Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC
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.
Introduction
Requests for adminship (or RfA) is the process by which administrators are selected by the community, (theoretically) via the process of consensus. However, the RfA process has been subject to a great deal of discussion over the past few years, and there is general agreement among the community that the process has problems. Therefore, many attempts have been made to fix the process, including (but not limited to) WP:RFA2011 and WP:RFA2013. In 2014 and 2015 combined, there were four months with no promotions (such months were completely nonexistent between 2003–2011; there was one in 2012, and none in 2013). In a recent RfC, there was over 75% support for the notion that we are not producing enough admins. Therefore, a new project was recently started: WP:RFA2015. The project is divided into three phases. The first phase consisted of an RfC (October 15, 2015–November 15, 2015), in which we successfully attempted to identify the actual problems with RfA. The following concepts passed the Phase I RfC: (1) RfA needs more participants; (2) The load on admins should be eased [perhaps via automated mechanisms]; (3) RfA is a hostile environment; (4) The discretionary range [the range of support in which bureaucrats can use discretion in closing RfAs] is too narrow; (5) The standards at RfA are too high; (6) We need active clerking at RfA; (7) The standards at RfA should be defined; (8) It is too difficult to remove admins [the discussion here was actually very close, so it was left as "discretionary", or optional, for the next phases]. Proposals (2) and (8) are not covered in this RfC, since they are not directly related to RfA. Proposal (6) will be handled in a separate RfC, which is currently on hold until this one ends.
This RfC is the successor to the Phase I RfC. The goal of this RfC is to reach actual solutions for the problems identified in Phase I. Participants will examine the proposals set forth on this page and indicate whether they support or oppose those proposals in the proper sections. Comments on specific proposals should be placed in the comments section for that proposal, while general comments about the RfC should be placed the talk page. Since this proposal may have substantial effects on the RfA process, it will be as widely advertised as possible. Thirty days after the opening of the RfC, it will be closed. The closer will determine which proposals attained consensus according to the process described at Wikipedia:Consensus#Determining consensus. Problems for which a solution is not found in this RfC will be further discussed at a later point.
Issues
A: More participants
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A1: Advertise RfAs with a site banner
|
---|
A1: Advertise RfAs with a site bannerOne option to increase participation in RfAs is to display a site banner (to logged-in users only) advertising ongoing RfAs. Support A1
Oppose A1
Comments on A1
|
A2: Advertise RfAs with a watchlist notice
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.
Another option is to post a notice announcing current RfAs on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, which will display the notice on all watchlists.
Support A2
- Support. I think this is a reasonable option. We do this for major proposals, and RfAs are arguably important enough to merit the same treatment. This option isn't as extreme as A1, and is also likely to attract more experienced editors, since they are likely the ones that make the most extensive use of watchlists. Biblioworm 20:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- A standard way to attract editors to important discussions and events. The best option for reliably broadcasting open RfAs. BethNaught (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- this is the way to do it. Great option. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support Subtle but would likely drive more people to on-going RFAs, and in turn, hopefully more candidates. Mkdwtalk 22:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support - good option that is likely to be effective. Just Chilling (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support I can see this being useful. Sam Walton (talk) 10:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Useful addition - however if the number of RFA's significantly increase, this may need to be re-looked at. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support trial. The watchlist seems like a reasonable place to do this and it would attract the right kind of people (active editors). It would also attract attention to the RfA process, which could in turn help encourage people to ask for admin permission, thus helping to solve the problem with the declining number of active admins. That said, we should have a bail-out plan if things do not go well. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support as a good idea. APerson (talk!) 18:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I can support this rather weakly, at least as a trial. It might end up being spammy, and it might attract more trollish participants, but it's probably worth a try, in order to increase and broaden participation. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- If we are dead-set on increasing publicity for RfAs, this is probably the cleanest, most effective way of doing it. Mz7 (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Not everyone uses their watchlist, but this will attract a significant and helpful group of active editors. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Conditional support per xaosflux's comments below. A generic "there are RFA's open" only. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support This seems like the right way to attract more !voters with at least some experience. It's true not all users use the watchlist, but I'm rather sure most users who have made multiple contributions do. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support. This seems like a "no brainer" to me... (Now, if we start having 10 RfA's at once, we may need to revisit this... But with the current RfA activity we have now, this seems like a good proposal.) Addendum: OK, the suggested generic "There are RfA's currently running..." banner, as per xaosflux & Beeblebrox, seems to solve all issues here. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support, preferably with names, not just RfA count. --PresN 22:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support - this would certainly prompt me to participate in more RfAs. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support - sounds like a good idea to me, the only possibility I can see is that the notice becomes regular enough that people ignore it, but let's cross that bridge... Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support, but with no names. Just a generic "an RFA is in progress" will do. Steel1943 (talk) 02:52, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support perhaps with no names. At current rates of applications, "a new RFA is in progress", kept up for 2-3 days, would not mean it is up very much. You don't want there all the time or people will ignore it. Johnbod (talk) 03:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Conditional Support see comment below, only support if this will be minimal, without usernames. — xaosflux Talk 03:55, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support looks reasonable to me. Banedon (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support – unobtrusive. sst✈(discuss) 05:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Qualified support Do it, without the name of the candidate. If editors see a notice and come over to vote, they should do it because they are interested/concerned about the admin corps, not because they like/dislike a given editor. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Q Support per Vanamonde93. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 05:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support per xaosflux's comment below. Jsayre64 (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Weak Support. The turnout at RfA has never been so good. However, as trolls rarely operate seriously by using a watchlist, it might attract more of the right quality of voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support, without the user's name. Per Vanamonde93. Rehman 13:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Sensible place to do it. Rlendog (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - we need to broaden the pool of both candidates and participants. Something simple ("Two RFAs are pending") would work. Neutralitytalk 15:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. This is done on some other Wikimedia projects and works well. No names, per below. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. What about a note for everyone about RfAs every year or so and making RfAs "subscribable" so that new RfAs get displayed in the watchlists of the subscribers? --Fixuture (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support including usernames and direct links to open RfAs, with individual [dismiss] buttons. —Kusma (t·c) 20:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sure, but it does make sense to give it a pause of 12-24h, to weed out possible mistakes etc. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support, get the word out without being pushy. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support, yep. BMK (talk) 01:50, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Not too intrusive. JQTriple7 talk 03:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support However, I believe there should be a 24 hour delay or so per the concerns raised by Leaky Caldron.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support FWIW, I also agree with the specific suggestions to wait a bit to avoid TOOSOONs and to not include usernames in such notices. --joe deckertalk 07:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - I'm surprised that this wasn't done a long time ago. RfAs need more participation from a wider group of Wikipedia editors. Guy1890 (talk) 07:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - --John Cline (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. Don't expect it to change much, but the watchlist notice is a fine place for this sort of thing. — Earwig talk 09:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- This sounds a-okay to me. i do find banners mildly perturbing, i would be irked if it popped up all the time. A notice would be unobtrusive and accessible, though what do i know my mother is a fish DirShmielMensh (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support: I reckon two hours would be enough of a delay before it was advertised here; we only need to weed out the occasional NOTNOW. Wait 24 hours and any people who see the RfA will just be primed by the dozens of !votes by the usual people who visit RfA (i.e. new people will just pile onto whatever the consensus is already, changing nothing). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Editor participation is what makes this place great. Do this, and think of more ways too. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support and agree with the comments: make the message simple, and wait 12-24 hours before posting. —2macia22 (talk) 10:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support this is a good idea, I think it would increase participation, and make the discussion more communal, as it should be. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:41, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support I suppose it's not too problematic. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Perfect way to get more !voters—UY Scuti Talk 07:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Hugh (talk) 21:27, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Having watchlist notices wouldn't be that annoying and if it was annoying editors can remove it, A great way to get more participation IMHO. –Davey2010Talk 03:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Why not. Sandstein 09:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Seems nicer. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 10:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Qualified Support Catches the editor when receptive to the news of an RfA. But I concur, no usernames, and let's keep it down to a line, not a whole banner. loupgarous (talk) 15:27, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Worth a try. The primary thing RfA needs is an influx of nice, reasonable people to provide a counterbalance to the not-so-nice, not-so-reasonable people. It'd be good if we could get the ability to opt-out of particular types of watchlist messages as they have on Commons. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support No concerns. I assume the admin who adds the watchlist notice will evaluate whether or not the RfA is a clear WP:NOTNOW and if it is truly worthy of seeking broader input — MusikAnimal talk 22:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Conditional Support per Xaosflux. Usernames should not be included in the notice. The number of current RFAs should be included in the message. I also support an opt in/out option, without expressing an opinion on which should be the default.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 03:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Promoting awareness in words seems good enough, especially in watchlist pages. I don't mind that. --George Ho (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - It was a notice like this that brought me here Mizike (talk) 19:18, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support, minimal and without usernames per Xaosflux, and only if there's been no RfA in the last (say) two weeks. If RfA goes back to a reasonable level activity, we won't need the banner and we certainly won't need to have it all the time. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. I would use it. Jonathunder (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Reaches everyone who uses their watch list; alleviates a concern of anyone who has considered the RfA process. Prhartcom (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support as something that would bring in editors who aren't obsessively watching the candidate or closely watching RFA. Those obsessively watching a candidate tend to be those with a beef, while those with positive experience would notice the watchlist message. For this reason, I would like the candidates name in the watchlist notice. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose A2
Oppose with out more details, see my note in discussion. — xaosflux Talk 21:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)(moved to conditional support)
- Oppose Not clear that the consequences have been thought through. Is this all or just the ones that have passed the obvious "not now" "not ever" stage? Also, inevitable that it will conflict with the idea of reducing overall question volumes and could stir drama from editors joining in for the sake of it. Leaky Caldron 12:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- A good point – a way to deal with this concern would be to not "advertise" RfA's until 24 or 48 hours into the process: that should eliminate the "advertising" of WP:NOTNOW RfA's. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Good question.
For sure not all the consequences have been thought through but I don't think that's required at this point in time since this is an RfC, not a proposal.While certainly an important detail, I don't think handling quick-closure requests is an insurmountable issue, and definitely not the point of canning the whole idea. I think it's fair to say that they should obviously be filtered out. So the 24 or 48 hour grace period is a good idea. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)- I think you misread the first paragraph of this RfC. These are indeed proposals, if I read it correctly.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown 14:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the clarification. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think you misread the first paragraph of this RfC. These are indeed proposals, if I read it correctly.—cyberpowerMerry Christmas:Unknown 14:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose If I want to see RfAs on my watchlist, I can just add the RfA page(s) to my watchlist. I don't want it cluttered with notices, that's not what it's for. WaggersTALK 13:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Strong oppose. The problems with RfA are not due to the lack of participants, just the opposite if anything. SpinningSpark 16:11, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose – I'm surprised this has drawn so much support. This will probably lead to increased turnout for the first few affected RFAs, but editors will eventually tune out regular watchlist notices. At some point, they may even be turned off by the notices if they prove to be constantly added, which they will be if RFA turnout does improve. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Spinningspark. Perhaps we should do more to encourage editors reading WP:RFA etc to watchlist a page that will alert them to new RFAs, but a notice such as that proposed would be likely to attract editors with little interest in RFA who notice that an editor they've had a disagreement with is at RFA. DexDor (talk) 13:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, though perhaps more of just a comment; i'm sure i'm not alone in completely ignoring anything that comes up on my watchlist other than article changes ~ all i look for it the "hide" button to get rid of irrelevant stuff that takes up my screenspace. Perhaps this is along the lines of Giants2008 oppose, in that it may increase participation for a little while, but eventually, and i would guess sooner than later, regular editors are going to tune the thing out and it loses its purpose, so we'll be here again looking for a way to attract people. cheers, LindsayHello 11:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. The vast majority of editors that aren't regulars generally don't care about the "backstage" areas of Wikipedia, and may not be particularly interested in an RfA unless it's someone whose username they recognise - and even then they may not care. Hell, I'm probably not wrong in saying that this entire series of RfCs, on reflection, may be poisoning the well for those people. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 09:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, strongly, unless some of the things that usually get there are removed. Otherwise it will, further, water down the effectiveness of the notifications. Also, oppose anyway because if you have not found out that there are such a thing as a discussion/votes to choose admins (say by reading about what the heck is an admin) or you know and you do not care - say by transcluding the very nice {{User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}} - then you are not here long enough nor care enough to be helpful. - Nabla (talk) 17:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments on A2
- I think that IF we go this way, it should be minimalist, something along the line of There are new RfA's open for commenting , and only have a cookie increment. I don't really want to see USERNAMES on watchlist notices. — xaosflux Talk 21:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree 100% with that. this would strike the right balance, just informing without spamming. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Seconded, as I mention above. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. I like the suggestion of doing it without naming the candidates. In the old days it wouldn't have been necessary at all, there was practically at least one RfA going on at any one time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agreed. Sam Walton (talk) 14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes. I like the suggestion of doing it without naming the candidates. In the old days it wouldn't have been necessary at all, there was practically at least one RfA going on at any one time. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- To solve the problem of notnow/toosoon cases as pointed out by Leaky caldron, notices can be put up a few hours after the transclusion of an RFA. Any premature RFAs would have been hopefully closed or deleted in the meantime by the active watchers. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 15:33, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree, even support up to a day - also technical limitation as admins are required to change the watchlist banner. — xaosflux Talk 05:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- There are already way too many watchlist notices. This should not be implemented without a means to unsubscribe from it. There has also not been an adequate response to Waggers comment - new RfAs can easily be monitored for by, for instance, watchlisting User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report. SpinningSpark 16:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Spinningspark, you may be interested in this gadget proposal. Commons has a gadget where you can select which sorts of watchlist notices you want to see; it shouldn't be that hard to get it over here. Unfortunately, the gadget proposals page doesn't get a lot of eyeballs, so it hasn't gone anywhere at the moment. APerson (talk!) 17:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
A3: Advertise RfAs on WP:CENT
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.
Finally, we could also advertise ongoing RfAs at Template:Centralized discussion. It is a heavily watched page, with over 400 watchers.
Support A3
- Support. CENT is a heavily watched page, and I think, in addition to advertising RfAs on users' watchlists, this would tend to attract the attention of more experienced editors rather than new users, in contrast to an indiscriminate site banner. I'd probably say that majority of CENT page watchers are familiar with Wikipedia policy and processes. Biblioworm 20:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support I sometimes miss RFA's I would have liked to comment on because I refuse to have RFA on my watchlist due to the unending quagmire on the talk page. I just don't even want to know what is happening there anymore as it repeats itself ad nauseum (emphaisis on the nausea). This would help get the word out without requiring watching the page. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- a good option to extend the reach of the watchlist notice. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- As the others have said, a supplemental method which will again attract active users. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- BUT only if {{User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}} were added to the bottom of Template:Centralized discussion (maybe as optional). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support, per template. Johnbod (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 05:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Rehman 13:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Another sensible place. Rlendog (talk) 14:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Might be a bit much, but worth a try. BMK (talk)
- Support If we increase awareness of RfAs, we'll have more of the community commenting, and isn't the point of RfAs to see if the community trusts the user? JQTriple7 talk 03:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Yes, yes and thrice yes. RfAs are a form of centralised discussion and should therefore appear on the centralised discussions list. WaggersTALK 13:54, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support SteveStrummer (talk) 22:42, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support – Of the three options, I think this is the best one. It will attract people interested in the inner workings of the site without potentially alienating those who just want to go on with their regular editing tasks. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:08, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Same as above.. More !voters—UY Scuti Talk 07:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Hugh (talk) 21:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Only if {{:User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}} gets added instead - Many of us have this on our talkpages already and IMHO this template looks better than a normal link... –Davey2010Talk 03:41, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support : See fr:Wikipédia:Accueil de la communauté. --Nouill (talk) 05:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sandstein 09:17, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 10:45, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support on the WP:CENT page itself, using the normal {{User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}}. I realize this is exactly what the proposal is, but wanted to clarify anyway. We shouldn't add anything to {{cent}}, it could easily bloat it when we have multiple RfAs. — MusikAnimal talk 22:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Just a harmless method. No further explanation needed. --George Ho (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - seems reasonable. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Jonathunder (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Another good way to get the word out. Prhartcom (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose A3
- I think that the reason given by BethNaught just below is a good reason not to bother with this. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose too much clutter for this page. — xaosflux Talk 21:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose leads to systematic bias - only the people watching that page would be reached. Banedon (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- That's actually a good reason to do it! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Centralised discussions don't include admin promotion, in my opinion. It doesn't affect anyone other than the candidate, but CENT notices should be for widespread topics. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, strongly, these are not the same kind of discussion. CENT is mostly about sitewide policy, don't go ruining it by adding only tangentially related discussions. Please allow editors to pick what interests them. Instead "promote" {{User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}} to "official" status - probably moving to {{RfX Report}}, and by encouraging its use on several pages - e.g. wp:Administrators#Becoming_an_administrator, wp:Requests for adminship (it is used, but not advertised, there), and maybe a couple more, maybe even wp:CENT, the page, *not* the template. (I transclude both CENT and Cyberpower678/RfX on my useer page). - Nabla (talk) 17:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments on A3
- There is already a template,
{{User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report}}
, that carries an automatically updated list of RfAs. If the intention is to put RfA notices on a template which is transcluded in major fora, we should just add this one instead. BethNaught (talk) 21:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC) - How many people that watch T:CENT don't already keep an eye on RfA and would be persuaded to !vote if they saw it there? I don't imagine this number is very high; people who follow T:CENT are likely already in the "in" crowd. — Earwig talk 09:29, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I don't watch T:CENT but I do cast my eye over it when visiting the Community Portal. The fact that RfAs aren't included there but other forms of RfC are doesn't make much sense to me. WaggersTALK 13:56, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- If we do use that Cyberpower report, it needs to be moved to the Wikipedia namespace. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:32, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
B: Hostile environment
B1: Disallow threaded discussion on the main RfA page
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.
If this proposal were implemented, all threaded discussions which contain more than one comment will be moved to the talk page. The first reply will be left, so that users who see the vote and the subsequent reply will know the initial topic of the transplanted discussion.
Support B1
- Support. Long, extended arguments are a large part of what makes RfA a disorganized and stressful place. Biblioworm 21:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Threaded discussion can take place on the talkpage. Long arguments between support/opposers are a drain and make out the RFA is more contentious than it actually is. With certain editors arguing with every support/oppose vote in opposition to their position, this is a necessity. While Mkdw has a point, that the base reason for arguments should be tackled, hoping that incivility will be policed is a lost cause. The other reason for to-and-fro arguments is people disputing the legitimacy of the editors vote - that is something the closing crat decides on, not other voters - moving all that rubbish off the main page is quickest and easiest solution to the problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support While I'm sympathetic to the idea that RfA should be a discussion, the discussions referred to here are rarely about the candidate and are consequently rarely useful or productive. 'Discussions' are usually about the specific usefulness of a particular voter's admin criteria. As such I support keeping discussions to the talk page, perhaps with a small 'discussion on talk page' template on the main page below a vote which has been replied to. Sam Walton (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Corrections to obviously incorrect comments are important, but discussion should be on the talk page. —Kusma (t·c) 16:08, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support. In my experience the number of people who care about a 'discussion' is pretty few, certainly far less than the number of people who participate in a RfA. They also tend to be uncivil shouting matches over fine points that most uninvolved people don't think is a big deal. There's no point cluttering the main page with a bajillion arguments: just relegate them to the talk page, with at most a section that summarizes ongoing discussions (e.g. "discussion about this user's conduct in this page"). Banedon (talk) 05:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support – talk pages have always been for discussion purposes. sst✈(discuss) 05:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Strong support, per Sam. Discussions are rarely useful. Rehman 13:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Strong support per all above. JQTriple7 talk 03:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support With precise voting percentages specified for sure-fire success or failure, RfA is more of a vote than a discussion. If we were consistent about using the talk page for all discussions attached to votes, readers would get into the habit of looking there, and there would be no reason to claim that discussions had been "buried" by being moved there: Noyster (talk), 13:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support: threaded comments in this context often serve no purpose other than for users to say "My opinion is better!" Occasionally conversations are needed to clarify or inform, but the talk page is fine for that. —2macia22 (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support: We ought to curtail the threaded comment space, because justifiably or not, many of these comments can seem like 'piling on' to the person who's attracting unfavorable comments (unless greater than usual care's taken in how the comments are framed). loupgarous (talk) 15:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support: In fact I've always despised the idea that an oppose always needs to be justified or could it be discounted, plus the idea that oppose votes carry more sway then support vote. Currently an oppose vote carries 200% more weight then a support vote, this means for every oppose you need 3 supports to pass. I would support an semi-anonymous automated vote system which compares supports vs opposes and has a threshold of 50% to pass RFA. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 21:23, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose B1
- Oppose I believe RFA should be more like a discussion and less like the election it obviously has become. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: While I agree with moving long discussions to the talk page, imposing a rigid rule such as this will cause unnecessary and distracting fragmentation, and the implementation of the rule would be mere busywork. Whether performed by clerks or any user in good standing, moving to the talk page should be an exercise of discretion. BethNaught (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose RFA was always meant to be a discussion. Ending discussion because of incivility is not the answer. The problem herein lies with editors who are uncivil and need to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Mkdwtalk 22:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I like the idea of doing this on a case-by-case basis, but I think that doing it automatically is too formulaic and would hamper some useful discussions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - this was attempted on an RfA where I had commented. It was, to say the least, irritating. RfA isn't a vote. It's a discussion. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - if RFA is only to be a vote, then we should move it to the voting platform. We already have the ability to collapse long sections as needed. — xaosflux Talk 21:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. RFA is a discussion, and moving discussions to the talk page has the potentially to create broken discussions. Steel1943 (talk) 23:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose too formulaic, and may actually be counterproductive. Currently, I can trust that within the cesspool of such a discussion, somebody somewhere has the right idea; and if I follow all the links and read all the diffs, I will eventually figure it out. Without discussion, a !voter could say what they liked without much consequence. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I do not think RfA pages need to be censored or otherwise shortened.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Beeblebrox and Mkdw. Threaded conversations are often an important part of the discussion when there is a controversial issue. Relegating those to the talk page would hamper the discussion, and any inappropriate comments would still exist albeit on the talk page. Rlendog (talk) 14:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:NOTAVOTE. However, I'm all for removing, collapsing, or moving to the talk page any inappropriate and/or off-topic discussion that has no relevance to the RFA itself. -- Tavix (talk) 17:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. If the environment is hostile, disallowing discussion is not a solution. That way, some users may be encouraged to leave hostile "oppose" votes, knowing that other users would not be able to answer them. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:21, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, discussion is IMO helpful for the most part at RfA. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, unless we're throwing in the towel and saying that RfAs are just votes and not in any way discussions. BMK (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, but this strikes me as completely counterproductive. Burying stuff on the talk page somewhere doesn't make it go away, it just serves to fragment discussion and make the main RfA look even more like a straw poll. As others have said: remove comments that are disruptive or off-topic, but do not remove everything unconditionally. If editors are discussing something appropriately, keep it on the main page. — Earwig talk 09:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I like the idea but I think it won't work out well in practice. Most people won't read the talk page and will base their decisions on what they see in the oppose or support !vote statement. Threaded discussions allow other editors to provide context to a !vote and that context can sometimes be valuable. A fully formed context needs discussion and leaving anyone with an automatic default last word is not a good idea. --regentspark (comment) 16:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: this hasn't worked in practice and I object to the idea that someone can write something unsubstantiated or even flat out wrong in their support/oppose, but no-one is allowed to challenge them directly beneath, instead being relegated to a separate page no-one will bother to visit. Even if one response is allowed, I don't think this would help anything. If you want to read the support/oppose !votes, why do you not want to read the threaded discussion that goes with it? — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:47, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose There is a general comments section on each RfA which people should, but do not use, for threaded discussion. Just move it all there instead of under !votes. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Strong oppose Either free discussion should be allowed on the voting page or no discussion should be allowed at all. This isn't f***ing Twitter. SpinningSpark 16:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose – The problem isn't that threaded discussions are allowed. The problem is the content of some of the threaded discussions, and more directly the attitudes behind some discussions. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- RfA != Vote—UY Scuti Talk 08:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Hugh (talk) 21:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - It's better to keep everything on one page (even if it is long!). –Davey2010Talk 03:46, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Tough call. On one hand I agree it should be a discussion, but it often goes in the wrong direction. Let's just keep it the way it is, and be perhaps more liberal on moving clearly off-topic, overly critical and argumentative discussions to the talk page, which I guess is what we have been doing — MusikAnimal talk 23:02, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose of two minds about this, it wouldn't be tolerated in real life to stand outside a polling station and hector someone for voting the way they have, but open and free discussion is part of Wikipedia's culture and how we do things here. How about a compromise, allow discussion to take place as it does now, but to as a rule collapse and hide such discussion after the initial comment.--KTo288 (talk) 12:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose completely, as those above who point out that RfA is intended to be a discussion; removing that discussion is exactly the wrong thing to do. cheers, LindsayHello 13:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. WP:RfA says - "All Wikipedians....are welcome to comment and ask questions in an RfA", and that's how it should be.
- Oppose: I support moving RfA discussions that show even the slightest sign of continuing into a long thread, but disallowing all threaded discussion on the main page is overkill. Esquivalience t 02:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose In my experience threaded discussion can be good and bad, so we should be judging and removing it on a case-by-case basis, not outlawing it outright. It's not that hard to see when something has crossed the line and needs to be moved to the talk page. ~Awilley (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: disallowing features because it's difficult to police abuse is a loose strategy. There is a number of ways threaded discussions can be improved (collapsing, found-this-helpful buttons, et cetera) ale (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: antithetical to the idea of it being a discusion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. If a conversation starts to get long or heated it should be moved. Otherwise, leave it where it is. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 08:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. "disallow [...] discussion" is generally not a good start for any proposal here. This is no exception. - Nabla (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments on B1
B2: Limit the total number of questions that may be asked by any individual editor
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.
A primary source of stress at RfA may very well be the often large amount of questions asked. Therefore, the community might wish to consider limiting the number of questions that any given editor can ask of a candidate. If you support this proposal, please specify in your !vote what you believe the limit should be. (Example: "Support a limit of [x] questions.")
Support B2
- Support a limit of two questions. I've seen some editors ask a large number of boilerplate, impersonal questions, and that isn't really helpful, in my opinion. An excessive number of questions can also cause stress for the candidate. Biblioworm 21:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support in principle if concerns about follow-up questions, which I do think are important, can be resolved. I think a limit of two or three questions plus reasonable follow-ups is a reasonable upper limit. BethNaught (talk) 22:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support a limit of one question and one follow up (related) question. I also think editors who routinely ask questions but never put down in support, oppose, or neutral should be barred from asking questions. They do it because they can, not because they're interested in the process or voting. Mkdwtalk 22:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I also support Johnbod's proposal to limit the number of questions annually. Mkdwtalk 18:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- support a limit of two questions, with a follow-up question for each if warranted. No more long lists of boilerplate questions. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Absolutely support. Some people at recent RfAs have been making a mockery of the question process. I agree with Peacemaker's suggestion: limit of two questions, with one possible followup for each. --MelanieN (talk) 23:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support a limit of one question and one follow up (related) question. This will focus editors' minds on what they really consider important. Just Chilling (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Definitely, this is something that has bugged me for a while – especially the boilerplate questions. Like those above, I think two questions per user sounds like a reasonable limit. Jenks24 (talk) 07:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support. With the proviso that clearly further clarification questions should be allowed. "This is your one question and thats it" does not really work when someone deliberately gives an evasive/ambiguous answer. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support limiting to one or two questions provided there isn't a limit on replying to answers for clarification or a request for expanding on the answer. Sam Walton (talk) 11:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support a limit of two questions, with a follow-up question for each. It's only reasonable. APerson (talk!) 15:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Strong support, so long as follow-up questions are permitted. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support A limit of 3 questions per user, with 1 follow-up question permitted.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support – or, more accurately Absolutely double-plus support. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- "Absolutely double-plus support"? 1984, anyone? ;) Biblioworm 22:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support, 2 questions. --PresN 22:40, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support two questions. However those who ask questions are able to post short follow ups to clarify answers or ask for more detail, not to ask new questions (except if that's one of their two allowed). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support two questions. The questioning has really become excessive.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support A limit of 2 questions per user, with 1 follow-up question each permitted. I'm tempted to suggest some sort of further annual limit per questioner. As anyone who gives talks and presentations knows, questions to the speaker are usually all about the questioner ...Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support some reasonable limit. Neutralitytalk 04:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support I imagine most candidates will be happy to field all the questions in the world in a one-to-one situation. But in a one-to-many situation like RfA, it becomes very time-consuming for the candidate. We should not expect would-be administrators to dedicate all their time to Wikipedia or their RfA. Banedon (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support a limit of 5 questions, including any follow-up questions. sst✈(discuss) 05:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support
a limit of 2-3What Johnbod suggested. Not going to fix RfA by itself, but not a bad idea. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC) - Support a limit of 3
questions, including any follow-ups.initial questions. Jsayre64 (talk) 06:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC) - Support one question plus one clarification/followup Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Strong Support (with a limit of 2) as the editor who wrote the ultimate summary of questions here. Multiple uestions that masquerade as one question should also be disallowed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. One question, plus one followup. Per Casliber. Rehman 13:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support a limit of 3 initial questions, but not on followups. Followups can be important in clarifying responses, as long as not abused. Rlendog (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - 2 questions, 1 follow up/clarification in total.--Staberinde (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support 2 questions, plus one follow-up/clarification. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- 2+2. If there's three significant issues with the candidate, surely someone else will think of the third one. Worst case you can ask it on Talk and someone else will mention it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support, 2q, +1 followup. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support 2 questions should be enough. I oppose limiting the follow-up, because that is more like a discussion, which is something we want. Debresser (talk) 23:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support 2 initial questions. Double-barrel questions like "Is it appropriate for an admin to do X? Why or why not?" should be counted as one question, but unreasonable attempts to game the system like "When are admins allowed to undo ArbCom sanctions, and also, do you plan to handle WP:RPP requests?" should obviously be counted as two separate questions. No particular opinion on followups. — This, that and the other (talk) 02:18, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Too many hypothetical situations to deal with is ridiculous. JQTriple7 talk 03:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - --John Cline (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support, two questions. Follow-up and further details should be on the candidate's talk page. —Kusma (t·c) 09:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support one question plus one clarification/followup Doug Weller (talk) 15:09, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Doug Weller has the right limiting idea. --regentspark (comment) 16:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Two questions with one followup. SpencerT♦C 17:27, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support two questions and one followup for each. But followup has to be followup, not just an excuse to ask another question. —2macia22 (talk) 11:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. One question per questioner, with relevant follow-up questions only allowed for clarification. — sparklism hey! 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support two questions and one true followup only for clarification. That still leaves the chance for hundreds of questions but does not waste everyone's time on one person's list of questions. Legacypac (talk) 01:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support – 2 questions and one follow-up. The more time RFAs typically take, the more you end up reducing the base of editors who will apply. I understand that the adminship process is important, but editors do have real lives and there is only so much time that one can devote to answering questions on Wikipedia without taking away from other tasks. Changes like this will do more to promote new RFAs than most will expect. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Two questions, or one with follow-up, seems about right. HGilbert (talk) 03:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support 2 questions and their follow-up (clarifications about the answer, details about the answer which bring up more questions). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, two at the most (two different questions). However, additional questions should be allowed for more clarification on the existing question.—UY Scuti Talk 08:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support three. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 17:40, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support limit to 2, with occasional exceptions if they make a lot of sense. Unlimited followups per User:Only in death but hopefully the community can gently encourage people to be reasonable with them. The slew of questions can be overwhelming and may deter participation by conscientious !voters. delldot ∇. 00:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - 2 questions & 1 follow up, No need for one editor to ask question upon question upon question etc etc. –Davey2010Talk 03:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- One question per editor, or two at most. Sandstein 09:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support RfA candidates need not be unnecessarily swarmed by questions. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 10:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support one question per questioner. If that editor wants to ask a followup question or another question then they should do so elsewhere (e.g. on the candidate's talk page) - the candidate (or another editor who hasn't already asked a question) would then have the option of adding it to the RFA itself (with suitable attribution in edit summary or text). There should also be a limit (500 characters?) on the length of each RFA question (and a rule that a question can't refer to a user essay etc or the questioner could ask "What are your views on <my long rambling incoherent essay>?" to get round the character limit). Again, a long question could be asked elsewhere and the candidate could could choose to copy it to the RFA page. DexDor (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
WeakSupportaround 3-4 questions. Might sound too much but it's not like we're not going to expect many questions from a single editor.Actually, Johnbud's proposal seems much better. --TL22 (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)- Support – Support a limit of two questions, with a follow-up question for each if warranted. This should satisfy most every curious mind, without handing over the microphone indefinitely. SteveStrummer (talk) 17:42, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support This is sensible. We'll probably need another RfC to dictate exactly how many they can ask, but I'd say no more than two. I think this restriction will wean out the more ridiculously vague and counter-intuitive questions, helping provide a more concise and informative picture of the candidate's suitability — MusikAnimal talk 23:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Per MusikAnimal.Do need a limit on the number of questions max 2 Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support As an alternative to a hard and fast limit, how about a questioner can ask as many questions as he likes, of which the candidate is only obliged to answer any two of his choosing,--KTo288 (talk) 12:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support a limit of one question. If there are more than 15 questions at the end of a RfA, it shows that many voters didn't do their research. If an editor wants to ask any more questions, they may do so on the candidate's talk page. Esquivalience t 02:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support I think two questions. They can research the rest. Prhartcom (talk) 03:53, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support One question, one followup. I could live with two. If someone asks a particularly great question on another RfA, someone else will put it on here. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:41, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support 2 questions. If certain questions become perennial ones asked in several different RfAs by several different editors, then they should also be added top the default questions asked of an RfA candidate, but this is neither here nor there. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 08:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- support, tentativelt, I am quite not sure, but let's see if it helps. No more than 2 questioning lines, i.e. a question with as much follow-up (threaded, mostly one on one) discussion as needed. Obviously the candidate can state that he has nothing to reply at any point, and that should finish the questioning line. - Nabla (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose B2
- Oppose This is meant to be a discussion. With provision that candidates should not be obligated to answer more than a limited number of questions. — xaosflux Talk 21:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose WP is supposed not to be censored and is not a democracy. Imposing this limitation is easily gamed as well as being unreasonable by effectively censoring legitimate enquiry and attempting to democratise the process by imposing artificial limits. Leaky Caldron 22:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. If you want the job, you should expect to answer a lot of questions. Of course, any candidate is free to ignore any questions they want. Everyking (talk) 01:34, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Per Everyking.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. As I know, candidates are not obligated to answer those questions. So, if there are too many questions, candidate may simply ignore some of them. There is no reason to limit, some candidates maybe like to be asked many questions. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- That is true theoretically, but in practice, not answering the questions is looked upon unfavorably by !voters and may result in opposition. Biblioworm 21:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - Almost impossible to enforce, and are we now making bureaucrats into RfA-cops? Surely we're not letting anyone or his nephew strike a question? Nope, questions are not really a problem, candidate can always say "I'm not going to answer becase that's (not a serious question/is impossible to answer/is a trick question/etc.) BMK (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I get the idea, but I think a better approach would be to simply ignore questions that are not helpful, and not penalize candidates if they decide to not answer silly questions. Remember: they're optional. If candidates did this, the users asking them would realize they're not helpful and would hopefully stop. Or we can deal with them separately. But a blanket restriction doesn't make sense to me. — Earwig talk 09:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Everyking. But I would support a limit on non-candidate-specific boilerplate questions as suggested above; as Beeblebrox points out below, the main problem seem to be users who ask a lot of standard questions no matter the RFA or the candidate. This proposal though would limit all users from asking multiple questions - even if the questions are actually helpful in determining a candidate's skill or knowledge. Regards SoWhy 21:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: getting rid of the stigma of a candidate refusing to answer some of the questions would solve this problem, although of course that's not an actionable thing we can vote on. I don't feel we need a strict limit and this will surely only cause bickering when it comes to multiple questions disguised as one (e.g. "How would you close the following 3 AfDs?"). I especially oppose the limit of two questions, as I think we need some leeway for a user to be able to ask a follow-up when they're not happy with a response. But if you'd already asked your two questions, then there'd be no chance for clarification, which would hinder everyone. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 22:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Everyking. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose One editor might have more than one question on point to the discussion, and the questions might be on widely separated topics. It's just a bad idea. loupgarous (talk) 15:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose, it's a good idea in theory, because a lot of the occasions where someone asks multiple questions, they're either badgering or trying to trick someone into a gotcha moment, none of which are especially helpful to the process. However, I feel this would be unenforceable with editors acting as proxies for others to ask additional questions. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC).
- Oppose per Vanjagenije and The Earwig. - Nellis 16:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - editors should be allowed to question admin candidates however they feel reasonable. Editors who are asking multiple questions simply to be disruptive or to try to goad the candidate into spoiling their RfA are already easily recognized and frequently called out, there's no need for a hard limit. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I think this is the wrong solution to the problem of inappropriate questions. Under this proposal disruptive individuals can still ask two inappropriate questions, while editors in good standing asking legitimate and pertinent questions are also limited to only two. This could mean in any given RfA there would be an equal number of daft questions to legitimate questions. We should be looking for a solution to limiting inappropriate questions, not imposing false barriers to legitimate questions. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:31, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per SilkTork. If the quality of questions is a problem, this is not the way to address that. Otherwise, I'm not convinced that we should limit good, useful questions. Begoon talk 23:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments on B2
I want to suport this. The questioning has gotten absolutely absurd. Apparently there si now a sizable contingent of users who believe they have crafted the perfect set of questions that must be posted at every single RFA. I find this extremely obnoxious and a net negative to the already lousy environment at RFA. When I ask an RFA question, it is specific to that candidate, not just something I dreamed up that I imagine will be pertinent at every single RFA. That being said, I worry that this could limit follow-up on personalized questions if the initial answers seemed to miss the point or were otherwise insufficient. I'll give some more thought I guess. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think you hit the nail on the head. Whenever I have asked a question at RFA, it has been because I was concerned about a potential deficiency with the the particular candidate's experience, and want to give them a chance to demonstrate they would act reasonably. (I wont ask a question to a candidate I'm not at least considering supporting) I wish there was a way to permit unlimited questions tailored to the particular candidate, while putting an end to boiler plate questions. But alas, I don't see a reasonable way to enforce such a restriction without it being excessively subjective. Monty845 03:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- This proposal doesn't limit your ability to follow up with a threaded discussion, I read it as simply allowing only a set number of primary questions. If the first answer missed the point I don't imagine it being a problem to reply saying "Actually I was thinking about this aspect, could you discuss that?". Sam Walton (talk) 11:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree that questioning has sometimes been excessive, but if this restriction goes through we'll also have to devise a regulation to rule out "cluster bombs" where many different questions are bundled into one as parts (a), (b), (c), (d), (e)...: Noyster (talk), 22:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Won't this have the reverse effect—people asking more questions and more people asking questions—in order to make full use of their limited slots. While asking more questions in itself is not bad, the quality of questions might decrease. --Fauzan✆ talk✉ mail 06:21, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
I feel like supporting this but I am hanging on the fence for several reasons already brought up. Besides for the reverse effect, my biggest concern is that the follow-up questions will be limited. I am willing to support two questions at most, but think that there should still be unlimited follow-up questions. Gug01 (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
It's been suggested that I should consider standing for RFA, but (1) I (like probably most editors) would get some opposes (e.g. I'd fail "You need at least a couple of GAs, and preferably an FA or two..." - I specialise in cleanup rather than adding content) so (however well I answered the questions) I couldn't be sure of passing. (2) Answering the questions could take some hours (say 20 questions at 30 minutes each). (3) I can't be sure that I'll have the time available in the next week (real-life happens). (4) Those hours spent answering questions (e.g. doing research into areas of wp I've no current intention to work in or considering all the possibilities of a hypothetical scenario) could be spent doing something else in wp. Thus, I choose to do things from my (very long off-wiki) Wikipedia to-do list rather than stand for adminship. There may be hundreds of experienced Wikipedians in a similar position. DexDor (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Questions would naturally be limited if RFA was done in batches, every three months, as Guy Macon and Kudpung suggested for another reason, somewhere above. Decisions would also be fair-er, or perceived that way, as all candidates in a batch would likely get approximately the same treatment at the same time. Spreading RFAs out gives too much power to whichever regulars happen to have a ton of time available, and otherwise appears to make the RFA process random. Discussion would naturally focus on relative quality of candidates, e.g. how it does or does not seem right that Candidate B's current votes total is lower than Candidate D given B seems better in some way. Doing them all together also would make it worthwhile for more editors to come participate. --doncram 00:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- I think that this is a great idea. Is there a way to make it part of the RfC? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
B3: Limit the total number of questions that may be asked of any given candidate
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
B3: Limit the total number of questions that may be asked of any given candidate
|
---|
As an alternative to (or in addition to) B2, we could also limit the total number of questions that can be asked of any given candidate. For example, if we set the limit at 15 total questions, any questions beyond the 15th question would be disallowed. If you support this proposal, please indicate in your !vote what you believe the limit should be. (Example: "Support a limit of [x] questions.") Support B3
Oppose B3
Comments on B3
|
B4: Clerking at RfA
After some consideration, it has been decided that the specifics of clerking should be handled in a separate RfC. Biblioworm 01:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
|
---|
Note: For the purposes of these proposals, a "clerk" is a user who maintains order at RfA. Per Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase I/RfC#M: Active clerking at RFA, clerks are already authorized to carry out the following tasks:
Depending upon which other proposals pass in this RfC, their tasks may also include moving all discussion to the talk page and enforcing the limit on the number of questions. In this section, we will discuss who should carry out the clerking tasks. Comments on B4
B4.1: Bureaucrats should be the clerksWe could exclusively authorize bureaucrats to perform the clerking tasks. Support B4.1
Oppose B4.1
Comments on B4.1
B4.2: Clerks should be appointed and supervised by bureaucratsAs an alternative to B4.1, we could require that clerks be appointed by general agreement of the bureaucrats (perhaps in a discussion on WP:BN). Once appointed, clerks would also be supervised by bureaucrats, who would have the authority to override any action a clerk performs. Support B4.2
Oppose B4.2
Comments on B4.2"Supervised by" maybe. "Appointed by" no. Crats are only supposed to take action when there is a pre-existing policy or consensus that compels them to do so. Making them the ones to select who clerks RFA would change what type of persons we expect our crats to be, so this is a non-stater as far as I am concerned. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC) As per Beeblebrox. Perhaps some sort of crat-mentoring program? Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
B4.3: Clerks should be an elected bodyAlternatively, we might consider electing RfA clerks. The requirements for being elected need not necessarily be high, and "elections" could take place rather informally on WT:RFA. (Perhaps in a similar manner to the way edit filter managers are chosen.) Support B4.3
Oppose B4.3
Comments on B4.3
B4.4: Any editor should be able to clerkFinally, we could allow any editor to clerk, if they are willing to volunteer to perform the tasks. Support B4.4
Oppose B4.4
Comments on B4.4
B4.5: Any admin should be allowed to clerkAs a slightly less exclusive option than B4.1, we could simply allow any admin to perform clerking duties. Support B4.5
Oppose B4.5
Comments on B4.5
--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
|
C: Narrow discretionary range
C1: Expand discretionary range to 65%
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.
We could expand the discretionary range to 65–75%, making it a 10% range, as opposed to our current 5% range (70–75%).
Support C1
- Support Clearly, we have a problem. Proposals to make radical changes to RFA have failed. Perhaps this small, incremental change is enough to at leat improve it a little and get us what we need, which is more active admins. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support Standards have inflated largely because there is a belief that adminship is a lifetime appointment (i.e. nearly impossible to desysop). Yet the question comes up time and time again, for examples of admins who should be desysopped. One problem influencing another. As such, I think the community standards have risen too high because of this factor and need to be lowered. If desysopping is a problem, then that function should be addressed and not increasingly rising standards for candidates. We're turning a lot of qualified individuals as a result. Mkdwtalk 22:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- support this, for the same reasons as above, but I would really like a wider range per C2. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support. This is a good start, although I prefer C2. I'm just supporting this so that at least something can get done in the event that C2 doesn't pass. Biblioworm 23:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support as second choice per Biblioworm. --MelanieN (talk) 02:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support - a 2/3 majority is normal in the real world for important decisions. Just Chilling (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support - although agree as per Biblio & Melanie. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support: two-thirds is a reasonable level although crats still need to determine consensus. RfAs have passed in this range so it makes sense to make this explicit. BethNaught (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support as reasonable. APerson (talk!) 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- The way I see it, Crats are expected to exercise discretion anywhere from 0% to 100%, so it's not like they cannot already take particular circumstances into account at ± 1% just outside the existing "range". But I see nothing wrong with making it explicit that discretion can be used to pass some candidates in the upper 60s. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- If we have a discretionary range at all, it should be wide enough to matter. Also per Beeblebrox. —Kusma (t·c) 19:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support OK, of course these are not VOTES, and any thing can just be thrown out by the crat. — xaosflux Talk 22:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support this is still only a 10% range. Hut 8.5 22:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support a little less rigidity would help. --PresN 22:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support as close to a two-to-one majority: Noyster (talk), 22:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support. The current requirement is too high and causes unnecessary stress to all those involved. Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support absolutely, current range is too high and doesn't allow crats the discretion they need. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. A 2/3 majority should be sufficient consensus to approve tools, given the current level of scrutiny.--Mojo Hand (talk) 01:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support As close enough to 2/3rds for me.Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support Theoretically, RFA is not a vote, and crats can throw out anything; widening the acceptable range, I think, brings us closer to the ideal, and gives the crats more room to exercise discretion. It should NOT ever be a hard line. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - The requirement for more than a 2/3 supermajority is excessive. Carrite (talk) 07:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Closer to what we need. Rehman 13:24, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - I think this is a sensible range. Rlendog (talk) 14:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support (either at 65% or, as below, 2/3). StevenJ81 (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support, if the process is reduced to a vote, a two-thirds majority is quite sufficient for any purpose. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - This "threshold" needs to be lowered in order to successfully reform the RfA process. Roughly two-thirds support is plenty high enough IMO. Guy1890 (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - --John Cline (talk) 08:38, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I like 2/3 because it's a cleaner fraction, but okay with 65% also. A 2/3 majority is fair for concluding the existence of consensus with discretion (and note we are not saying they get an automatic pass here). 3/4 as an upper bound is still fine, I think. — Earwig talk 10:02, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support – Consider me a "bandwagon fan"... (Also, 2/3 makes more sense to me anyway... I might even be talked into 3/5, if more people were supporting the one below...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- At least. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support 2/3 as a more common fraction than 65%, but would be okay with it either way. -- Tavix (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support this makes sense. —2macia22 (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support It's too high at the moment. This could go some way to easing stress. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support They say friends are forever but enemies accumulate. Currently if you edit carefully, accurately and do a lot of cleanup (deletions, 3RR reports etc) you can easily accumulate enough enemies to fail an RfA. Legacypac (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support – A two-thirds majority is typically considered enough for consensus throughout the rest of the site, so why not here? If there are major issues pointed out by the other third of participants, the closing bureaucrat can take them into account when making their decision. That's why it's called a discretionary range, after all. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. I wrote a comment in favor of a small change in the discretionary range. It would have added a few more administrators this year. I think that it might actually encourage a few more candidates. I think even two/thirds would be an improvement and provide more encouragement while not seriously diluting the standard. Since that it is not an option, I favor this proposal. I feel that the other proposals in this section, C3 and C4 in particular, are too extreme at this time. Donner60 (talk) 05:52, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support, but weakly; "discretionary range" would mean a great deal more to me if I hadn't analyzed the voting patterns of RfA over the years, and found that bureaucrats weren't exercising discretion in the first place: almost without exception, every candidate over the line passed, and every candidate under the line was rejected. Ravenswing 05:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Given the trust we put on the bureaucrats, I think this is no big deal—UY Scuti Talk 08:04, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support, I think most people who would get through because of this are probably good candidates; if they have big problems with civility or competence they'll likely get more opposes than 35%. delldot ∇. 01:07, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. This is sensible. 65% shows enough community trust to make it worthy of discretion. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support It's a bit of a tight threshold. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 10:48, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support 2/3 majority is sufficient consensus given the current level for scrutiny .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Prefer 60%, but this is acceptable if I can't get that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC).
- Support. -- Ϫ 09:28, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. --Teukros (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support iff stated as two-thirds. Jonathunder (talk) 21:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support, though I would prefer 67% (2/3) to 65%. I'm not as concerned about this letting unqualified candidates slip through the cracks. If there are legitimate issues we always have plenty of voters ready to jump on the oppose bandwagon, and a team of bureaucrats who I trust will be able to spot strengths and weaknesses in the arguments. ~Awilley (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support 65% is close enough to 2/3 and works for me. I can also go lower. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 16:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support - Let's do this then if everybody favors it. George Ho (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support We always say things shouldn't be vote based, a higher range for discretion allows well, more discretion... RFA's should be considered more case by case than percentage wise. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:00, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- 'Crats do consider RfAs that finish below 70% in certain circumstances. And, though my memory may be playing me false, I think at least one RfA was passed at less than 70%. The threshold is not fixed, and 'Crats have been voted in for their judgement in when exactly to hold a discussion. Given that we don't currently have a fixed threshold, is this proposal aiming to make a fixed threshold? So 'Crats would be obliged to discuss every RfA which finished between 65% and 75%? Or is it more of a notice to 'Crats to consider more often and more sympathetically those RfAs which finish between 65% and 70%? If it is the later, then I don't see that as a bad thing, and would support. I am less enthusiastic about making the threshold a fixed one. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Seeing more RFAs fail a bit short of threshold is disappointing. I believe two thirds is a reasonable improvement. Max Semenik (talk) 17:47, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support moreinline with a 2/3rds majority. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:39, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support as first choice. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 08:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support, but 2/3 is better. "Needs 2 supporters for each 1 opposer" is a very nice round and common number. (Guy Macon: excellent catch! :-). 3/4 ("3 for each 1") for the top is fine. Actually it could be more sophisticated. We could have a sort-of Bayesian estimator, that is, for large vote turnouts we could have a rather lower margin, and for very low vote turnout we should have a higher margins. Say, a candidate should probably pass with a 1500 to 1000 vote (60%), but currently falls below the margins; and a candidate with a 4 to 1 vote (80%), should not pass, but currently is above the margin. No, it is not overly complicated, a relatively simple table would do. - Nabla (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose C1
- Oppose. "Discretionary ranges" just mean that outcomes are decided by bureaucrats, not the community. There should be a fixed pass/fail threshold. Everyking (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Everyking. Unlike other factors (like whether there have been "enough" mainspace edits, whatever 'enough' means), this one is easily objective, and if it's possible to make things objective I don't see a reason to introduce subjectivity. Banedon (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose until we have assessed the net impact of any other changes. The range should be the last thing to reconsider when other changes are to be implemented. Leaky Caldron 14:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. I don't know of any real instance where a broadening of the discretionary range (i.e. lowering it) would have helped except to have passed some very borderline RfA which I would have voted 'oppose' on anyway. With few exceptions, those close call cases were decided upon by 'crat chats, and isn't that what we have the 'crats for? Furthermore, and most importantly, we must try not to constantly confuse the pass mark (discretionary range) with 'standards' set by the voter;, that bar is set anew at each RfA depending on who turns out to vote. More should be done to convince such voters that their criteria are inappropriately high. To cite a hypothetical example, while it may be true that the average number of edits by successful users may be around 30,000, (averages are are misleading figures arrived at from the lowest and the highest values) where most users recommend a minimum of around 6,000 edits, it's ridiculous to insist that all candidates should have 30,000. Likewise voters who insist on FA and GA as proof of competence for content work. Such votes are included in the tally, and it is quite possible that they are not discounted by the closing 'crat. WP:RFAADVICE deliberately does not tell or suggest prospective candidates what values of experience or activity they should have, but lists instead enough examples of voters' criteria to give them a good idea. Before changing the discretionary rage therefore, we should also perhaps be considering making an official guideline of the minimums desired requirements for adminship. Emphasis on guideline. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - 65-75 makes no sense. 67-75 would be ok. BMK (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Making it easier for marginal candidates will give you more marginal admin. It won't coax more high quality people to run. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:58, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose no shortage of marginal admins Hugh (talk) 21:32, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - No need to lower it, I don't mean this in a horrible way but lowering it to 65% could potentionally bring in admins who would be a "crap", Personally I believe it should stay as it is. –Davey2010Talk 03:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - if we don't have enough admins, the answer's not to widen the net we cast, but actively recruit for better admins. There are people being talked up (on their user pages, by their friends) for adminship who would drive editors out of wikipedia given a nice, shiny admin badge and sysop powers, simply based on their asymptotically low civility skills and lightning-quick reflexes with a template or decision that someone's editwarring. loupgarous (talk) 16:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose: Unprepared or (relatively) inexperienced candidates should not be able to easily pass. Esquivalience t 16:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose There's a lot of excellent points in the support column of this proposal, but I think if we make changes to RfA in these other proposed ways we may not need modifications to the discretionary range. As it stands now, in my personal and humble opinion, the current range has been satisfactory — MusikAnimal talk 23:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Everything. Would empower the bureaucrats beyond what is necessary, and the current range is fine. If it is to be expanded, should be up to 80%, not in the other direction. Coretheapple (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Why haven't we addressed the inconsistency between the two statements, one that states 70–75 the other stating 70–80? Why do we say "historically" which implies that the numbers are the result of enumeration then have a discussion that appears to be about fudging the historic records? Prhartcom (talk) 03:46, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - agree with Everyking on this point.--Staberinde (talk) 12:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. If anything, the lower end of the discretionary range needs to be raised, not lowered. With the current "all or nothing" configuration of adminship, admin need to know much more than they did 10 or even 5 years ago. Plus, as Dennis Brown says, this change won't coax more high quality candidates to run for adminship. Nsk92 (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments on C1
- There is something to be said for a 2/3 (~67%) limit. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- That's what I means by 67-75 being an OK range, expanding from 5% to 8%, but the minimum being a 2/3 supermajority/. BMK (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- I wanted to make the range a more "even" number, so to speak. A range of 10 or 15 percent sounds more natural than a range of 8%, which just sounds...bizarre. Biblioworm 23:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- A range like "Fewer than 2/3 fails, more than 3/4 passes, and between 2/3 and 3/4 is the discretionary range" sounds fine to me. On the other hand, "Fewer than 13/20 fails, more than 3/4 passes, and between 13/20 and 3/4 is the discretionary range" sounds weird to me. There is no law that says that you have to express the range in percentages instead or ratios. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- I agree with what that guy said. Jonathunder (talk) 03:04, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- A range like "Fewer than 2/3 fails, more than 3/4 passes, and between 2/3 and 3/4 is the discretionary range" sounds fine to me. On the other hand, "Fewer than 13/20 fails, more than 3/4 passes, and between 13/20 and 3/4 is the discretionary range" sounds weird to me. There is no law that says that you have to express the range in percentages instead or ratios. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 23:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Q. "
Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. Historically, most of those above 75 percent approval pass and most of those below 70 percent fail. However, the actual decision of passing or failing is subject to the bureaucrats' discretion and judgment
..."[1] So, the discussion in this section is over whether to change either or both of the figures "75" and "70" in this guidance? Simply changing these numbers does not change what has happened "Historically". Note that a higher figure is given elsewhere: "However, as an approximate guide, you are likely to pass if you achieve at least 80% support. Nominations which receive less than 70% support are unlikely to be successful, except in exceptional circumstances.
"[2] "Most RfA's with a final tally of 80% support or more will close as successful, while those under 70% will generally not pass. There have however been important exceptions, with candidates passing with as low as 61.2%.[3] The 70–80 'grey' zone is subject to the bureaucrat's discretion after taking into account the quality of the arguments made by the !voters, the strength of comments in the 'neutral' section, and after discounting any !votes they consider to be invalid. In extremely close calls, an extension to the 7-day !voting period may be accorded, or a discussion ('crat chat) may take place among the bureaucrats.
"[4] – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Again, for informational purposes, 4 additional recent RfA candidates would have passed in 2015 if the discretionary range was dropped down to 65% and they had been passed through: Cyberpower678 and Thine Antique Pen (both over 67% support), and EuroCarGT (65.83%) and Rich Farmbrough (65.97%). I have a hard time believing that the project would be negatively impacted by any of these 4 having been made Admins... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- With my suggested range (2/3 = fail, 3/4 = pass) only two failed 2015 RfA candidates would have been in the discretionary range (Cyberpower678 and Thine Antique Pen). And even then, they would have has to pass the "discretionary" part, giving us even more protection against a bad candidate passing. Plus, moving the bottom of the range to 2/3 (that's 66.6% for those who make numeric decisions based on how many fingers they have) is a smaller change than 13/20 (that's 65% for those who...) and thus is more likely to achieve consensus. If we can't get support for 1/2 (that's 50% for...) right away, perhaps we can get support for smaller changes that slowly work towards 1/2 as the community sees that the world did not end with the last small change. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
- A lot of oppose votes center around the idea that this would create marginal or sub-par admins. I hardly consider 65% support to be marginal or sub-par. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:34, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Of course one doesn't, if one is hoping a lower bar would make it easier to be an admin... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: Comments about another editor's motives are completely out of line here. Please refactor. Jonathunder (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, well (56/0/0) is a thing of the past... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, it's 53 to 14 currently on this proposal, but the vote count has nothing to do with your ad hominem remark. Jonathunder (talk) 16:00, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Yeah, well (56/0/0) is a thing of the past... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- I'm already an admin, and I hardly think 65% is "sub-par." Since when was near-2/3 support or a 2:1 support-to-oppose ratio "sub-par"? Any other body outside of Wikipedia would wonder where we ever got that idea. Biblioworm 17:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Kudpung: Comments about another editor's motives are completely out of line here. Please refactor. Jonathunder (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Of course one doesn't, if one is hoping a lower bar would make it easier to be an admin... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- To anyone who thinks keeping the bar high will somehow keep bad admins out: see my analysis of a study I just did, and look at the raw data as well. (It's linked in the comment.) The results were very interesting. Biblioworm 21:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- There's an excellent question at the top of this section, from Wbm1058, to which I don't see an answer. As far as I can tell, there is no "discretionary range" defined at present in policy. Does this proposal seek to create such a policy definition? If not, what does it seek to change? I can't "support" or "oppose" something I don't understand. What, precisely, is the proposed implementation? Begoon talk 02:21, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
- To directly answer your question, something may have happened historically, but that doesn't mean that we can't institute new expectations. The 'crats don't pass RfAs below 70% because they don't believe the community wants them to. If this proposal passed, it would show that the community now has different expectations and expects the 'crats to at least consider RfAs that are between the now expanded range of 65%–75%. The pages on RfA tell what happened historically, yes, but just because something happened historically doesn't mean that we can't change what happens in the future. The pages should probably be reworded accordingly; it could perhaps read like this: "Generally, the consensus is that RfAs above 75% pass and that RfA below 65% fail. The community expects bureaucrats to use discretion when closing RfAs between 65% and 75%." I hope that helps. Biblioworm 19:29, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it helps to the extent that it confirms that this proposal doesn't seek to change any policy. I personally "expect bureaucrats to use discretion when closing RfAs between 0% and 100%", and I think they do that pretty well. I'm not convinced this is necessary - I'd rather see more, better qualified candidates than a 'reduction' of some ill-defined, theoretical "bar". I won't oppose it, because, frankly I think it doesn't much matter - the crats already judge consensus, and RFAs pass outside any supposed "discretionary range" occasionally, which is as it should be. Incidentally, you may also run the risk of some voters judging more strictly if they perceive a "lowered bar", imo. Thanks for explaining the 'intention'. Begoon talk 22:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
C2: Expand discretionary range to 60%
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.
Alternatively, we could expand the discretionary range to 60–75%, making it a 15% range, as opposed to our current 5% range (70–75%). This proposal is a sort of "middle ground" for those who believe C1 is too little of an expansion and that C3 and C4 are too radical.
Support C2
- Support for the same reasons I support C1. This is something anyway, and we've hadno real improvements to RFA in a very long time. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- support this, I believe this is a much more reasonable range given adminship is no big deal. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support. This one is my first preference. I think it's a good middle ground; C1 is still something, but not quite enough in my opinion. C3 and C4 are too radical, for the reasons I stated in the relevant sections. Biblioworm 23:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support as first choice. It has always seemed weird to me that someone can get twice as many supports as opposes, and still fail RfA. --MelanieN (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support With the understanding that Crats can still reject candidates anywhere in the discretionary range, and this would not lower the top of the discretionary range. Monty845 03:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support. As per Monty. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support, per Monty. APerson (talk!) 15:48, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- If we have a discretionary range at all, it should be wide enough to matter. Also per Beeblebrox. —Kusma (t·c) 19:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Support this is still only a 15% range, and bureaucrats can be trusted to make the right decisions within that discretionary range. Bear in mind that candidates to the low end of the discretionary range are less likely to be promoted than those at the high end. Hut 8.5 22:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Weak support. This is pushing a line on the requirement. With a requirement as low as this, it makes the acceptability level better, but almost so better that it's worse. Steel1943 (talk) 00:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support I trust the crats to use their discretion appropriately, however it should be rare than an RfA with less than 65% passes. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Weak support. Some changes are needed, and I could live with this (provisionally). But I think it's a little too lenient. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. --AmaryllisGardener talk 23:13, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Probably. Still quite a supermajority, and 'crats can still find no consensus at their discretion. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 21:57, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support as we need to lower threshold. Legacypac (talk) 01:50, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support as above. Ravenswing 06:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- This is borderline, 'crats can be trusted enough to make this decision. This can help when votes rather than !votes pile up. —UY Scuti Talk 08:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC).
- Support as second choice, since 60 is apparently the minimum threshold needed for a fundamental change to the site, it makes sense that RfAs should have a threshold in line with, if not a mite less than, that. —Jeremy v^_^v Bori! 08:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Support (well, moral, since it's not going to pass). Biblioworm's work on the lack of correlation between vote % and desysopping convinces me that we can even go lower than 65% on the minimum support; 60% seems like a good number, especially since we're talking about a discretionary range, not a "Crat must accept" range. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:45, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Oppose C2
- Oppose - a 2/3 majority is normal in the real world for important decisions. In my view adminship is a big enough deal to need clear Community support. Just Chilling (talk) 03:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Just Chilling. BethNaught (talk) 13:49, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- As a general rule, if a candidate has close to 40% opposition, there is a lack of consensus to promote. But the fact remains that, in a specific example when the raw numbers are 60–40, but a significant number of the opposes are unreasonable, a Crat chat can determine that the consensus is still to promote. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- This is just too low. In truly exceptional cases, the crats already have unlimited discretion. DGG ( talk ) 19:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose too low as a "rule of thumb". — xaosflux Talk 21:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose as below a two-to-one majority: Noyster (talk), 22:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Discretionary ranges" just mean that outcomes are decided by bureaucrats, not the community. There should be a fixed pass/fail threshold. Everyking (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Everyking. Banedon (talk) 05:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose I favor a narrow discretionary range, and 60% is too low. If we're lowering it, 2/3 seems about the right point. If you can't get a 2/3 majority, I don't think you should pass.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose until we have assessed the net impact of any other changes. The range should be the last thing to reconsider when other changes are to be implemented. Leaky Caldron 14:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think a 2/3 majority (or 65%) is ok, but this feels a but this feels too low. At least we should try 65% first and if that doesn't work discuss reducing further. Rlendog (talk) 14:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - see my comment in the sub-section above. Lowering the discretionary range might give us more admins but it will not give us more admins of the right calibre. It will certainly not address the reasons why candidates are not coming forward. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - too low. BMK (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - This proposed "threshold" is too low IMO. Guy1890 (talk) 07:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Too low, and I agree with DGG. I can't think of an RfA that went below 65% and above 60% that I thought should have passed. — Earwig talk 10:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose It's important to have a sensible threshold which demonstrates a suitable level of trust. Rcsprinter123 (cackle) 16:07, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose – I supported the move down to 65%, but 60% seems a bit low for RFA. I'd want to see how 65% works before moving the number down any further. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:34, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Hugh (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - Worse than C1!, Fine as it is. –Davey2010Talk 03:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Less than 2/3 isn't the required consensus. Sandstein 09:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - if we don't have enough admins, the answer's not to widen the net we cast, but actively recruit for better admins. There are people being talked up (on their user pages, by their friends) for adminship who would drive editors out of wikipedia given a nice, shiny admin badge and sysop powers, simply based on their asymptotically low civility skills and lightning-quick reflexes with a template or decision that someone's editwarring. loupgarous (talk) 16:08, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per my opposition in C1 — MusikAnimal talk 23:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose per Wehwalt and Just Chilling .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose – sixty percent cannot reasonably be described as "consensus." - Nellis 16:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose - I think ⅔ is reasonable, (though I prefer "Most RfA's with a final tally of 80% support or more will close as successful, while those under 70% will generally not pass" but alas) while 60% is too low.—Godsy(TALKCONT) 16:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose Worse than C1? No thank you. Coretheapple (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose in favor of a 2/3 (67%) cutoff. (It doesn't have to be divisible by 5.) ~Awilley (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose oscillating whether I support or oppose a 65% cutoff but I think 60% too low. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- oppose 2/3 sounds better. If / when we have a culture where admins are more easily, but still fairly, accountable, then we could lower to near 50%. But now that is too soon. - Nabla (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Comments on C2
- There is something to be said for a 2/3 (~67%) limit. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
- @Steel1943:. Did you mean to put your oppose in the section just below this one? You also supported this proposal, and both comments have the same datestamp. Biblioworm 00:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- @Biblioworm: Yup. Fixed it. Steel1943 (talk) 00:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- A previously granted adminship at the discretionary passing level of 61.2% was later removed by Arbitration Committee motion, for exercising long term poor judgement in use of administrative tools. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
- Note: Carnildo's successful RfA was back in 2006 – that might as well have been back in the Bronze Age as far as it concerns how this project (and RfA's) currently operate... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
- IJBall, in fact Carnildo's RfA had an unusually high turnout for the times and 110 supports. The unfortunate discretionary pass and the later desysoping are clearly as valid today as they were then and demonstrate perfectly why the bar should absolutely not be lowered now. We should thank Wbm1058 for bringing the example to light. It also shows how ineffective various compositions of the Arbitration Committee can be - he was first severely warned by them in 2008 but it took another three years to do anything serious about it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- I would point out that this was one incident from nine years ago. I don't think one isolated piece of evidence is enough to prove that we shouldn't lower the bar. Think of all the good candidates in the past that failed in this range because of some minor issue that sparked a pile-on. Think of all the bad candidates who breezed by RfA, some of which passed unanimously or almost unanimously. By that same "one bad apple got through so all who finish in that range must be bad" logic, one could reasonably assert that 90–100% is still too low of a bar. Biblioworm 00:55, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, Biblioworm, I support you on a lot of things but there's no need for you to start splitting hairs on this one. It's not an isolated instance. If you'd done as much research as I have into RfA you'd know it's not. Propriety forbids me however from mentioning the whole list of admins who got defrocked, and who should be defrocked now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- The question still presents itself: By that logic, if several abusive admins still pass with high levels of support (sometimes around 90% or near-unanimous), what keeps us from saying that 90% is still too low? We have the face the facts, everyone: There is simply no proven correlation whatsoever between performance as an admin and the level of support obtained in an RfA. Some admins with low levels of support do well, and some with high levels of support do bad. Bad admins will always get through, and we're simply hurting ourselves trying to prevent the thing that is inevitable, occasionally. If anyone can prove that there is a correlation, show the evidence. "Propriety" is not an excuse; there are already admins who have been desysopped, so a person could just list those and show that there is strong correlation with low support rates in their RfA. I'm convinced by hard evidence, not vague assertions. If no one else will do the study, I'll do it myself. Biblioworm 17:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I decided to do the study myself. The results (posted at User:Biblioworm/Desysopping and resignation study) should thoroughly debunk once and for all the idea that performance is somehow connected to RfA support rates. The last successful RfAs of those who were desysopped or resigned under a cloud, along with the respective support rate, is listed there. The data covers desysops from 2012–2015. As anyone can see, the range of percentages is very wide, but as I have repeatedly asserted before, this data conclusively proves that many desysopped or resigned admins enjoyed large amounts of support at their RfAs, very often above 90%. Some didn't get that much support, but the whole point here is that admins from all support ranges have been desysopped, and in fact the number of desysopped admins that narrowly passed RfA is only a minority (how surprising!). To the contrary, the vast majority of those listed passed RfA uncontroversially. This study shows that no matter how high we raise the bar, we will still get people who will misuse the bit. We are simply hurting ourselves by keeping the bar so high, since the number of active admins is declining. In fact, it looks like we're heading for a record low in promotions this year. Biblioworm 21:27, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. excellent evidence. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 03:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, Biblioworm, I support you on a lot of things but there's no need for you to start splitting hairs on this one. It's not an isolated instance. If you'd done as much research as I have into RfA you'd know it's not. Propriety forbids me however from mentioning the whole list of admins who got defrocked, and who should be defrocked now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with kudpung. If we don't have enough admins, the answer's not to widen the net we cast, but actively recruit for better admins. People are being talked up (on their user pages, by their friends) for adminship who would drive editors out of wikipedia given a nice, shiny admin badge, simply based on their asymptotically low civility skills and lightning-quick reflexes with a template or decision that someone's editwarring.
- Given the present state where there are too few admins, but the ones we have almost all respectful toward editors and reluctant to whip a template out on someone's user page unless there's a pretty good reason, and a future wikipedia adminned by those who can't wait to put new editors or those of us whose editing skills are rusty in their place based on very short exchanges, I'd much prefer we have our present state of few but civil admins. loupgarous (talk) 16:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
C3: Expand discretionary range to 50%+1
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
C3: Expand discretionary range to 50%+1
|
---|
We could also expand to range to 50%+1–75%, so that it would then become approximately a 25% range, as opposed to our current 5% range (70–75%). If implemented, bureaucrats could use discretion for any RfA between a simple majority (50%+1) and 75%. Support C3
Oppose C3
Comments on C3
|
C4: Abolish the discretionary range completely
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
C4: Abolish the discretionary range completely
|
---|
Finally, we could simply abolish the notion of a "discretionary range" completely and permit the use of discretion in all cases, regardless of what the support-oppose ratio is. All percentage-based measurements would become irrelevent to the closing of RfAs. For instance, if an RfA gained 45% support, a bureaucrat could still theoretically close it as successful if the oppose rationales were extremely poor in comparison with the support rationales. Theoretically, this is already the case, but the de facto range is 70–75%. This proposal is suggesting that we expand the de facto range to encompass all percentages, and bureaucrats will be expected to weigh arguments and use discretion at all times. Support C4
Oppose C4
Comments on C4
|
- Aww, I was going to support this. In the spirit of keeping this closed, anyone who wishes to discuss can ping me, or visit my talk page. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
D: High and undefined standards
D1: Upper limits on opposition
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
D1: Upper limits on opposition
|
---|
To fix the issue of high standards that often vary from person to person, we could set an upper limit on oppose votes of certain types. There are certain basic statistics considered in RfAs (tenure, total edit count, recent number of edits, and content creation). We would set the upper limit for one of these statistics at a certain point. If a candidate who runs for RfA meets or exceeds this upper limit, a participant could not oppose the candidate because of a perceived deficiency in that category. (It's not as complicated as it might sound.) For example, suppose that we set the upper limit for edit count at 10,000. (To reiterate, this upper limit is for opposers, not candidates.) After this, a candidate with 12,000 edits runs for adminship. In this case, someone could not oppose the candidate because they personally require 20,000 edits; the candidate exceeds the upper limit. As another example, suppose that we set the upper limit for content creation at 2 DYKs/1 GA. A candidate who has 3 DYKs runs for adminship, and therefore someone could not oppose the candidate because they think all candidates should have at least 1 FA, since the candidate exceeds the upper limit for content creation. In the event that a participant casts an invalid vote, it may be "flagged" as an invalid vote, and the user who cast it will be notified and given the opportunity to change it. If it is not changed, the bureaucrats will discount the vote. Finally, two things should be noted about this proposal: (1) It would still be fine to support a candidate who does not meet or exceed the upper limit. The upper limit simply dictates the point beyond which someone could not oppose a candidate. If the upper limit for tenure is set at 1.5 years, someone could still support a candidate who has only 1 year of experience. However, in this case, someone could also oppose the candidate for not having enough experience, since they are below the upper limit. (2) These upper limits would not prevent participants from opposing candidates for an entirely different reason outside the basic statistics covered by the upper limit. For instance, even if a candidate exceeded all the upper limits on basic statistics, they could still be opposed because they're uncivil, were recently warned or had an article deleted, etc. These aspects of the candidate are not covered by upper limits. We will discuss this general idea and also discuss what the upper limits should be. If you support or oppose the general idea, indicate your opinion in the proper sections for D1 below. Under D2, we will discuss what the upper limits should be. Editors should only support one limit for each category (tenure, edit count, recent edits, and content creation). For instance, under the "Tenure" section, you shouldn't support both the 1 year and 1.5 year proposals. If you support the idea of limits for that category but don't agree with any of the primary ones presented in the proposals, indicate your support under the "Support limit other than above" category and state what specific limit you support. If you oppose a limit for that particular category (e.g., you think that it should remain open to voters' discretion), place your opinion under the "Oppose limit for this category" section for each category. If the proposal for the general idea (D1) fails, then all proposals under D2 fail automatically as a result. Support D1
Oppose D1
Comments on D1
D1.1: Determining the upper limitsIn this section, we will discuss what the upper limit should be. Only supports are allowed in the D2 section, and assuming that D1 passes, the proposals that obtain the most supporters in this section will pass. (If D1 fails, all proposals in this section automatically fail as well, since the general idea behind these more specific proposals did not pass.) Please support only one proposal in each category (D1.1.1, D1.1.2, D1.1.3, and D1.1.4). D1.1.1: TenureTenure is defined as the total amount of time one has been on Wikipedia, starting at the point of the candidate's first edit. The primary options for this proposal are: (1): 1 year; (2): 1.5 years; (3): 2 years. (If you support a different limit, place your !vote in the "Support limit other than above" section and specify which limit you support.) If you support one of the primary options listed above, please place your !vote under the "Support limit for this category" section and indicate which one you support in your !vote (Example: "Support option (1).") Support limit for this category (D1.1.1)
Support limit other than above (D2.1.1)
Oppose limit for this category (D2.1.1)
Comments for this category (D2.1.1)
D1.1.2: Total edit countTotal edit count is defined as the total amount of edits a candidate has performed since they began editing Wikipedia. The primary options for this proposal are: (1): 5,000; (2): 7,500; (3): 10,000; (4): 15,000. (If you support a different limit, place your !vote in the "Support limit other than above" section and specify which limit you support.) If you support one of the primary options listed above, please place your !vote under the "Support limit for this category" section and indicate which one you support in your !vote (Example: "Support option (1).") Support limit for this category (D1.1.2)
Support limit other than above (D1.1.2)
Oppose limit for this category (D1.1.2)
Comments for this category (D1.1.2)D1.1.3: Recent number of editsThis proposal is different from D2.1, since these proposals concern the amount of recent edits, not the total. If a candidate meets or exceeds the number the upper limit for this category, they may not be opposed because of "lack of recent experience." The primary options for this proposal are: (1) 300 edits in the past 6 months (avg. 50 edits/month); (2): 600 edits in the past year (avg. 50 edits/month); (3): 600 edits in the past 6 months (avg. 100 edits/month); (4): 1200 edits in the past year (avg. 100 edits/month). (If you support a different limit, place your !vote in the "Support limit other than above" section and specify which limit you support.) If you support one of the primary options listed above, please place your !vote under the "Support limit for this category" section and indicate which one you support in your !vote (Example: "Support option (1).") Support limit for this category (D1.1.3)
Support limit other than above (D1.1.3)
Oppose limit for this category (D1.1.3)
Comments for this category (D1.1.3)
D1.1.4: Content creationThese proposals are about how much content the candidate has created and its relevance to RfA. The primary options for this proposal are: (1): No content; (2): [X] non-stub article(s) created/expanded (In other words, candidates will be exempt from content-related opposition if they create a certain amount of non-stub articles, regardless of whether or not it's recognized content; if you support this proposal, indicate what limit you support. Example: "Support proposal (2) with a limit of two articles."); (3): 2 DYKs or 1 GA; (4): 2 GAs or 1 FA. (If you support a different limit, place your !vote in the "Support limit other than above" section and specify which limit you support.) If you support one of the primary options listed above, please place your !vote under the "Support limit for this category" section and indicate which one you support in your !vote (Example: "Support option (1).") Support limit for this category (D1.1.4)
Support limit other than above (D1.1.4)
Oppose limit for this category (D1.1.4)
Comments for this category (D1.1.4)As worded, "created/expanded" is given lip service but only "created it all" or "created most of it from a stub" really count. A Wikignome who rewrites one paragraph on each of 10,000 articles and does a great job of it is counted as less of a contributor than someone who creates 7 GAs and 3 FAs. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
|