abusive ones. A significant number of current admins would never pass an RfA today because of their trigger happy and abusive conduct. And waiting two months for the Arbitration Committee process to play out is unacceptable. If the system changes, everyone needs to start on equal footing. Wipe the slate clean. WP:ANI is a cesspool, and ArbCom needs to be abolished. It is not just RfA. The entire disciplinary and management structure of Wikipedia should be replaced. It's a broken juggernaut and it's one of the biggest obstacles to making contributing enjoyable and the community less hostile. JackTheVicar (talk) 15:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't compel volunteer admins to go through RFA again, and if you take the tools off anyone unwilling to run again you would exacerbate all the problems of our admin shortage. If you know of a trigger happy or abusive admin I suggest you take them to Arbcom. At 2 hours 28 minutes from contentious unblock to desysop for the latest desysop, Arbcom is a very different creature from the one you depict. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An admin unwilling to have their career scrutinized after a set term is probably part of the problem. Call it a reelection, reappointment, reautorization, etc. If an admin has the support of the community to continue then they're probably doing good. If they're unwilling to run on their record, there's probably a decent reason why--a something to hide, a bad act, bad blood...and that reason might equal reasons why they shouldn't be admins. We have too many admins who are nasty martinets, ArbCom isn't going to do much about abuses that aren't egregious or beyond the pale. What about the routine blocks that drive people away, the articles that aren't worked on only because an reaction of a harsh block that could have been managed better made someone say "fuck it, Wikipedia is hostile" and walk (that number isn't measured in admin stats but it is a real prpblem and often more damaging to the project in the big picture view than the action which caused the block). The recent desysop regarding the Eric Corbett/GGTF mess is the exception in the annals of Wikibureaucratic efficiency and very rarely the rule. It was questionable escalation and provocation on all sides--and ArbCom is right now deciding whether to spend the next 2 to 3 months arguing over it. Admin bits should not be life rights. If they continue to be life rights, there's too little accountability. The martinets like it that way. JackTheVicar (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooor they could be working in Arb Com sanctioned extremely contentious areas where you make virtually no friends and everyone on both sides can at least agree on something: That you, as an admin, are supporting the other side. Not everyone is rational, Jack, and especially not in areas where ArbCom has had to step in (multiple times, in the case of Palestine-Israel, Eastern Europe, American politics, and pseudoscience). This is why you frequently see references made above to "grudges". Working Arbitration enforcement is a very thankless job, with sanctions repaid with insults, imprecations about your mother, etc. Why the hell would you want to run on your record if even one of your admin actions is Arbitration enforcement? You'd have more partisans than a medieval museum exhibit angling themselves to be rammed up your ass. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 17:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recap

Collect added this section immediately after this revision of 11:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC) and reflects the state of the discussion as of that time. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]

OK -- the following would seem to be a fair recap of all the mass of material above:

RfA tends to be viewed as a "hostile environment" for candidates.
More participants in RfA discussions would improve the process, we hope.
The current process is not ideal at all, so it should be changed.
Any person who expects to do everything we expect and enable of administrators would face an impossible workload, and we should consider making some of the routine tasks be done at a bot or software level.

As far as I can tell, nothing else above gets overwhelming support at this point. I rather suspect that starting from these generally accepted points would work better than belabouring new issues - four is more doable then umpteen discussions at a time. Collect (talk) 11:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the focus should be on RfA reform (specifically reforming the process to make it less hostile, and possibly encourage a wider voting pool), and nothing else. Your #4 is a separate issue, and should be split off, and handled separately (possibly at WT:Administrators). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I sought to note each and every topic which has broad consensus above - not to say on my own that any were unfeasible or unrelated to RfA reform. Collect (talk) 19:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only point here worth discussing is number 3. Can we say, then, that a consensus exists to reform RfA in some way? If so, perhaps a way forward would be for people to discuss different models of how RfA could be, and given that consensus on any particular model is impossible, a vote could be held for the community to choose between the models that have the most support. Everyking (talk) 05:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already know what has strong support. Reforming RfA has strong support. Reforming RfA in any specific way does not. I see no reason to believe that this will change any time soon. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly the problem my comment was intended to address. I was suggesting holding a vote, or series of votes, to resolve the issue, perhaps some sort of preferential voting or run-off voting, instead of waiting for an impossible consensus to form. Everyking (talk) 17:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate and admire this good-faith attempt to solve this problem, just as I appreciated and admired the last several hundred attempts that were shot down. Alas, any proposal to change from a support/oppose system to a pick-one system will require a support/oppose vote, which will fail just as all the other specific RfA reform proposals have failed. This is not to say that I think you shouldn't make the proposal; first, I may be wrong and this may be the one proposal that succeeds, flabbergasting me and everyone else. Second, there is merit to having editor after editor make good-faith attempts to address this issue which fail. It demonstrates that we vave an unsolvable problem on our hands. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I meant preferential voting or run-off voting to decide on new rules, not to choose admins (that would be awful). Everyking (talk) 00:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too easy to game the system. "The proposed new rules are: [1] Kill this cute little bunny. [2] Kill this even cuter kitten. [3] Global Thermonuclear Warfare [4] Unbundle the tools. Pick your favorite and we will have a run-off between the top two vote-getters." --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would not favour instant run-off voting, but Condorcet methods, such as Ranked pairs or Schulze method, take into account all of each voter's preferences and so are good for determining which selected option will result the most satisfaction/least dissatisfaction. isaacl (talk) 23:47, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting: J, M, and O now look to be creeping towards passing too. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was very premature - only 19 of the current 57 votes in the largest section (support C) had been made when the section was started. Johnbod (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC) (updated Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC))[reply]
- M is actually passing now; O is still within striking distance. (See downpage...) So it wasn't that off, and certainly wasn't at the time I said it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't mean you, I meant the whole frigging section. But you too. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recap on apparent consensus (2:1 pro or con, all others are uncertain). C, D, I are passing:

The environment of RfA is hostile toward candidates and is discouraging for those who are contemplating a candidacy.
RfAs should be advertised more widely than they currently are
The admin load can and should be lightened with carefully considered changes to procedures and/or by creating bots and scripts to assist and possibly in a few specific cases replace admins.

Negative consensus is clear on G, H, K, L and N

The current process by which we choose our admins is fundamentally broken. No amount of reform will fix it. We must discontinue it and replace it with a different system.
The process with which we select our admins is completely fine as is. There are no problems with it, and no change is needed at all.
Allow candidates to run on a "limited-charter" RFA in which they ask for permission to use only certain tools or only use them for certain purposes
There ought to be a minimum requirement for voters (beyond just excluding IPs)
the Request for Adminship process should be structured to determine consensus views on the pros and cons of a given candidate, and the relative weight that should be given to each.

Which appears to result in:

The current process is considered adversarial at best towards candidates.
We need to make more people know about candidates and the process.
We need to consider which administrative tasks require specific human usage, and which can be automated to some extent.
The current process does have problems, but that does not make it unfixable.
Admins who have broad powers should be trustworthy for all such powers.
Making mathematical scoring of pros and cons is not a supported alternative.

Is this close enough? There is essentially zero likelihood of these positions changing as far as I can tell. Collect (talk) 15:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If the closing statement reflects that outcome, what would you suggest we do in Phase II? - Dank (push to talk) 16:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think the consensus is first that the spirit of an adversarial process be altered; that we should elicit opinions from an many people who will look at the nomination without any preconceived opinions about any candidate, and without opinions derived from any off-Wiki sources; that as a side issue we should encourage the automation of some routine tasks which can reasonably be automated, thus reducing the ostensible potential workload of admins; and that most people here can live with "wrong opinions" about candidates as long as such opinions can be discussed as to reasonable validity. If this is correct, I suspect the "reasons" will be given prominence on the main voting page, but separated and distinct from the votes. Second, that off-Wiki discussions be strongly discouraged, and that the listing of any RfA will seek out those who have no preconceptions about any candidate, as best we are able. Does this accord with your understanding of where we are? Collect (talk) 18:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "adversarial process be altered": I guess at the end of Phase I, if the closing statement says that that there's a consensus that the group of RfA voters as a whole is too adversarial, then we have to decide whether to just repeat that advice somewhere where voters will see it and hope for the best, or whether to try to get a more actionable result in Phase II. I'm thinking of something like a vote on specific instructions to crats on how to weigh the more adversarial votes (and we could leave what's adversarial up to crat discretion, or try to sketch what we mean). Of course, the risk we would run is that the apparent consensus might vanish into thin air when we ask voters what is and isn't adversarial, if it turns out they had different things in mind. - Dank (push to talk) 19:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding proposal N, I would say at present there is no consensus to shift away from counting individual votes in support or opposition of the candidate, and then having the bureaucrats assign a weight to the votes. That being said, given the desire to reduce acrimony, I am hopeful that new ways of discussing the participant votes can be tried. isaacl (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With a mere 4 supports and 15 opposes currently, I consider that an affirmative "No" to proposal N. My surmise is that the consensus here is that all votes by qualified voters should be used in determining any result - and that they should not be given greater or lesser weight on the factors approved or disapproved by a closer for a mathematically precise result. Collect (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but from the comments across all the proposals, the essence of rejecting the proposal is not a rejection of a mathematical scoring of pros and cons, as you put it, but a desire to stay with the current basic system. At present, a straw poll is taken, and if the results are in a certain range, the bureaucrats try to adjust the weight given to each vote, using their own discretion. Most comments have talked about modifying when and how the bureaucrats should exercise this weighting process. isaacl (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How to improve a promising candidate's 2nd RfA

This is a new approach AFAIK, so we'll have to figure out what people want to do before we vote. See #Recap just above; it's too early to say for sure if the vote totals will change, but they won't change substantially if things go the same way here as in the past, and I don't expect any of the points that are currently passing to influence RfA substantially. How about this? As I see it, the problem boils down to what happens when promising candidates fail at RfA. We don't need to "fix" the other cases; almost no one complains when people pass, because we're promoting so few people now (none in September, one in October), and when candidates fail by a wide margin, the supporters are generally okay with the result, or at least understand why it happened. There have only been 6 cases so far this year where candidates came close to succeeding; it would fix most of the "RfA problem" if we could change both the reality and the perception of the eventual outcome in these cases. (Meaning: if voters had a general expectation that a nearly successful RfA usually led to an eventual happy outcome, either success at another RfA in 6 to 12 months or success in finding another position of respect in the community that the candidate enjoys, then the failed RfA would be less likely to cause drama.) It's too early to put this up for a vote, since we haven't discussed this and I don't know what people are willing to do. Some ideas:

A "cruel and unusual punishment" clause: if the general consensus about the candidate's first RfA indicates serious issues of openness or fairness (involving perhaps socks, canvassing, or doxxing), and if (as often happens) nothing is done about this in the first RfA, then crats are instructed to experiment with stepping in to stop the same things from happening in the candidate's 2nd RfA.
The community should consider paying special attention after a failed RfA to those candidates who get a fairly high supporting percentage and where the opposing comments seem to indicate general trustworthiness, with just one or two areas that they want the candidate to work on. Sometimes people just need a little help to be successful. If the community does step in and help, and the candidate seems to be progressing, I think the candidate should consider taking a quick poll at the 6-month point to see if a second RfA is recommended, even if some in opposition said to come back after a year. I think this gets misinterpreted ... of course opposers are going to ask candidates to come back in a year, because that's the consensus that's developed over time, and voters generally avoid giving the appearance of giving special favors or making special rules, when they can. But if the rationales of all the voters, taken as a whole, indicate trustworthiness and just a few things to fix, then either the candidate will be responsive in the months after the RfA or they won't, and it doesn't take 12 months to figure out whether the patterns have changed or not. This is a problem that needs fixing because most Wikipedians lose interest over time, particularly if they run into difficult obstacles, so "come back in a year" sounds very close to "go away", to many Wikipedians, and contributes to the perception of many (as is obvious from the polling above) that RfA is a Very Bad Place.
If we agree that it's a good idea to pay special attention to the almost-passing candidates, then we'll need to figure out who those candidates are. Logically, the crats should make this call; they'd be good at it, and evaluating consensus at RfA is their job. If they do make this call, then as a side benefit, the failing RfA gets reframed as a partial success: the voters decided that the candidate was trustworthy and dedicated, but needed work in one or two areas. There's a persistent problem that people get the idea that any failed RfA means that there's something terribly wrong with the candidate, or that they suffered some horrible and permanent defeat ... you see this attitude all the time in general discussions about RfA, and stopping that narrative would go a long way toward reducing drama. - Dank (push to talk) 15:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If someone's objection is that those particular six candidates weren't their favorite candidates: I think people are generally agreed that the candidates who pass have done well, and almost-passing candidates get very close to the same levels of support, so whatever their flaws, they have a lot going for them, and after a first RfA, we've got a good idea what problems might arise in a future RfA. My take is that each of these six candidates had RfAs that showed a prospect of success in the future, but if you disagree, the main point is that we're trying to attract new promising candidates, the ones who aren't showing up in the first place, by increasing optimism about the eventual result. The problem with RfA today isn't low passing rates, it's that so many potential candidates are "voting with their feet" by not showing up. I'm not under the illusion that my proposal is going to make the number of first-time promising candidacies shoot up, because I'm not proposing a lot of changes to a candidate's first RfA, and the first RfA is the biggest problem. But maybe the number will go up a little (and maybe that will be enough) if people see a trend of things going right in a second RfA that went wrong in a first RfA. - Dank (push to talk) 15:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you guys want to wait to see if any of the other proposals above pass (many of which would have bigger and more immediate effects) before considering my proposal, I understand. I mainly added this one as a last-ditch effort to get something we could point to as progress, in case all the main proposals fail. - Dank (push to talk) 03:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I have previously floated the idea of allowing for "Oppose unless or Oppose until" !votes. They could apply re something straightforward "oppose otherwise qualified candidate, happy to have this vote counted as a support if the current sockpuppetry investigation clears them". Or something skill based "oppose, happy to reconsider if the candidate demonstrates an ability to reliably source information" this could then avoid the delays and trauma of another RFA, and enable the crats to open a crat chat a few days or weeks later, perhaps even checking with the "oppose until" voters that they were now satisfied that their concern had been addressed. I don't imagine it would be a common RFA verdict, but hopefully it would focus minds in the oppose section, and perhaps even lead to a few civil !votes of the "solid member of the community, but I would like to see x or y before I'd think they were ready for adminship" type. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A different way of voting

How about instead of asking whether someone should be granted the admin rights, we ask a different question: If this person had the admin right, would we want to revoke it? It's a way more good faith system, putting more burden on those opposing the candidate instead of on the candidate themselves. In short, change "why should this person be an admin" to "Why shouldn't this person be an admin" Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether you mean the attitude of the voters or the system. But I'd argue that for many if not most of us we are largely there, hence the arrangement that a simple signature in the support column is taken as "I agree with the nomination" whilst an opposer is expected to say why they disagree - (though that can be as simple as per another opposer). One exception is over recent activity levels, many, probably most current admins fall below the recent activity levels that RFA requires including hundreds listed in WP:List of administrators/Inactive and WP:List of administrators/Semi-Active, yet we benefit from a long tail of activity from them, and many return after wikibreaks and periods of little activity. Personally I would have no problem supporting a well qualified candidate who spent an evening a month on this site, but at present I know their RFA would tank. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another different perspective

Half in jest: how about a system where anyone who meets a fairly restrictive set of criteria (x number of months, y number of content edits, etc.) can ask for and be given the admin bit by a bureaucrat as a matter of course, and anyone can start an RfDA (Request for De-adminiship), modeled on the current RfA system, but (obviously) with the percentages reversed, to take the bit away. 'Crats would be authorized to immediately close any obviously unwarranted RfDA. The thrust of this would be in line with WP:AGF, and the restrictive criteria would, hopefully, keep the number of misbehaving new admins to a minimum. (Admins who got the bit via an RfA would not be eligible for being brought up to RfDA.)

It's a weird idea, I don't even know myself if it's of any worth, but it might be something to think about. BMK (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To do that first you need to agree a criteria for adminship, something which you and quite a few others oppose. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do indeed oppose it under the current system, but if one makes a suggestion that is outside the box, one must go with the consequences of the suggestion. BMK (talk) 17:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This makes me wonder why we don't have adminship automatically granted under a set of criteria like: 5 years of service + 25,000 live mainspace edits + no blocks in 2 years. I would also put such automatic adminship under a 90-day probation period, just in case. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:56, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because the Foundation requires that anyone seeking access to deletion-related tools must go thru an RfA or equivalent process. (What you just suggested is a perennial proposal.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 16:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Still worth considering, again. Let's not close our minds because of old Foundation positions. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 17:16, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually like this idea. Just out of curiosity how many are eligible under the strawman terms noted by Stevie? A quick look at WP:NOE suggests it must be something like 2,600 minus the number of admins with 25,000 edits; maybe on the order of 1,000 eligible. Brianhe (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if we are concerned about getting permission, maybe we need to get input from WMF on what they actually require before throwing this idea out. It is possible that as described, an automatic but revokable granting of privs, for those meeting community determined criteria is OK with the powers that be. Or maybe they are more OK with it than the extant, constipated RfA system. – Brianhe (talk) 19:19, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What really scares the crap out of the legal team is viewing deleted content. So, it may work to grant an everything-but-deletion right to those meeting the automatic criteria. They can then later request deletion rights. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That would certainly be reasonable. Viewing deleted material is a (potential) legal issue, so I can see why the WMF would want to keep that one under wraps. However, I would suggest that if the concept of just throwing Admin rights at any editor past a certain threshold is ever actually implemented that it contain an opt-out provision, or at least some partial opt-outs (the latter is actually preferable), because I'd bet some of us wouldn't want the full bit, even if they were "handing it out for free". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can someone please explain to me what the legal issue is in viewing deleted material? This is not a rhetorical or disingenuous question, I would like to know what the problem is in the view of the Foundation. BMK (talk) 06:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Consider the case of someone who adds the following to Wikipedia, all in one edit: An accusation that person X is a child molester. Person X's social security number and credit card numbers. A clear copyright violation. As an ordinary editor, I revert the edit on sight and alert an admin. At this point anyone can see the material in the history. The admin blocks the user, revision deletes the material and alerts an oversighter. Now only admins can see it. The oversighter then suppresses it. Now even admins cannot see it. In order to comply with the DMCA's exemption to liability and with existing case law about violating people's privacy, that material should not be viewable by the general public. that means that we have to trust the admins not to reveal the info to the public during the period when they can see the deleted material, and indeed any admin who reads the deleted material and posts it (on Wikipedia or elsewhere) will be desysopped and indefinitely blocked. That trust is the basis of the WMF position. See Wikipedia:Revision deletion and Wikipedia:Oversight for more details. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you, that was clear and succinct. BMK (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        So, theoretically, if the community happened to agree on a proposal to unbundle everything but deletion from the admin toolset, grant the entire lot of the revised toolset automatically to anyone meeting basic criteria (say "superautoconfirmed" editors), and keep RfA only for deletion, the Foundation is likely to agree to that? Purely speculative question, I don't think this would be a good idea at all, just curious. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        The Wikimedia Foundation (specifically, the legal department) is extremely unlikely to agree to anything that allows anyone to view administrator-deleted or oversighter-deleted material without going through an RfA or a new process that is similar to an RfA. As I said above, the WMF is concerned about edits that accuse person X is a child molester, post person X's social security number and credit card numbers, or post clear copyright violations. For good legal reasons the public must never be allowed to see that material after it has been deleted, and only people who the WMF trusts to not reveal it to the public are allowed to see it. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - This type of trust is never spelled out at the average RfA. Given that the threshold would be high to gain the bit in this way, a talk page notice like "You are now an admin. Please don't re-post rev-deleted material anywhere." should suffice. BTW, autopatrolled+rollback+2 years service+never been blocked should be more than enough for adminship. --Pgallert (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Autopatrolled and Rollback are both much easier to achieve than RFA. Would you really give adminship to someone who got both those userights in their first six months and then did a couple of edits per month for 18 months? Or a fine upstanding member of the community who creates lots of valid articles, rollsback lots of vandalism, but a significant proportion of their AIV or UAA reports are way off the mark; or a signifcant proportion of their AFD arguments show they'd be too quick either with the delete or undelete buttons? Ϣere SpielChequers 18:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, yes, and then wouldn't it be great if there divisions to the "bit" so that anyone who was flunking "deleting" could have that part of the bit taken away, so they couldn't do any more damage there, but could still do vandal-fighting to their heart's content?... Really, there aren't any technical stumbling blocks to doing what the unbundlers want – there is simply a lack of political will to do anything about it. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        
        @WereSpielChequers: From my experience, autopatrolled is not very freely handed out and requires a couple dozen decent articles. Rollback is probably handed out a wee bit too quickly, but if it became a stepping stone towards adminship I'm sure this practice would rapidly change ;) --- My argument is as follows: autopatrolled=ability to judge, not only write, content, rollback=ability to distinguish inexperience and vandalism. How many rollbackers do we have that frequently file bad AIV reports? How many editors can get N and NOT and ENC right in their own creations but absolutely cannot judge the work of others? And then I am still counting on people's abilities to stay away from areas where they have been told they are not good at. After all, only a fraction would ever make use of the bits if handed out this way. --Pgallert (talk) 07:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Rollback is given to goodfaith editors who have shown they know the difference between vandalism and goodfaith edits. Yes that is a very low threshold, but twinkle is free and does pretty much the same thing. Knowing when to block is a supplementary skill and we have recently had admins who patrol AIV explaining that they decline quite a few miscalls where people have been insufficiently warned. I'd also add that I've seen people suggest that blocks be handed out to the other side in an editing dispute. Autopatrolled is given to editors whose articles clearly don't meet the deletion criteria and can skip the new page patrol process. It is entirely possible that someone can get autopatrolled for creating articles on the rulers, cities and battles of a long destroyed empire whilst still thinking that mere sportspeople, towns or skirmishes involving fewer than a thousand troops don't merit articles. Just because their work clearly exceeds our inclusion criteria doesn't mean they can judge close calls in other subjects as to whether things meet or fail the inclusion criteria. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        @WereSpielChequers: I am of course commenting under the assumption that we want more administrators. As it seems that we have all but exhausted the pool of really old farts wishing to be involved in this, it seems logical to me to open adminship to editors who are considerably more junior in administrative matters. The fact that they could make bad blocks or bad deletions does not mean they would. As an ordinary editor I could do quite a lot of damage; I'll spare you the suggestions per WP:BEANS. Yet we have thousands of experienced editors who don't do damage. I find it hard to believe they would suddenly go mad. And even if they would, the Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away... Pgallert (talk) 09:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't dispute that we need more administrators, but we have over 3,000 editors making over 100 mainspace edits a month, and the vast majority of them are not admins. There are a few amongst those who are unsuitable for various reasons, but two reasons which do render some unsuitable are poor quality deletion tagging and mistakes at AIV. Such editors are not mad, but an admin who will block where others would warn, or delete articles that others would fix, is going to drive away new editors. Ϣere SpielChequers 06:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC: administrator election reform

At WP:AN I pointed out that this RfC looks like it is going to be close on several questions, and there is a high probability that multiple editors will dispute any closing comments. I suggested that two or three experienced admins work together on writing up the closing. Interested editors may wish to go to AN and comment on that suggestion. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A good idea for sure and I support it, but just pointing out that the last time I'm aware of that we asked a committee of neutral closers to close a complicated discussion which closed on 7 Feb 2014, it took a little over four months for them to do it. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty good at pestering people in order to get things done. A request for an estimated finish time combined with a query about whether we should ask someone else posted to AN every three days should get action in a week or two. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Standards treadmill

Looking at RfA stats (1 2), it seems that for the past 10 years, roughly 30-40% of candidates have passed each year. Just my guess, but there may be a psychological impetus on people to fail a certain proportion of candidates, so that the process doesn't feel arbitrary. The problem is, as Wikipedia ages, older editors rack up more and more edits, GA/FAs, etc., and there are fewer and fewer newbies unfamiliar with RfA standards who make up for WP:SNOW closures. As both the bottom and top end are pushed higher, the failing bar naturally gets higher too. People who would've passed earlier start failing, and more and more below-the-bar and middle-of-the-pack candidates decide not to apply, pushing the bar ever higher and the number of candidacies lower. What do you think? Daß Wölf (talk) 18:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the total is over 40% successful, but any pattern of unsuccessful RFAs is going to be very complex. Consider just three variables, a few years ago we put lots of warnings in to discourage grossly under qualified candidates from running, in the last yaer ago we have switched from declining but measuring notNows to summarily deleting their attempted RFAs and as you observed the arbitrary side of the standards has increased greatly over time. If there is a psychological need to decline a certain proportion then I'm not seeing that in many voters - though it is an interesting theory and I don't dispute it might apply to some voters. What I think is a more common pattern is the natural process that people on the losing side of a decision are more likely to reassess their position for the future. If the pass mark was 50% then that would tend to standardise on a common criteria, but the 70%/75% pass mark means that those in the majority will often be on the "losing" side, hence the ratcheting effect we have observed in voting patterns. Of course a complication on this is that the "standards" which keep rising are the easily measured things like tenure and edit count, hence the theory that RFA has got ever harder for good new editors to pass whilst simultaneously becoming less effective at keeping out the truly unsuitable candidates who know how to game the system. Ϣere SpielChequers 11:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers: re: 40%, many more people have applied during 2005-08, which skews the mean; during 2010-15, the success rate was 35%, compared to the all-time mean of 45%. I guess this sort of works against my argument. Your idea is quite interesting. Can you think of a way to test it aside from convincing everyone to lower the passing bar to 50%? Sadly I don't have much time to think about this stuff right now. Daß Wölf (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

if my theory is correct then we could analyse the changing voting patterns of some people who frequently vote at RFA. of the people who supported candidates who were unsuccessful or opposed those who were successful, we should see a meaningful proportion change their voting pattern over time to be closer to the winning result. In particular people who supported unsuccessful candidates who had over 60% support would be more likely to change their subsequent voting criteria than people who opposed unsuccessful candidates who had over 60% support. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Daring to make an actual concrete proposal

Direct personal comments about nominees are to be moved to the talk page and whether favourable or unfavourable such comments should not be attached to votes, which should either support or oppose any given nomination.
Comments regarding reasoning for votes should be placed in a single section below the voting area, and not separated as "support" or "oppose" reasons, but only as an extension of the vote made by the editor making the statement. Again, such reasons should not include tales of personal conflict or the like.
Comments directly impacting the nominee as a person must be made only on the talk page for the nomination.

(these intended to reduce the "adversarial nature" substantially)

Each RfA should get a mention for at least 24 hours directed to all editors on Wikipedia.

(this intended to specifically make all RfAs "well-advertised")

Operators of bots are invited to suggest areas where some routine tasks can be well-fulfilled by such.

(I suspect we should look to the ingenuity of bot operators for this rather than make a "wish list" which might be non-feasible)

The current discretionary range for bureaucrats to consider is maintained.

(Absent any strong desires otherwise)

Views about an actual proposal? Collect (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC) .[reply]

I don't understand why comments about the candidate should be on the talk page. Surely the RfA page is the place to talk about such things? You have comments about "reasoning for votes" in one place and comments about "the candidate" on another, don't you think these are going to be the same thing a lot of the time? I don't think we can separate the reason for a an opinion and information about the candidate the opinion is about. Also if we are going to change things up can we please stop using the word "vote"? Our policy makes it clear the RfA is not a vote, I think we should work to make reality reflect that ideal. HighInBC 15:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I refer to "personal comments" - concrete positions for a !vote surely belong on the main page, but it is the "personal comments" which provide the bulk of the friction there. Collect (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Separating discussion from the support/oppose section should help reduce redundancy, but mostly if the discussion threads are centred on the candidate qualities, rather than extensions of each individual vote, as you propose. I think it is more adversarial to multiply each conversation by each vote, as it not only pits participants against each other, but the candidate has to follow multiple threads discussing the same shortcoming, over and over again.

Regarding the term "vote": for better or worse, there is no consensus at this time to move to a different way of evaluating the expressed opinions of the participants. The proposal I made was the only one suggesting a de-emphasis on the individual votes, but from the comments on that proposal and all other ones, it seems that people find the current voting structure better suited to their desires. So what we have is a straw poll, followed by an analysis of the voting if the poll result is in a specific range. isaacl (talk) 16:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even at the current unhealthily low level of RFAs communicating every RFA to all editors will be contentious. I suspect there will be many other subcommunities who would want similar publicity if such were available. If RFA were fixed then there would be a huge increase in RFAs and in the number of them promoted by this system. As for moving comments onto the talkpage, personally I'm uncomfortable moving threads there unless they have drifted off topic. If people insist on doing this I would at least suggest that the first reply is left up along with a link to the subsequent thread. That way others looking askance at a particular vote know if their concern is is already in the thread or can now be added as a new challenge to the !vote. Ϣere SpielChequers 12:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A question

I did ask this question of User:JackTheVicar above, but as Jack has been exposed as a sock of a banned user, I'm not expecting a response. However, I've seen the general sentiment around and I am curious if there is any hard data to back up the assertion that "admins who have no experience in content creation seem more apt to abuse content contributors"? Has anyone crunched the numbers or kept a log to indicate that there is a serious problem with "back office" administrators picking on non-admin content specialists? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:25, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it is not quantifiable; the evidence is anecdotal, but those of us who focus on content sometimes feel that the "civility meme" of wikipedia is a WP:PACT that leads to inaccurate content. Fringe editors and POV-pushers who bully solid content editors are one of the true threats to the integrity of the encyclopedia. The "why don't you people stop edit-warring and just get along" approach can mean that the less-motivated editor drops out - as a result, the fanatic wins out over the person trying to write accurately with an NPOV style. JMO. Montanabw ^(talk) 06:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Without naming names or articles, I can say that I've seen abuse of a content creator by someone who seems quite content to quote WP:THIS and WP:THAT rather than make meaningful contributions to improve the article. I am glad that the abuser is not an admin, but if the abuser ever puts his/her hat in the ring at RfA, I'll oppose on the basis of the abuse (with diffs), not on the basis of lack of content creation. Having said that, I would support a non-content creator who wants to be an admin, if they demonstrate that they understand the relevant policies and if I feel they are unlikely to misuse the tools. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 23:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A reason not to become an admin

I often work on conflict of interest issues from the WP:COIN board. I've written an essay on how to do this effectively: WP:Hints on dealing with conflict of interest problems. Cleaning up conflict of interest issues requires editing articles extensively. Dealing with COI issues also sometimes requires admin action to stop user misbehavior. Under current rules, one person cannot do both jobs - block a user and clean up the article. That separation of functions is a good thing. It's also why I don't apply for adminship.

The current system is working. Items get referred from WP:COIN to WP:AN/I when a COI editor won't respond to requests to stop, and sometimes go the other way when there is more of a content problem than a user behavior problem. Not having admin authority forces us at WP:COIN to use a lighter touch and to give editors more WP:ROPE. By the time the issue gets sent to AN/I, it's usually clear that something has to be done, and it usually is.

In some ways, better tools for referring issues between noticeboards would be more useful than admin privileges. In recent weeks, things that started as COI issues have been sent not just to AN/I, but to the BLP message board (editor tried to fix article about them and got in trouble for blanking, but had a legit complaint) and to the Bollywood project (unclear if an Indian TV award is notable or a network plugging its own shows). I've been encouraging such referrals to help deal with problems that include COI but are really content issues.

Maybe we can move more work off AN/I to other places. It says at the top of AN/I, "This is not the Wikipedia complaint department". But, effectively, it is. Giving admins more places to which they can pass the buck, and tools for doing so, might help. We might consider a system where it's routine to issue a short topic block (we could call it a "topic hold for article repair) while some other part of Wikipedia deals with an issue. John Nagle (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above matches my experience with WP:DRN. Purposely not having any power or authority helps us to resolve disputes. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Way back in the day, before I bacame an admin I used to particpate at the late lamented WP:WQA. I thought it was good to have a board where blocking was not an option and the goal was to just get people to act like adults and find a compromise. The problem was that this was often not possible and disputes moved from there to ANI, but I still think having a "soft option" board, the goal of which is to educate, not punish, is a good idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

For convenience

Blue denotes 81-100% support; light green denotes 66-80% support, yellow denotes 50-65% support, pink denotes 0-49% support.

Counts last updated: 03:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Table of proposed principles
Principle	Support	Oppose	% support
#A: High standards	61	35	64
#B: Undefined standards	39	30	57
#C: Hostile environment	60	23	72
#D: More participants	58	16	78
#E: Difficult to remove admins	44	32	58
#F: Unbundle the tools	38	34	53
#G: RfA should be replaced	8	38	17
#H: Leave as is	11	41	21
#I: Ease the load on admins	30	10	75
#J: Oppose votes carry too much weight	31	25	55
#K: Allow limited-charter RFAs	12	22	35
#L: Minimum requirements for voters	9	27	25
#M: Active clerking at RFA	33	19	62
#N. Determine granting of adminship based on consensus of pros and cons	4	16	20
#O: The discretionary range is too narrow	30	14	68
#P: Discard or discount high-end oppose votes	30	20	58

- Esquivalience ^t 00:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC) (create table)[reply]

Updated. -Guy Macon (talk) 29, 30, 21 October, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

- I have some vision problems, could you lighten up the red or make the text white within the red? Thanks so much.
Bfpage |leave a message 10:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The color "crimson" was a horrible choice for a table background color, I've replaced it with a lighter shade of red. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When this table was first made I was tempted to suggest that every color be shifted to a pastel, and now I actually am saying it. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 21:55, 03 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At the request of the above users, and in consideration of accessibility policies, I have edited the colors in the charts to provide more contrast. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 00:05, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I really believe the closers of this RfC should pass 'A' through as well. While it's not at the "official" two-thirds support level, it's close enough (in the "discretionary range"! ha!), has far more support than any other "failing" proposal, and actually has the most "support" votes of any proposal listed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:12, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. It might be good to add a final column with the total number of voters; this has the highest, and many others are far lower - it was a lot to read. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It has been here from the start - the ratio is more important here than gross number of votes - and 64% is the figure that is key - the earliest proposals are pretty certain to have been seen by more people than the layer proposals. Collect (talk) 07:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

If no one else gets to this tomorrow I will happily close it. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:15, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

With the table elaborated by Esquivalience I don't see much in the way of a consensus needed but I think somebody should close it with minor comment. It's been long and tedious, doesn't propose anything new, and doesn't identify anything that wasn't already exposed at WP:RFA2011 four years ago. Secondly, because of its convoluted concept, the voting for each section is so diluted, the theoretical 'consensuses' cannot possibly be representative of anything. All in all, a good faith experiment in RfC making, interesting perhaps for some who participated, but overall, it would take 20 years to launch independent RfCs to cover all the sections intended for debate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kudpung: You claim to want change, but most of your posts throughout this page seem to be in favor of the status quo. With all of the effort you've put into attempting reform in the past, it just looks like a surprising contrast for you to be going against this setup. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 10:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KarasuGamma. why don't you just go back over the whole thing and read my comments again. You comment is disingenuous because others might just believe you. I would politey suggest you get some more experience beyond your 275 mainspace edits before you make such sweeping statements in meta areas. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, it looks like we should get ready to close this tomorrow. Overall, I'm pleased with the results. I'd be happy to let you do the closing, ErrantX. Thanks to all who participated. --Biblioworm 16:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looking forward to phase II. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Happy to have ErrantX do the closing. I will do one final check for last-minute !votes and a final update of the wikitable at that time. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Final update, no !votes were cast after deadline, did a final check of colors. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks, I've put a closed notice around thevoting section to deter additional comments. When I get time at lunch (UTC 13:00) I will write a close out for you :) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many thanks for completing that arduous task. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 03:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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.