Wikipedia talk:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC

C4 is the nominally current rule

C4 needs to be clarified, as nominally it is already the current rule: However, the actual decision of passing or failing is subject to the bureaucrats' discretion and judgment, and in some cases further discussion.[1]. Recommended revision: Finally, we could simply abolish the notion of a "discretionary range" completely and explicitly state that the closing bureaucrat is expected to use his discretion in all cases, regardless of what the support-oppose ratio is.

Even better, we leave the wording of C4 alone and add a note to the top of "C" acknowledging that the long-standing official/theoretical discretionary range of 0-100% will remain unchanged and that the proposals below are to explicitly expand the de facto/actual practice discretionary range of 70-75%, a range which has been established by longstanding practice. This will leave the existing "wiggle room" for crats to to ignore the !vote entirely in a hypothetical exceptional case. Since this "wiggle room" has been there for years and doesn't seem controversial (although using the "wiggle room" in any non-obvious case would be controversial, to say the least), I don't see explicitly spelling it out here would be controversial. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks David. I'll make that clarification. --Biblioworm 16:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of jargon

Regarding this edit: I understand the terms in question are commonly used jargon amongst those familiar with it. However, given that one of the objectives is to find ways to draw greater participation in the Request for Adminship process, I feel that it is important to avoid unnecessary jargon. What does everyone think? isaacl (talk) 14:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I tend to agree with you. I wrote the notice that way because I use the terms almost without thinking about it here on Wikipedia, but I agree that we should consider those who might not. I believe the overuse of such terms is what causes outsiders to think of us as an elitist club or something... --Biblioworm 16:12, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, jargon can make those not in the know feel excluded. In this case, the jargon derives from programming languages, which makes it even more obscure in origin. Even written out as "not-vote", it would be an affectation. isaacl (talk) 18:29, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

B1

What actually constitutes a thread in this context? IMO the proposal should state whether this means any response/rebuttal to a vote at all, or votes that develop into several comments. Personally think a vote on the RfA main page should include at least the first visible reply, but if this is what you are expecting people to vote on, it should be clear. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I just clarified it now. --Biblioworm 17:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

On clerking

If none of the proposals for clerking gain consensus, I suppose we will naturally be forced to default to permitting anyone to do it. There is already consensus that there should be clerking; that is not up for discussion here. The purpose of these proposals were simply to determine who should do it. Biblioworm 18:12, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

"We" don't have to default to anything. Clerking is quite clearly, like many of the multifarious sections if this RfC that took two hours to plough through and answer objectively, a topic for a proper stand-alone proposal, Stand by for an uocoming 'proper' RfC. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

That would be a good idea if nothing here gains consensus, but it's still rather early in the RfC, so maybe consensus for something will emerge over the next few weeks. Biblioworm 21:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I would also note that this RfC is, in fact, only a part of Phase II. Ideally, we would find a solution for all the problems identified in Phase I, but in practice that isn't going to happen. So, on the page for Phase II, I stated that we would have further discussion for issues that were not resolved in this RfC. It looks like we might reach a consensus on A2, B2, and C1, so that would leave us with the issues of clerking and high standards. Biblioworm 22:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Clerking, as it could have serious effects, merits a standalone discussion. Esquivalience ^t 02:36, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

ErrantX said "I think the community would like to discuss the idea of clerking at the next stage of the RFC." I really don't think we should default to letting everyone clerk if none of the proposals gain consensus. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 23:56, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

But the idea passed (with 62%, which would be more than enough support for a proposal in any other place). If none of the proposals here pass, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't discuss the idea any more. In fact, many editors who oppose one proposal support another one. This further shows that there is support for the idea of clerking, but we just cannot decide upon who should do it. So, it may require further discussion after this RfC; I might (co)-draft a more in-depth RfC if nothing is agreed upon here. Biblioworm 01:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that we ban discussion, but that we can't assume consensus if none of these clearly defined in scope, actionable proposals pertaining to clerking gain consensus. In Phase I, ErrantX actually put the clerking statement under "Mixed Results", and the statement people voted on said "RFA clerks should be appointed, perhaps by election..." This is clearly no consensus for letting anyone (presumably including dynamic IPs) be a clerk with no agreed method of appointing people, especially if proposals here fail, which is what I thought your first comment in this section was suggesting. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 16:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Feedback request service

Several users suggested the Wikipedia:Feedback request service as a venue to get more participants. Why isn't it on the list? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Closers?

Has any thoughts been given to who should close this? If not, I volunteer. If anyone objects to me being a closer, let me know. I will start to follow the RfC and discussions starting now.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 03:40, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for volunteering, and it looks like there aren't objections. Though, since it's about RfA promotion procedures, should the closer be a Bureaucrat? I don't care either way, but it might be good to have bureaucrat support for something controversial (the same way non-admin closures are handled on AfD). Which of course makes me think, why haven't we elected you (or someone of equally high caliber and respect) to be a bureaucrat? I can see the idea that we have enough 'crats to handle the workload that they can do above adminship, but I also think that by the end of January it'll have been two years since there was a successful RfB (and over 3 since an unsuccessful) and that seems to say to the editorship, "if you haven't been editing since the early days of WP, we don't trust you at the highest levels," which seems like a mistake too. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Believe it or not I ran for RfA not too long ago and nearly passed it. I will try again in a few months.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 18:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah! I recognized that and thought you passed and were an admin. No, I definitely think that an admin should close all of these, even the uncontroversial, and that probably a bureaucrat should close anything between around 30 and 80% support. I think it would not be a good thing for a future AfD if there were any perceived conflicts of interest. For instance, I think the "expand discretionary range to 65%" should be closed as "passed" if it remains around the 80% level that it's currently at, but if you (or I, or any other non-admin) were to close it, someone might legitimately think that we were involved by virtue of potentially benefiting from a lower bar at AfD in the future. So best to have admins or bureaucrats close anything about raising or lowering the bar to adminship. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 18:58, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Conflict of interest? AfD? What? You have the wrong RfC. I don't see why an admin needs to close it, or a bureaucrat for that matter. I've closed big RfCs before without any opposition or question about my close.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 19:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

IP Votes?

Hi guys. I'm actively monitoring the discussion and found this. Should IP votes be allowed? I feel a major RfC such as this can be easily votestacked.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 23:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. It's too open to abuse by disruptive editors who might use them for sockpuppetry. (I'm not saying this particular IP is a sockpuppet, but I was making a general statement about how IP editing could be abused.) Biblioworm 23:31, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

The editor was accidentally logged out in this case, but I was making a general question.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 23:33, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

D1 wording screwup

This section is a mess. There's a bunch of people in the topmost subsection saying they don't want this, and another disconnected bunch of people in the bottom subsections they want this, but in different terms. The topmost people are saying "we don't want to be limited in setting limits", and the bottom people are saying "we don't want people to set these limits". --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

What this is about

If this is a genuine request for wider comment, as its appearance as a banner appears to indicate, it would be helpful to give an actual explanation of what is being asked, and what any identified issues are.

For a start, despite being an editor for over 10 years on here, I landed here from the front page banner, but then had to search for what RFA was - nobody has bothered to explain or even link it on this page. I suspect other editors like me with a fair amount of editing experience, but who haven't really been engaged in the policy stuff won't necessarily know what this is, and will just ignore it, making the idea of widening participation a bit moot.

OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

RfA should be a widely known concept to the Wikipedia community. I find it surprising that an editor of your years does not know what RfA is. You are more likely in the minority here that you do not know of RfA. WP:RFA is a link you could also type that into the search bar.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 14:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Which is what I did. However, your attitude is exactly the problem. 'Everyone knows this' is a prevailing attitude which doesn't assist anyone. Would a little bit of explanation on the page hurt? Not all editors hang around in the 'technical' bits of the site, and most just get on with actual editing. When there is a whole site banner calling people to the page, then leaving them to have to do their own research seems very counterproductive. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Well this proposal seems to sum it pretty well from my viewpoint. There is a link to RfA, which the title in itself should explain what it's about. The link to phase I makes it apparent that the RfC is trying to address long standing recognized issues with RfA. It took me 3 minutes to figure that out. I'm unsure what is unclear to you. I would help, but I just don't know how to help you. I would help to clarify, but slapping a tag on various locations of the proposal doesn't help. What is it you are unclear on?—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 16:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to avoid any prolonged arguments here, I went ahead and added more detail to the introduction section. Does everyone think it's better now? Biblioworm 16:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Cart before the horse

Most new editors don't last six months, let alone one year. Plus, content creation is an even bigger joke. I'd reckon about half of the new editors come to Wikipedia with the idea for a new article. Often, however, their first interaction on Wikipedia is being slapped with a speedy deletion notice. Half the time there is zero Welcome, explanation, or offer to help. Most often there are multiple warnings for exactly the same article. (Not sure why anyone needs three warnings for exactly the same article!) Sometimes, an experienced editor will deny the speedy delete and instead send it to AfD. AfD deletes roughly 55% of the time, however, 45% is not keep - it also includes non-consensus (which gets sent back), userfy (who knows where those go), and merge/redirect (which is basically delete). Meanwhile the creator of the article is often long, gone even when the outcome is keep.

It seems, to me, that should be the bigger issue here, should be about, "How to keep new editors," but I don't see anyone doing anything about that! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 21:56, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, to be fair, the easy pickings of notable topics were done a long time ago. Most things people want to write about have either already been written about or they don't meet our WP:Notability criteria, so it's no wonder people's first articles get zapped. I don't think this (zapping articles on non-notable topics) is a bad thing. Can we do a better job of editor retention while still keeping clutter out? Probably. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, then, perhaps Wikipedia should advertise that they are no longer accepting new articles! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Judging from the content of their user page, I wonder what MurderByDeadcopy wants on Wikipedia anyway. I always thought that a hobby is supposed to be something one likes doing. Sorry, no sympathy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Why?

Why isn't there some sort of mark or declaration that one is dealing with an Admin or Arbcom editor by one's name? Or is this done on purpose to make it easier to for anyone to push around and run off new editors? --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 17:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

How is this in any way related to this RfC? Please ask these questions elsewhere.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 18:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I guess it's something I'd like to see happen and since there's voting going on effecting changes related to Admin, I thought I'd drop it here. Personally, I think most of the changes being talked about right now won't create much if any difference at all. But, then, I encounter a ton of stuff on Wikipedia where the concept is that if something isn't working, then it must be because there aren't enough superfluous, bureaucratic rules. C'est la vie! --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 19:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

  This isn't about changing admins, it's about changing the election process.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 19:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, that wasn't my point at all. I just think it would be a good idea if there was something like a subscript next to editors who are admin or arbcom next to their name so that it's clear who they are to new editors. Frankly, I personally don't see how any of the stuff being currently talked about will change anything with the admin election process. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 03:58, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

  It changes plenty, if any pass. From what I read, if the discretionary range were to be lowered, more admins could get elected, for example. What you're proposing is something separate and needs a separate RfC. I do think your idea is a good one however.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 04:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

If you have Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups enabled, it is easy by hovering over the username of any contributor to a discussion to see if they have "sysop" (Ancient Greek for admin) or other user-rights, as well as when they joined and how many edits they have made: Noyster (talk), 12:29, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think in general creating a JS script to highlight the admins on Wikipedia would be a good idea. This could be useful for IPs and new users, that don't know their way around and they're trying to seek help from an admin.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 16:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I think having this as a default feature has been rejected before, for reasons that include (simplified of course) preventing the appearance of admins etc. being of a higher class. I do have a script that highlights admins active in my JS though, it can be useful at times. ansh666 04:17, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• If you want admins to show up with signatures highlighted in blue you can add User:Ais523/adminrights.js to your Custom javascript in preferences. Jbh^Talk 21:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Have two sections actually been closed?

I noticed that according to the table at the top, proposals B2 (individual-editor question limit) and C1 (discretionary range 65% expansion) are marked as closed and passed, but looking at the sections where each is presented, I don't see any closing statement or anything. Am I missing something here, or have they not been closed yet? APerson (talk!) 18:53, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

D'oh! Never mind. I confused the two greens mentioned in the color scheme given above the table. APerson (talk!) 18:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

It's okay, I was slightly confused too at first. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Bunching RfA discussion

What has come up in some of the discussions is a proposal to have RfAs occur only at known times of the year (a proposal for once every three months was on the table) so that if the centralized notification passes (as it looks like it will), it would be a moment to encourage greater participation. Is it too late to add to this RfC? I've been encouraged to be BOLD on this and add it, but I also know that unlike an edit to a normal article page where it's simple for someone to revert, adding it and finding that it is inappropriate, too late, etc., could be a pain to disambiguate votes on other sections in the meantime. I would be in favor of a 2, 3, or 4x a year process instead of piecemeal as the number of RfA declines. Thoughts? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 19:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, my first thought (well actually my first thaought is that this idea is nuts) would be that this has absolutely nothing to do with RFA, which is the subject of this discussion. Also, this discussion has been underway for some time and is winding down, so even if this was related it would be more appropriate to open a new RFC. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, @Beeblebrox: -- the earlier version I used "AfD" four times where I mean "RfA" (was working through AfD at the time) -- I hope it's not as nuts or irrelevant w/ this correction. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

What??—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 19:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've thought about this before. I think it might be helpful, but it would need more discussion and, as Beeblebrox mentioned, a separate RfC. Biblioworm 20:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• That was my thought too, but as I was being encouraged to be BOLD and just add it, it seemed worth getting some opinions first. (pinging @C678: to update also on AfD vs RfA. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 20:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Following advice to be bold, I added proposal to "Batch RFAs once per quarter" in four places, as the proposal addresses all four issue areas (Participation, Hostile Environment, Discretionary Range, and High and Unclear Standards), using four edits. When finished, I see that Biblioworm had reverted my first edit with edit summary "Thanks for being bold, but the activity here is dying down. I think Kudpung is planning an RfC specifically on this topic." I can understand that. But, if the discussion is dying down, why not use the remaining discussion to get some consideration of this idea, especially in contrast to other proposals? It may be too late for this proposal to garner enough support to convincingly pass, but another RFC will be better informed if some voting and discussion is allowed.

Anyhow I restored the first part (and made a small fix) at least temporarily so that this version of the page shows all four elements, with links between them. All of it can be kept or all of it reverted, together. Thank you several persons for organizing this RFC. --doncram 21:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

The point you may have missed is that this long-winded process is currently at Phase 2, having selected the most popular ideas from Phase 1 for further scrutiny. If it is open to you to enter a new proposal at Phase 2 it sort of undermines the point of there being a phase 1! Leaky Caldron 21:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll add my support on A4 -- and it's okay to revert/remove if there's going to be a separate RfC, but I think that adding it four times is a mistake; i'd delete B,C, and D4. I also think that if we're going to say, "things are winding down here" then it's best to do an early close; it's bad for RfCs to lose energy just to stay open for the originally prescribed period. Consensus doesn't seem to be changing on any one thing -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Having this in this RfC at all is wrong. Having it in several sections is bad. I think the newly added sections should all be removed, but it would be bad form for me to do that and then immediately go to bed and not be available for a couple of hours, so I will leave this task to someone more awake. —Kusma (t·c) 22:08, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• I archived the section B, C and D proposals, leaving A4 intact, since they are all the same proposal. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
• I removed the sections as the general consensus is that it would be inappropriate to add new sections of any kind at this time. If you want input on a proposal, please start a new RfC.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 00:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Close early?

With this RfC having wound down to almost a complete halt, should I go ahead and close this early, or continue waiting the remainder of the 30 days?—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 01:21, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it would be a bad idea to close it early, for the reasons you mentioned, but I would like a few other opinions from page watchers before proceeding. It doesn't look like consensus will be changing on anything: proposals A1, B1, B3, C2, C3, C4 and D1 fail, while proposals A2, A3, B2, and C1 pass. (Just my opinions, but the result seems to be quite clear.) Biblioworm 01:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

A2 does have a lot of general support, but note it has a lot of discussion over the "how" that may be worth generating an answer from instead of having another round of polling for that. Some topics include how long (if at all) to delay to avoid SNOW/NOTNOW notcies; and what the scope of the content will be (e.g. full links, just a link to WP:RFA, include candidate names?) — xaosflux ^Talk 02:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I noticed. Obviously the passes will need a close read in case there are conditional ones like what xaosflux mentioned above. The general consensus for that seems to sit around 36 hours, but I will give it a closer look if I close it. There are also other conditions such as omitting the username in the watch list notice. If we are in agreement on closing it early I can start to close it in a few hours. I have most of the RfC and it's participation fresh in my mind right now.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 02:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Biblioworm -- just to be super clear (since your summary will probably become the outcome of the RfC): in your statement "It doesn't look like consensus will be changing on anything," anything refers to the current state of voting, and not the current/old RfA process, right? Some things will be changing in RfA, namely A2 (subject to discussion), A3, B2, and C1. I support a change at the various places that mention the RfC to change to December 15, 16, or 17 0:00 UTC, and we can get implementation done in time of the new year. I think giving at least 12 hours before an early close would be fair; 36 hours may be better. But another 16 days, definitely not. Happy holidays everyone. (And C678, I stand corrected: you're right, there doesn't seem to be anything so controversial as to require a bureaucrat, unless C2 gets 10 or 20 more votes in the next two days). -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am referring to the RfC. I have no objection to Cyberpower678 commencing the closing process, so we can get on with the clerking proposals. (I rather hastily said elsewhere that I would not do too much on that RfC, but after more consideration, I think I would like to have a part in it after all.) Phase III, by the way, will not consist of an RfC; it will simply be the very quick process of changing the relevant pages to officially implement the changes as we find consensus for them. Biblioworm 06:17, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would suggest partial closes for some. Close them as succeeded, but remain open for discussion on how to implement. The watchlist notice, for example, clearly has succeeded, but there are some questions as to how exactly that should happen, so when closing, it needs a new discussion asking the implementation related questions, such as whether to include usernames and how long to wait. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Isn't the Phase III the implementation discussion phase? We could close all but put links on the successful closes to the RfC III, especially for the watchlist notice. If only a smaller group participated there, I don't think that would be a terrible thing. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:43, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• When closing (even though I think it's obvious what passed and what didn't) it seems important to refer to the objectives of Phase II that passed in Phase I:

In the 30-day Phase I RfC of the RFA2015 reform project, which ran from 15 October to 15 November 2015, seven primary issues relating to the RfA process passed to Phase II. Namely, these issues were the following: (1) There should be broader participation in the RfA process (78%); (2) Ease the load on admins (75%);[1] (3) The environment at RfA is too hostile (72%); (4) The discretionary range is too narrow (68%); (5) The standards are too high (64%); (6) There should be active clerking at RfA (62%);[2] (7) There should be defined standards (57%)

A2 and A3's passage (or even just A3) assures (1) has been addressed. (2) has been agreed to be deferred. (3) has been addressed by the passage of B2. (4) and (5) have been addressed by the passage of C1; (6) has been agreed to be deferred. (7) has not been addressed, but as it was passed by the smallest margin in Phase I, it not finding consensus in Phase II is the lowest concern.

I think that sometimes on WP, we have high consensus on problems to be addressed but then every solution to address the problem is rejected by the community (see: site design, front page look, FA status, etc.). Closing admins of RfCs should take into account the expressed need for change in understanding whether the particular remedies have sufficient support to be considered passing. (e.g., if 95% of users wanted the design of the site to change, but the highest suggested redesign only had 55% or even 40% support, I'd say consider that was enough to implement that design given that "no consensus" for any particular design change would violate the expressed consensus for some change). As I said, I'm glad that this is not a case where finding solutions that meet the identified problems will be difficult. But I think it's good to establish a precedent here, to avoid the project becoming static in a way that pleases few or none. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 05:39, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• There is no need for a phase III. These are pretty straightforward. The close will decide if one is needed. It's not like we are proposing a new user right, like template editor, which needed multiple RfCs.

Reviewing the close

To end this dispute about the close, I have posted a comment at WP:BN and asked the a 'crat to review the close and give their opinion. Hopefully, the dispute will end if the close is endorsed by someone who is trusted to pass RfAs. Biblioworm 17:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

A2 verbiage

Some discussion around A2 verbiage is going on at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details - @Cyberpower678:, not sure if the closing had enough consensus to have the RFC drive this aspect or not? — xaosflux ^Talk 02:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion I feel there was sufficient consensus to have this RfC drive this aspect. There were many people that agreed with your suggestion in the comment. Which would suggest that linking to the main page is the better option rather than treading around a minefield by directly linking. The RfC mentioned omitting the username, which would suggest not directly linking the RfA to begin with. This is my interpretation.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 02:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Recusing

Given how much drama I stirred up by closing this early, I will be recusing as closer.—^cyberpower_{Merry Christmas:Unknown} 03:46, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Reopening & closure

As this discussion has been reopened, could someone please reinstate it in all the fora it was previously advertised? It would be helpful if the closing date were clear (I was extremely surprised to find such an important discussion closed before the standard 30-day period), and I would strongly suggest that the bureaucrats were asked to close it, or to appoint an uninvolved editor to do so. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I tried to put it on the watchlist, but I was reverted. Biblioworm 15:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I've put it back on CENT. Espresso Addict (talk) 16:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Note that there is a request for closure at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC. An opinon there is that this should stay open through at least Dec. 30, so I'd advocate some leniency here in setting any deadline for comments; this isn't like an ArbCom election with a clock running. Wbm1058 (talk) 17:56, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

C1 2/3s

Anyone mind if I break C1 into the existing "Support", "Oppose", "Comment" and add "Support 65% but prefer 2/3" "Oppose at 65% but support at 2/3" -- each of these categories would have about 5 votes in them and might help a crat decide consensus. As far as I can see there's no need for a "Support at 65% oppose at 2/3" and only one vote for "Oppose at 65% and 2/3 but support another position below 70%". -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

New C1 alternative

@Wbm1058: If I read you correctly, the two major changes from the original C1 are:

• The original C1 doesn't explicitly mention the current theoretical discretionary range at all. Your proposal explicitly sets the theoretical discretionary range at 60%-80%
• The original C1 sets the practical discretionary range at 65%-75%. Your proposal sets it at 66%-75%.

As C1 is already passing with about 75% support, why the change to 66%? Is the proposal's current support not high enough that it's going to clearly pass as-is? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

No, I'm not really setting any explicit or theoretical ranges, and don't care for using those terms in this context. The only explicit range is zero to 100, as there are no explicit limits on the 'crats, by policy. The changes I'm advocating are precisely what I've spelled out. Earlier in the discussion section are reference links to the actual text that will be changed. Anything that isn't explicitly given as a change is simply only my commentary about what the actual guidance says and how to interpret it. No big deal between 66 and 65, just that as several have expressed a preference for setting it at two-thirds, I thought that would be the safer choice, i.e. there is a slightly greater consensus for 66 than 65, given that everyone supporting 65 should also support 66 as an improvement in the right direction. But not a big deal if the closing consensus is 65. Wbm1058 (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Validity of this RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please don't forum-shop. You already have a discussion going over here. Please keep discussion there so people don't have to bounce all over trying to keep track of the discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 01:05, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

---

I question the binding validity of this RfC.

1. Do we make sweeping binding changes to RfA policies and procedures based on a 30-day RfC in which only barely 100 people participated (or even knew about)?
2. The RfC violated the principle of RfCs, which is: "Include a brief, neutral statement of or question about the issue". Instead, this so-called RfC posed twenty-one different questions and issues. It was therefore out-of-process for RfCs. And moreover only those with the time and patience to read and digest and consider all of the overwhelming 21 questions and issues responded.
3. The RfC was immediately closed and pronounced binding by a non-admin who has had a failed RfA. Even if the so-called RfC is to be re-assessed and re-closed by someone else, it should not be binding, per items #1 and #2.

Contrast this to the simple, straightforward, and much less important case of the RM (not even an RfC) of Hillary Rodham Clinton:

1. It ran for twice as long as a normal RM.
2. Over 150 people participated, even though it was only a simple and straightforward RM.
3. Long in advance of the opening of the RM, a panel of three expert editors (2 neutral admins and one very experienced non-admin) experienced in assessing consensus were chosen to close the RM.
4. It was thoroughly and exhaustively advertised, including on the talk page of every editor who had ever commented on the subject anywhere.
5. The closing team deliberated for over a month before making and posting their decision.
6. The parameters of the close, and how long it would be binding, were established long in advance of the RM being opened.

I find all of the above to be compelling reasons why this RfC is not, and cannot be considered, binding or valid. Softlavender (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

---

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