Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:37, 10 December 2014

• Table of contents
• First discussion
• End of page
• New post

• WP:VPR
• WP:VP/PR
• WP:VPPRO
• WP:PROPS

New ideas and proposals are discussed here. Before submitting:

• Check to see whether your proposal is already described at Perennial proposals. You may also wish to search the FAQ.
• Consider developing your proposal on Misplaced Pages:Village pump (idea lab).
• Proposed software changes should be filed at Phabricator (configuration changes should have gained a consensus).
• Proposed policy changes belong at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy).
• Proposed WikiProjects or task forces may be submitted at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals.
• Proposed new wikis belong at meta:Proposals for new projects.
• Proposed new articles belong at Misplaced Pages:Requested articles.

Centralized discussion Village pumps policy tech proposals idea lab WMF misc A request for adminship is open for discussion. Voluntary RfAs after resignation Allowing page movers to enable two-factor authentication Rewriting the guideline Misplaced Pages:Please do not bite the newcomers Should comments made using LLMs or chatbots be discounted or even removed? For a listing of ongoing discussions, see the dashboard. view edit history watch archive talk purge

Media Viewer RfC Question 1

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.

This RFC has been running for significantly more than a month, not counting the withdrawn close, the participation has dwindled and it is past due for closure. Some have suggested that several admins should close the discussion in unison, but I have rejected this possibility since the RFC didn't seem to have interested that great a proportion of the community to warrant it, compared to the PC RFC for example, and it would have without a doubt further delayed the time of closure, to the point of making the RFC moot. In analyzing the discussion, I had to take into consideration the improvements to the media viewer that have been made since the start of the RFC, as acknowledged by the initiators, and determine how they affected the arguments. In light of this, simply counting votes is a very distorted and unreliable measure of consensus, and as is required of administrators closing such discussions, the strength of the arguments has been considered. I must stress on this point that the lack of a proper discussion and review of improvements, instead going straight to a poll, made this task very difficult and there is a case to be made that a plain "no consensus" closure due to the lack of clear outcome would be warranted, but when analyzed in details, a more subtle conclusion can be drawn. It is only because of this lack of thorough debate that I have to make such a lengthy assessment in order to get an actionable result out of all this. First off, it is crucial to make a distinction between logged in and logged out users, as most commentators agree, but such separation was not preserved in the format from the previous RFC. Yet, to reach a conclusion, it is necessary to draw this line, and I have analyzed the debate in light of this distinction.

With regard to logged out users, it is not in dispute that the overwhelming majority of them are foremost readers and we should take into account their needs, while at the same time encouraging them to contribute. The large majority of supports for turning off the feature were either regarding issues addressed by subsequent improvements, expressing disappointment at the version of media viewer first deployed, frustration at the subsequent events, anger at the WMF, or did not provide a rationale. As such, those did not contribute to the result, neither did arguments regarding exceptions to consensus, speculation on the WMF response, or personal feelings on either side. The arguments that the media viewer is closer to the needs of readers compared to a classic file page are well supported, since nearly all readers are interested in only viewing the image with its description or caption, as opposed to reusing it or perusing metadata. It is what readers of an encyclopedia expect and is in line with online usage. While it is true that a certain proportion of readers may not like this new presentation, most of the complaints were regarding issues that have now been addressed (such as access to full res image, description, or load time) and only a minority reject it totally. In any case, it is now easier to turn it off, for unregistered users included, while it's much harder to find out about it and turn it on when it is disabled by default.

The argument that the media viewer does not show licensing information sufficiently compared to file pages is unsupported, since on file pages this information is below the image and in their overwhelming majority, readers will not scroll down to it and look at it since they already have what they're looking for, so file pages aren't that much of an opportunity to educate them. Unlike file pages, in its current configuration, the media viewer directly and clearly shows the essential of the licensing information to readers, with a link to further details, and attributes the author. It also specifies how to properly reuse when downloading, which the file page doesn't. As such, on the count of attribution, copyright and licensing, the media viewer is more succinct but not inferior to file pages. The other kind of information, such as file usage or history, is more of a specialized utility and primarily of interest to editors, and image metadata is of interest essentially to image professionals. All in all, based on the commentators who have expressed an opinion on media viewer for logged out users, I find that there is no consensus for disabling it by default.

Some have suggested that absent consensus for a specific outcome, the previous RFC should be implemented. This is not be the case, since both the issue at hand and the community's take on it have enormously changed. Just checking relative support and opposition by numbers (however distorted they may be), we're moving from an opposition of about 1 to 13 for logged in users and 1 to 4 for logged out users in the previous RFC to 1 to 2 in this RFC. The media viewer has also been considerably revamped since then, so the issue being commented on is very different, and the community has a very different take on the situation, meaning the previous RFC result has become irrelevant (but I did consider the still relevant comments from there).

Now with regard to logged in users, the proportion of editors is much greater, so their needs must be given greater weight, however if media viewer is not wanted by a registered user, it is now easier to disable it completely. Unfortunately to complicate the matter in terms of outcome, the questions as they apply to logged in vs logged out users are not independent. Indeed, at registration, if a new user finds media viewer disabled when they always had it enabled while unregistered, it would confuse them, and it's not that obvious to turn it back on. This has been discussed in the previous RFC but not the present one, there's simply no way to avoid this issue if we want to reach a specific outcome, and I do not think that such a RFC should be closed vaguely, or we would get nothing out of it. Therefore, I am bound to conclude from the lack of consensus for disabling media viewer for logged out users and the lack of a consensus strong enough to override this issue, that there is no consensus for disabling media viewer for logged in users by default as well. As an aside, but on a related note, it was determined in the Media Viewer RfC Question 2 closure that there is no consensus for forcing the issue through, regardless of the outcome.

The community did clearly express that the initial roll out of media viewer was unsatisfying, that the product should have been more mature at the time, and that the initial response to community feedback had been inappropriate on several counts. The WMF should truly take this into consideration for future deployments. As noted, there is no consensus for either of the two main outcomes, but there is consensus for requesting several modifications to the media viewer, in order to address several points of enduring concern, expressed on both sides, which need to be resolved as soon as possible, though the implementation of each can be discussed further if needed :

• Newly registered users should be given a clear choice, such as by showing the window displayed when clicking on the icon for disabling media viewer, appropriately modified, the first time they open an image, asking if they want to keep it enabled or prefer to be directed to the file pages.
• Readers should be made aware of the possibility to edit the file description, such as through a link in the lower bar or side bar.
• There is a lack of information on how to upload files, the importance of licensing and the purpose of commons, a help link should be added, maybe before the help links on media viewer itself.
• In order to meet the specific needs of experienced users, the media viewer should be thoroughly customizable through gadgets and scripts, and proper documentation should be given on this subject.
• The more details button shouldn't link to the commons description when a local description exists, since the templates for featured pictures and pictures of the day on the English Misplaced Pages are added locally.
• The remaining technical issues for some file types or platforms and the cases of improperly displayed documentation should be addressed.
• In general, any suggestion to improve the user experience taking into account both the needs of readers and editors should be considered.
• Feedback based on the latest media viewer version should be collected, in a survey or otherwise, and the results published.

Should it become necessary, any future RFC on this matter should be preceded by a thorough review of improvements and feedback, and a proper discussion should be held before any poll is conducted, if any consensus on the major points is to be reached. Cenarium (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

(Note: There is a second question further down the page.) Alsee (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Question One. Should we reaffirm and implement the previous RfC: WP:Media_Viewer/June_2014_RfC#Consensus.2Fdisapproval_has_been_established There is a clear consensus that the Media Viewer should be disabled by default for both logged-in (section link) and non-logged-in users (section link).

Support (Media Viewer RfC Question 1)

1. SUPPORT as RfC author. The WMF's Community Consultation Process on Media Viewer resolved essentially none of the objections raised in the previous RfC. I believe our original image page is better than Media Viewer. Alsee (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support Obviously nothing has changed, the default should still be off unless specified by editors (i.e. if an editor wants the mediaviewer used for galleries, etc). Not that it matters. I have zero confidence in the WMF's respect for consensus at this point. 0x0077BE 16:01, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support as the attribution problem has still not been sufficiently addressed. This is a show stopper. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC) P.S. I think that is an inherently difficult problem, take File:Carentan Église Notre Dame Vitrail Baie 07 2014 08 24.jpg as example with a very complex copyright case which cannot be represented in any simplified manner.
4. Support. Unless the consensus has changed, we should not allow the WMF to continue to avoid the issue of enablement, and at any rate we should not leave them with the impression of acquiescence. BethNaught (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support - I still prefer the old one and probably always will, - At the end of the day the community decided it should be off, Period. –Davey2010 • (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Per AFBorchert.--Aschmidt (talk) 17:28, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
7. Support, although this wasn't needed; community consensus has already been formed to disable it. Consensus-changing attempts are appropriate, but that would be the only reason for having such a discussion. Let me remind the closer that "no consensus" defaults to pre-discussion, which is unambiguously "off". Nyttend (talk) 19:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
8. Support: The most frequent piece of feedback that WMF removed was "turn this to opt-in" and the WMF intentionally and purposefully ignored all such feedback . Since the consultation was a sham, I see no reason to wait for any results.—Kww(talk) 20:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
9. Support. It seems to me to be common sense that WMF should care what the editing community says. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
10. Support. It's inherently inferior to the existing file page, and the community spoke after due examination of the two. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
11. Support. I don't know why we are having this discussion again. We already know that 1 a large majority of editors prefer the pre-existing system, and 2 WMF people ignore and misrepresent our views. Maproom (talk) 21:46, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
12. SUPPORT. It has already been demonstrated that a majority of the community do not like or want the new Media Viewer, so continuing to debate the subject only proves that WMF does not really care what the community thinks, and will keep asking the question until they get the answer they want. To repeat what I (and many others) have already said: The use of this new Media Viewer should be "Opt-IN" only -- it should never be on by default for anyone. FireHorse (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
13. Support. Looks like they made a prototype () and I don't see anything important that has changed. The page seems to imply (meta:Special:PermanentLink/9840243 - "Screenshot of the Media Viewer's new design prototype") that that's how things will look. And we know that is what has been rejected. I doubt there is much point in giving WMF more time - it is pretty clear that they are not going to do anything else with it. Also, "Consensus can change" - if a miracle happens and they create something good, we can simply change our minds. But let's let them develop something good first and deploy it afterwards, not vice versa... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
14. Support BUT - I want that Media Viewer on Commons On Commons should be left there. It is a great help on commons, but there is no text there. Please do not disable it on Commons. On Wiki it is kind of irritating. Hafspajen (talk) 23:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
15. Support. WP:Consensus can change, but it is up to someone else - and WMF is certainly invited to do so - to make a new RfC to see if that's the case. Until then, we have a consensus, and it needs to be implemented properly. VanIsaac_WS 00:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
16. Support. Absolutely. Nothing but an irritant (on the plus side, though, I must say that its combination with the typography change makes it impossible for me to ever forget to log in). Double sharp (talk) 01:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
17. Support. Even the most optimistic reading of recent poll data, which shows that a plurality of users find media viewer userful for viewing images, only had 49% choosing that option. Note that the question is not "Is Media Viewer better than previous image pages", but is it useful for viewing images. If less than half, or even half, or even only two thirds of people find that it is useful in serving it's main purpose, that is to view images, then it is seriously unready to be the default. If only 50% of people that used a car found it "useful for getting from place to place" it would be seen as a lemon, but somehow 49% of people finding media viewer "useful for viewing images" is a good thing. The performance of the media viewing is still seriously lacking on underpowered hardware and older browsers that many people are forced to use, and the unlabeled icons are extremely difficult to figure out for a casual user of the site that doesn't want to have to learn a new UI just to view the details on an image. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE) 02:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
18. Support. I understand the need to make images easier to view, but I'm not convinced that MediaViewer is significantly better than the existing system at even that. And, as almost everyone can agree, it is far worse for viewing and editing image descriptions. As a reader of news websites, I'm not a huge fan of images that, when you click on them, occupy the whole screen against a black background. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
19. Support. — al-Shimoni (talk) 03:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
20. Support: All the reasons above, my own gripe is that not only does it make editing a pain, and is hard to turn off, it also is SLOW; I can stream video faster than load a photo on the theing. Montanabw 04:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
21. SUPPORT Assuming lowly anonymous readers are allowed to vote. MediaViewer is still an ugly, intrusive, invasive kludge. It does _nothing_ better than the old Wikimedia Commons webpage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.0.55 (talk) 01:50, 6 October 2014
22. Support: Even after all the changes that have been made Media Viewer is a a clear step backwards in functionality, usability, and performance. Despite the WMF's assertion that this is a feature for the so-called "readers", every IP that chimed in was against keeping Media Viewer enabled by default. The WMF's own survey showed that fewer than 50% of English-speaking respondents who never edit found Media Viewer useful for its intended purpose. CONEXCEPT does not apply as the obvious intent of the policy was to check actions that went against the philosophy of the movement or that presented technical issues. Neither apply. For all all the aforementioned reasons, the RfC should be affirmed and Media Viewer should be returned to opt-in by default. Furthermore, if the WMF refuses to implement this consensus, I support administrators taking any technical or legal actions to make sure the consensus is in fact implemented. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 06:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

    Not sure where you're getting your statistics, but they don't seem to agree with the ones I've seen, which show over 60% approval by English readers. Kaldari (talk) 07:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

    The 60% number is if you cherry pick the last two weeks of the survey, where responses trickled down to nothing. I was rather disappointed to see the Multimedia team be so dishonest with their data. I can't find the spreadsheet at the moment with the final results, but the cumulative reader approval rate over the whole survey was a smidgen below 50% at that time. I seem to remember looking very hard for it because the Multimedia team didn't post it in an obvious place. The last full results I can find right now puts reader approval at 37% in English, but I know I saw a similar spreadsheet that had the final results. I've removed your plots because they're misleading. The English reader plot only shows the last two weeks. The two global plots predate the English Misplaced Pages rollout and don't represent the opinions of readers and editors of the English Misplaced Pages. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 08:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

    Discussion of the statistics is worthy of an entire section. Please take it to the discussion area. This is a bad place to debate what numbers are valid and what numbers are misleading.

    Notice: Three images added by Kaldari were removed by 98.207.91.246. I consider it it entirely appropriate to remove images from this section. The diff and images can be viewed here. Alsee (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

23. Support--Oursana (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
24. support -jkb- (talk) 09:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
25. Support Ealdgyth - Talk 12:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
26. Support: Awful tool, unwanted, unwarranted and a technically backwards step that worsens the experience for editors, whether logged in or not. - SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

27. Support. I think that MediaViewer is promising—in the long term it can become a useful functionality. However, it's not ready. In particular, it does not reliably render information from the file pages in ways that are easily predictable, and when it fails, it fails in ways that disadvantage the reader—especially the casual reader who may not know about the old-style file description pages, which are problematically obscured in its design (a "More details" button does not suffice). This disadvantage comes about because the underlying functionality—semantic file metadata—isn't properly available yet (as far as I know). Redesigns will not solve that fundamental problem. My distaste for lightboxes means I don't plan to ever enable MediaViewer personally, but I would like to be able to support its use by default. However, I can't support it until those problems are fixed.

    I am separately disappointed with the community for being oppositional to the WMF, and the WMF for the shameful "superprotect" fiasco. The community and WMF need to work together. The WMF needs humility—if the community says no, that should be enough to shelve a feature, despite the time and money and emotions invested in it. On the other side of the coin, the community needs to trust the WMF's good faith, because the situation in which the WMF isn't trusted by the community is nothing short of toxic. Hopefully this RfC will help smooth both over. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 13:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

28. Support The ignorance from the WMF regarding the valid RfCs from enwiki and dewiki and corresponding bug reports is rather telling and I doubt that they will respect them now. However, substandard software with which the Foundation knowingly supports license violations is not something that should be ignored, no matter how bad the relationship with the editorial communities. Please fix this now, review your senior staff's behaviour and competence (or rather lack thereof) and get back to all negotiating tables with the communities. That is of course, only if the Foundation's goals are still aligned with the core principles (recent comments from board members suggest they are not). --Millbart (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
29. Support: At present it is hideous to look at, worse to work with; it may improve over time. Even if we accept good intentions, it was insensitive and arrogant on the part of WMF to impose this on editors without prior discussion, trial or feedback. In a recent phone interview with the WMF politburo I formed an impression that addressing editor concerns was high on their agenda; I hope I was not misled. Brianboulton (talk) 15:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
30. Support – It is an utter disaster, at present. It is awful, and is completely outside the spirit of Misplaced Pages. It is our job to be no frills, bare-bones, like a encyclopaedic Gandhi, dressed in simple white cotton garb. This is emblematic of our goals, our mission, and all of our principles. To implement such technology as this is, useless and badly designed as it is, is to forsake what Misplaced Pages does right. RGloucester — ☎ 16:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
31. Support although WMF doesn't recognize community consensus. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
32. Support, per AFBorchert, Kww, Nihilres, & others.

    In an ideal world, what would happen is that Media Viewer would be made opt-in for all users, the staff at WMF would prioritize the defects described & fix them, & once it was shown it was solid & useful, the community would then agree to set it back to opt-out for all users. But based on experience, what will happen is that the WMF will dismissive to the community's objections as if we were all children, do their utmost to force an alpha-stage software upon us, then six months later wonder at reports about increased numbers of veteran Wikipedians leaving. As Nyttend points out, this second RfC should be unnecessary, but certain people at the Foundation insist on ignoring what the volunteers on the ground have been telling them. -- llywrch (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

33. Support. It doesn't work. What I am usually looking for is the file name, and it doesn't show you that. Worse, they don't tell you how to disable it. Even if you do figure out how to disable it, it is not disabled across all wikipedias, only the English one, so you if you are browsing images in a language you don't speak, and where the media viewer is enabled, you will not be able to find the file name or disable the media viewer in that language. —Neotarf (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
34. Support, But let's face it! -- there have been several RfC's, Notice board issues and Media Viewer's own feedback page showed a clear disapproval. Further, their own statistics revealed that MV was not wanted nor needed, on English and German Misplaced Pages (it's redundant, a glorified 5th wheel and something of a flat tire, given all the bugs -- and here we are months later and they're still tinkering around with this thing). They continue to misrepresent approval. Here is what their own findings say:
    approval breakdown by language: French 71%, Spanish 78%, Dutch 60%, Portuguese 81%, Hungarian 63%, English 29%, German 26%. (The numbers fluctuate, but overwhelming disapproval on English and German (most of) WP remains constant.) They admit that approval is very low for English Misplaced Pages. What they don't want you to know however is that the number of articles, editors and readers for English (and German) Misplaced Pages dwarf all other such numbers in the other Wikipedias. Look at the numbers at the bottom of the Misplaced Pages main page. ( ! duh ? ) Since English and German Misplaced Pages are the largest by far, then it goes that there is overwhelming disapproval overall. All this redundant/buggy viewer is really doing is wasting server resources while amusing certain individuals on the software development team. Their "approval", such that it is, is largely based on the feedback of naive, uninformed and occasional visitors to WP. i.e.How does anyone who is familiar with all the faults and bugs in MV lend their approval?? Easy math. I know I speak for (very) many editors when I say I have lost almost all faith for certain individuals in the WMF. Apparently they see consensus as an invasion of their turf and a challenge to their authority. Get a load of the TOC on one of the archived M.V. talk pages. Good luck guys. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
35. Support. I dislike it, but could live with it. However, when last I used it it was a non-starter because every image viewed through it violates our duty to provide proper, accessible copyright information, in a manner that is well suited to inform third-party re-users of their attribution obligations. Everything else is secondary.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 00:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
36. Support. I don't object to MediaViewer in principle, but as currently implemented it has so many issues - unlabelled buttons, no copyright info, inability to view full-size - that it's unfit for purpose. Mogism (talk) 00:20, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
37. Support, this new thing is quite clunky and unwieldy and slows down efforts to contribute and edit. — Cirt (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
38. Support - I have disabled MV on en.wiki and de.wiki, so I can see images as it used to be before MV was launched. Whatever the improvements are which supposedly have been made, anytime I read Misplaced Pages while not logged in, and want to see an image I get reminded by MV that it still doesn't function properly. Kraxler (talk) 18:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
39. Support, again, no evidence has been presented that Media Viewer is an improvement from the file page. Either way, the reader sees a larger version of the file after a single click on the file. The Media Viewer eliminates important information about the files and about the context of the surrounding text. On the other hand, the file page gives all of this info. One thing I would support is making files automatically open in a new tab, since 9 out of 10 times a reader will want to go back to the article after viewing the file. StringTheory11 (t • c) 19:07, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
40. Support. Especially the brutal force to implement such a buggy, unwanted bling-thing was absolutely disgusting. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 10:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
41. HELL YES Never have so many been so upset at so few, but in this process - which I'm sure will ultimately be devoutly ignored - we have a chance to right a wrong, and maybe, just maybe, get back to the way things were: happy editors, happy readers, and happy fact checkers for articles and images. TomStar81 (Talk) 11:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
42. Support —Wasell 19:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
43. Suppport (everything has been said already above and elsewhere). Ca$e (talk) 19:56, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
44. I'm more of a reader than an editor these days, and I turned the thing off as soon as I figured out how to do so. The file pages are informative, and educate readers about how images are contributed to an open-source educational project. It wasn't broken, it shouldn't be fixed. It shouldn't take umpteen RfCs to get Mr. Möller's department to roll this back. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 23:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
45. Support. This entire affair has been unhappy for many people, and has certainly left me severely disillusioned. I have cut my contributions to Misplaced Pages as a result of the events surrounding the Media Viewer, and am unlikely to return to my earlier contribution level unless their is clear evidence that the WMF are paying more attention to editors' concerns. RomanSpa (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
46. Support keeping Media Viewer disabled by default for both registered and unregistered editors. Anyone who wants it can turn it on. As several previous editors have said, it isn't an improvement on the existing situation. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
47. I support the RFC as a sub optimal response. But I'd prefer not to have media viewer available as an option on sites that allow Fair use images. Either that or stop hosting Fair Use images. The idea behind Media Viewer seems to be dropping the boring stuff about copyright as a large proportion of humanity doesn't take that seriously. That's annoying to those of us who contribute photographs and especially those who take copyright seriously and think that this site should continue to do so. But it isn't likely to get people in trouble, except where Fair Use images are concerned. We regularly bite newbies for misuse of Fair use images, others are entitled to bite them for it in real life. If we are going to continue to allow Fair Use images the least we can do is leave the warnings about them in place, rather than on a separate link. You could of course amend Media Viewer so that it gave appropriate licensing info when displaying a Fair Use image, but then why have Media Viewer at all? ϢereSpielChequers 13:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
48. Support Progress has been made with the Media Viewer, however I still prefer the non-Media Viewer page. Also, it's difficult using the back button because I can't tell when I'm "on the same page" versus when I'm "on a new page". Overall, at this time I don't believe it's ready. Crazycasta (talk) 01:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
49. The Community Consultation Process on Media Viewer was a sham. I get the feeling we are bashing our heads against a brick wall here though. MER-C 01:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
50. Support - Media Viewer has only gotten worse since it was first released. What used to be a minor inconvenience has become a moderate inconvenience to the editing process. Carrite (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
51. Support. Everyking (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
52. Support. People who like it can opt in. They should not be forced into using it by default. A later RFC could establish that there's consensus to enable it by default, but we are clearly not there yet. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
53. Support. Ahsoous (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
54. Support. The media viewer is broken by design. It removes the context and presents the images of an article like a slide show. Did any user ever ask for such a feature?-----<)kmk(>--- (talk) 03:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
55. Support Coming out of retirement just to say how much I hate the new Media Viewer software. It merely slows down my ability to get to the actual image. It was terrible when Wikia implemented it and it is just as bad here on Misplaced Pages. Please, get rid of it, as a reader I really don't like it. Best, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 20:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
56. Support and let me say, I wish the Foundation would work on solution that made it easy for users to simply switch from to the other on the fly (ie: a cookie for unregistered viewers), then they can decide for themselves. Until then, utility trumps "cool feature", and the old way is more intuitive and simple to use, as it is more like the pages of an article. From the reader's perspective, this is the best starting point. Dennis - 2¢ 20:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
57. Support Media viewer changes the viewing experience in a way that gives the end user less information and pushes attribution to the author into the background. →StaniStani  09:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
58. Support per many compelling arguments above. Sasata (talk) 15:13, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
59. Any image viewer we use must show copyright, description, and author information along with the image itself. These aren't some kind of boring metadata detail, they are critical information. Our job isn't just to show pretty pictures, it is primarily to educate. A description places the photo in context and furthers that goal. Ensuring to show copyright status helps to prevent someone mistakenly thinking anything on Misplaced Pages is free for all reuse. Showing full author attribution is just the right thing to do. Media Viewer still doesn't do those things, so I can't support it. Anyone who is aware of these limitations and knows how to work around them can always opt in. Seraphimblade 16:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
60. Support per Seraphimblade, WereSpielChequers, AFBorchert and others. Andreas JN466 22:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
61. Support, with an easy way to turn on. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
62. Support KonveyorBelt 18:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
63. Support Not active under my account, but I'm making a point to find where the discussion is on this change and supporting the revert. It's extremely slow and cumbersome to use. Until that's improved I don't see how any other viewer is an improvement for the user base. --Nonforma (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
64. Support - The media viewer is unnecessary, cumbersome to use, still very slow, hides the meta data, and should therefore not be activated by default. As long as these issues have not been fully resolved, it cannot be more than an opt-in feature. --Schlosser67 (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
65. Support. From a user point of view I am absolutely not convinced that MediaViewer is necessary or that it enhances the reader experience. From the point of view of a concerned Wikipedian, I think there are other far more pressing software issues that developer time and funds should be dedicated to.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
66. Per Seraphimblade and others.  Sandstein  14:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
67. Support per Seraphimblade. I also find the argument that "they're going to address issues at some point later and therefore we should keep it for now" to be terribly out-of-sync with how things should work on Misplaced Pages. If it is changed, let that new version be implemented by default by consensus with a discussion, it shouldn't be on by default just because some editors think it might be fixed eventually in some vague way, and that this should supersede consensus. - Aoidh (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
68. Support - it is a community choice to enable it standard - turn it off now, and then let the community decide when to turn it (back) on (if ever). --Dirk Beetstra 10:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
69. Support Hlevy2 (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
70. Support Luxure Σ 10:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
71. Moving from neutral to support, per 98.207.91.246's links under Neutral that show many disgruntled readers and very shaky evidence that Media Viewer is beneficial. I also think it's pretty impressive that someone began editing Misplaced Pages for the express purpose of protesting Media Viewer. Separately, considering some of the feedback left by readers, this feels like yet another case of releasing buggy software to the public and explaining away the detriment to readers and/or new editors by saying it will be fixed. Finally, there was already an RFC on this and the overwhelming consensus was to disable it. What's the holdup? ekips39 05:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
72. Support Having seen it creep into my account whilst I was inactive, I've never seen it be beneficial. It doesn't have any improvements over the previous system, and, seemingly, has many disadvantages. Yet another mis-step in a long line of them from the WMF, although at least this isn't the second coming of VisualDestroyer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 02:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
73. Throwing in my own voice in support, but mainly just a big THANK YOU to whoever put the link at the top of the watchlist notifications so that I found a discussion that provided a link to how to turn the damn thing off. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

    OH GOD YES Why are we still discussing this? Seriously, kill it already. This has been discussed to death, so lets see some God-<bleeping> action on the matter already before the rest of us riot over the inaction. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:57, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

    Just had a second glance and I apparently already through in my support a while back. Therefore, I am striking this support and its comment. That was m'bad, sorry all :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:33, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

74. Support. As I've seen stated above, the description, author, and copyright information is vital to any image viewer that's used here. My thoughts on this have already been said by Nihiltres and Seraphimblade; it's not ready, and doesn't show some of the vital information that should be displayed when files first come up. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 00:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
75. Support The new media viewer sucks. It's a big step backwards from the old viewer. It's clumsy and clunky. It doesn't always work properly and doesn't easily provide the information you could see at a glance on the old viewer. ThemFromSpace 01:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose (Media Viewer RfC Question 1)

1. Not really clear why this RFC is required at the current time. Development work is still ongoing to make Media Viewer more acceptable to communities and respond to feedback. A better time for an RFC would be when a planned deployment is put on the table, and the version of Media Viewer that is proposed for deployment is available for evaluation. At the moment, there isn't really anything more to discuss beyond what was already said last time.
   On another note, I'm not sure that RFCs of this kind are helpful. They feel somewhat antagonistic to me, and seem to bring out a vocal minority of technical Luddites within this community who don't always understand the subtleties of the issue at hand. — This, that and the other (talk) 11:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Not within the framework of WP:CONEXCEPT, section 1 and/or 4. I will add that any legal objection regarding attribution is incompetent, as coming from persons without verifiable credentials or responsibility. It is also absurd to make such claims, when practically every page on Misplaced Pages (eg. Main Page) has no visible origin information for images. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC) I also agree that this is just a VOTE, the only practical rationale offered by the RFC is, 'if you do not like it, vote support for confronting the WMF.' Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC) Responding futher to some of the comments particularly Seraphimblade, the claim that the MV is any less revealing of attribution and copyright is factually unsupported - just in reviewing my own image contributions and others (I only refer to my own to ward of the emotive claim that contibutors are somehow damaged) attribution and copyright information is given in the first click in MV, without scrolling, whereas on the old page the first click window provides no attribution, nor copyright, without scrolling. Even so, it remains that, per policy, the "decisions" and "acts" of the WMF take "precedence" and are not replaced by WP:Vote (see also WP:CONLIMITED) nor by WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
3. This is the wrong time. According to the outcome of the consultation process, as referenced above, We plan to complete all “must have” improvements by the end of October and deploy them incrementally, starting this week (that was on 11 September 2014). The end of October will be the time to start a thorough discussion, which may go better if editors aren't weary from a long RFC now. NebY (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
4. What TTO said. Also this really isn't an RfC, it's just a WP:VOTE. Legoktm (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Per NebY. If they're currently working the feedback they have from us into the software and will have that done soon, a random RfC now on the basis of old discussion and an old software version is pointless. Discussion about the tool's future status should happen when there's actually something new to discuss. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
6. It's long past time to deploy this improved file-page interface, especially for non-logged-in readers who likely don't care about the cruft that we editors do. Powers 19:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
7. It looks like improvements are still being made and many of the problems of the initial version have already been fixed. Kaldari (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
8. Per NebY. Wait until they get it fixed, and then if we still don't like it, turn it off. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
9. The WMF have made an attempt to address some of the concerns of the community, we should at least wait until they are addressed before holding an RfC. I also agree with Legoktm that this is not an RfC, it's a vote. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
10. The concerns expressed in the original RFC are already pretty much resolved. An actual RFC on this topic would review the work that has been done, and discuss it, not just have a vote for the sake of voting. And editors who don't like it can change their preferences. Risker (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
11. Keep media viewer The media viewer is a significant benefit to our readers. Yes, it does get in the way of editors, but editors have the ability to turn it off, and they do just that. Our defaults must be oriented for readers, who don't have such options. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:16, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
12. Oppose I agree with most of the comments above. PaleAqua (talk) 15:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
13. Per Risker, and the fact that this isn't an RfC. Ed  19:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
14. The media viewer is a useful tool for readers, and readers don't have the ability to adjust their preferences. --Carnildo (talk) 02:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
15. Good enough. Not perfect, but helpful to readers and usable for editors. And I see the WMF is doing active development in a useful and rapid manner. DGG ( talk ) 07:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
16. For an image editor or reviewer the additional clicking and disorganized image information makes efficient and quick work simply impossible. No feature should cater only to one portion of the community, be it readers or editors. All features need to be usable efficiently by all parts of the community and readership. However this RfC is too early, it's better to wait for the results of the current improvement drive. GermanJoe (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
17. Keep Mediaviewer. Improvements are ongoing, think of MV as an extended thumbnail view. Viewers will be able to go to the file description page easily. Even if the attribution does not work perfectly, I do not consider this a "showstopper". The complex cases, where MV fails are almost impossible to grok for human as well, so not much is lost here. We should rather focus on making the meta data more accessible for humans and software alike. --Dschwen 16:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
18. Per Risker this can be changed in preferences.This appears to more of an vote rather than an RFC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:47, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
19. Keep Mediaviewer per all the comments above. MV isn't perfect but it is an improvement, especially for readers, and the WMF is still working on MV to address the concerns of the community. If people don't like it, they can opt out individually. It is clear to me that the issue isn't MV itself but the relationship between some of the community and the WMF. Unfortunately, this RFC does not appear to be an attempt to improve that relationship or to collaborate with the WMF, instead coming across as antagonistic and unhelpful. Ca2james (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Since something has to be default, I don't see it shouldn't be the media viewer. It is quite possibly true that it's not the best way to view image details for editors or heavy readers, but that has little to do with anything -- those people can just disable the default (I myself have it disabled, partly because I just don't like change). For casual readers -- which is what we're mainly talking about here, I think -- my uneducated guess is that when they click on an image they probably mainly want to see a larger version or at any rate a full-screen view. And I'm not convinced that the Media Viewer isn't, or can't be made to be, just as good if not better for that than the old way. I'd like to see an actual study of casual readers and new readers and see what they like, and it shouldn't be too hard to run one. Absent that, I'm opposed to the question. Herostratus (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
21. Keep Mediaviewer I still don't understand the big fuss about all this. Seems to me, most readers would want to see an expanded view of the media when they click on a thumbnail – it's standard practice all around the internet. For the people who don't like it, namely editors, it's very easy to figure out how to disable it (the "disable media viewer" link at the bottom of the media viewer). I'm a fan myself, and had it enabled before it went live to all users. Like the reader, I more often than not just want to see media, not work with it. I can't say I've ran into any bugs either. — MusikAnimal 18:31, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
22. Oppose Even in its current imperfect state the MV already seems an improvement for the readers, whose interests should be central to our efforts. Additionally, editors who don't like the MV can simply opt-out, so where is the problem? Given that the improvement process of the MV will last through the end of October the timing of this vote is ill-considered and not constructive. --Wolbo (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
23. Oppose June was 4 months ago and that's quite a lot of development time. No doubt MV has changed quite a bit since then and in any case consensus can change. Therefore the results of that 4-month-old RfC should not stand. WaggersTALK 09:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
24. Oppose Per WP:CONEXCEPT, software development is beyond the purview of the community. Confronting WMF is unproductive, unhelpful and unnecessary. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
25. Oppose. The Media Viewer is intended for improving the experience of the millions of silent readers out there, and a consensus of a very small self-selected set of editors here can not possibly be representative of those people. For situations like this, I think Misplaced Pages's consensus model is not appropriate and such decisions should not be made this way. For better or for worse, the decision should be left to the Wikimedia Foundation. Neatsfoot (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
26. Oppose Yes, it was a pain to have to find and click on that button to get to the original screen. But the arguments that it benefits new and non-editing users, and that it's still being tweaked, are enough for me to put aside my own selfish considerations. Drop the stick. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
27. Oppose The Media Viewer appears to be good enough for default use and can be disabled by users who do not want it. Making it opt-out rather than opt-in gives it the exposure necessary for testing and improving it. Kind regards, Matt Heard (talk) 01:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
28. Oppose per Risker and the RfC format concerns. Mike V • Talk 18:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
29. Oppose. Media Viewer certainly has rough edges (which the WMF is addressing), but on the balance I think it's already a real step forward, particularly for readers who just want an easier way to see large versions of images—and personally, I'm a big fan. For those who find it bothersome, opting out is pretty easy.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 16:56, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
30. Oppose - time to just let this controversy die, and let anybody who doesn't like the media viewer just disable it for themselves only Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:03, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
31. Oppose - The viewer should be improved quickly, but it works well enough to be enabled by default. --NaBUru38 (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
32. Oppose - I personally don't see anything wrong with Media Viewer (I kind of prefer it, actually). Like others have said above me, this is still under development and will probably be improved as time goes on. Perhaps we give logged in users the ability to turn it off if they don't want it, and we could also add a "View in 'Normal Mode'" button for logged out users. --Biblioworm 17:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
33. Oppose per Fluffernutter. Neljack (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
34. Oppose --Guerillero | My Talk 05:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
35. Keep Media Viewer per Oiyarbepsy. The default setting should be reader-oriented, not editor-oriented, because editors have the ability to change their settings, whereas casual readers do not. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
36. Oppose per Oiyarbepsy. APerson (talk!) 05:01, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutral (Media Viewer RfC Question 1)

1. I dislike Media Viewer and disabled it wherever it irritated me, but I see the point of those who say "Let's see the new improvements first." LynwoodF (talk) 18:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Abstain Please review the WMF's mission statement. The question of whether MV "empowers" people or not is a matter of opinion. The role of the WMF with respect to RfC's is not. Lila, the Board, and anyone under employment with the WMF has no obligation whatsoever to make decisions based on a community RfC alone. In this case, Lila is following what is widely considered a best practice for online services: if there is a workaround to new issues (clearly there is here in disabling the feature), then avoid creating new problems with a roll back. The path Lila has chosen is to work with the community in improving MV, instead.
   Some may dismiss this as the WMF prerogative with a rock-solid argument behind them using the founding documents of the WMF. I won't. I recommend taking Lila and her team directly to task by demanding answers in to what went wrong here. Let's demand something we might actually get: a post mortem on the initial MV rollout. What changes have been made to prevent this happening in the future? I can get things started by mentioning that we have a new VP of Engineering at the WMF, for example. What forward-looking promises can we get from the WMF and Lila that we can actually hold them to? And, more importantly, how can we help them back up these promises up for the good of the entire community and our users? There's been so much talk around MV; it's time for everyone to start walking the walk. I'm going to start by getting back to editing WP with time I'd otherwise waste on these pointless petitions. -wʃʃʍ- 20:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
3. I am pretty much neutral on Media Viewer itself, but one of the many who are put off by the condescending comments of people such as User:Fabrice Florin (WMF), and more generally the WMF as a whole. The WMF should listen to the community, rather than consistently dismissing it by referring for instance to "self-selected RFC discussions." Like it or not, RFCs have long been among the principal ways in which the Misplaced Pages community seeks consensus on important issues. And if you don't like it, it's not the community that should fork (per User:Wllm), it's the WMF employees who have lost the plot. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 16:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. Are you suggesting that the WMF fork instead of the community? I'm not sure that's even possible, but it would follow the pattern of people at the WMF actually doing stuff while some disgruntled members of the community waste everyone's time on toothless petitioning that puts nobody's skin in the game.

As I've said many times before, people should start walking their talk. If that means part of the community leaves to work on their own fork, I believe that would be for the best for their personal well-being and the Wikimedia projects as a whole. Why waste your time complaining about the WMF in these ridiculous petitions? Put your time and effort in to a new encyclopedia if you think you can do it better. I'm gonna stick around to see where the WMF is taking this story. -wʃʃʍ- 00:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Don't have a strong opinion about Media Viewer; it's apparently helpful to new editors, and it's bothersome to established ones such as myself, but also easy to turn off. (And before I found out I could turn it off, I simply used Open link in new tab.) Was initially leaning toward support, but mainly because people like me who frequent a variety of Wikimedia projects find they must check that little box on all of them for an optimal experience, which is kind of a pain, not only because it's a lot of clicking, but because you turn it off on, say, English Misplaced Pages and then proceed to forget it was ever there, then head over to Commons and--surprise!--it's back. So what I really want to see is a way for this preference to be made global. ekips39 15:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

   Kindly don't repeat the myth that it's "helpful to new editors." It's entirely a figment of the WMF's imagination. Not even a majority of "readers" or "casual editors" of the English Misplaced Pages said that the Media Viewer is useful for viewing images in the WMF's own survey, let alone preferable to the file page. No "readers" or "casual editors" have written in support of Media Viewer. To the contrary, they've been unanimous that Media Viewer should be turned off. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

   After reading mw:Multimedia/Media Viewer/Survey, it sounds as if approval ratings are actually pretty high, and even English readers ended up with an approval rating of over 65%. It does say that it's not to be cited as conclusive, but still, I've been unable to find evidence that readers unanimously don't prefer Media Viewer (though, to be fair, I also haven't managed to prove my original assertion right). I'd be interested to see where you got this information. ekips39 03:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

   The plot you cite is the weekly approval ratings, not the cumulative results. As the poll went on, the response rate dropped dramatically, so the later weeks are not representative of the overall approval rating. That plot is thus scandalously misleading and I find it hard to believe that's anything but intentional given the complete deafness the WMF has shown to their users in this matter. I found the raw data once upon a time, but I can't find it anymore. The last full data I can find shows a cumulative approval rating of 37% amongst "readers" who responded in English three weeks before the survey closed. I do recall that in the final numbers, that percentage improved, but still hadn't reached majority in any English subgroup ("reader," "editor," and "frequent editor"). As for unanimity, I refer specifically to the IPs who responded on this page, on MediaWiki.org, and the original RfC. I'd link to the "community consultation" (which amounted to a sham), but it was so heavily censored under the excuse that disabling the thing was out of scope, despite that being the most commonly asked "must have." Not a single one registered support for Media Viewer. Personally, I figured out how to edit Misplaced Pages solely to protest Media Viewer. For all their alleged focus on readers, the only way to opt out of Media Viewer for months was to create an account. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 03:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

   Thanks for the info; you've convinced me. Moving to support. ekips39 05:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

1. I don't particularly like the MV (or the VisualEditor for that matter), but I don't see it as much of a problem. I hate the "touchification" (everything designed as if we have touchscreens even on desktops, like Win8) of the web, and software. Even though I don't access images through it if I need info (I click the middle button, it opens a new tab with the classic image page), but I got used to the pop-up picture and quick return to the page. It's still hard to work with beyond casual viewing (for example the other available resolutions aren't shown or offered even in fullscreen, and loading takes a while). The improvements WMF added, even though they aren't enough, are a start, and I'd like to see the other points done (even those listed as "could have") I don't support MV, neither do I oppose it. I've been waiting to vote till the end of October, but I'm still not convinced either side. ¬ Hexafluoride 18:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Reserved for official comments by WMF employees (Media Viewer RfC Question 1)

(Please do not edit here if you are not WMF)

Hello @Alsee: Thanks for following up about Media Viewer. As stated last month, we are now making a range of improvements to Media Viewer, based on the results of the recent community consultation and our usability research.

For example, we just released these new features, which were announced last week:

• an easier way to enlarge images by clicking on them
• "More Details" button - a more prominent link to the File: page
• separate icons for "Download" and "Share or Embed" features

Early indicators suggest these improvements are working:

• Enlarge feature: You can now click on an image to enlarge it in Media Viewer, to support a frequently requested zoom function. We now log about 1 million clicks/day for that feature across all sites -- a dramatic 20x increase from ~50K clicks/day for the previous ‘View original file’ button (see metrics dashboard).

• File: page button: You can now click on a more prominent ‘More details’ button to go to the File: page, a frequent community request. Since this feature was launched last week, global usage has tripled, surging up to ~60K clicks/day (from ~20K clicks/day on two separate links)

• Download button: You can now click on a separate download button that's easier to find. Since launch, global usage has tripled to ~66K clicks/day on the new icon (from ~20K/day for 'Use this file' downloads)

• Disable rates: Since these improvements were launched, global opt-outs by anonymous users have decreased by 60%, down to ~800 disable actions per day (from ~2K/day before new features).

This is consistent with our expectations, based on the latest round of usability research for the recent prototype.

Next, we plan to work on these other improvements:

• more visible settings to disable Media Viewer (above-the-fold)
• a caption or description right below the image

This incremental improvement process will last through the end of October, using this standard development cycle: 1) design features based on data and user feedback; 2) prototype them; 3) validate them through usability studies; 4) build the features; and 5) measure their impact.

Once we have collected and analyzed those metrics in November, we can discuss next steps based on that information. As a rule of thumb, self-selected RfC discussions are not an effective way to determine default configurations about software -- and without usage data for the latest versions of the features, they are largely based on speculations, rather than factual observations.

Finally, we are also preparing a metadata cleanup drive to address remaining issues with missing machine-readable data that result in Media Viewer (and other tools) displaying incomplete information. This is the first time the Wikimedia Foundation has taken on this type of project -- and we invite community members to contribute to this cleanup work.

You can track our progress on the Media Viewer Improvements page, where we will post regular updates in coming weeks. Sincerely, Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 12:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Discuss and comment (Media Viewer RfC Question 1)

 Done: Sending notifications to everyone who participated in previous discussions on the same topic. Alsee (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• I see some comments about this RfC being too early, that the items in the Media_Viewer_consultation outcome have not yet been implemented. I based my personal position on the assumption that everything in that list does get implemented. I guess I assumed other people would interpret it the same way, but I'm not going to re-write the question. The RfC clearly asks people to review that consultation outcome, and people can intelligently respond based upon that consultation outcome. It was determined four three months ago that "There is a clear consensus that the Media Viewer should be disabled by default". I see no point is stalling this another 4 months 3 months... or stalling this another 999 months in "eternal development" if there exists a consensus against Media Viewer regardless of the proposed development. We do not allow someone to shove bad content into an article and then engage in tendentious discussion about "improving" that content when there is a clear consensus that no amount of "improvement" is going to permit it stay in. Alsee (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know where you get 4 months, Alsee, it was closed on July 9, which is less than three months ago. Risker (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I accidentally my used the July-RfC-start instead of the June-RfC-end in my quickie mental count. I corrected my comment above. Alsee (talk) 08:52, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this makes it clear there is no claim of WP:CONEXCEPT here. The WMF withdrew it's hasty and unconsidered application of Superprotect, and explicitly asked that we not disable Media Viewer. Alsee (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Clear Conexcept issue: 'WMF: don't do it'. They do not need to apply superprotect that they still have, as long as it's not done. Like the community, which does not apply protection, when it does not need to, either. That is why it's never been applied on EnWP. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Can we agree that we disagree, and agree not to battle on a hypothetical? The issue is moot if this RfC doesn't pass, and the issue is moot if the WMF doesn't assert Conexcept as ground to reject it. The WMF decided that Superprotect as a Bad Idea, and perhaps they will decide that trying to claim Conexcept here is also a Bad Idea. Alsee (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No. The WMF has already said where they stand. ("MV" stands for Media Viewer) . So, the only Bad Idea is this RfC, which is actually a WP:VOTE, and which is contrary to Policy. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• No idea who added the Files from the Media Viewer Survey (I can find it in the history, but can't be bothered to check), but files from a survey with so many errors shouldn't be used to influence an RfC. Just look at the survey. The second graph has 100% of editors who never edited Misplaced Pages, and then additional percentages of people who did, going way over the number of respondents and over 100% obviously. The summary at the top ("Media Viewer Survey results from English readers in the last 2 weeks of the survey show significant increases in the percentage of users who find Media Viewer useful, compared to the first results right after launch. From June 24 to July 8, more English readers found Media Viewer useful (62%) than not (25%), based on 496 responses for that period.") also contradicts the box at the top right, "496 responses - 201 days (March 20, 2014 - now)". And of course, the survey says nothing about Mediaviewer as compared to standard File views, so even if a majority things it is useful, we don't know whether they actually find it any better. Please don't add such files without the necessary caveats, and please indicate who added them. Fram (talk) 08:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The images can be viewed here. Images do not belong in the SUPPORT/OPPOSE section. The figures in the image are based on the last two weeks of limited survey data, and I distinctly recall seeing the WMF explaining that data was exceptionally unreliable due to dismal response rates. I will say in the hopes that someone can provide the cite.

The complete survey data can be viewed in this spreadsheet. The WMF summary of that data is "A majority of global respondents find the tool useful for viewing images (56% response average, 60% average across surveys), as shown on this spreadsheet. Cumulative approval by language: English 36%, French 70%, Spanish 78%, Dutch 59%, Portuguese 81%, German 30%, Hungarian 63%, Catalan 71%"". I added bolding on the English results. Furthermore their claim of "A majority of global respondents find the tool useful" is (probably unintentionally) extremely misleading. If you survey 900 bald people and 100 not-bald people you do technically obtain "90% of respondents say combs are not useful". That is also a flagrantly warped result. I recalculated the survey results to, as best as possible, accurately represent the results for global Misplaced Pages visitors. When weighted to match global Misplaced Pages readership for each language I get 39% found Media Viewer "useful", 50% found it wasn't, and 10% were not sure. Anyone who wants to check my results can see the analysis I posted at mw:Talk:Multimedia/Media_Viewer/Survey#Survey_Renormalization_To_Match_Our_Readership 6 weeks ago. And of course the survey question itself is garbage. For example mw:Talk:Multimedia/Media_Viewer/Survey#Bias: "I actually hate the interface, but I answered yes. Because it is "useful." Had I known they were using this as an approval survey I would have said no." I saw a similar comment in one of the survey text-field responses, and I have no doubt that many of the other negative text-responses would paired with "useful" votes if we could view the text-responses matched up with "useful/not useful" responses.

The WMF also has this lovely Media Viewer - English Opt-in and Opt-out Events Graph - June 27 - July 20 2014.png. The rate of opt-outs is nearly five times as high as the number of opt-ins. And I have to wonder if those opt-in results are badly inflated. When I was testing Media Viewer I toggled it off, on, off, on, off, on, off. Realistically that should be one opt-out, but it sounds like that sort of thing triggered three bogus opt-in events. Alsee (talk) 12:20, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

If I may ask: Why do people who personally would prefer to use the traditional file description pages oppose making this new media viewer an opt-out feature? Surely setting a preference once and never needing to worry about it again is a small price to pay? Powers 14:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

My reasons: 1) Because all the data we have shows that the feature isn't liked by a majority of all English-speaking groups. 2) The opt-out, at least for anons, is broken. 3) Even if the opt-out for anons worked, I'd have to set it on every computer I used. 4) Even if the opt-out worked, people now link to the media viewer when linking to images, so I can't avoid the damned thing, even if the opt-out worked. 5) There is a clear consensus that it should be disabled by default. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 14:45, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

In my case: all of that plus the fact it is inferior—making something inferior the default serves only those who developed it—it gives me an actual headache when it does its jiggling, flickering load; and I have been having to disable it on multiple-language Wikipedias, finding my way to and through the preferences in Kannada, Finnish, Latin ... it's a hassle and a half. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

It is also almost always unnecessary (it was clearly designed with galleries in mind, and most images in an article are not galleries), and actively defeats user expectations about what will happen when they click an image as well as messing with the web history. It muddles both navigation and attribution, reducing the quality of the site overall. After a few revisions, it's a lot better than it was, but the fact of the matter is that it's the wrong tool for the job. It would work much better if under image thumbnails there were a little icon you could click for something like, "Preview image", while clicking the image still brings you to the image file page. This wouldn't re-define existing behaviors, but it would allow MediaViewer as an option without enabling it in preferences. Of course, we have no leverage for a compromise, because WMF has shown that they don't give a fuck about what we think. It's really making me re-assess my monthly donation. 0x0077BE 16:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, among other reasons, why should majority "pay the small price" instead of minority..? Also, if you really think this is no big deal, why are you still arguing instead of giving up and letting the ones who think it is somewhat bigger deal win..? I'm afraid I don't see much merit in reasoning behind your rhetorical question... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 19:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• Should we have a third RfC that; there would be an RfC after WMF completes the implementation of the outcome of community consultation? --Fauzan_{✉ mail} 17:25, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Fabrice Florin (WMF): Thanks for commenting. What I see missing from your thoughts is what, exactly, "Once we have collected and analyzed those metrics in November, we can discuss next steps based on that information" means. That is, let's say it's November. You've made your changes and collected your metrics. You have new numbers in hand. Now...what do you plan to do? Will you present them to the community and say "now, based on these, decide whether you want the software"? Will you have a point in mind where, if the metrics don't rise to X% of Y group, the software will be withdrawn and reworked again? What people here want to see in the discussion, I think, is a concrete course of action from the WMF. "We're reworking and re-evaluating" is great to hear, but it means little if it can't or won't be followed up with "...with X goal in mind, and if X doesn't happen, then we do Z".

  Similarly, you say that self-selected RfCs are "not an effective way to determine default configurations about software". I pretty much agree with you on that...but but but. If this type of RfC isn't going to work for you, in what manner do you want the community to comment on and support or oppose software changes in regards to this project, in particular? Petitions? Letter-writing campaigns? Skywriting "Enwp wants the WMF to change Product Q" over San Francisco? People are fighting to find, in these software deployment cases, what will get the WMF to listen to the community's will (or to their own personal opinions), and so far the WMF's response to that has been mostly of the type "Oh, you want to know how to get software recalled or paused? Well, let me tell you about the next deployment date and changelog instead!" Interesting stuff to hear, but not actually an answer to the question the community is asking, you know? I think you'd get fewer people willing to die on this hill if you gave them a sense of what they can do to change things other than dying on this hill. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fluffernutter:: Good to meet again, and thanks for your interest in this project.

In response to your question, our goals for Media Viewer in the next few weeks are to:

1) complete the 'must-have' tasks we identified from our community consultation;

2) verify through user research and metrics that they are working as intended (using the same methodologies as reported in previous Media Viewer updates, such as the above response);

3) fix any critical bugs for Media Viewer and these features;

4) review these results with the community;

5) wrap up development on this project.

So far, about half of the 'must-have' tasks have been released, as listed in my previous response. Here are the ones that are still in development, which we plan to release in coming weeks:

• Easy Disable/Enable Settings from Media Viewer (#836)
• Re-enable Media Viewer from a File Page (#719)
• Show caption above the fold in Media Viewer (#589)
• Pre-render thumbnails in all sizes on the back-end (#301)
• Move license label after source (#833)
• Make MediaViewer text larger in Monobook (#876)

You can track our progress for these tasks on our current sprint wall.

As for your other question (how the community can comment on software changes), that was the primary purpose of our widely-promoted Media Viewer consultation. We asked for community feedback, we received a lot of great suggestions, we prioritized them and developed the 'must-haves'. This consultation process seems effective for limited releases like this one. (Note that we are also exploring other ideas for community participation, as described in my response to Alsee below.)

However, please keep in mind that our multimedia team is urgently needed on other high-priority projects like Upload Wizard and Structured Data. Once the most critical tasks listed here are done, we will switch our attention to these critical projects, which have been explicitly requested by the community. But we will continue to share our Media Viewer findings with the community in coming weeks, and look forward to reviewing them together in mid-November. Thank you. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Fabrice Florin (WMF) for your friendly and helpful post in the WMF section. I fully trust the WMF to implement 100% of the improvements that the WMF says it plans to make, and my intent with this RfC was for people to take into account all of those promised improvements. I encourage people to fully consider your post before responding to this RfC.

Nonetheless, I am very troubled that the Community Consultation process was deaf by design to any community input that did match what the WMF wanted to hear. The WMF director, Lila, promised a Community Consultation process "with no predetermined outcome". The consultation outcome looks pretty predetermined to me. If this RfC passes I think it means the consultation was a failed, broken process. The nontraditional bottom-up wiki governance and the traditional top-down WMF governance models are clashing. I sincerely hope that all of us can find a better way to bridge that gap. Alsee (talk) 18:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Alsee: You make a reasonable point that there is some tension between the community’s bottom-up governance model and the more structured decision-making process of a software development organization like ours. But as you can tell from the comments above, it is not possible to design software that will satisfy every point of view. As much as possible, we strive to make our designs consistent with evolving user interface standards, easy to understand, and responsive to the needs of our broad user base.

We have already invited community feedback, extending our development time by an entire quarter to address the most important requests. The consultation outcome was not at all pre-determined and we carefully evaluated every community suggestion before making a final selection. We focused on specific calls for improvement where we could make a difference, based on some great suggestions from our community. And we were very clear from the outset that requests to turn off the software were outside the scope of this consultation.

Going forward, we are building a more robust, quantified process for measuring the success of our projects and for gathering feedback early in the planning cycle, based on some of the ideas discussed in this separate consultation about process. We look forward to evaluating all these suggestions with our product group in coming weeks, and you should be hearing from us soon. Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

"The consultation outcome was not at all pre-determined And we were very clear from the outset that requests to turn off the software were outside the scope of this consultation." These two statements are inconsistent. In light of the latter statement, the former is mendacious. It's clear from your statement that it was a predetermined outcome that Media Viewer would remain enabled no matter what happened with the "consultation." The WMF has never given a compelling reason for insisting on imposing this predetermined outcome despite a clear consensus to the contrary. A consultation isn't a consultation if you're going to declare anything you don't want to hear as out of scope. A question that has been asked many times before but never answered: "What would it take for the WMF to disable the Media Viewer in conformance to the clear consensus on the English Misplaced Pages, the German Misplaced Pages, and the Commons?"--98.207.91.246 (talk) 23:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fabrice Florin (WMF): The IP address beat me to it, but I still need to say it. "The consultation outcome was not at all pre-determined" combined with "clear from the outset that requests to turn off the software were outside the scope of this consultation" is insulting. It's offensive. Statements like that just inflame the situation. Alsee (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

To people saying that since people can opt out, this isn't an issue: wrong. People on other sites are now linking to media viewer pages, not the file page. Even if you never want to see media viewer, it's thrown in your face if you browse the web with any regularity. Also, if you don't have an account, the opt-out periodically breaks. You also have to opt out on each computer that you use. There is also the issue that a lot of people don't know how to get to the file page. Some people don't even know what they're missing, with the version history and the full description. And finally, stop talking about the readers. Not a single reader has chimed in to support media viewer. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 03:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fabrice Florin (WMF):"The consultation outcome was not at all pre-determined And we were very clear from the outset that requests to turn off the software were outside the scope of this consultation" is just a short way of saying "we will only listen to people that agree with our predetermined outcome". Do people at the WMF wonder why we consider the statements from WMF staff to be intentionally deceitful, or do you just sit back and laugh after you write nonsense like that?—Kww(talk) 04:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC Close challenged, close withdrawn, RfC reopened

I have posted on the closer's talk page questioning a closing which baselessly rejects a two-to-one outcome as "no consensus". Alsee (talk) 04:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been wondering about the exact same thing myself. The vote shows that consensus remains the same: turn it off, just like the first RFC said, and just like the WMF's own feedback suggested. That's three times that the community has spoken and said the same thing: turn off mediaviewer.

I fail to see any reason for the rather subjective closing of this RfC with "No Consensus", it's a clear confirmation of the former RfC. The WMF has now the clear duty to switch the MV to opt-in, if it doesn't, it shows utter disrespect to the communities. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 05:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, ♫ Sänger, that "WMF has now the clear duty to switch the MV to opt-in, if it doesn't, it shows utter disrespect to the communities"...However, I've actually given up investing any effort or hope in seeing any actual community-driven MV decisions implemented by WMF. Given the toxic atmosphere they (WMF) created and the cynical nature of their "engagement" w/ the Community re. MV, I've done the only things I can do to register my disagreement with WMF's abuse of the Misplaced Pages editors who actually produce the knowledge content leveraged by Foundation to accumulate money and influence: 1) I stopped editing almost completely (even as IP) and 2) I've withheld any monetary support and encourage others to do the same.

For me, WMF has poisoned this Project Environment and now I simply won't encourage my own marginalization by user:Fabrice Florin (WMF). WMF should just drop the pretense that they believe they have any accountability to the Community, and then we'll see how enthusiastic editors are about contributing their unpaid time to supporting such a gilded elite. JDanek007 22:00, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

NOTICE: The closer has simply ceased to respond to comments on his talk page. I find him to be unwilling to participate in informal discussions of this close. I am drafting a formal request for review. I am more concerned with filing a high quality review-request than a hasty review-request. I am going to take some time refining the language and arguments before submitting it. I invite comments on my talk page. Alsee (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC) WP:Administrators'_noticeboard#Close_Review_Media_Viewer_RfC Review Request submitted. Alsee (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Just a friendly BUMP, as it should not be archived yet until the review request is decided. ♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 12:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I've commented out my close. Consensus seems clear enough that people want it reconsidered. However, I will note that this whole issue seems to be drama over nothing, as there appears to be little chance of anything happening; bugzilla:67826 makes that clear enough. --Mdann52talk to me! 17:00, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

You are probably right, the WMF has shown their disdain of the communities before, and the hostile, unwarranted closure of that bugzilla is only one example of this. But consensus for opt-in is clear, I think some programmer will know now how to do this graceful (as opposed to the things DaB. did for deWP) with commons.js or whatever. An admin with this skills should simply do it, it's the right thing, the WMF definitely is on the bad side of this conflict. If the WMF again acts with brutal force against the clear will of the communities, they show, that they are completely alienated from their proper bosses, that's the communities. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 17:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The directions at WP:Village Pump (technical) state what is required for any and all feature requests, and it is not an RfC result, it is a report to Bugzilla for determination. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer RfC Question 2

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No consensus to implement the outcome as proposed below as a whole. Most opposition is against the deadline and method given in the first and last terms. Such an implementation would not be possible anyway, as policy provides no foundation for the community to "direct" administrators to perform certain actions, especially those requiring the use of admin privileges. Even if a 'willing' admin would be prepared to do so, others will be opposed. The last attempt resulted in a very lengthy ArbCom case. Having said that, There is no prejudice to implement any other of the terms, as they do not require any consensus per se. Anyone is free to adress and appeal to the foundation and request a configuration change using a bug report, or do so collectively depending on the outcome question one. -- ] {{talk}} 18:39, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Dear German Misplaced Pages community,

We’ve been talking a lot with many of you and at the WMF about the current situation regarding Media Viewer and site-wide JavaScript changes.

Restricting edits to MediaWiki:Common.js was a difficult decision for us. We regret that we missed opportunities to do our part in avoiding a conflict that no one wanted. At the same time, we cannot fulfill our responsibilities as the site operator when users take it upon themselves to disable functionality by editing site-wide JavaScript that is executed for all users.

We learned that the use of superprotection unintendedly created the impression that we don't trust the community. This is not the case, so we have therefore removed the restriction.

In doing so, we are investing our trust and goodwill in every community member that you will work together with us before making changes to site-wide JavaScript. And we are specifically asking you to not change site-wide JavaScript to deactivate Media Viewer or to make it opt-in.

Our commitment to you is to address open technical issues with Media Viewer based on a global community consultation process beginning tomorrow. The consultation page will address the scope, intent, and timelines of the consultation will be announced on all projects and will be open-ended. We will update here with the details when the page is live and will support German language participation.

We ask you to work with us in good faith in the upcoming month and through this effort define a better, closer way of working together in support of our common goals.

Sincerely, Lila & Erik

Question Two. In light of the statement above, should Question One carry the following implementation terms:

• Place a 7 day hold against Community action to implement this RfC.
• Officially deliver the closing results to the WMF.
• Express our desire to work together with the WMF before making changes to site-wide JavaScript.
• Express our desire to work with the WMF in good faith, and our hope for a better closer way of working together in support of our common goals.
• Formally request the WMF to implement this configuration change for English Misplaced Pages.
• 7 days after this RfC closes our JavaScript experts and other admins are directed to take any steps necessary to implement this RfC, if such steps are still needed.

Support (Media Viewer RfC Question 2)

1. SUPPORT as RfC author. I want to make every effort of develop a more collaborative relationship between the community and the WMF. Alsee (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
2. Support. First we should try to work with them, FWIW. Then, when that will fail, fiat justitia ruat caelum. BethNaught (talk) 16:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Support. The seven days give WMF sufficient time to implement this. Features that are switched on by default and problematic in regard to copyright law (two clicks to access complete copyright information) lie within the domain of the community. How can we with good conscience use images at en:wp if, by default, this feature hides essential copyright info? This is a problem of the community as many of them work with their real names and have consequently a different perspective than the WMF who sits in the safe harbour. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Support. This seems a reasonable proposal. LynwoodF (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
5. Support. I can't see why this would controversial at all. Powers 19:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Of course. We should try to work with them, but community consensus must be enforced as long as it's technically possible. Nyttend (talk) 19:31, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
7. Support. I don't know about all the details, but I'm coming from a position that we, editors and WMF, are all in this together. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
8. Support per BethNaught. Double sharp (talk) 01:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
9. Support. We should try to work with the WMF since we're all in this together. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
10. Strong Support -- CONEXCEPT clearly was never intended to apply to this kind of situation. This does not implicate any basic principle of the movement, nor is there a compelling technical reason to oppose a return to how things were for over a decade. I disagree with the time frame. We've been stuck with this terrible, shoddy, ill-conceived software for what, five months now? It needs to be returned to opt-in immediately. The anonymous opt-out is broken and it keeps on returning. This has gone on far, far, too long. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 06:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
11. support -jkb- (talk) 09:21, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
12. Support. It would be nice to have more options, but no one suggested anything else and this option does seem to achieve some balance between conciliatory and antagonistic approaches... If WMF wants to reconcile with us, they have 7 days to do something, and if they do not, why should we give up just because resisting makes their life harder? If they do not act as friends with us, why should we act as if we were friends with them? Of course, it is to be understood that simply turning off Media Viewer for everyone is perfectly acceptable - if WMF doesn't like it, they are free to offer us an alternative we would prefer. Or, if they really want to use their legal rights (that some opposers discuss), they are free to ban everyone at the price of a public relations disaster (I'm pretty sure the editors will survive, I am not so sure about WMF). Somehow, I doubt they will actually do so, thus legal rights seem to be a red herring here... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
13. Support. The putsch by WMF against its employers, the communities, that generate all donations with their content creation and maintenance, was extremely hostile and must never happen again. --♫ Sänger - Talk - superputsch must go 10:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
14. Support And also go so far as to request that certain of the provisions such as official presentation of results be made regardless of question 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazycasta (talk • contribs) 01:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
15. Support per the mission statement of the WMF: "(...) to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content (...)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by KaiMartin (talk • contribs) 03:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
16. Support as enforcement of decision in question #1 above.. →StaniStani  10:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
17. Support While I have serious doubt as to whether they will respect the community's will, that shouldn't stop us from being reasonable. This is ample time to implement the change if the community sees fit, and any discussion about a compromise or other changes can happen after implementation. Dennis - 2¢ 20:15, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
18. Support, in order to essentially make the antagonism reach such a height that Misplaced Pages dies. Grognard Chess (talk) Ping when replying 15:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
19. Support as sending a strong message to the WMF, even if they block it. KonveyorBelt 18:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose (Media Viewer RfC Question 2)

1. Per my my oppose and policy (WP:CONEXCEPT section 1 and 4) above, and to repeat AFBorchet's argument (and similar) shows a misunderstanding or incompetence regarding law, and does not accord with current layout. Moreover, if you think the Foundation is doing something illegal, than the remedy is not an RfC or a WP:Vote, per WP:LAWSUIT. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

   While I don't agree with many of the things the WMF is doing, when it comes to legal issues I think it is always best to defer to them. They have a team of professional lawyers working for them who were hired for their expertise. If they believe that MediaViewer does not violate licensing requirements, then I trust them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

2. I'd support this if only the first 5 bullet points were present, but I can't support it given "7 days after this RfC closes our JavaScript experts and other admins are directed to take any steps necessary to implement this RfC, if such steps are still needed." Jackmcbarn (talk) 17:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
3. The WMF is supposed to serve the projects, not the other way around. Their removing the super-protection is too little, too late, and they should not be setting conditions. Their forcing software changes on the projects that impair our ability to execute our mission here is indefensible and is yet another indication that they have forgotten what we are here for and what they are supposed to exist for. No negotiation. Throw this thing out. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:11, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
4. Per Jackmcbarn I agree with all but the last bullet. While I think Mediaviewer should not be the default, I don't think that we should be tempting the WMF to reinstate something like super-protection. Whether we like it or not, these are still their servers, and while WMF policy gives users wider latitude for making major site changes than just about any website I can think of, I don't think we should push it. There has to be a better diplomatic solution before we declare war. --Ahecht (TALK
   PAGE) 02:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
5. The 6th bullet point seems like the wrong approach. The others would be okay if the first passes ( granted I am opposed to that at this time as well ). PaleAqua (talk) 15:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
6. Bullet 6 as it stands is a bad idea; we should not commit to this until we know it will work. That is to say, we shouldn't hold this RfC until we've already written and approved a JS script that will accomplish this. Frankly, I'm not sure that any solution we come up with will be good enough. This is putting the cart before the horse. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
7. A declaration of war against the WMF if they fail to comply will just lead to the return of superprotect or mass blockings. This isn't a major enough issue to justify an internal civil war. Mogism (talk) 00:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
8. Per Jackmcbarn, Mogism, etc. There's no need for any party to be antagonistic here. — This, that and the other (talk) 10:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
9. Per the above comments. Giving the WMF 7 days to do what you want isn't collaborating; it's tantamount to a declaration of war. A war is a waste of energies and will end up damaging the project, which seems a little like cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Ca2james (talk) 16:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
10. Not only is the sixth bullet point not technically feasible (see below), but it is also absurd and objectionable to talk of directing all admins and Javascript experts to take any steps necessary to implement this. What will we do to any that don't snap to attention and rush into action - denounce them as enemies of the Party? NebY (talk) 19:24, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
11. Per WP:CONEXCEPT. This whole proposal is muddle-headed and wrong. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
12. Per Hawkeye7 and NebY Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
13. I disagree with the proposal of "placing a 7 day hold against Community action to implement this RfC; 7 days after this RfC closes our JavaScript experts and other admins are directed to take any steps necessary to implement this RfC". As a community we should try to keep a cautious approach. --NaBUru38 (talk) 22:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
14. Oppose I agree with the above objections to the final bullet point. Neljack (talk) 06:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
15. Oppose - just follow the outcome of the first RfC. We don't wait 7 days after an XfD is closed to see if something changes or someone else wants to make a statement either. Also, the WMF has all the time to comment, rebut, and/or convince while the RfC is open, no need for waiting another 7 days. --Dirk Beetstra 10:14, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
16. Do we want to go through the events of this summer again? --Guerillero | My Talk 05:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
17. Oppose - just follow the outcome of the first RfC and the prior RfC. Hlevy2 (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
18. Oppose - WMF will ignore this RfC, and rightly so based primarily on WP:CONEXCEPT as well as the poor timing of it. The ultimatum is entirely in conflict with the author's stated intent to develop a more collaborative relationship. --Wolbo (talk) 11:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Neutral (Media Viewer RfC Question 2)

1. I don't care how the WMF is informed, how Media Viewer is disabled, or what schedule is followed. I just want Media Viewer disabled by default for all users (including anonymous readers) within a month of the RFC being closed. Assuming, of course, that the decision is "disable by default" or "remove it entirely". Or even "kill it with fire" but that last one presumably violates the rules about civil discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.0.55 (talk) 01:54, 6 October 2014
2. "Good faith"? This is not a question of "faith". The community disabled the media viewer AFTER they saw what it was doing. —Neotarf (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
3. Neutral - The hostility is unfortunate. It may be that the WMF started out by taking a hostile attitude toward the community, but we don't need to perpetuate that hostility. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

• Abstain. This is pointless. First off, there is no obligation implied or otherwise that the WMF comply with any RfC in their charter or bylaws. Second, there have been many highly substantive changes at the WMF, including a new Executive Director that has yet to oversee a full development cycle and a brand new VP of Engineering that has yet to oversee anything at all.

Please, consider this; is it the community's will that we don't give them a chance? I would like to see what these leaders at the WMF can do before everyone dogpiles on them- especially Lila. 2-3 months should be more than enough to see which direction they plan to lead the community in. Or maybe we'd prefer the immediate gratification of cutting off our nose to spite our face? Here's an alternative plan: as a community, let's give them the support they need to accomplish our mutual goals. If we step up; they will either step up with us or fall down the staircase. So how bout we step up and see what happens? -wʃʃʍ- 00:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• "...see what happens"? This is what we've been doing for months now. And thanks for lending support to the nose thumbing directed at consensus by your pat referral to "by laws". Most governments of the free world are subject to the same laws as are the people -- but evidently not here at Misplaced Pages, something that is supposed to be a pillar of community team work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

By "months," you're talking about the 4 months the new ED has been on the job? Sure. And while we're at it, I'd like a full list of substantial changes the VP of Engineering has made in the several days we've been waiting after he started.

This is absurd. It took years for these problems to build up. The community demanded change, and it got it. Now you expect the new management to clean things up yesterday? Give them a little time. Or continue to push these half-cocked RfCs while everyone else gets back to work with renewed vigor as the true benefits of the changes the Board and Lila have made become apparent. Worst case scenario, change doesn't happen fast enough or goes the wrong way, and you can get back to these toothless and skin-free RfC's in 6 months or so. Why not give them a chance and see where they take things? -wʃʃʍ- 21:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Wllm, please stop discussing things as if you are "from the community" and not "from the WMF". If you want to see what the leaders of the WMF can do, just go home, where you have every opportunity to observe that. Don't pretend to be "one of us" with your "we" for the editors here, and "they" for the WMF, when all you are is a WMF mole. Fram (talk) 10:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a WMF mole? No, Fram, I'm a human. Just like you. And I show you the respect that every human deserves. I'd appreciate it if you would reciprocate by not trying to exclude me from community debates.

I am part of this community, whether you like it or not. On the flip side, I am not part of the WMF and don't represent them in any way. No doubt many WMFers would find your suggestion that I'm some sort of mole as ludicrous as I do, considering my outspoken criticism of certain aspects and actions of the WMF in the past. I'll go toe to toe with you about the "merits" of these silly petitions, and I can do it without resorting to bad-faith attempts at discrediting you. -wʃʃʍ- 21:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Erm, I dunno. If I'm reading this correctly, the general thrust is "Let's see if the community is OK with the Media Viewer as default, and if it is, nothing much happens, but if its not, we'll make it the not-default using Javascript, OK?". Right? I think I'm reading the intent right. Hrm, don't know about this... I'm a little unsure if the community should be doing this, and here's why: the community that is voting on Question 1 is basically editors, mostly long-term heavily involved editors. Not entirely but skewed in that direction. It's only human nature for people to want to have an environment that is best for them personally and to conflate that with the best environment generally, and also only human nature for people to have difficulty getting inside the shoes of people who are very different from them. "'It's a good thing we don't all like the same things', said the Scotsman -- 'think of what a shortage of oatmeal there'd be!'" is, after all, funny because there's a kernel of truth in there.

To avoid the first and do the second takes effort, practice, and the proper mindset. It's not something that everyone can do. That is why they don't just grab the nearest programmer to do the user interface design and so forth. So I guess one of the questions on the table is: Who is best qualified to suss what Mrs Pinckney Pruddle of Sandusky, Ohio, probably expects to happen when she click on an image.. Is it the community of experienced Misplaced Pages editors? Is the WMF? Is it someone else? I don't know, but I'm not confident that it's the community of experienced Misplaced Pages editors as opposed to the WMF. Herostratus (talk) 15:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Neutral - I do not believe we should fix the details of further procedures before Question 1 is resolved. However, I would like to use the occasion to state that we should generally avoid using Javascript in Misplaced Pages and related projects, such as to make it easier to use with simpler web browsers. --Schlosser67 (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Neutral. I don't see how those points are supposed to solve the problem. Strong-arming the WMF into what the community wants isn't the solution or the right way to do it. Besides, the WMF isn't bound by RfCs. However, WMF needs to listen to the community, and if a wide slice of us want changes they should consider them and start a dialog. — Hexafluoride (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Reserved for official comments by WMF employees (Media Viewer RfC Question 2)

(Please do not edit here if you are not WMF)

Please see our response to the first question above.

Discuss and comment (Media Viewer RfC Question 2)

We've given the WMF months. We're still stuck with the shoddy, ill-conceived software that is Media Viewer. We've told them we don't want it. They responded by saying, "Hey, we're listening to you. Give us suggestions." And then when they summarize what we said, they ignore the dominant feedback that people don't want Media Viewer, instead focusing on little details but pretending they've made vast improvements. It still stinks. It shouldn't be replacing the file page for anyone. The community is the project, not the WMF. The WMF is a useful legal entity to do the things that the community can't. But they've deluded themselves into thinking they're the boss and they aren't. This is unacceptable. They absolutely are bound to abide by an RfC of this nature. Their whole purpose is to serve the community, like it or not. The community has given the WMF months to do the right thing. It shouldn't give them even another hour because it looks like the WMF still doesn't get it. Disable Media Viewer immediately. And if the WMF pulls another Germany, ask the stewards, on behalf of the community, to lock the WMF out so that community consensus is honored. The WMF has burned all their good faith. It's time that the nightmare that is Media Viewer ends. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that most of those who don't like MV would support such a dramatic approach to the issue. And, when it comes to WMF being the boss, there are very few assets in this project that aren't given away for free. Those assets include the domain names. The WMF and the domain names are not sold separately. If you don't like the way the WMF is running things, and you feel you've given an organization with a new chief executive just 4 months on the job enough time to fix everything, your most productive path is to fork the project. Please. There are plenty of people who want to get back to building a great encyclopedia on wikipedia.org, and I venture to say that anyone who isn't interested in working constructively with the WMF won't be missed much.

It's time to call all bluffs: work with us or fork off already. In either case, please stop wasting people's time on these silly and ultimately toothless petitions and RfCs. -wʃʃʍ- 06:34, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

You're not calling any bluffs. I have no interest in working with anyone on Misplaced Pages and as evidenced by my refusal to actually create an account. I've never expressed any interest. You've lost nothing no matter what I do. I'm not pretending otherwise. I'm not at a point in my life where writing or editing an encyclopedia—or working on any wiki—holds any attraction for me. I'm just sick of the disaster that is Media Viewer being justified in the name of people like me who just read. I'm sick of the complete deafness in the WMF to any feedback about Media Viewer that doesn't fit with the "Multimedia vision" some middle-manager at the WMF came up with one day and now it's the plan, hell or high water—without any any meaningful community consultation. All this, while pretending they're listening. I'm incensed that the community that is actually the heart of the project is being ignored by the legal organization created to serve them when the community spoke with a clear and unambiguous voice that they didn't want this product. And I'm livid that the organization which no longer represents the community it was supposed to is raising funds in the name of that community in order to do more of the same but implying that the money is needed for infrastructure. This is deeply misleading and offensive.

Lila had plenty of opportunity to deal with this better at a very early stage. The negative feedback after the initial rollout was swift and overwhelming. It would have been a good time to rollback and reevaluate. Instead, delay, delay, delay. Let's lock a community out of its wiki when it does something we disagree with—and let's write an emergency software patch on a Sunday morning to do it. Oh, it's been out for months now... we can't roll it back now. It's a rigged game and it's bullshit. And I can't believe Lila, no matter how new she was, had no idea what she was doing.

I'm sick of Media Viewer. I can't get rid of it. Broken opt-out for people without accounts—supposedly the people that this was written for. Media Viewer showing up in external links to the site which I can't fix, even when the opt-out is working. If I cared about the mission, I might be upset about forcing this down the throats of other people similarly situated. But realistically, never show it to me again, and while I'll still think the WMF is rotten, I won't think of it until I see a stupid, misleading advertising banner asking for money the WMF doesn't need. Or the next stupid piece of software that nobody outside the WMF asked for is rolled out and makes the site more annoying to use. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 07:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wllm: Supporting this IP. They are bang-on right. I have actually raised the issue of forking. I believe it's long past time. The WMF is a ridiculously inflated appendage that is swinging the project around - WP:FLOW will be even more of a disaster, and yet the WMF refuses to stop. The train of mistrust of the WMF left a long time ago thanks to this string of unjustifiable and mismanaged software changes. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:03, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I'd like to hear your reasoning in the current context, not that of "a long time ago". The Board realized there was a problem. 4 months ago Lila took over as Executive Director. Just days ago a new VP of Engineering was introduced to the community. We already see things changing, although we haven't yet seen a full product cycle in which communication and trust is established from the get-go as they should be under these 2 leaders. This is the current context, and it's quite different from previous situations. Please explain why it makes more sense to fork during this period of great change, rather than giving these people and the Board a chance to fix what's broken. -wʃʃʍ- 00:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've seen no evidence of even a single change, just lots of marketing mumbo jumbo. I tend to agree with Yngvadottir that the time for a fork may be fast approaching, particularly as Jimbo has said that he's prepared to pay for the necessary server(s). Eric Corbett 00:28, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Eric here - if there is institutional change going on as far as how the WMF will plan, deploy, and approach the community about software, that change hasn't come through to the community yet that I've been able to see. I don't doubt that they're probably trying to change, but if you're saying "But things have already changed for the better, and will keep changing like that", and we can't see any change...I dunno. Maybe they need to change harder? A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been spending a lot of time on the wikimedia servers and even talking with the WMF director. She hasn't had the job very long, and she was honestly blindsided by the community reaction to Superprotect. In her last job as Chief product officer it was perfectly natural for management to lock down the javascript like that. She's been getting a crash course in who we are and how we work. She is planning some change in MWF approach to things, but I can't tell yet whether she plans to collaborate with us or whether it's going to be more bogus "Community Consultation" like they had on Media Viewer. I suggest lowering the pitchforks until we see what happens next. Alsee (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

But it's well beyond time for things to change, hence the pitchforks. Eric Corbett 04:23, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I started this RfC, I'm lugging around the biggest heaviest pitchfork here. I suggested lowering the pitchforks, not dropping them. I don't want to get jabby if we can avoid it. Within a week of RfC closing, probably sooner, we'll know whether the WMF is escalating or de-escalating the situation. Alsee (talk) 16:24, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Here are two examples of changes of a very different nature. Let's start with something very concrete. Lila hired a new VP of Engineering. If we're talking about change WRT the software the WMF develops, it doesn't get much better. Now for something a bit less tangible. I just skimmed over Lila's talk page. It looks nothing like Sue's. Lila is clearly listening, asking questions, and taking action on the feedback, which is apparent in what she's said there about the Flow project.

I think you guys are talking about not seeing the benefits from change yet. Well, big changes have happened with more to come, no doubt, and they will turn in to results in a few short months. Is it really unreasonable to suggest we wait that long before we pick up the pitchforks and light the torches? -wʃʃʍ- 00:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The only concrete change I want here is Media Viewer being disabled by default, as per consensus. This ugly baby needs to die and the people who forced it down our throats need to find new employment. That would be concrete change, not the organizational lip service you've talked about. --98.207.91.246 (talk) 02:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Wllm: First I've heard of anything except the change in Executive Director. Of course you intend to stay around and see what the WMF does - you came in with her, into the WMF. The thing is, the WMF is not the management of the projects - it is a service adjunct to them. We are the ones who do the work. If your partner was "blindsided" as Alsee says, then she did not research the job. The Visual Editor debacle and before that the community's response to the removal of OBOD without providing IP editors with any replacement notification of posts to their talk pages should have provided ample history regarding the community's response to their work environment being mucked up in the name of - full employment for programmers? poorly defined change for change's sake? - and the manner in which the volunteers here reach decisions was surely in the briefing sheet (this is the second time I see you referring here to "wasting time"). For that matter, I understand the WMF refused some time ago to implement a change in respect to creation of new pages that had been decided upon by English Misplaced Pages. And preparations to force WP:FLOW on us are still barreling along. No, I don't see any changes on the WMF's part. The one recent piece of news I am aware of is that Jimbo insulted all of us at the latest con. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure Jimbo did so thoughtfully and with kindness though. Eric Corbett 04:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Was that when Jimbo said something to the effect that those who aren't here to build an encyclopedia in good faith should find something else to work on and leave the rest of us to do what we love to do in a constructive environment? I can't say I agree with everything Jimbo says, but I'm 100% on board with that. The petty politics and nastiness that is apparent in all too many comments on this page has got to go. -wʃʃʍ- 21:35, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

• Which "javascript experts" are we talking about here? The self-appointed ones? The ones who took a class once and totally know what they're doing? The ones who have admin rights, and thus must know what they're doing? The ones who heard about this piece of js from someone who totally knows what they're doing, so the code must be ok? The whole reason the js-editing debacle turned into such a disaster last time is because we don't have a designated team of "javascript experts" in the lay community; instead we have a team of admin-type people who have the technical ability to edit mediawiki pages but who may or may not have the slightest idea what they're doing. If a mediawiki dev(s) or other actually-provably-qualified-to-edit-mediawiki-code person is willing to write javascript that will a) enact the community's will and b) not be buggy, prone to breaking things it shouldn't, or otherwise degrade site performance, then yeah, let's talk about the cases where the enwp community will use that code, and how we're going to limit the ability to edit that code to that person or people. But unless you're going to limit this implementation to those qualified people only (perhaps through limiting editing of mediawiki space to those actually responsible for the mediawiki software? oh, wait...), we're just going to land back in a case where a well-meaning person throws in a hack, breaks things sitewide, and has to be reverted while everyone gets very angry and shouts rude words. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:57, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken there's significant precedent of community management of Javascript, and I trust we have competent people for the job. Nonetheless, this RFC already explicitly designed to address your concerns. You can OPPOSE question one and SUPPORT question two. Alsee (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Well no, this isn't addressing any of my concerns, because my concern in this case is that Question Two is written in a way that's just unworkable, and I'm worried to see people voting either way on it without thinking about that. The last time around, we had someone who didn't know javascript "fix" mediawiki to match the community's will by breaking it, and there's nothing in this proposal that stops the same thing from happening again: "The community said to do X, so even though I don't know if this patch will work, I'm going to put it into our local setup, because the community's will must be done, and right now!" If we want to play hardball in this way - forcing through software changes to do what the WMF won't, taking responsibility for producing our own code that supplements or replaces theirs - then those software changes had better be absolutely bulletproof and implemented according to best practices, not hacked together by whoever happened by and volunteered themselves, whether they knew what they were doing or not. The "our javascript experts" in this proposal will end up being "whoever shows up" unless you have actual mediawiki or javascript experts who have pre-emptively signed themselves up to be in charge of this software change. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• • I think instead of focusing on the "who" and instead on the "what" would be helpful here. I think it would be good policy that soon after starting an RfC that you send a notice to the WMF developers that there is an RfC, and that X is the code we currently will use to implement it. This means the initiator of the RfC needs to either supply the code or find someone who can write it fairly early in the process. If there's anything wrong with the particular code - will it break something else - then we'll gladly work with any feedback from the developers. But it's not an invitation for WMF to overturn or alter the results of the RfC, but rather is an invitation for them to give feedback and help the community implement the RfC without disrupting anything else. VanIsaac_WS 00:01, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that the WMF has been notified, chuckle. I'm a programmer, but I haven't worked with Javascript specifically. During the Superprotect event German Misplaced Pages made a very hasty change which fully disabled Media Viewer rather than setting it to Opt-In. I'm sure that javascript has been widely examined and the opt-in version is well known by now. I did consider adding something to the RfC setting up public review process, but I didn't want to complexify the RfC. Alsee (talk) 19:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you know of a JS solution to this? I don't know if I'd be considered a Javascript expert or not, but I am also a programmer, and I have worked with Javascript quite a bit, including here on Misplaced Pages; I haven't heard of a JS solution yet, and I don't really think one is possible that will be good enough. The problem is that the current MV opt-out preference is in a place where we can't really do much to it. We can look up its value, or change it with an API call, but the problem is that it is on by default right now, and we can't change that directly through JS (since it's not a gadget). We also can't distinguish through JS between people who have deliberately checked it and people who just haven't touched the setting at all(I think we can through the DB itself, but both cases look the same to the JS), so we have no way of telling the difference between someone who has slready opted in and someone who has just registered and has simply not changed the default setting. We could create our own on-by-default gadget to physically disable the MV, but then there are two different settings on two different pages that both have to be enabled to use MV, which is bad (though undoubtedly the two-key approach will appeal to some in the audience...). I'm not sure there's any good way to do this without something more heavy-duty than JS. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't referring to this matter specifically, but to a general principle of conducting RfCs in the future. If an RfC will require a change to site code or settings, we should have that code established early on, so that the developers can submit any feedback on unintended consequences of the proposed code or settings changes. VanIsaac_WS 05:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you, please, cite the actual text to that effect? I don't see anything that could be interpreted as a promise to obey WMF on software matters without question. Of course, I might have missed it... Or, perhaps, I have looked at a different version ()... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Just a timestamp to prevent archiving. HiDrNick! 16:20, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Timestamp to archive just after question 1 : 1:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFA reform Proposal: Automatic admintools to users with 1 year of registration and 3000 mainspace edits

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following lists: Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines Misplaced Pages proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

This RFC is a proposal to give administrator status to all editors with one year of registration and 3000 mainspace edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The tools should not be a big deal. So give them automatically to users who satisfy some minimum bar, for example 1 year of registration and 3000 main space edits. The only good argument against this is the risk that some of those people will turn out to be abusive. This risk is not a problem for the following reasons: 1. Some admins already are abusive, and because there are so few of them it is hard to keep them in line, more and more diverse admins would make it easier. 2. the current process specifically is aimed at recruiting people interested in power because of the insane amount of obstacles they have to deliberately plan a strategy to cross to get the tools. By making it automatic we will get more admins who are not primarily interested in power. They will be the ones who can keep the abusive ones in check. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Another way to get the same result would be to let it be contingent on continued mainspace editing so that any month you dont make 250 mainspace edits you lose the tools the following month - regaining them only once you start editing again.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a WP:PEREN and it will never gain traction from the serious side of the community. And certainly not before a very fast and very effective method of desysoping were to be put in place - also a WP:PEREN. That said, assumptions #1 and #2 come with absolutely no statistical or factual support. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:37, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Holy spacegoats, Batman!

365 days after that policy is implemented, probably to the minute, the block logs will explode.

Mind you, we could always implement compression. The string "Eric Corbett" repeated 135 thousand times wouldn't take up that much space. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support in principle, but not sure I agree with the specific numbers involved. Like Kudpung, I have concerns over removal of the tools; if we implement something like this, we'd need to implement some sort of desysop procedure; for users that abuse the tools we should perhaps have some sort of 1-year reset on their timer; or something like that. But I think that if we made the tools less precious, we'd have less people bitching (inaccurately in most cases) about admin corruption and abuse. 1 year feels right; I'm not sure if 3000 is a good number or not, maybe higher? But in general, making it easier to get adminship AND easier to get it taken away would be a useful thing in most cases. Most studies show that we only have about 3000ish "regular" users anyways, most of them I would trust with the tools absent any specific reason not to. Anyone who doesn't give a reason not to should have them; it was how it was done "back in the day", and perhaps we need to get back to that. --Jayron32 01:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Clearly, this is going nowhere, but I just wanted to throw out another concern that may not yet have been considered ... this could potentially allow for COI editors/POV pushers/paid advocates, etc. to lurk for a year, and then all of the sudden have admin tools ... that is obviously bad. Go Phightins! 01:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

As if that is not possible now. The point is that it doesnt matter if there are bad apples with tools if the ratio of good apples is much higher. That would be the opposite of the ratio that the current system produces.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

'Good intentioned users outweighing the bad' works great as a description for normal, autoconfirmed, editors but I really don't think it applies to admins. The potential for doing harm when you have access to the extra tools is much higher. Sam Walton (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Why wouldn't it also apply to admins, if it applies to autoconfirmed editors (who in this case would anyway have to establish a documented track-record of 12 months of Misplaced Pages success)? Were not all admins editors first? Surely you're not suggesting that becoming an admin corrupts one's soul such that simply being able to access Misplaced Pages administrative power will compel a new admin to misuse it? Remember, it's the current RfA process that encourages only those editors with a craving for power to pursue it. Azx2 08:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose for way too many reasons to list. With apologies to Jimbo, Adminship might not be a "big deal," but it is not a minor one either. In the wrong hands the tools could become an instrument for wreaking havoc. The OP grossly underestimates the potential harm that could be inflicted, even without malice, by misuse. I don't even want to contemplate the mess a handful of determined saboteurs armed with the tools could create. I'm sorry, not everyone can be an Admin. This is a candidate for my top ten list of worst WP suggestions. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think this would be quite interesting to just set up a test wiki somewhere, implement this, and see how it goes. Obviously you'd need to expand the bureaucrat position and stewards, to make sure that bad admins are desysopped, but even just say-a 5 day trial for editors when they reach that mark, and then taken back away, would serve as a good benchmark for RfA and how they would perform as a real admin. KonveyorBelt 17:26, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, exactly the change would also mean that desysopping would become easier and much more common for minor abuses.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – Admins not only have tools for special types of 'edits' to the project, which can be undone by other admins if something went wrong. They also have access to deleted content, which can have been deleted for various reasons. Some of these require that only trustworthy users get access to the material, since handing out data is something that can't be undone. How to determine trustworthiness is a difficult question, but just the number of edits and age of the account are hardly enough. — HHHIPPO 19:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose per Hhhippo and Kudpung. I also think that this could lead to some people doing constructive mainspace edits for a year just so they can get the tools, and then cause major and detrimental disruption to many parts of Misplaced Pages. With people doing this to get the tools to use them in bad faith, they could also edit the admin-protected page that determines if ClueBot NG is on or off, and they could let tons of vandalism slip by with that. Sorry, but I think that this wouldn't really be beneficial. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 20:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I like the idea of allowing certain functions to be more widely permitted. I'm not myself sure blocking and deletion are among them. One of the comments above, about how admins are allowed access to deleted information, is particularly troubling to me, as it would basically make some really problematic BLP violations much more readily available and possibly circulatable. With some clarification of such details, though, I think it could be workable. John Carter (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Seems to me that all the opposes are based in simple lack of good faith. The same kind of lack of good faith that has frequently been used as an argument against democracy with the pretext that "common people can't handle the power". People should be considered trustworthy users untill they provide evidence to the contrary. And the argument that some people would lie low and then wreak havoc is along the same lines, denying hundreds the benefit of the doubt out of fear for what a potential minority of abusers might do. Simply not a very wikipedian argument I would say, more of an old aristocratic way of thinking. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think the proposal is without merit, but, unfortunately, I also think we have had even recently some editors of several years experience (I think one of them may even have been a sysop) revealing they were socks of previously banned users and not being caught. Telling some (not many, but some) individuals that "all you need to do is spend one year and 3000 edits to be in a position where you might be able to, well, create hell, seems to me to be maybe too tempting to some people. Maybe. Granted, with a fairly quick and low level of desysoping, we would probably catch most of the problem admins faster. But probably only most. The apparent almost absolute predictability of the adminship, even without even the minimal "review" we sometimes give through RfA today, could well wind up attracting more of the wrong sort of editors to the project than we already have. I really can't assume good faith of people when I tell them, "Oh, yeah, here's the vault. Lockboxes with diamonds and securities everywhere. Sorry, I gotta pee. You promise you won't take anything while I'm gone, right?" and without knowing better how quickly the desysoping could be implemented and any damages undone I have to have some doubts. John Carter (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The presence of bad apples among the editors and admins is an argument *for* this reform not against it. We already have admins who ought to be banned users, but who are not for various political reasons. And just for the way of prediction what sort of problems did the socking banned users you mention actually create with their socking? Not a whole lot as far as I can see. They certainly did not cause "hell" or any irreversible damage. So I entirely fail to see what the problem would be with having faith in our users' ability to behave untill they prove otherwise. Especially since even when they have proven otherwise they frequently reform when given a second chance (or when taking that second chance through a sock account). User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose as an editor who doesn't have the toolset and has been here over three years and has 3,438 article space edits, 26,911 total edits on enwp, and 27,974 total global edits on all projects. It's not about the amount of time or the number of edits made. It's about the user's need for the tools to carry out tasks the community wants taken care of and the volunteer is interested in. — {{U|Technical 13}} 20:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Horrible idea Do you know how many undisclosed paid editors we have here? A good number have lasted over 3000 editors without being exposed. Recipe for disaster. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

And why would it be problematic if they have access to the delete and block tools? Deleted pages ca be recreated when there is consensus to do so, and blocks can be undone.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose This is absolutely the worst idea that I have ever heard. Do you wish to destroy Misplaced Pages? Even if you claim that you do not, it's quite obvious that that is what this would lead to. It has nothing to do with aristocracy, but more with "Do you want this site to fall apart"? There is absolutely no way that this would work, full stop. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The paranoid and hysterical hyperbole is certainly entertaining. The site by the way *is* falling apart, partly because of a lack of admins and too many bad admins to the good ones. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you in that the site is starting to fall apart. However, it looks to me like you're making a proposal that you don't even realise the effects of. Just because one extreme causes a problem does not mean that the opposite extreme is the answer. It's quite obvious that doing what you are suggesting would destroy the encyclopaedia. I'd give it a year before the entire site collapsed, and (if it recovered) would have to be put back together again slowly. Within that time, many people would likelily lose faith in the encyclopaedia, and abandon it.

Nevertheless, if you wish to call anything relating to halting chaos "aristocratic", then I can't stop you. I will tell you, however, that that is a clear misapplication of the term "aristocratic". But I suppose you can do what you wish. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 21:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

What would cause this alleged collapse with in one year. And what makes it so obvious that you need not provide actual arguments in support of your prediction? I predict the opposite. Within one year people will no longer be complaining of administrative abuse, the backlogs will be gone and editors will be coming back. And yes claiming that the only way to "halt chaos" is by keeping power in the hands of a small ruling elite is the very definition of aristocracy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:45, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The collapse would be caused by a horde of advantageous vandals. The reason I felt that there was no need for elaboration on that is because I thought we understood generally the patterns of vandals. As others said before me, we have plenty of editors that have ill intent in mind that simply have lain low for years, and slowly amassed edits. We can't give an exact figure for that, due to the nature of the matter, but nevertheless that would likelily be the bane of Misplaced Pages if we enforced this proposal. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

No, you need to be more specific. Exactly because you are claiming something is obvious you need to be particularly well able to explain why it is obvious, and what mechanism will bring it about. How exactly will all these "vandals" (as far as I know most vandals are IP editors who make three childish edits and then leave) being about the collapse through their calculated and concerted use of the block and delete function? Do you really believe that wikipedia is besieged by hundreds of sleeper accounts of vandals just waiting to find a way to bring down wikipedia once and for all. How do you make that belief consistent with AGF in your day to day editing? Do you really believe that the only defense against these sleeper cells of vandals is the exclusive use of block and delete functions by a small corps of editors selected specifically for their willingness to endure abuse and humiliation in order to rise to "power"? User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't really myself offer a good and satisfactory response to the last question, any more than I can say I think someone who really wants to be in political office is a prime candidate for such office. It would help to know the nature of the de-adminship process though. Another detail, and it is admittedly just a detail, which might be useful would be to know how if at all people who may have, stupidly, broken a rule in a minor way to lose sysop privileges but have either learned from the mistake or, in some cases, the lack of awareness of changed guidelines or policies (assuming such happens), might or might not be able to have the privileges restored to them. (Disclaimer: Personally, I would in no way consider having the admin privileges I have requested be taken away from me restored to me, and there is nothing in the above which should be taken as indicating some sort of ulterior motives on my part). John Carter (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Here's an answer to the last question: No, I don't. But not believing that the current system is perfect and believing that your suggestion is better are two different things.

About day-to-day AGF: assuming good faith towards any editor you encounter until shown otherwise and assuming that bad faith editors don't exist are also two different things. — HHHIPPO 22:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Who is assuming that they dont exist?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:53, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I was answering to How do you make that belief consistent with AGF in your day to day editing? I don't think that has to be made consistent since it is already. — HHHIPPO 23:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose at present when the only procedure for desysopping is the ArbCom. Oppose if there is some procedure implementing for desysopping. Just because there are a few administrators who are abusive or corrupt does not mean that we should eliminate all advance scrutiny of whether new admins will be trustworthy. I agree that some sort of change to RFA is needed, but this is not the answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The logical procedure for desysopping would be the simple consensus among the admin corps. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:55, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Extremely strong oppose - are you crazy? Apologies for the hyperbole, but this is a terrible idea, not just because of the possibility for serious misconduct and damage to the project, but also because the WMF will never go for it. Admins have access to tools which enable looking up users' private information (IP addresses and physical locations, among other things) and The Office have stated that they will not support granting these tools to any users unless they are vetted by the community in a process similar in rigorousness to the current RfA. More experienced users can provide more background on this. Perhaps a case can be made for automatically granting some of the maintenance-level tools (deletion, etc.) but automatic granting of the current admin toolset is a terrible idea and is never going to fly, no matter how high you set the bar or how effective a desysopping process we might come up with. Ivanvector (talk) 23:00, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  As far as I know only checkusers have those tools.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector: To your claim "Admins have access to tools which enable looking up users' private information (IP addresses and physical locations, among other things)": regular admins can't see the IP address of a logged-in user - only users with the CheckUser right can do that. There are approximately 40 such users, and if they do make such a lookup, their action is logged, even if they do nothing more with it. But if you have somebody's IP address, anyone - even those that are logged out - can find out which country you are in, sometimes down to city or town level. You can try it yourself: look at the contribs page for any logged-out user, at the bottom there is a box beginning "This is the contributions page for an IP user"; in that are some links. Try the five from WHOIS to (Alternate). But Geolocation by IP address is not an exact science, see User:Redrose64#Where am I?, or put in your own IP address in the User: box at the top (even if you never edit logged out), click Search, and try those five links at the bottom. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Clearly I've got the details wrong, but it does appear to be true that the WMF wants to have an RfA-like community vetting process to appoint(/elect/whatever) admins, or they won't go along with it, so this automatic-granting-of-rights proposal just won't go anywhere. I don't remember where I read this or I would link to it. It's also just a bad idea - some users (maybe most users) shouldn't be admins ever. Have a look at some controversial topic like Gamergate or Macedonia or pseudoscience - if all those users had admin rights there'd be nothing left but a smoking crater. Ivanvector (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• I oppose this even more than Flow: Not only is this a non-starter, failing the WMF's requirement that admins undergo community scrutiny, it is a surefire way to cause havoc. I'm sure even the proposer can think of users of sufficient tenure under this proposal who they would not want to be admins, and having to weed them all out individually would be a nightmare. Seriously? BethNaught (talk) 23:09, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  Philg88  23:10, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

That is the exact problem that this proposal solves. IF there are enough of them they can do it themselves, democratically. As it is now, noone does.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I might personally think that making the process not entirely "automatic," but basically automatic, maybe at some higher levels, might have a better chance of gaining acceptance. Some sort of defined disqualifiers, like maybe being blocked for two months in the first year, some consistency to the edit history, like not 90% over two months in really minor edits like adding categories and few if any major ones, and maybe, unhappily, some sort of defined committee which could blackball candidates if good reasons were presented to them for doing so, openly or covertly, might address some of the concerns of making it automatic. It would still benefit from having a bit clearer indicator of what qualifies as grounds for desysoping. John Carter (talk) 23:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• It is clear that this will be a snow closure, but I must say that I am more than a little surprised and dismayed by the apparent complete lack of any belief in the concept of self governance among my fellow wikipedians. I will say that as long as it is inconceivable to you that ordinary users could make good admins and organize wikipedia without turning it into a madhouse, then the current defect RfA process will remain in place. And as long as it does so, it will be due to your own anti-democratic thinking, and you will have the exact governance you deserve and consequently no right to ever complain about the admin corps.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

  Comment - The proposer criticizes our anti-democratic thinking. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. The WMF owns the Misplaced Pages servers, and, as some other editors have mentioned, the WMF demands that there be some scrutiny of the issuance of administrator privileges. Also, the proposer's hostility toward criticism of his idea (saying that if we do not support this idea or some variant, we will have no right every to complain about the admin process) is not helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The commenter's addressing me in the third person is not appreciated. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but it is based on democratic ideals about the abilities of everyday ordinary people to collaborate without external hierarchical direction. I am not hostile to critique, but that is not what is being offered. What is being offered is hyperbolic outcries that refuse to even entertain the possibility that something good could come from letting people govern themselves. That and statements about my mental health. Neither of those are actual critiques, since a constructive critique at the least explores the pros and cons of a suggestion before dismissing it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, though I'm flattered - 9yrs experience, over 95,000 mainspace edits-. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support if all requirements are met, it needs first to be tested on a broken WP, i think the German Misplaced Pages would be best, we also need a well working User:ClueBot Admin NG enhanced with the Watson API for realtime desysop.Mion (talk) 23:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• The idea of giving the proposal a test run on one of the more problematic wikipedias seems to me a very reasonable idea. I'm not sure how to propose it for one of the less functional wikipedias, being only active on the English one myself, but think some of the wikipedias even more clearly broken than this one might not be seen as having as much to lose by as many people. John Carter (talk) 23:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support The idea has some merit. If we start with a limited number of edits (an easily trackable and reversible number) and supervision before expanding to full privileges, its really not that different from taking our chances with new Admins. By virtue of having the tools doesn't make you bad or good, nor by virtue of having the title voted on by a largely uninformed audience make you all knowing. It is your behavior. Used well, it could do good. We need a way to get rid of the rats, whether they have the power now or will get it in the future. Its like any politician. Some go for the power to do good, some don't. Trackinfo (talk) 00:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Without getting too much into WP:BEANS territory, the main admin tools (block/delete/protect) are not really the most dangerous of the admin tools in the wrong hands. Certain things could be done that could cause sitewide disruption and possible real-world consequences. And there are some things that an admin can do that are not easily reversible. Admins are not politicians. They have no more role in governance than any other user. They are janitors, and with that job comes the master key to the building. RFA is broken, but RFA and "no review whatsoever" are not the only options. Mr.Z-man 01:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point out to Maunus that "ordinary users could make good admins" ≠ "ordinary users should just all of a sudden be made admins". I don't think that it is being claimed that the former is untrue; rather, that the latter claim is problematic. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 03:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Moot oppose This a pointless discussion. THe WMF have already said that they require users who are granted the tools to go through a community approval process (currently RFA). No approval process = no buy-in from the WMF = no chance of this ever being implemented, even if it passes an RFC (which, let's face it, ain't going to happen anyway). Let's go and do something else, instead of having this unnecessary debate. Yunshui _水 10:11, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Moot oppose Despite this not having any chance of happening per foundation standards for viewdelete I will give me opinion anyways. Automatic adminship is like automatic trust, a very very bad idea. Trust aside nothing in the criteria will demonstrate someone is competent to use the tools. Chillum 19:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is founded on the principle of automatic trust. Competence and trust should be initial assumptions only set aside when proven wrong.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Again, Maunus, "ordinary users could make good admins" ≠ "ordinary users should just all of a sudden be made admins". Just because it is probable that a user who has contributed much to Misplaced Pages has good intentions in mind, we can't just place all of our bets on that belief and have each and every user that has met the criteria that you aforedescribed be automatically made admins. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Your silly equation is a strawman. And meanwhile yes, just because editors have contributed positively that is more than enough to assume that they have good intentions. Indeed we even assume as much before they even start contributing which is why we allow them to contribute in the first place. So yes we can safely place our bet that users who have demonstrated a will to contribute positively to wikipedia will also be able to use the admin tools positively. Indeed it is absurd to think that the Rfa process is better at sorting the "bad apples" from the good ones, than simply allowing them to have the tool and then take it from them if they turn out not to.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I have never claimed that the RfA process is adequate. What I will say, however, is that the RfA process is scores times better than what you are proposing right now. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:52, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah thats like...your opinion, man.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It is actually a very common opinion. Chillum 04:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Oppose 3000 mainspace edits and 1 year of registration is a fairly reliable indicator that someone's got a good deal of experience and probably isn't too flaky. However, their work as an editor isn't necessarily indicative of how they'd use the admin tools; plain editors could be working in any area: for example, I might someday reach over 3000 mainspace edits just from replacing PNGs with SVGs (or some other equally ephemeral task), and that wouldn't make me a good candidate for adminship. Besides--and I don't know if this point was already raised since I didn't read the entire discussion, but I'm going to mention it anyway--a common objection when discussing edit counts is the use of automated tools. Automated tools are a great way to increase your edit count to something really impressive, but also something people take issue with because the edit count becomes 'artificial' in a way, no longer reflective of how much work you're putting into the project. (I don't have a strong opinion on the subject.) In short: I believe the correct course of action is to judge candidates based on more tangible criteria than numbers. ekips39 00:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Oppose 3000 mainspace edits and 1 year of registration is already the absolute minimum requirement I expect for a candidate to bring with them to even enter our current RfA process. I can't imagine anything of greater danger to the Misplaced Pages project than handing out admin tools based just on an extremely low level of participation and tenure and without any scrutiny whatsoever on whether they are suitable or the job. Ironically, I believe even Wikipdiocracy is managed without giving the moderator tools to 90% of its regular participants. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose since the eminent result would be all pages getting deleted, and everyone getting blocked, thus preventing the pages from becoming restored. An editor's competency has to be evaluated in one way or another prior to be handed the mop set (speaking of which, it seems as though the current method for even that is up for debate right now. There's too many discussion forks happening right now all over Misplaced Pages.) Steel1943 (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This would never get accepted by WMF. They would not give the power to change site wide settings and be able to change almost anything on Misplaced Pages to anyone. Lor 22:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't want to be an admin. Admin tools must be used by trusted, willing editors only. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Dangerous and crazy idea. Harsh (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Snow oppose - Someone with just 3000 mainspace edits would probably fail an RfA in the first place. I'd consider my own mainspace edit count to be borderline in many RfA cases, and I have nearly three times that figure at my last check. Secondly, it is incredibly easy to rack up a few thousand edits in a year, make sure they're all completely uncontroversial, and then when you have the admin tools, go berserk. Such an idea is hardly radical; after all, we have enough issues with long-term sockmasters as it is. Also, good content creation skills do not mean you are suited to adminship automatically, and to think so means you have gone well past the point of being delusional. This is also a fairly perennial proposal, and one that the WMF would veto. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 03:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• Snow oppose - There is huge consensus that the process for adminship needs to be eased, but this proposal to completly remove review of candidates is a non-starter. Alsee (talk) 00:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per all the above. Adminship may be no big deal but it shouldn't be given out automatically. either. There's just too much potential for problems. Ca2james (talk) 23:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose--I don't think it should be automatic, per se, but I think this is much closer to where we need to be. I still think that editors who have it should actually WANT it, and I think there should be some evidence that they would be using it with some productive intent (like a history of patrolling, or RfX involvement). But, yet, minimum requirements. The bulk of the effort should be on the removal side, not the appiontment side. Anyone can have it as long as they don't abuse it. If they abuse it, it gets yanked.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 18:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Terrible, terrible idea, would slip the problem from the frying pan into the fire. The reason there is so much concern over the admin process is because of a widespread belief that persons with temperament and maturity issues are becoming admins. This would exacerbate the problem. Coretheapple (talk) 18:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Very strong oppose Firstly, I am not an admin by choice. It would be rather strange to overwrite my personal choices by some wikiruling. Secondly, I have seen to many long term conflicts going on here. It would be a horrible idea that the conflicts around Yugoslavia, Kosovo, Cyprus, the Caucasus, Japan/Korea etc. could be fought by people with admin (i.e. blocking)rights... The Banner talk 18:27, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support - The onerous and intentionally-discouraging RfA process seems designed to maintain consolidated administrative power in the hands of a small cadre of people who are no more honest, noble or service-oriented by their natures than any of the countless hard-working, diligent editors who would happily take on increased administrative responsibility w/in Misplaced Pages if there was a reasonable means for them to do so (and I say that as someone who has never seriously contemplated subjecting myself to the abuse of RfA, let alone gone through with it). By assuming their good faith and extending increased "trust" to editors who cross a certain participatory or contributive threshold w/o having caused drama, a greatly expanded administration could be created that would decentralize basic block/delete power and in doing so break the stranglehold of the cynical, corrupt, inefficient administrators who currently fail day in and day out to manage the workload necessary for sites like the German Misplaced Pages not to be "broken" (as someone notes above). No evidence has been presented thus far by the people who "Oppose" this proposal of exactly how "Hell will break lose" or why the OP is "crazy" for this bold, but entirely logical suggestion. Many logical fallacies, however are manifest in the comments of the reactionaries who prefer the status quo. Azx2 00:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose' - No way, just because someone ran AWB/Huggle/Whatnot a year ago and did some cleanup and racked up some edits does not mean I trust them with tools that can be disruptive to the entire project. — xaosflux 00:51, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support the basic idea, for the rationale that is provided by User:Azx2 and User:Maunus. If not these exact numbers or time, then something that loosens it up. Those who look for, and accept power, are often the worst to have it, or at least a bit worse than average. There are examples in ancient human societies where leadership was for a term of a few years, and randomly assigned to folks who already met certain criteria within that society. (I can provide scholarly sources, but am in a coffeeshop now and don't have my library at hand.) Also, I think it was Milton Friedman who said something to the effect that, with respect to US politics and their 535 "representatives" and senators, "
• Oppose per se This proposal could invite more problem admins because although you mentioned there were aready some admins abusing their privileges, they could further abuse them, and on top of that the 3000 edits may not have any merit. They could be vandalism for all we know. Sam.gov (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Admins who are "already abusing their privileges" are already problem admins, Sam.gov, no? So I'm not sure I understand the basis for your suggestion that elevating non-problematic editors, with a year of drama-free productivity + 3000 mainspace edits to admin roles will cause already-bad administers to further abuse their power Why would they do that? Fear of finally being held accountable? Hmmm. Anyway, creating an influx of 400 new admins for example (just picking a number - I don't know what the OP's projections are), isn't likely to result in more malicious administrative action than presently, as a % of total admin actions...unless you believe that every editor reaching the 3000-edit mark should be considered a "sleeper" agent of probable admin doom (which goes against the idea of AGF and auto-"trusting")?? In fact, it's more likely that a productive editor passing through a drama-free year, completing 3000 edits (or whatever qualifications were chosen for auto-extension of admin tools) is going to continue meriting that trust automatically extended to them when they autoconfirmed and obtained the power to edit the encyclopedia in the first place (and assumedly did so not destructively)? So the relative amt. of malicious/abusive/ineffective administering may likely decrease as more non-commissar-like admins obtain access to the tools necessary to administer enlightenedly, which they could do while also serving as a very, very real and new check on admins who now have almost nothing to fear when bullying or abusing editors or failing to manage their workload. One thing OP might want to consider would be making the automatic-adminship "opt-in", in a sense, so that only those editors who actually wanted to contribute to the Community by carefully and efficiently wielding admin power progressed from automatically qualifying for access to receiving access? Just a thought. Azx2 08:31, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment—I agree with the "opt-in" addition to the OP idea, and would support that change to the OP, which I supported. However, it seems pretty clear this particular OP idea will not gain consensus. So in my view, one of the greatest benefits of the discussion now is to provide material for a future trawl for ideas of what might be different at some relevant margins, but still get a lot more non-self selected admins into the game, in order to help provide some better balance on admin actions.

One idea: what about a process where some (reasonably large) set of experienced editors with records that meet certain criteria (e.g., even more edits than the OP proposed here, or an even cleaner record, or some particular pattern of demonstrated willingness to help with some WP administrative matters (but not Admin tools) in the past, or whatever...) is invited to consider accepting an adminship. Still would be opt-in (noone would be given the tools without reading some specified stuff on rules and responsibilities, etc.), but would be an invited adminship selected by some sort of community recognition of their previous long-term stable contributions, avoiding excessive drama, etc. Anyway, that's my two cents for future readers of this discussion, who might want more widespread/better admins, as input to their thinking on somewhat different proposals to improve the Wiki adminship process. Cheers. N2e (talk) 18:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Azx2, I am not saying that elevating good editors to admin roles would cause already problematic administrators to abuse their privilages even further. I'm not even sure about that. I'm saying elevating potentially problematic editors to admin roles (even with 3000+ mainspace edits) may cause more problems because the community may not be able to trust these elevated potentially problematic editors given their edit history. Sure, a drama-free year of edits will more likely continue meriting the trust bestowed upon them. They just should not abuse that trust or that trust could become questionable. I was wondering though what you mean by automatic adminship "opt in". I guessing OP can opt in to using automatic adminship if they see fit? Sam.gov (talk) 18:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sam.gov:In mentioning making the accessing of admin tools post-threshold "opt-in", I was just suggesting that requiring the editors crossing the threshold of eligibility (after 1 year + 3000 ms.eds, in this case) to signal their willingness to use the tools responsibly by actually completing some "opt-in" step to receive them (could be as simple as being shown a standard software install ToS-type wall of text specific to becoming an admin and using the tools appropriately, and requiring the recipient to click to "accept" or "decline" the tools). I'm not sure what the value of this act would be, if it would be merely symbolic, or a pseudo-token measure to extract an indication of noble intent or promise from the soon to be editor-admin that they'll do no harm w/ the tools. Cheers. Azx2 18:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying this. Cheers. Sam.gov (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sam.gov:Sure thing... Oh, and as another user (John Carter) said above, one could even argue for "making the process not entirely "automatic," but basically automatic, maybe at some higher levels, might have a better chance of gaining acceptance. Some sort of defined disqualifiers, like maybe being blocked for two months in the first year, some consistency to the edit history, like not 90% over two months in really minor edits like adding categories and few if any major ones..." - that certainly seems reasonable to me. Azx2 19:50, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I feel the same here. Sam.gov (talk) 23:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose without further conditions to prevent bad candidates from obtaining the tools, such as the block log. Also I wouldn't think the Foundation would support such a lenient criterion for this.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - So, Jasper Deng, you oppose the proposal because you believe all the potential candidates would be "bad candidates", or because you think that only some of them would be (which is no different from any other vetting process that can be subverted)? It seems like your comment is saying you would deny admin tools to successful, hard-working editors who completed a year of service and accumulated 3000 mainspace edits because you think the vast majority of them would be "bad", which sounds, quite frankly, incredibly cynical and reactionary. Azx2 08:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keeping in mind that someone with only 3000 edits very rarely passes RfA these days and that while there are exceptions, most have too little experience.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Azx2, can you prove that this won't cause chaos or the collapse of Misplaced Pages? If not, then you have no more "reason" within your statement than you say that we do.Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tharthan: Of course I can't "prove" that anyone will act nobly in the future, not even you. But one of the foundational tenets upon which Misplaced Pages is built is that good faith is assumed and trust automatically extended to autoconfirmed users to enable them to contribute efficiently to the project. It's logically inconsistent to claim that you believe editors can be extended trust and their good faith assumed when they have no history with the project, but that upon establishing a documented track record of success over 12 long months, that they're no longer trustworthy... Azx2 18:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah right. And we should give them the passwords to manage the servers as well. Johnuniq (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Ho! Forsooth and siccor, Azx2. Clearly, there is no possible way for someone to ever play a part. All who achieve high ranks and respect in this world are clearly without a doubt 100% trustworthy individuals. It's not like we've ever had any past cases of wily administrators or of witty and clever users circumventing honesty before. Nope, never.

In all seriousness though, Azx2, I mean no offence. I was ridiculing the statement, not the individual who was responsible for saying it. With that said, you must see at least some discrepancies within your logic here, do you not?

You have to understand how astoundingly ridiculous it comes off to many of us to see what is intended to be a serious proposal essentially being headered "Free Admin Tools For Non-Newbies". Take a look from the other outlook for a moment: Misplaced Pages has taken big hits in various areas these past few years, and this looks like a "take all of the alligators out of the moat"-type proposal;all one would need to do, then, would be to take the time and effort required to swim across the moat, and voila! They are now within the castle.

Simply put, that is most certainly not the type of thing that would help Misplaced Pages. Sure, it might make it easier for trolls to just be banned, but that would only be because it would make it easier for anyone to just get banned. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 01:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Tharthan: I don't think my logic is fallacious, as I've never denied the concern that editors qualified under this proposed plan for adminship could, nevertheless, be unqualified in practical terms to carry out the responsibility. They could be de-sysop'ed summarily, with minimum disruption or fuss once they've acted inappropriately and signaled that they were not worthy of the trust that had been extended to them. Furthermore, I've agreed that the process need not be fully-automatic to confer adminship, but, as another editor writes above, "basically automatic... some sort of defined disqualifiers."

Comment - You say that these editors who receive admin status could be de-sysopped summarily if they were unqualified. However, the proposal does not specify a means of de-sysopping them. At present, only the ArbCom can do this, and it is slow and burdensome. As I noted above, I strongly oppose if there is no procedure for removal of admin status, and oppose if there is one; but this proposal, as we are discussing, doesn't have a way other than the ArbCom to get rid of rogue admins. If a variant proposal is presented that poses a specific workable way to get rid of bad admins quickly, I might be neutral. As it is, there isn't a streamlined procedure to get rid of abusive admins. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What if they left havoc and distruction in their wake? What would we do then? Indeed, we could probably return things to how they were before something bad happened, but that doesn't change the minds of others as to impressions left behind.Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

And I also agree with this statement posted above by N2e: "t seems pretty clear this particular OP idea will not gain consensus. So in my view, one of the greatest benefits of the discussion now is to provide material for a future trawl for ideas of what might be different at some relevant margins, but still get a lot more non-self selected admins into the game, in order to help provide some better balance on admin actions... Azx2 20:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

• LOL An incredibly terrible idea. This would make me automatically eligible for adminship. I don't want that and neither do you. Townlake (talk) 02:29, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

@Townlake:So you would be free to decline the tools, or simply not use them. Mocking or scorning the OP and deriding his proposal is worse than useless, however. Azx2 20:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Not everyone who is opposing this proposal is mocking or scorning the OP, and those who offer reasonable criticism are not "deriding" it but criticizing it. I do also note that the few supporters of this proposal seem to be showing considerable hostility to those who disagree with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

What I don't like about the attitude of several of the supporters of this proposal is that several of them are exclaiming "Opposition, thy name is bureaucracy!"

It's very presumptuous to state such a thing, and seems nothing more than name-calling to my ears.

Rather than resorting to such methods to obtain a certain result, we should instead collectively try to determine what the best solution to the RFA problem would be, and work with that. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Do Away with RFC/U

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

There is consensus for deprecating the RFC/U process. The community is of the opinion that it no longer serves a useful purpose, that it has a tendency to prolong disputes without helping their resolution, suffers from a lack of participation, attracts biased input, and that it pales in comparison to other processes. There is no consensus for any specific replacement, nor that finding one is required before deprecating RFC/U. Other components of the dispute resolution process should be used, such as ANI and ArbCom. There are some legitimate concerns regarding those alternatives, specifically that ANI isn't well equipped to handle long term issues while at the same time the bar for ArbCom is quite high, meaning a lack of proper venue for handling certain kind of disputes, but they don't justify maintaining a system recognized as inefficient (in those cases too). Suggestions on improving dispute resolution are welcome, though. The RFC/U main pages will be marked historical. There are no currently running RFC/Us, and any unaccounted for uncertified RFC/U should be deleted. Cenarium (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The Request for Comments on User Conduct is not constructive or useful and should be discontinued. Because the requirements for certification are complicated and rigid, it is seldom used. When it is used, it is confrontational, and is typically a device for one combative editor to beat up another combative editor. The RFC/U process also is too often inconsistent, in that the stated objective of the certifiers is usually to persuade the subject editor to be more flexible, but the RFC/U is a process that promotes defensiveness, not flexibility, and typically the real objective of the RFC/U is not to change the behavior of the subject editor, but to restrict the editing privileges. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Historically, it appears that one of its purposes was as a preliminary measure to requesting that an editor be banned by User:Jimbo Wales, when it was the basis for presenting the evidence to Jimbo. Jimbo no longer uses the reserved power to ban users. Users are instead banned by the ArbCom, based on a full evidentiary case, or by the community at the noticeboards. RFC/U is only seldom used as the basis for requesting arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note - It looks like Robert neglected to notify about this on the page he's proposing to abolish. I've put a notification there. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Do Away with RFC/U: support or oppose or other

• Support. I agree with your thoughts on this, and thanks for bringing this up, Robert McClenon. In my experience it seems to be a prolonged way of letting users be reminded or notified about their past failures with hopes of inspiring a mea culpa and provoking change. I do not think this is a healthy process and, like you mention, "certifying" a request means it is rarely done and fills WP with yet more bureaucratic overhead. I hope this discussion continues here or elsewhere. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support – This is a prime example of a process laden with bureaucratic nonsense, which serves no real purpose, and which does not function. It is a combative approach that is only bound to fail. We have other channels that work much better for this purpose. RGloucester — ☎ 21:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support, conditionally. The absence of an RfC/U is often used as a basis for ArbCom to decline arbitration. If RfC/U is removed and ArbCom will not require it anyway, then we merely have a simplified structure. @RGloucester: What other channels do we have? ANI? I see three potential constructive uses of RfC/U, two which don't require the structure, and one which is, in fact, not constructive. (Using "he" for the subject of the RfC and "she" for commenters, without an attempt to imply which gender is more likely to be problematic.)
  1. To let him know what she thinks of his actions. (Good, but the structure is irrelevant as to whether it would be believed or followed. The discussion would need to be on a page other than his talk page, though, and that and ANI are the only current pages on which such a discussion would be allowed.)
  2. To let him know what she think he should do in order to avoid future problems. (Doesn't work.)
  3. To provide information for a future ArbCom request. (Currently required by ArbCom in some circumstances, and probably helpful to ArbCom even when not required. But, again, the structure is not necessary unless required by ArbCom.)

  — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Abolish and find a more constructive way to discuss potential user issues. I do believe the process is useful, I just feel that the methods currently employed are degrading to all users that contribute. Our current method seem to me to be like putting someone in the Village stocks where the only thing you are allowed to throw at them are prickly cacti and they must be thrown with bare hands. This leads to editors with sore hands and one with a sore face... This is not productive to resolving conduct issues. — {{U|Technical 13}} 22:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
  • You might have that the wrong way around; we should find a more constructive way to discuss issues first before we abolish the existing one. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• My views on RfC/U are long held, and I've only rarely seen instances where it was conducive to a positive outcome. Additionally, it has fallen into disuse over the past couple of years or so, which I think is emblematic of the evolution that our community has gone through over time. There have to be other ways of addressing user conduct issues; as far as I'm aware, AN and AN/I have yielded results more often than not. Kurtis 15:50, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
  • In case it isn't obvious, this should be interpreted as a support for abolition. Kurtis 16:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Abolish RfC/U and shift the process to an equivalent that can actually achieve results, e.g., ArbCom or AN/I. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support abolishing: it does not have any binding results and is a probable tool for harassment and confrontation without direct consequence. Technical 13 explains it elegantly. When things get bad, and discussion from more editors is needed about an editor who genuinely wants to improve without binding results or when an editor wants to get himself evaluated generally, a regular RFC can be used on their talk page. RFC/U is not of much value per se; and this is coming from an editor who has faced continuous hounding in past on many levels. As for ArbCom requirement, they can call an RFC on their own page or a subpage if they want community input before taking decision or for deferring to community. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Request for clarification: Does this proposal to abolish RFC/U apply to "user of administrator privileges" RFCs as well as "general user conduct" ones? (Not supporting or opposing anything, just seeking clarity.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
• Abolish. The only one I have ever taken part in was Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for comment/Apteva, you can see how much confusion there was at the end about a "motion to close", since the person did not agree with the comments made about them. Finding an admin to do anything about the results was another problem--back to the drama boards over and over. This was a year-long nightmare for the twenty or so editors involved, and ended in four editors getting sanctioned for no reason at all, when the user filed one of many frivolous WP:AE requests against one of the signers of the RFCU. The RFCU process is high risk for established editors, and low risk for disruptive editors. Compare incivility as a tactic--much more effective. When you see what the alternatives are for dealing with genuinely disruptive users, you start to have some sympathy for those who are chronically abusive. Now, imagine what it might have been like if the twenty of us had been able to spend our energies on editing that year, instead of dealing with the disruptive user. —Neotarf (talk) 05:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - abolition as proposer. For reasons given above, as a mechanism which maximizes disruption while minimizing likelihood of actual result. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - User:Newyorkbrad: Yes, my intention was that it applies to "administrator abuse" as well as "general user conduct". At the beginning of this year, the ArbCom desysopped two administrators without a preliminary RFC/U. In the recent case before the ArbCom, there is unnecessary drama about the RFC/U itself, which complicates the issue of whether the ArbCom should review issues about the actual conduct of the administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

  Especially admins. It is a very, very bad idea for anyone to get on the bad side of an admin, especially an abusive admin, just in case the attempt fails. —Neotarf (talk) 13:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

  And a regular editor who runs afoul of an admin will eventually be frozen out of Misplaced Pages, entirely, because admins are presumed to be right in disputes with mere editors. After all, in an environment where WP:IAR is paramount, the whims of the admins are law. -- Jay Maynard (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support I've been saying it is a toothless process for years. That said, a process between WP:ANI and WP:ARB for non-admin might be useful, a dedicated page where discussion can happen over a couple of weeks, BUT there is still the possibility of sanctions if needed. That shouldn't stop us from killing a process that has failed to deliver results almost every time it is used, and RFC/U certainly is a failure. Admin are an odd case, probably better served by lowering the threshold for Arb review instead of a middle process (unless it really was just about editing...rare indeed), since Arb is the only body that can take issue sanctions. Dennis - 2¢ 19:48, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Dennis Brown is spot on. Hard pressed to find any success from RFC/U that is not based on the subject making change on their own behalf. Typically RFC/U serves as a barrier to meaningful dispute resolution. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - RFC/U, just like AN/I, is a place where POV pushers write absolute bullshit about someone who has got in the way of their POV pushing, with no fear of negative consequences for the lies being written. Until BLP standards are applied to anything that's written about another editor on Misplaced Pages, both places are disaster areas for truth and justice, and the appearance of Misplaced Pages as a place for honest, informed, mature discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)1
• Support - RFC/U is terribly designed - it is the antithesis of mediation as it is designed for people to make pronouncements and speak past each other...it actually doesn't appear to serve any purpose and its construction and layout likewise preclude anything useful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Truth to be told I've never seen the point in it - User conduct 9 times out of 10 goes straight to AN/I, & Jimbo does bugger all hence Arbcom deals with it all instead.... All in all IMHO the board's as much help as a chocolate teapot. –Davey2010 • (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - All things being relatively equal, having the unified document listing out the faults of an editor (or administrator) makes for a penultimate "Come to the light" discussion. Yes the target of the RFC/U is very adversarial, but if it's risen to the level of an RFC/U there's already been multiple attempts to try and prevent the behavior before. Having a RFC/U makes it easier for others to point at for the eventual ArbCom case or AN community ban. Until the advocates can present a valid replacement, I'd rather keep RFC/U with warts and all because it does somewhat work for the time. Hasteur (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  Those warts include the ability to tell absolute lies about the accused, with complete impunity. That cannot be part of any sensible justice system. HiLo48 (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

  I recall that you declined to participate in the RFC/U against you (you might recall that I defended your right to do so), but I don't recall any policy that says editors can "tell absolute lies about the accused, with complete impunity". In fact, I believe it's rather typical to see complaints made at ANI during RFC/Us, and editors do get reprimanded and blocked for what they say in RFC/U discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support, essentially per Casliber (talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. It's really hard to argue with the case Robert McClenon makes here. Like WP:WQA before it, what RfCU could be if done well and what it is at the moment are so far removed from each other that I think it's time (if not past time) to retire it. If that means that editor and admin conduct concerns go straight to ArbCom, then so be it: ArbCom has been pretty good (though not perfect, of course) about sorting out which disputes and conduct issues are ripe for arbitration and which ones aren't. 28bytes (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. While it used to be useful, I don't think it's serving the purpose it once did. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support, never had any real teeth and was at best a bump in the road to ArbCom or a community banning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:32, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Either have the community deal with it at AN(I) or just send it off to ArbCom. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. From what I've seen from RfC/U, it's a way for opposing fractions to lobby shots and accusations back and forth at each other in attempt to force one side to capitulate or be blocked. The process is toothless, and all it does is allow grievances perceived or otherwise to fester. I can't see most people facing an RfC/U seeing the light, but instead feeling rightly or wrongly that they have been unjustly attacked. RfC/U seems more harmful than helpful. PaleAqua (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support right now, RFC/U basically serves as an impediment. People will say 'this is at the wrong venue... it should be at RFC/U' even though almost everyone knows that RFC/U is toothless. Getting rid of it is the best solution. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 17:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - RFC/U is overly bureaucratic, flawed and usually ineffective in actually resolving user conduct issues.- MrX 18:03, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: the certification process is precisely to prevent it being used as "a device for one combative editor to beat up another". Kicking this upstairs to Arbcom means more rushed, un-nuanced decisions. Alternatively we will need a Village Pump (user behaviour). Certainly I would be sympathetic to a more rigorously policed RFC/U where attacks, doxxing, outing, unsupported allegations etc, were summarily removed. I don;t see how RFC/U is worse than some of the mammoth threads on AN/I, except that there may be less admin/expuser oversight. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:08, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
  

"Less oversight" is one of the primary problems. Such an RfC/U in any form, reformed or unchanged, will always have less oversight than a community noticeboard, leaving such RfC/Us open to the typical messes that they are. RGloucester — ☎ 00:21, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

RFC/U and AN/I are both routinely full of lies, unsubstantiated allegations, and general bullshit from POV pushers, including Aministrators. Neither serves Misplaced Pages well. HiLo48 (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but as I said below, at least the structure of the AN/I noticeboard itself is not adversarial. There are times when AN/I works, and times when it doesn't. When it doesn't, the dispute should go to ArbCom. There is no need to add on the extra layer of "RfC/U", which doesn't work at all and tends to make the situation worse. RGloucester — ☎ 00:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• Weak conditional oppose until and unless we have some sort of clear and clearly defined alternative available. Maybe all that would require would be a separate main section at ANI or elsewhere, but I have no real reason to think that if this proposal to move it to ANI is assumed to be the outcome by most that others will necessarily think so as well and the lack of a clearly defined place to report such concerns would itself be problematic. John Carter (talk) 00:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support, as being a process that is no longer useful. The thing is, if you're doing your job as an admin properly, you're going to make enemies. The problem with any discussion on admin conduct therefore becomes sorting out the whining of contributors who have properly had their spam/personal attacks/whatever removed, from legitimate criticism. RFC/U does not offer a way to filter out the chaff, so any filing becomes a mass of unfocused complaining and whingeing, often masking real problems with admin conduct. I think at this point ArbCom or some other body where there is a human review before a case becomes real, is the best way to work out which user conduct cases require further attention, and which are just sour grapes. For full disclosure, I am an administrator myself. Lankiveil 07:37, 12 November 2014 (UTC).
• Support - We need (1) a working process for the community removal of tools from administrators acting badly; (2) a fast process for the removal of tendentious POV warriors from the project. The existence of RFC/U stands in the way of the processes we actually need. Carrite (talk) 15:23, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Long overdue. → Call me Hahc21 19:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Neutral: I can't support, because I might be seen as biased - I was recently taken there myself (and nobody saw it proper to actually inform me for a further twenty hours, during which time 13 people were talking about me behind my back) for a triple matter: (i) to complain about two edits that I made that were entirely in accordance with WP:PER; (ii) to get an edit made to a protected page (which is outside the purview of RFC/U); and (iii) to get a page protection lifted. Of these, (i) was a non-issue; (ii) could have been dealt with by following WP:PER procedure and letting any admin respond, rather than insisting that I do it; (iii) should really have been sorted by the simple expedient of filing a WP:RFPU. So perhaps there is a lack of understanding as to what RFC/U is actually for. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Redrose64: As editor who (mistakenly) took part in the RfC against you, it is my opinion that 1/ the RfC was unwarranted, 2/ the people initiating and participating in it generally did not know what an RfC was used for and used it improperly (and I include myself in that), and 3/ we acted impulsively in response to a sensitive topic, that was better handled with cooler heads. Supporting RfC abolition wouldn't make you look biased, in my opinion. Kumorifox (talk) 18:12, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support I have said this for years now, RFC/U are a waste of bytes --Guerillero | My Talk 21:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Abolish it. RFC/U has outlived its usefulness. ANI and ArbCom are more efficient and more effective at dispute resolution. Keep it simple and go with what works. Ignocrates (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Having participated in 2 or 3, I've long since felt the process is a waste of space. Worm(talk) 13:53, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support RfC/U's are a huge time sink and rarely improve things. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I get the impression that they're typically filed because other dispute resolution mechanisms can't be put into place until the RFCU has been tried. Process for process' sake: WP:BURO anyone? Meanwhile, most RFCUs seem to be either a pile of tendentious people piling onto an innocent editor, or a huge group of people rightfully making objections about someone who ought to be sanctioned somewhere else without waiting for the RFCU. Neither one is a good idea: leave the innocents alone, and don't make proper sanctions wait. Nyttend (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - For every RfC/U that has ever worked, there are a small handful that either achieved nothing, or made things worse. Whilst I disagree that ANI or ArbCom are necessarily any better - ANI is a cesspit at the best of times, and ArbCom is so broken that it's beyond a joke, after all - the simple fact of the matter is that RfC/U does nothing other than give trolls a great big target in most cases. It cannot provide any binding sanctions, it cannot provide any binding remedies, and I seriously doubt most people know how to actually use it properly in the first place; at least, anyone who hasn't been dragged there before, or anyone who hasn't filed a case there. An entirely new method is needed; something that avoids most of the flaws of both ANI/ArbCom and RfC/U. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:12, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• support I have in the last 5 years seen only one or two cases where it has resulted in anything, and those could have been settled informally. It's just another bureaucratic step, and we at WP are much better at devising bureaucratic procedures than in making rationalism. Yes, it will throw an addition burden on arb com, which perhaps should resume its former role of deciding quickly on relatively minor matters. I think it would also call for an major improvement in AN/I, and I'm going to make a suggestion about that in the section below. But the first step is getting rid of it; it accomplishes so little that having nothing would be an improvement. DGG ( talk ) 09:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. And please make AN/I removal/reform next. (Who made up these disgusting venues?! How much intelligent thought went into their designs before implementation?! ) Happy to see this going WP:SNOW. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 19:34, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Not much to add to the above, I see a lot of names above I trust to know what they're talking about, and I've always had reservations. - Dank (push to talk) 04:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, I didn't have a pleasurable experience in my own Rfc/U (who ever does?), yet until we come up with a replacement, we should keep the Rfc/U. GoodDay (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support abolishing – I see no practical use for this process anymore. The informal aspects can be talk page discussions, which can be structured or unstructured according to need. The formal aspects should be going to the Arbitration Committee anyway. I support abolishing processes that needlessly duplicate functions and make Misplaced Pages harder to use. Harej (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - All the arguments have been expressed already. The RfC/U process is both ineffectual and subject to abuse. I would not object to another process replacing it if it had the appropriate safeguards. BMK (talk) 07:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support: Oh hell yes. I've participated in a number of conduct-related RfCs, and without exception they've been toothless delaying actions, putting back for as many as several months the point where decisive action is taken against serial offenders. I have never once seen a RfC that resulted in an offender saying "I've been so terribly wrong, and will mend my ways from now on." Far more often, they're a vehicle for admins and the community to chorus, "Well, we can't do anything against this prolific editor merely because he's committed civility and NPA violations that'd get fifty newbies banned -- you haven't gone through an RfC yet!" It's an absurd waste of all our time. Ravenswing 07:58, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support abolition: it's an obsolete and exceptionally nasty process that brings no benefit to anyone, instead acting as an ideal place for witch-hunting. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - RFC/U is too bureaucratic and tries to be a mini Arbcom but with out the power. I've participated in a couple and although they achieved the desired result (after being referred back to ANI) I felt they were exceptionally tedious and an unnecessary step in addressing issues of user behaviour. (More in the discussion section below). --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support It is too bad that this process is generally misused, but that is the way of it. It requires massive restraint and good-faith, generally among parties that are inclined not to. I think I would leave it for the possible times it can work, but its mere existence has been misused too many times, so that 'take it to RfCU' has become an increasingly poor failure to address issues. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Comment many comments here suggest that AN/I is adequate alternative, but see "ANI process ... no longer think it fit for purpose. AN/I just does not usually work for high profile editors. The AN/I process lacks natural justice as there is no clear divide between prosecutor, defence, jury, judge and executioner, which means that sections can become kangaroo courts. In other cases because the process is unstructured, it just becomes a rehash of a content dispute in another forum. If RFC/U is to go and there good reasons for it to do so as it too mixes up prosecutor, defence, jury, judge and executioner, then an alternative needs to be considered as AN and AN/I are in most case not a suitable alternatives. -- PBS (talk) 12:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  I agree that AN/I is prone to thoughtless mob justice. It's okay for a simple "incident" that can be looked at in 30 seconds. For deeper matters, it's not deliberative. I think that the best place to discuss an editor is their own talk page. We can use some sort of flag, such as {{RFC}} to invite outside comments. If the user doesn't want to talk, then an admin can be summoned to apply a block if problematic behavior continues, the matter can be brought to arbitration. WP:ANI isn't for dispute resolution; it's for requesting administrative action when clearly needed. Jehochman 12:49, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't like references to legal terminology, here. Such terminology strikes me as highly inappropriate. "AN/I does not work for high profile editors", PBS says. Nor do RfC/Us, nor would any other process that does not involve the Arbitration Committee. The only process that is capable of resolving intractable disputes of the kind that are not suited to the AN/I mob is ArbCom, because it is theoretically protected from the mob by elections. Whether that works out in practice is another sorry, and we shall have to see how, for example, the GGTF case turns out. Regardless, no proposed "replacement" would solve the problems you mention. The best thing to do is lower the threshold for ArbCom, and removing RfC/Us is one of the ways we can do that. RGloucester — ☎ 13:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::AN/I has become all these things because we've allowed it to become the playground for meta wanabees and the peanut gallery, and that's why so few admins want to work there. Those who are sufficiently thick skinned have to run the gauntlet of the anti-adminship brigade who arrive there to defend anyone who has quite rightly been accused of inappropriate editing or behaviour. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:42, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support, regrettably. RfC/U has not been a useable process for years. Unless and until there are rules of procedure, etc., along with a clear way of using the results, it's no different than an AN/ANI subpage. —/Mendaliv//_Δ's/ 14:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Snowball Support: If it works, its most 'useful' aspect is as a bludgeoning tool. We're at a ratio of 9-1 to close, and this RfC's been open for coming up on two weeks. There's little doubt about the outcome of this. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. It's a toothless tiger, just like Wikiquette assistance that is also abolished. OhanaUnited 18:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. I like the idea of RfC/U. I have seen discussions hop straight from ANI to ArbCom (although I generally avoid reading the proceedings either much these days, having more important and enjoyable things to do with my life than watch Wikipedians bicker). The hopeful part of me wishes that with just a little bit more process—a little bit more weighing in from the community, a bit more reasoned discussion—some of the more tiresome disputes would sort themselves out, and that perhaps RfC/U would be part of that process. But the realist in me realises that this is a hope that shall not be fulfilled. RfC/U has failed as a process. The times I've seen it in action, it has ended up being a month where everyone airs their grievances and digs in their heels on whatever the drama of the moment currently is. At the end of it, everyone is more bitter, more partisan and more jaded than they were when they started—and the case usually still ends up going to ArbCom, where they spend another month (if you are lucky; if you aren't, a number of months) arguing about it. The toxic and bitter politicking of all these dispute processes keep most well-adjusted people far, far away to avoid breathing in the stench. The sad thing is I am so jaded with watching all of these processes fail, I can't think of any way to improve them anymore. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - as the target of a failed one of these , a month later I'm still waiting for it to be deleted. --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support – nearly fell out of my chair when I saw this. Social discourse will have to replace bureaucratic process; people should discuss their reasons for change, draw consensus or compromise, then move on. Ray Wyman Jr (talk) 01:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose - after speaking to other editors and reading more about the process, I've changed my position. I have never had to use this process nor have I been the subject of one, but I think that it is better than nothing. I have yet to see a clear description or proposal about an alternative for conflict resolution. RFC/U may be a broken process for conflict resolution, but it seems to offer a forum where conflicts are made public and communal pressure is brought to bear. As Coemgenus (talk · contribs) points out below, perhaps change is growth and maybe that's all you need. --RWyman 01:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I've only ever participated in one RFC/U and, while it seemed not to work at the time, the subject of it became a better, more cooperative editor in the years since. I don't know that RFC/U was solely responsible for that metamorphosis, but maybe seeing so many complaints against him from so many corners of the encyclopedia helped to make him realize that his behavior needed to change. In short, it sometimes works and still has some value in my opinion. --Coemgenus (talk) 01:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, strongly. RFC/U is one remaining possible vehicle for editors who are concerned about Misplaced Pages's bullying and incivility to make a difference. It's possible that concerned editors could use RFC/U's systematically to document individual small matters of bullying going on, with formal consensus decision by the community that person X has indeed behaved badly. Such small but formal RFC/U actions are a way that records could be built up that establish a pattern of bullying and deeply incivil behavior, and cited in larger later actions such as arbitration. As it stands now, a typical victim of bullying can do nothing, nor can bystanders. Launching and "winning" a full arbcom case is huge and effectively impossible to complete, in terms of addressing any bullying. ANI and 3rr are not concerned with fairness, they do not determine fault. Launching an ANI or 3RR incident will not ever address bullying, nor will they establish even that one incident was an example of bullying. ANI and 3rr incidents are typically closed by administrators explicitly without attempting to determine fault, but rather to end disruption and close as soon as possible. Thus ANI and 3RR incidents effectively cannot be cited usefully in arbitration or anywhere. Arbitration is not feasible for bullying victims or concerned others to use in addressing bullying/incivility. Arbitration cases are too comprehensive and mixed and the arbitrators are looking to implement the community consensus and/or to end immediate disruption, and not to determine fairness, either. Arbitrators can just say that a bullying editor has other good qualities, like that they have contributed writing or whatever, and come to no judgement or action on bullying, like is done at ANI discussions. Arbitrators follow, do not lead, the community. What is needed is smaller, clear, finite judgements by the community. An RFC/U action can determine that in some article or Talk space that action A and action B were examples of unnecessary bullying by editor E. Editor E then would stand warned. If/when similar judgments pile up, the community can take further action. Victims of E can cite the judgements in arbitrations, etc, where the arbitrators could not simply dismiss it as complicated/mixed like they dismiss ANI discussions.

There is no new dispute resolution process on the horizon to address bullying, at all, and there are no real other prospects of the community taking on bullying, in the necessarily detailed way that is needed. It is nonsense to think that arbitrators will pick up slack and address what the community needs to do. I've been intending to propose at suitable venues that the existing process, RFC/U, be used by concerned editors in this way. Getting rid of RFC/U would play perfectly for entrenched administrators and other Misplaced Pages insiders who can never be touched. Eliminating RFC/U, the one remaining process that can at all be concerned with fairness, would be a mistake. I actually can't believe that this is being considered, much less achieving a lot of support. --doncram 01:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Please provide an example of one RfC/U in the past year that has provided some kind of good result, and which hasn't merely fanned flames or been an inquisition. RGloucester — ☎ 02:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

(With some repetition to my comment further below, against Snow closing this):

• It would pretty horrible to end the one remaining method that the community can possibly use to determine fault / fairness, given failings in ANI, 3RR, arbitration in dealing with bullying and deep incivility. I think it would be rash and a big mistake to drop RFC/U. I myself don't have fond memories of any RFC/Us, but it is fair to say that the fault was in the unskilled implementation, I think. When a group of concerned editors want to work positively to label bad behavior as bad behavior, RFC/U, done right, is a possibility. There is no other possibility as I see it. I expect that many/most RFC/U's to date have been of the vindictive, bullying, throw-everything-negative-you-can type of "dispute resolution" processes, with hurt being extended, with bullying persons running rampant. In my opinion, the persons running the RFC/Us usually make a mistake in trying to include too much. But ANIs and 3RRs are rushed, and arbcom cases have their role but are corrupted from being "fair" by the arbitrary power given, and I have no hope those processes will really change anything. And, I do happen to have some hope, that some creative good people in Misplaced Pages who are concerned about deep incivility and bullying can get together and use the existing RFC/U process in a deliberately, limited way that is ultimately more constructive. I have no hope whatsoever that good people in Misplaced Pages can get some brand new process created, or change RFA, or change arbcom, or change the rules of RFC/U, or anything else major. By deliberately starting small with narrowly defined RFC/Us that within the existing rules of RFC/U and are "toothless", but in which a community judgment can be made, I think some progress can begin to be made. For example, a group of 10 or 20 editors, perhaps at something like the Editor Retention wikiproject could compile a current list of seemingly obvious injustices done against newbies, and commit to running a set of a dozen or so fair, limited RFC/Us, where the facts are properly considered, and come out with a dozen well-reasoned accurate consensus judgments on what actually happened. In each case the judgment would be on whether some experienced administrator or other experienced editor was indeed deliberately and unnecessarily bullying, in the common English sense of the word, or whether there were some extenuating circumstances that explain it otherwise. E.g. perhaps the apparent victim is not so innocent. It would really help the newbie victim-type, to have there be a real and fair judgment of the facts, either way it turns out. And it would really help me and a lot of other experienced editors too, I think, to see bad behavior called bad behavior, when it turns out that is what it clearly is. Frankly I would deliberately mix up the starter dozen RFC/Us, to include a variety of editors' apparent unfair moments, and I would seek to get the good 10 or 20 to commit to reading and judging all dozen of the RFC/Us fully, towards reducing anyone's ability to say the RFC/U was biased by only having involved editors judging.
• I've been thinking about this for a while. I am not happy to be on the spot suggesting use of this approach right now, amidst a move to chuck it all. But it is unacceptable to completely give up on there ever being any process that gets after what is a fair judgment. Arbcom is not it. ANI is not it. This is it, or can be, I think. Don't pre-judge what a group of good people actually concerned about fairness, above all, might be able to do, just because you haven't seen it yet. It was a long time coming in U.S. history, before good people ran civil rights lawsuits with success, for one example...but at least there was a means for them to run them. --doncram 09:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This is a nonsensical answer. I don't even know what "fairness" is, and I'm fairly certain the RfC/Us are not an avenue to fairness. They do not work, and you cannot even provide an example of them working. Rubbish gets tossed in the rubbish pile. "Bullying persons"? What "bullying persons"? This is a tough world. Misplaced Pages seems like the last place on Earth to be concerned about "bullying persons". In fact, it seems like your answer favours a "group of editors" holding an inquisition into an editor they dislike. "Bullying", though I prefer "badgering", if I've ever heard of it. That's all I can see here, and it is exactly why RfC/U is rubbish. "Real and fair judgement", again, what is this the "real and fair"? Nothing about RfC/Us is either "real" or "fair", and anyway, our goal here is not to be "fair", but to build an encyclopaedia. You can't even demonstrate why it is "real" and "fair". The existing avenues work. They curtail disruption. This is not a court of justice. We don't care about fault. We care about building an encyclopaedia, and ensuring that we can do so sans disruption. RGloucester — ☎ 14:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. RGloucester, you and I have to agree to disagree. Bullying and deep incivility and injustice do matter, and for long-running situations, we certainly should care about fault, as part of addressing the problems and the feelings and future actions of the people involved. Yes, your view is common, that disruption should be curtailed...without judging on fault...without addressing the problem, really, IMO. As noted above by Jehochman, "AN/I is prone to thoughtless mob justice. It's okay for a simple "incident" that can be looked at in 30 seconds. For deeper matters, it's not deliberative." About others on this page calling for talking to a person at their Talk page, what about those persons who don't give a s*** about whether they offend new and old editors....the existing avenues of ANI and arbcom do not work. Keep RFC/U to allow community to act positively, against odds i grant, in bad situations. --doncram 18:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Your comment might make sense if you could provide evidence of RfC/Us ever working positively. In fact, you can't, which is why most people here believe it to be rubbish. It doesn't work positively, it doesn't work in any fashion at all, other than as an inquisition, which in-of-itself is the behaviour you seem to want to curtail. As I said, I'm all for AN/I reform. ArbCom needs a lower threshold, so that it can address more cases. There is a proposal on this page to break-up ArbCom into subcommittees, one of which could potentially address user conduct issues. I think this is a much better approach than maintaing a system that does not work, has not been shown to work, and has been shown to work negatively, against the goals that you are striving for. RGloucester — ☎ 18:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. If this is removed, many users will likely be able to silently bully more timid users into submission. This is the last thing that we need happening here. That is, unless you truly have a legitimate replacement for this that would work better, and I don't think that the current suggestion fits that description. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 02:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Could you please explain that? (Because I see it as just the other way around. The current structure of RfC/U puts mutiple motivated users on one side of issue, a lone editor on the other. The bullying potential is just the reverse.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  I see RfC/U for how it should be working, not for how it happens to be working at the moment. If we get rid of it now, it can never be corrected to function as it should. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Hasteur and doncram. I've never used RFCU because ANI is easier, but the community needs a forum to handle long-term abuse issues. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC/U is clearly not that forum, given that it doesn't actually handle anything, since it is not process that can provide results. The only body that really handles "long-term" abuse is ArbCom, and you can bet that if there is realy a problem, RfC/U would only be a bump on the road to ArbCom. Let's remove the bump, and provide a smooth path to the veritable arbitrator. RGloucester — ☎ 14:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support, it would be fine in theory, but it just does not work. --Cavarrone 07:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support abolishing it as it is a mostly ineffective and easily perverted process. JMP EAX (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose There are too little forums for dealing with conduct. Removing RFC/U will only make that worse. You have WP:AN, WP:ANI, WP:30 (which is useless since it has to be only between you and another user), and just in general, things don't get to be resolved on noticeboards. The quick archival rate and the almost mob rule makes it impossible to seriously get into a big discussion about a user's conduct without making it inflammatory. The non action and non teeth of RFC/U is a feature, not a downside, as it prevents users from unnecessarily inflammatory the discussion in itself. While some inflammatory is tolerated on WP:ANI and even rewarded (by derailing a proposed decision or whatever into just people hating on each other), RFC/U there is no incentive for that. As a result, it should be kept just in the way for general comments about a user's conduct. Additionally, while it's not necessary for ArbCom, it could be useful as it demonstrates that not just a few users have issues with a certain user's conduct. Its loss would be detrimental to the project imho. Tutelary (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There are too little forums for dealing with conduct. Hafspajen (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I think that RfC/U is a useful vehicle and less judgmental than an ANI thread: the idea is that an RfC/U produces some findings of fact and proposes possible solutions short of iBans or blocks or whatever, which is the kind of outcome ANI should produce. Recently I've seen some bantering about what RfC/U is for; I look at it as the proper forum to discuss a pattern of editor behavior. RfC/U should take a long approach rather than the instant result (dramah included) of an ANI thread, and is not primarily intended to produce punishment. If we abolish that idea, then it seems to me we're giving up on a less adversarial and less heated means of a conflict resolution. That RfC/Us have failed in the past is not a reason to do away with them. Oh God, it seems I'm agreeing with Tutelary--what is this world coming to? They put it quite well. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. People legitimately taken to the venue don't honour the result, hell-bent as they are on self-destruction. People wrongly taken to it (too many for comfort) are ritually humiliated by enemies and become embittered. How does this help the encyclopedia? AGK 23:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. There should be an easier means for editors to seek redress. This is too little used and too complicated. It seems its primary purpose is to dismiss complaints because one wasn't filed or was filed improperly. And if you successfully complete one, there is no guarantee anything will result from the effort. Gamaliel (talk) 00:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - good arguments from proposer. Process is obsolete, overly complex, ineffective and divisive. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • That sounds more like an argument for reform than an argument for abolition. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 08:53, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support - essentially as per AGK and Gamaliel. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Largely for the reasons given by DGG, Chiswick and Kudpung. However I can see the argument of Drmies and Hafs, and if there was some reform to the ANI process and RFC/U made more efficient I can see that it might create less drama.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Unconditional support RFC/U, if it ever worked, doesn't work with the community we have today (that's not a slur on the community, I don't think it was ever a very well thought out process). There's no need to have a fundamentally adversarial process where the required outcome is advisory. Presuming that an RfC isn't dominated by factional disputes (as is often the case where user comment is most needed), the outcome is an admonition written by your enemies that you're supposed to take onboard as though it is friendly advice. It doesn't work. Add in all the bureaucracy to get one going and the phrase "The RFC/U for so and so is a red link" becomes a cruel joke. It's the only process we have to deal with long term user problems and it's so bad we normally just circumvent it whenever someone commits a venial sin that can be used to start an AN/I discussion. Get rid of it. Protonk (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• Half-hearted support There are no good options. In its current state, RFCU is useless, possibly worse than useless. But it's easier to destroy than create, especially in the near anarchy of WP: I fear if we destroy it first, a "no consensus for anything" paralysis will mean we won't replace it with anything, which would also be worse than useless. Doing it on ANI instead is useless, possibly worse than useless, too - that cesspit is no improvment; things are more likely to get done, but the odds of them being the wrong things will be pretty high. I'd much rather reform RFC/U and make it useful, rather than nuke it and try to start fresh. But that, too, is nearly impossible in the current environment, so opposing nuking RFC/U and instead supporting reforming it comes off as unintentionally obstructionist; helping increase the inertia when that inertia is what annoys me the most. While I have a bad feeling that this is mostly due to despair, I guess nuking it in the long shot hope that we come up with something better in spite of ourselves is the least bad. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There are too little forums for dealing with conduct. -- Weapon X (talk, contribs) 18:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if that is true, how does that justify maintaing a process that presently does not serve as a forum for dealing with user conduct? It does not deal with anything, since it doesn't work. There is no reason to keep a rubbish process if it does not work. Perhaps other new processes are needed, but these should not have anything to do with this flawed concept. The wound is present, and it is infected. We must cut off the dead processes, cauterise the wound, and prepare to build a new processes. Allowing an infection to fester only leads to death. RGloucester — ☎ 19:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose First, multiple editors here are assuming that certain other DR venues will agree to act as a replacement, but nobody asked those venues if they are willing to do so. Second, RFC/U is purely voluntary. If you don't like it, simply don't participate rather than forcing everyone else to not participate as well. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:34, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I didn't find it voluntary when RFC/Us were run about me. They were attempts by editors whose POV pushing I was getting in the way of to get rid of me. They were full of lies and bullshit. I had no recourse. If you offer to police the bullshit in every future RFC/U, immediately blocking any editor who lies, I might change my mind. HiLo48 (talk) 01:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that it was voluntary, you had every right to not respond, and, as all the comments here calling RFC/Us "toothless" show, there are no negative consequences to not participating.

You do, however, identify a larger problem, which is that you, like many people, feel compelled to respond to what you see as "full of lies and bullshit" about you. (I have not looked at your particular case and am not taking sides). There are plenty of venues on Misplaced Pages where one can either tell lies about someone or make a legitimate complaint, depending on what side of the complaint you are on. Do we close them all down so nobody can complain about user behavior? No. That's like tearing up all the roads to stop bank robberies.

If you feel that RFC/U or any other Misplaced Pages venue has been used illegitimately against you, file a complaint at WP:ANI. If indeed there are "attempts by editors whose POV pushing you are getting in the way of to get rid of you" the admins will take action and put a stop to the disruptive behavior. And if it turns out that you are the problem, WP:BOOMERANG will kick in. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Other. Yes, I know all about standing in the middle of the road and getting squashed, so please be kind. Like some others, I neither support nor oppose wiping out RFC/U. It looks as if most contributors want to do away with it, and yet I've read some opposition arguments that are compelling. There are two choices:

1. get rid of RFC/U, or
2. keep it and fix it.

The first choice looks like "the easy way out", and that is seldom the right choice. The second choice would be harder and would probably require the skills of a committee of volunteers who may look all this over and carry out the necessary steps to fix this process. As I am neutral, I must remain an observer and hope for the best. Joys to all! – Paine Ellsworth  11:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support There was once a time when RFC/U, like ANI, would get results and people would be able to get back to editing content. However, the process is lengthy and cumbersome, which isn't really geared up to people wanting a quick solution to a grievance. Moreover, putting an RFC/U in a public place sends out (or at least can do) a huge "I don't like you" signal to the recipient, which makes collaboration with said editor difficult. And since user disputes seem to invite an open season from the peanut gallery, any suitable remedy just gets drowned in the noise. I have participated in a few RFC/Us, but the last one I looked at, Dan56's, just didn't seem to be going anywhere and I'm not sure anything was actually done about it. There are other, informal ways of getting a better result than RFC/U, such asking an admin you trust for a third opinion, or walking away and editing some other article. Genuine long term disruptive irritants can be dealt with at ANI, or failing that, Arbcom. Ritchie333 17:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. It seems to me that one of the reasons why there is a perception that it is difficult to take a problem to ArbCom is that requests for arbitration are often met with demands for RfC/U first ("it's a red link", etc.). I'd rather remove that roadblock. Although I appreciate the comments above about RfC/U providing a record of discussion of conduct, I think that the process suffers from an inability to establish a consensus: it's more like two "sides" posting opposing "views". In thinking about where else in the dispute resolution process the function of RfC/U will move, I suspect that it will entirely be ArbCom, and I'm OK with that (especially if ArbCom unloads its non-arbitration functions). --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I think starting with DRN (and posting {{tlx|rfc}}), then AN/I if the first doesn't work before presenting before ArbCom are sufficient, given that ArbCom drops RfC/U from its requirements. There are other tools to use to obtain a neutral input on the subject, removing the concern for abuse perceived with RfC/U. I was going to comment that we need to abolish RfC/U while introducing a replacement, but it seems (reading through guidelines on dispute resolution) that other routes are already available. --Abderrahman (talk) 13:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support closing the forum I support granting the advertised benefits that this forum promises, but this forum does not actually deliver these benefits. I share the concern that some others have that there are no dedicated forums for resolving a certain kind of user conflict. I do not know what the solution is to all user behavior problems, but to address the extreme and serious cases, I have been floating the idea of having a paid staffperson funded to address the most troublesome cases which otherwise are not addressed at all. See meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Fund a community human resources staffperson for the proposal. I have no idea who would want to manage a position like this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support absolutely. I've seen exactly two of these abominations, and while one eventually led to a (pair of?) Arbcom cases, both had a distinctly rotten flavor. The basic premise of this procedure seems to be "Here, TargetUser, what we're gonna do now is sit you down and tell you every reason why you suck; advertise this little session here so that every drama addict in town who's ever had a beef with you can come in here and participate; and we're not going to turn them away even if their only concrete grievance is that you stole a cookie from them in the third grade. Oh, and despite not actually resolving any disputes, this is part of the Official Dispute Resolution Process, so as long as we don't actually get abusive per se, any complaint you have about this is moot at best (and may actually be held against you if it strikes too close to home). Non-participation will be treated as a sign of guilt." If Kafka had remained alive through the hippie generation, he would have put something like an RfC/U in The Trial. Scrap it and good riddance. ☯.ZenSwashbuckler.☠ 18:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I support any attempt to strip away layers of Misplaced Pages's bureaucratic nonsense, including this one. LHM 19:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support The process does not work. No need to keep it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:03, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. When a problem user just needs an attitude adjustment, this process doesn't accomplish anything that can't be accomplished on talk pages or with a few blocks. When there's no solution except to remove the user from the project, this process actively stands in the way. It's a nice idea, but it's not working. Lagrange613 21:50, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ah-ha! Gotcha! See, this is what I was talking about earlier. This logic of "There's no solution except to remove the user from the project" can easily be abusedly utilised in situations where it's not correct. Removing things like RFC/U that would allow more room for reckoning before one comes to such a serious conclusion may lead to more "hate blocks" and "opinion silencing blocks". Sure, we could, in such situations, simply have the administrator questioned in their reasoning and (in scenarios where they had been abusing their powers) relieved of their duties, but why not just nip things in the bud here? Remember, people aren't haphazardly blocked or banned for the sake of being blocked or banned. We block and ban only to protect the project; that's all. Furthermore, whether or not it's currently as functional as it could be, this process can certainly work to help make sure that we don't have to resort to the harshest punishment when it isn't actually necessary. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 14:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

But I don't think it is abused. Admin actions are transparent and easily reversed by other admins when they go too far. The specter of "hate blocks" and "opinion silencing blocks" is just that—a specter. (And in any case RFC/U is hardly the last defense against our descent into such a regime.) For some users only administrator intervention including blocks suffices to demonstrate the boundaries of acceptable behavior. That's just an empirical fact. For others that just need a talking-to, there's nothing about RFC/U that's better than engagement on user talk. On the contrary, getting dragged into this toothless, drama-promoting, bureaucratic process can make matters worse. Lagrange613 22:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Also, I would feel differently if I thought Misplaced Pages extended too little good faith to people who come here in bad faith. If anything it's the opposite. We reward people who come here seeking drama by stirring up more drama around their behavior instead of showing them the door. That's how you protect the project. Lagrange613 23:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Since not a single claimant came forward to inform that RfC/U worked, then why keep junk on board. If it doesn't work, please, remove it as fast as possible. All the reservation and discussion about replacing it with something or keeping it there as a hypothetical step between talk pages and ArbCom is pretty unnecessary. It doesn't work as the step before ArbCom because it doesn't work at all, and there is no meaning in replacing something that doesn't work. Aditya 15:26, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

...What?

I have heard of "if it isn't broken, don't fix it", but I have never heard of "if it is broken, don't fix it".

What sort of logic is that? Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a sort of density, on your part. Sometimes, things are broken beyond repair. Some things are defective the moment they are taken off the assembly line. Therefore, we put them in the rubbish bin. RGloucester — ☎ 16:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

...And then go back to the drawing board to come up with a replacement. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 17:15, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not if the concept is flawed, no. It is so flawed that it cannot work in any form. There is no need for a replacement, and in fact, many people here have expressed a disdain for the bureaucracy of such processes, and want RfC/U removed for that reason: to curtail bureaucracy. This type of process has added nothing to dispute resolution, and it never can do. RGloucester — ☎ 18:01, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

If that is indeed the case (I withhold my judgment anent that, but my current vote still stands for now) then WP:DRN, WP:3O, WP:NPOVN and WP:MEDCOM need to be expanded and deepened in functionality and usefulness. WP:AIN cannot be made the only real area for this type of thing.

I guess the best way of saying what I mean is this: there needs to be something in between WP:DRN~WP:MEDCOM and WP:AIN. Otherwise, one is encouraging things like this to happen (these comparisons are non-literal, so please don't say things like "WP:AIN is not a court of law". I'm well aware of this. Please just gruntle me for the sake of argument):

So-and-so and Such-and-such are in an argument. They can't resolve it amongst themselves, and their friends haven't been able to succeed in helping resolve it either. As such, they take it to the State Supreme Court.

Now, essentially encouraging things like that to happen is no good. We need something else to come before WP:AIN so that we can be (more-or-less) certain that nothing else could have been done about a situation.

Whether you feel that you agree with that or not, I ask you to just honestly consider it in your mind for a moment. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I have considered it, and I consider it wrong-headed. The fewer processes we have, the better. Swiftness is key, and layers of endless processes only deter swiftness. As it stands, it takes ages to get to ArbCom, which is the only forum that can properly resolve a dispute and evaluate user conduct. We need to make ArbCom more accessible, and one of the ways to do that is to remove layers. As I've said, I'm open to reform of AN/I or to the potential creation of ArbCom subcommittee for user conduct issues. However, those are separate matters. The only important thing in this discussion is that RfC/U is a junk process, always has been a junk process, and only gets in the way of dispute resolution. No one has provided any evidence to contrary, which is quite telling. For those reasons, it must be eliminated. RGloucester — ☎ 19:18, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Swiftness is the key? What if honest-to-goodness users are "decommissioned" due to this swiftness? Do you truly believe that that is all right (pardon me if I am misunderstanding you)? Not everything is black and white.

If a man has a house infected with pests, and then runs in John Rambo-style spraying bug spray and accidentally offs his dog with it, would that also be acceptable?

As Biblioworm said in the proposal below this one, WP:AIN isn't suitable for those who wish for civil, moderated dispute resolutions (though I disagree with Biblioworm as to the reason behind why that is the case) whilst WP:ArbCom is designed to be used only for grave matters, and since most disputes are not as severe as that, they don't justify a case there.

My point is, we had ought to have dispute resolutions have the lowest chance of offing good, actually helpful users as possible. I disagree with the idea that swiftness is the key. Rather, I propose that justice is the key. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no justice here. We're here to build an encyclopaedia. "Honest-to-goodness" users that cause disruption should be blocked until they can demonstrate that they will not cause disruption to our purpose, which is to build an encyclopaedia. Swiftness is key to prevent disruption of editorial processes. "ArbCom" is not only for "grave matters". It is for matters that could not be solved at AN/I, &c. If a matter cannot be solved otherwise, it should go to ArbCom. ArbCom is the only place where strict rules contain any potential frivolity. It is also run by vetted arbitrators who have the trust of the community. One of the main problems that you're having is that you're conflating dispute resolution with user conduct issues. In cases of dispute resolution, DRN and MEDCOM are appropriate. In cases of user misconduct, there is not a "dispute", so much as there is a case of a one or multiple users acting poorly. Of course, if others have vendettas against such an editor or group of editors, they can use it to toss them out the window. RfC/U has served as a forum for these vendettas. The only proper way for user conduct to be dealt with is by an uninvolved committee with strict procedural rules. That's ArbCom. RGloucester — ☎

You said "AN/I, &c", but there really won't be any other place to resolve these issues if we go your route. Many users will haphazardly rush to WP:AIN whenever even the tiniest issue arises, rather than talk to the individual in question and try to see what is up.

I agree that if a matter could not be solved through other methods, it should go to WP:ArbCom. However, if the only thing that, if we go your route, really comes before WP:ArbCom is WP:AIN, it leaves plenty of room for mistakes, and the losses of legitimate, helpful editors.

The other thing is that a lot of cases might not even reach WP:ArbCom. Some shenanigans might go on during their review at WP:AIN, and they might have run into an administrator that was having a bad day. God bless all of the administrators here for doing what they do, but it's no question that everyone has a bad day sometimes and/or might make the wrong decision in a particular instance. As such, we need more than two places where users' behaviours can be assessed. That is, unless you wish to make "levels" of WP:ArbCom? If you wished to do that, we would probably want something that functioned like WP:MedCom for the lowest level, and more or less the current WP:ArbCom at the highest level. That could work, perhaps. But I have yet to see anyone suggest something like that.

Also, keep in mind, I never said that WP:RfC/U was adequate as it is. Far from it. I said that it needs either an overhaul or a complete replacement (that may or may not function similarly to how it does). Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support abolition The intrinsic nature of the process rewarded vote-stacking, canvassing and worse. Too often, sock masters, and people with few edits were dominating the process, making it not only unfair, but an actual disgrace as a process. Cliques would !vote en masse in order to make an apparent "consensus" which never actually existed. Collect (talk) 01:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support - the set-up of this is completely wrong, it is actually one of the few good things about ArbCom: there a set of independent editors determines whether there is a cause for a case, not a few who are unlikely to be independent. --Dirk Beetstra 03:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support with reservations Caveat: I have no direct experience with RFC/U so I am operating on what I have been able to discern from the long list of !votes and comments along with a rather abbreviated look at some of the archives. That said, the process seems ineffective to whatever its alleged purpose was. I do think there should be some forum or venue for the proverbial "come to Jesus" discussion with long term problem editors short of Arbcom. But I concur with most of the preceding comments, this does not appear to be working. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support The process serves to magnify the underlying group dynamics surrounding some disputes an define the divisions, but it is probably not the most productive way for editors to address conduct issues. --Ubikwit_{見学/迷惑} 12:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose I see so few forums on Misplaced Pages like this. Though it has problems, it serves a function and I do not know what would take its place at present. Juno (talk) 17:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support There are plenty of reasons given above. Pick two. Atsme☯ 01:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support RFCU is toothless and time consuming.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 03:16, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support Unlike content RfC, this only looks like a good idea. But it did not work in a few cases I am familiar with. These discussions only fueled tensions, wasted a lot of time, and finally resulted in a few people being expelled, but only with a much greater drama. My very best wishes ([[User talk:My very bes
• do away with RFC/U it spectacularly fails at what it claims it's intended purpose is. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)t wishes|talk]]) 05:23, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support abolishing RFC/U I've done some work in dispute resolution, and I've never seen an RFC/U lead to anything productive really. They are poorly participated in other than by involved parties, and not much more useful than a WP:3O at best, assuming that someone neutral even bothers to comment or close it. At worst they just serve to increase tensions and resolve nothing. Gigs (talk) 18:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I did not even know about this forum until the RFC appeared on my watchlist. If I ever have any issues that fall under the scope of the RFC/U process, I've always used WP:ANI. Steel1943 (talk) 20:42, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Abolish – ANI without teeth. The Transhumanist 22:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
• Abolish never been there yet but looked closely at it an saw nothing but a big hill to climb with no chance of effective results. ANi is no better, just lower barriers. People can say ANYTHING in ANi with no consequences, and one can provide reasoned detailed defense but no one cares. We need a simple program of dealing with POV nutbars. Each party states their case in under 300 words, one chance to rebut, and one chance to comment on the rebuttal only. Then three Admins make a decision. If you are caught lying, fabricating or making unjustified serious accusations an automatic IBAN in imposed, blocks for more serious cases. The current system gives wikihounds and abusers a fun game to play with no consequences for spreading bovine feces around everyone. Legacypac (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Abolish. Has not worked for me. In one case (Venezuela), when I tried to enter WP:RS information about the then-regime, I was opposed. I requested an Rfc. A "lurker", who only supported the then-current cabal of editors would enter his "objective" opinion, supporting the cabal. His only job was to answer Rfcs. He never edited. This was insidious, I felt. In other cases, the responder was so disinterested and/or inexperienced, that they really didn't know what they were talking about, which I found frustrating. With less-watched articles, this was a great idea in its time. It is now time to supplant it with something less formal, unfortunately. Student7 (talk) 01:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Abolish After wasting time on discussion here, the discussion ends with no consensus. Did NOT work for me. Used ANI thereafter. Redtigerxyz 05:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I was initially going to vote "neutral", as there's really nowhere else to discuss the issues that would normally be brought here. Then I realized that I've had pretty good success with talking to people on their talk page. I dunno. It'd be nice if an alternative had been proposed to take the place of RFC/U, but it's not a big deal. We've still got other forms of dispute resolution, and ANI is a half decent fallback. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support doing away. I have been tempted to use this forum several times and aborted because, to my dismay, found that even when its stringent certification requirements are met, it has no power to do anything substantial. Instead, I used ANI and the result was immensely satisfactory. The problem is that a misbehaving user who has thrice refused to accept any resolution or compromise on the same matter will never yield to a non-binding procedure such as RFC/U. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support per the many reasons articulated above. Neotarf referenced the Apteva affair, which is as strong an indictment of this process as anything. That RFC/U was a sorry debacle, and I deeply regret participating in it. At the end of the day, RfC/U is too complex and too unregulated to be effective in the least. A regulated, disciplined forum (perhaps a subsidiary of Arbcom? who knows?) could be useful in solving disputes prior to going to Arbcom , but something like the current setup is useless. I know comparisons to real-world dispute resolution aren't always appreciated, but what if any average Joe could, after going through some nutty rigmarole to open up a case, haul his foes into an empty courtroom and invite the general public to come arbitrate their dispute, no judge or counsel involved? That's what happens when RfC/U is utilized. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. RfC/U is broken; giving it second chances just ensures that more user problems fester and embitter even more editors. Problematic editors taken to RfC/U can bluster, and canvas supporters, and post tangential screeds, and after a week the case is closed and they go back to their problematic editing. I hope that RfC/U is replaced by something effective. Something which has teeth. bobrayner (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• Weak support Robert raises valid points. He fails to propose a replacement, which is needed, but judging from the discussion RfC/U seems to yet another expendable drama forum. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I have never seen RfC/U being used to good effect. On the other hand, I have seen plenty of situations where RfC/U (or rather, the fact than RfC/U had not been filed regarding this or that user) has been used as an excuse for avoiding and evading responsibility and for stonewalling proposals for meaningful measures (such as topic bans) at AN, ANI and ArbCom. Nsk92 (talk) 21:07, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• ? I don't know what RfC/U means and I have no idea how to find out. Could people please define abbreviations when they first use them?Kdammers (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oh, now I see: Request for Comments on User Conduct is what RfC/U stands for: It WAS used in the first comment, but I didn't see a tie.Kdammers (talk) 06:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support - do away with w/o waiting, delaying or requiring the creation of a "replacement" for this inquisitorial process, which often seems to favor groups of editors ganging-up on individuals (including admins) they dislike. And the claim made above that RfC/U is "better than nothing" is logically fallacious if, as it seems, the process does more harm to the Community than good when employed. Azx2 09:06, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Methinks thou dost protest too much. I ask that one holds fast for either a replacement, revamping, or retention and stay calm. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (RfC/U)

• Question. Partially reflecting Newyorkbrad's question I'd like to know what the replacement device for serious requests for input on admins would be, short of a onerous filing at ArbCom. Is there a replacement? GraniteSand (talk) 09:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Obviously not, but I can't think of a single Arb case on an admin that had a reasonable RFC/U first. It doesn't really change anything, except forcing Arb to have a lower threshold, which many are willing to do. Most singular admin issues are currently handled at WP:AN now, and we actually handle those fairly well: Block reviews and the like. We have other venues to review single events as well, such as WP:DRV, etc. RFC/U was for long term behavior problems/patterns, which is a miserable failure for admin and non-admin alike. Dennis - 2¢ 10:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
    • My question was more about the presentation of systemic issues with an admin but I'll concede that cases with traction didn't really end up at RfC/U. Still, with the way things are laid out, I'd say they should. I do take issue with your assertion as to the effectiveness of AP:AN. I have, for example, been waiting almost three weeks for admin input on a request for a block review at WP:AN. How does getting rid of this medium help people who can't meaningfully engage with admins on issues of other admins? GraniteSand (talk) 10:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
      • As that isn't related to this discussion, I will answer on your talk page. Dennis - 2¢ 10:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I'm unsure what it is you're going to answer on my talk page. My basic question here was, if we eliminate RFC/U are we replacing it with anything? If so, what? If not, then how does that affect editors ability to ask for comment, especially with admins? GraniteSand (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
          • I thought I had explained it, but we replace it with nothing. It doesn't work anyway, so nothing of value is lost. We deal with admin as we do now, using WP:AN, WP:DRV, etc. and then with RFC/U gone, Arb is quicker to take admin cases. So how do we handle it? Most likely poorly just as we do now, but with less bureaucracy, and less frustration as RFC/U gives the promise of a solution, but no possible chance of it. Dennis - 2¢ 11:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

            • • No replacement required. WP:AN is better at attracting uninvolved editors, and isn't arranged in a confrontational way. Sure, there is drama at AN and AN/I, but at least the very structure of AN or AN/I don't lend themselves to that drama. I also support the lower threshold for ArbCom that would be established by eliminating RfC/Us. The best thing we can do is eliminate the bureaucratic processes we have that cause disputes to be stretched out over months. RGloucester — ☎ 16:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

              • I did muse on what we should replace it with...but really it makes arbitration one step closer after discussion elsewhere, which is a good thing for admin tool use and some other issues as well. We need less bureaucracy and fewer venues to deal with all these sorts of issues. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• Regarding administrator misconduct, there is a current proposal, WP:Administrative Standards Commission, that could someday be given the right to review administrator conduct and revoke administrator rights. If approved, the commission wouldn't have this ability at first, but it could be added to their duties later. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 15:57, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• discussion was prematurely closed at this point. I restarted it. Jehochman 06:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Post-Discussion Comment: I only just now saw this discussion, so I thought I would say... I do agree that the chance of this changing is at most negligible, but I have always supported the idea of waiting one week. Would that be too much of a problem? This can really go for most any discussion which may affect any sort of community process, and I think that other editors should at least have a bit of time to see the discussion and maybe come up with superior alternatives (that are not already available) or similar suggestions. While I severely doubt that the consensus to abolish RFA/U will change, I do think it would be nice to allow other users the opportunity to possibly discuss what kind of changes to follow with, or otherwise. I mean more than just what I have said, but I think that is all I will say, at least for now. Dustin (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Friends, the number of editors participating on this lightly watched page is not sufficient to establish such a consensus. Please advertise this discussion on the notice boards and consider listing on WP:MfD to generate more thorough feedback. If it's a good proposal, greater participation will only help. The process has been around for a decade. There is no rush to mark it historical after votes by a dozen or two editors. Also, this should not be closed by a non admin. Jehochman 05:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• Let me throw out an idea, to let simmer. Assuming RFC/U is shut down, it would fall on ANI to pick up the slack. If that were the case, then in some cases, it might be worthwhile (once a case gets large) to break it off into a separate page, but make sure there is a stub on the main ANI page pointing to it, and that stub doesn't get archived until the case is over. The new page would still be free-form and subject to all ANI standards (or lack thereof). This would be a purely procedural move and doesn't require an RFC, just a simple consensus on WP:AN to use this procedure under certain circumstances. It won't even require an admin to do it. It is something to think about once RFC goes down. Most of the time, it wouldn't be needed, but if a single case hit 100k (or some other number) and you have two or three on a page, it makes sense to do for technical reasons. As long as it isn't done to "hide" the discussion, I see this as a way to cope with the rare issues the lack of RFC/U will raise. Otherwise, the page can get so large, some browsers won't open it, making it impossible for some to participate. Dennis - 2¢ 16:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Another alternative might be to institute some new procedures at WP:DRN to specifically deal with matters of editor conduct, and if the specific case is found by (in this case) the multiple or at least plural number of DRN volunteers to have sufficient merit there, or for problematic behavior to recur in similar form thereafter, to start a discussion at ANI with links to the prior discussion(s). John Carter (talk) 16:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I think that would be a mistake. DRN has enough troubles, it would just be RFC/U lite, and technically, these are matters that have already been to ANI individually, and the reason for review is for ANI grade behavior that is now a pattern of behavior. This is the same delimma with the failed WP:WQA, you are just better off getting in front of admin and editors who can quickly tell if it needs simple handling or a larger case, in a free-form environment. All this formality is the problem and stands in the way of solutions. Dennis - 2¢ 16:55, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Try it and many DRN volunteers, including me, will strongly oppose it, and if the attempt to change DRN succeeds I personally would resign and attempt to create a new DRN with the same rules DRN has now. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Assuming it would be default fall on AN(I) to pick up the slack may not be accurate. However, in cases where it does, as a simply technical procedure, it does make sense to move the discussion to a subpage of AN(I) with a {{Moved}} and a {{DNAU}} as placeholders on the main AN(I) page. It would also make sense that all subpages of AN(I) fall under the same jurisdiction as the respective AN(I) page and all guidelines and expectations would be equivalent. I would also expect, just as it is the original poster's responsibility to notify all involved parties on their respective talk pages that there is a discussion on AN(I) about an issue they may have been involved in, that is would be the responsibility of whomever moved such a section to notify everyone that has contributed to the discussion thus-far or is mentioned in the discussion on their talk pages. As this would be a strictly technical move, I also would support the creation of a bot to monitor the section size (both prose size (number of words) and text size (number of bytes)), make the move when it hits the threshold, leave the notices, and take care of the notifications. — {{U|Technical 13}} 17:04, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • As for a bot, that is an interesting idea. I'm sure that ANI will be the venue to pick up the slack, unless we designate another board or create another board (I'm against that just yet). ANI is the de facto "I don't know where else to go" destination for any behavioral and sometimes content related issue. It is the editors that made it so, not the admin, by virtue of always going there for behavior and sometimes content issues. It reminds me of a story (true or not?) about a college that built new buildings, but intentionally left out sidewalks. A year later, they just poured the sidewalks where there was no grass due to foot traffic. Now the sidewalks are exactly where they are needed and the students stay off the grass. ANI is where there is no grass, it is where they are already coming to. It is simpler and better to find ways to accommodate editors instead of have them come there, then send them somewhere else. Dennis - 2¢ 19:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mr Brown. I'm not opposed to a long-term reform of the nature of the AN/I and AN boards, but that's a matter we should deal with after having dealt with this. RGloucester — ☎ 19:10, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) I basically have two reservations about using AN(I) for this purpose. (1) Although many editors, even newer editors, do use the boards, they are not the ones who frequent them or generally the ones who respond to comments posted by others. The people who respond tend to be admins (or in my case former admins) or other long-term editors who will often have some degree of pre-existing opinion about any "established" editor or admin and it might be harder to get some of them to not engage in "defending a friend" or otherwise rushing to some sort of "no action against the old hand" judgment. Others have complained of this sort of behavior before. (2) Honestly, the boards are too damn long as is. I know if I see a bowel-liquefying table of contents of 100 or more entries needing addressing on one of the noticeboards as is, I tend to give the list as a whole only a very quick once-over before basically saying "I'm outa here." If others do the same, and I think many of the less frequent contributors of the boards do the same, these requests will probably get only the same minimal attention many of the comments already posted on the pages complain of getting. If it would be possible to get them placed in a separate listing somewhere where even only a few individuals competent to address the concerns expressed can give some degree of more focused attention to them, particularly given the fact that RfC/U matters tend to be more serious than a lot of others on the boards, I would have to think that would be a net plus. John Carter (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I completely agree there will be challenges and the page is already too long. Using subpages for the longer stuff (and having a bot do removes any question of neutrality) moves it out of sight and out of the temptation of bored eyes, which would shorten the page TODAY. ANI IS an admin board, we admin have more authority than we push there because we don't want the drama. If someone just goes and opines on every case without actually adding to the case, then we can take action now, we just seldom do. Then again, if a non-admin comes in an actually helps by his actions, then the system is less dependent on admin. We have some guys like that now; it adds balance. It WILL take a firm hand at times, but we can handle it. If it gets too bad, we could probably pass General Sanctions for ANI/AN specifically without too much problem, to quickly remove lurkers who are habitually causing drama. I don't have all the answers, but my gut says that centralizing it will be easier to manage, and each case can be paced and formatted in a way that is best for it. We need some rules (no closing a proposal in less than 24 hours, etc), but we can use WP:AN to adopt simple but flexible procedures to make ANI run more smoothly. Dennis - 2¢ 22:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• Question To those who find RFC/U useless/toothless...if RFC/U had teeth, would that make it useful again? That is, rather than an RfC/U's results being advisory, what if it operated like any other RfC, where the result is binding, and an RfC/U could impose sanctions on users? Revamping how RfC/U operates is also an option here, besides just eliminating it entirely; I'd like to hear from others whether they think such a revamping would make it useful again or just delay the inevitable. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

No. Such bureaucracy doesn't work and won't ever work. AN/I and ArbCom are better venues. RGloucester — ☎ 20:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, the basic problem with a lot of RfC/U's is the often wildly disparate nature of the proposed remedies, and the fact that in at least some cases allies and adversaries of the "target" tend to more or less do as would be expected in such cases and make the real outcomes less clear. If a reasonable procedure to make RfC/U more effective could be enacted, I think that would help a lot, but that is a very big "if". John Carter (talk) 20:06, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Fluff, I think we have three problems with RFC/U: 1. The format is limiting. 2. There is no one with any authority to police the proceedings with trouble makers/trolls/drama queens. 3. There is no chance of sanctions, so no motivation for the person to even participate in good faith. Above on this page, you see where I talk about making longer case integrated into ANI (I know, I know...) which is kind of making RFC/U a subset of ANI, but without format and with sanctions, and if it gets more than a fixed size, it goes to it's own page, with a stub at ANI pointing to it for as long as it is active. Some will just peter out, others en some will end in a block decided by an admin, in others, the community will vote for a topic ban, etc. Other times, the person can make a binding pledge to avoid sanction. Short issues would look like any other ANI case, there isn't a distinction anymore, ANI is just the "behavior problem" place for all levels of problem. That means every possible solution is on the table. RFC/U currently offers no solutions, just a place to talk about the problems. To me, if RFC/U goes away, ANI WILL become the default place, whether we want it to be or not. It is all about how we manage it. Dennis - 2¢ 22:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Even Administrators don't seem to understand RFC/U. At Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Middayexpress we have two administrators, one setting it up, the other certifying it, asking for a topic ban during which it was hoped the editor would learn to play nice - despite the fact that you specifically cannot ask for a topic ban and the sentence introducing that sentence says "It should spell out exactly what the changes they'd like to see in the user, or what questions of behavior should be the focus." One solution might be simply to have volunteers run it. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think a simpler process would be a very good idea. For instance, if you have a concern about a user, go to their talk page and discuss it. If that fails, go get a third opinion from an uninvolved editor. Perhaps we need a central place where people can volunteer to provide such opinions. If that third person comes in and still the concerns aren't resolved, use the RFC template that we drop on article talk pages on the user's talk page to get more opinions about the issue. If that doesn't resolve things, go to WP:AN to request some sort of community action (maybe a sanction or reprimand), or in the case of an admin, go straight to ArbCom. I think people are complaining (rightly) about RFCU's bureaucracy. The underlying principal of getting more opinions to help resolve a problem is a good one and shouldn't be tossed. Jehochman 20:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
  • WP:AN already has way, way too much irrelevant traffic as it is. It should be what it is supposed to be, announcements and such that are directly related to admin, including review of admin actions by any person requesting it. The admin corkboard. We tolerate a lot more there now, but really, we need less ANI type stuff there, not more. Otherwise, some admin will stop reading it altogether. Dennis - 2¢ 22:16, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
• I suggest that for each RFC/U, a moderator be selected who would consolidate the input of the commenters into a summary statement on an ongoing basis: as new comments are entered, the moderator would update the summary as necessary. This should help avoid redundant comments, thereby making the process more concise, and the moderator would be able to frame the commentary in a constructive manner. isaacl (talk) 02:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think a moderator or clerk is a good idea for disputes, but the place where it should be applied is at AN/I for those instances that warrant it. I'm not sure how we'd dod the details--perhaps there will simply be volunteers, with the understanding they would not also close the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 09:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I think nearly all of the discussions on Misplaced Pages where the parties are having difficulty working together, including those raised at AN/I, can use a moderator who can shape discussion. Volunteers are fine, though due to the time-consuming, thankless nature of the task, I have suggested that paid professionals might have to be employed in order for there to be enough assistance available. A professional might also help maintain detachment from the topic of discussion. isaacl (talk) 14:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• For AN and AN/I it would make sense to have "on duty" admins (and even "on duty" non-admins, although it would be somewhat harder to select the pool of non-admins, because admins could just volunteer), with perhaps a four-six hour rotation. Anyone can participate as now but the "on duty" accounts would a least have a moral obligation to take care of business (with the usual restrictions eg., non-involvement). Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:01, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be good to have more discussion on how to reform the process of giving feedback to another editor in a thoughtful way that minimizes confrontation, before closing down RFC/U. I know this is inherently difficult, but for the handful of cases where the editor in question is receptive to feedback, it is useful to provide a framework where someone can provide their comments in a standardized manner, as it can help depersonalize the comments, which typically reduces tension. In addition to my suggestion of moderators, here's another idea: perhaps we could have designated intermediaries (ombudsmen), whose role would be to accept feedback on an editor, and relay it in a standard format, using diplomatic language. isaacl (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• If this RfC reaches a consensus to do away with RFC/U, some immediate thought must be given to an overhaul of ANI. Suggestions for clerking sound interesting but more admins need to be encouraged to be bold enough to watch the page - it appears that a relatively small number of rather brave admins regularly participate there. Much of the problem may be that of too much free-for-all commenting by uninvolved users, in particular the peanut gallery, in what is essentially an administrators' venue, hence its name. What puts me off from participating there more often (I'm not afraid of getting my hands dirty) is that ANI is an unmanageable page: premature archiving and the inevitable frustrating edit conflicts due to someone editing an unrelated case, to name but a couple of the practical problems. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  My thought is to conduct discussions on the user's own talk page rather than ANI. It's easy enough to put a template on the page that adds it to a category so uninvolved users can find the discussion. As for ANI, the problem is that the consensus there isn't representative. Most productive editors don't watch that page, while those more prone to disruption and drama mongering do, because they've been summoned there previously. The audience is far from being representative of our editors. Jehochman 14:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

  Jehochman, agree 100% your comments re the nature of ANI. But your idea of using a user's Talk, is a really bad idea. (Think a bit about a typical user's relationship to her/his Talk. Then think of the radical change you'd bring to it. Then think of the consequences re the previously mentioned relationship between a user and her/his Talk. ) p.s. Which is my whole point about planning. No doubt RfC/U and ANI/I are dysfunctional because they were similar ideas not thought through, and simply implemented. We shouldn't want to do that again. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Should people who obviously can't behave themselves be spared the embarrassement of such a disciplinry process taking place on their talk page? No not really, we do it with blocks all the time. But I'm not saying that I am necessarily in favour of Jehochman's idea. I work at ANI occasionally, but I don't have a high opinion of the place. With some careful consideration it could be vastly improved. As I've said before, the usefulness of ANI is diluted by the presence of too many uninvolved people who have nothing of substance to add and who just turn the ANI page into an even longer drama roll of virtual paper, or who simply populate the page just to maintain a strategic plan of opposition to all things adminship. Restrict ANI participation to admins, people who are directly concerned, and users in good standing, then there will be no peanuts thrown from kangaroos sitting in a virtual jurors' gallery. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Agreed only to the extent AN/I being open to "anyone can edit" is the problem. (But your solution sucks. Some admins are the worst kangaroos around. Including you. ) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've been here for nearly 10 years and have only certified an RFC/U once. I've requested and had accepted at least half a dozen arbitration cases. I don't think RFC/U will be missed, and I don't think ArbCom will see any noticeable increase in workload. If ArbCom thinks an RFC/U would be useful before accepting a case, they can say so and establish one on a subpage in Arb-space according to whatever rules they see fit, and they can ask an arbitration clerk to oversee the page. Jehochman 20:38, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

If Rfc/U is to be abolished, I would assume any ongoing Rfc/U would be allowed to run their courses. -- GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't been following all of this discussion, but would like to make a comment for consideration by whoever is going to figure out what to replace this with. The only RfC/U I've been closely involved with was Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Paul Bedson, which did exactly what it was supposed to do -- banned a user who needed to be banned, with almost complete unanimity. Because that was my only involvement with the process, I had a fairly high opinion of it. I'd like to request that whatever process replaces RfC/U makes it, at worst, no more difficult than it is now to ban obviously unproductive editors such as Bedson. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikiquette & the screen-wide 'orange' notification bar, are extinct. Now, Rfc/U is about to join them. Alot has changed in these 9-years. GoodDay (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Replacement (RFC/U)

Instead of RFCU, the new procedure would be (1) discuss any concerns with an editor on their talk page. (2) If that proves insufficient to resolve concerns, use {{RFC}} on the user's talk page to obtain outside input on the issue under discussion with the editor. This process minimizes bureaucracy, reuses a process that works well already, provides a mechanism to obtain outside input, and avoids placing new burdens on noticeboards or ArbCom. If a concern can't be resolved on a user talk page, or if the user refuses to engage, the matter could then be escalated. I am sure this could be fine tuned in practice, but I think it would be a good start. Jehochman 15:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• No replacement necessary – Our other processes work as well as they need to, for the moment, and RfC/U is so inept that losing it will not actually affect our existing processes in a large way. RGloucester — ☎ 15:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
• Support as this is exactly what my original comment stated in favour of abolishing RFC/U. Infact it does not matter if this proposal is supported or opposed here. It is a de facto fall back line after there's no RFC/U; the only difference is putting it out there for new users to follow too with instructions. I doubt there's any restriction in place stopping an RFC at a user talk page about their conduct so opposing here on that is pointless. If Jehochman wants to formally state it on wikipedia namespace so that newer editors can use it as a process before escalating, there's no issue with that. Since this will be the user's talkpage, there will be much less bureaucracy and this will only be able to continue if the user !owning the talkpage allows it, ie. wants to constructively engage. If he blanks the section, it simply suggests a refusal to go through the process and it can be escalated to a process like ANI on its own merit. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't sound very conducive to a positive result. The "default" option is not to involvee RfCs at all, which I think is for the better. If we're talking about contingencies, I support Dennis Brown's above proposal to spin-off a user-conduct sub-board of WP:AN. However, my primary position is that AN reform should be dealt with elsewhere. I oppose instituting any replacement, and I oppose recommending the use of "RfCs" on user pages. RGloucester — ☎ 15:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)What I am saying is, it does not matter if this proposal was not even made by Jehochman or any one at all. This is something that can always be done. I take Jehochman's proposal to be opting for a suggestive WP guideline for new users who would not think this use of an RFC (I have seen user page RFCs in presence of RFC/U and I guess they would be class apart from RFC/U). This does not interfere with presence or absence of any other proposals. This is something that can be reverted at whim of the !targeted party and that makes it compatible to being toothless and collaborative. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

As I said, there is no doubt that the use of an RfC will still be "possible" on a user's talk page. I am merely saying that we should not recommend doing this as part of our guidelines or policies, or dispute resolution process. RGloucester — ☎ 16:00, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

While I haven't expressed my view on this as yet, I personally don't understand your comment RGloucester. I thought the whole idea is to suggest RfC as a possible step (not a compulstory step). Whether it's for users on their talk pages if they wish or some other space, that's a separate question; newer users would not be aware of how it works if it is not even suggested or recommended as a possible step anywhere. Were you were meaning to say policy/guideline pages shouldn't recommend it as an almost compulsory step like they have so far? Or something else? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

If he means it shouldn't be a threshold or prerequisite for something like ArbCom or ANI, I tend to agree. Otherwise I doubt why it can't go in atleast as an essay style suggestion if not formalized guideline. I'm fine either way. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying that while such an RfC is possible, it should not be recommended, or otherwise endorsed as a possible part of the dispute resolution process. No new process should be created. The existing RfC process does not prohibit user-page RfCs, nor does it specifically allow for them. This is ideal. If it is determined in a particular case that an RfC of this sort should be held, then so be it. Otherwise, it is not appropriate process for dispute resolution, and is likely only to continue WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, given the way user talk pages are set-up, and given the nature of RfCs in general. I would not want new editors thinking that this process is even an option. It is a loop hole, rather than a generalised convention. RGloucester — ☎ 17:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Not tenable, because WP:TPO allows a user to remove comments from their own talk page. NE Ent 16:19, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that a user can remove the RFC or comments (although they can not remove comments that have replies without removing the replies too) is exactly why it will be clear to what extent it is useful and to what extent the user wishes to engage and as such, the user who started an RFC can also similarly remove the RFC tag and withdraw if the process is being hindered by talk page !owner. With that said, I get the point by RGloucester and would let consensus decide whether this should be used as a suggestive guideline or not. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

User:RGloucester wrote above "Our other processes work as well as they need to", no they do not neither AN or ANI are fit for purpose. As I wrote before:

For many high profile editors it is a lottery of how may of their friends and enemies happen to be online at the time and happen to be watching the ANI or are informed of it thought the bush telegraph. Add that some people are taking part in ANIs expressing opinions that are clearly not based on polices and guidelines and contributing nothing but clutter, making it harder to see what the real arguments are, and what the informed consensus is.

There are a number of other Misplaced Pages processes that deal with editorial behaviour (such as RFCs) that I think also lack natural justice as there is no clear divide between prosecutor, defence, jury, judge and executioner.

I have little faith in the ANI process because I no longer think it fit for purpose for anything but to carry out requests for the most simple tasks. I think it is time the whole process to be replaced.

Original written on 8 November 2011, See "ANI process ... no longer think it fit for purpose" for more details and links back to an example. -- PBS (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Whatever replaces Rfc/U, I strongly recommend that it be setup to exclude involved editors. Neutrality can only be secured with uninvolved editors. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. -- PBS (talk) 22:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that generally speaking, third-party bystanders won't be sufficiently motivated to perform the time-consuming research to get involved in a potentially confrontational process that doesn't directly involve them, so I believe input from involved parties will be needed. I think through effective moderation by a third party the feedback can be groomed to avoid redundancy and still capture the essential points, while removing the personal animus. isaacl (talk) 00:00, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• I happen to agree that having too much "involvedness" has undermined the usefulness/effectiveness of many RFC/U's. That doesn't mean that that problem has to undermine every RFC/U. There's no replacement forthcoming. There's not going to be any replacement. So RFC/U has to be kept, for those good editors who might use the existing RFC/U process well, avoiding obvious pitfall of having too strong a voice of too-involved participants. It has to be kept to allow some to address some small issues in a toothless or not-so-toothless way, to determine fair judgments, to address rogue editors, administrators, arbitrators that other processes are not capable of addressing. You don't casually take away the public's one means to run a process that some skilled good persons can use productively, possibly, sometimes, please. --doncram 09:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• I myself don't have fond memories of any RFC/Us, but the fault was in the unskilled implementation, I think. So the useful RfC/U you want to keep exists in theory only, as a potentiality, but not practice. (I.e. it doesn't exist.) So, your thoughts seem more oriented toward proposal yet undefined, or reformed RfC/U, as replacement, that has the positive potentialities you see. p.s. In the RfCUs I've read, the bullying shoe was on the other foot. (Do you really see the current structure of RfC/U as fostering ability to "determine fault/fairness"? ) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  I expect that many/most RFC/U's to date have been of the vindictive, bullying, throw-everything-negative-you-can type of "dispute resolution" processes, with hurt being extended. In my opinion, the ones running the RFC/Us make a mistake in trying to include too much. But ANIs and 3RRs are rushed, and arbcom cases have their role but are corrupted from being "fair" by the arbitrary power given, and I have no hope those processes will really change anything. And, I do happen to have some hope, that some creative good people in Misplaced Pages who are concerned about deep incivility and bullying can get together and use the existing RFC/U process in a deliberately, limited way that is ultimately more constructive. I have no hope whatsoever that good people in Misplaced Pages can get some brand new process created, or change RFA, or change arbcom, or change the rules of RFC/U, or anything else major. By deliberately starting small with narrowly defined RFC/Us that within the existing rules of RFC/U and are "toothless", but in which a community judgment can be made, I think some progress can begin to be made. For example, a group of 10 or 20 editors, perhaps at something like the Editor Retention wikiproject could compile a current list of seemingly obvious injustices done against newbies, and commit to running a set of a dozen or so fair, limited RFC/Us, where the facts are properly considered, and come out with a dozen well-reasoned accurate consensus judgments on what actually happened. In each case the judgment would be on whether some experienced administrator or other experienced editor was indeed deliberately and unnecessarily bullying, in the common English sense of the word, or whether there were some extenuating circumstances that explain it otherwise. E.g. perhaps the apparent victim is not so innocent. It would really help the newbie victim-type, to have there be a real and fair judgment of the facts, either way it turns out. And it would really help me and a lot of other experienced editors too, I think, to see bad behavior called bad behavior, when it turns out that is what it clearly is. Frankly I would deliberately mix up the starter dozen RFC/Us, to include a variety of editors' apparent unfair moments, and I would seek to get the good 10 or 20 to commit to reading and judging all dozen of the RFC/Us fully, towards reducing anyone's ability to say the RFC/U was biased by only having involved editors judging.

  I've been thinking about this for a while. I am not happy to be on the spot suggesting use of this approach right now, amidst a move to chuck it all. But it is unacceptable to completely give up on there ever being any process that gets after what is a fair judgment. Arbcom is not it. ANI is not it. This is it, or can be, I think. Don't pre-judge what I and a group of good people actually concerned about fairness, above all, might be able to do. --doncram 06:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Am concerned about fairness, too. Am not sure what your idea is with the 10 or 20 to thoroughly examine a "starter dozen" cases -- are you suggesting that such thorough reviews would continue for all RfCUs!? (If so, I agree w/ you the results would have a great chance of being fairer. But what you're suggesting is time-intensive, resource-intensive, so would have no chance for successful promotion in the current "anyone can edit & enjoy the thrill of judge, jury, & executioner" culture. The deal is you are right -- time & uninvolved serious participation/review has probability to deliver fairer, more accurate views. But the environment is currently plain schizoid regarding sense of fairness expectations on the WP. )

  Would you agree that elimination of "anyone can edit/review" in these cases would improve things? Would you also agree that one or two uninvolved/neutral admins as reviewers, without overwhelming time constraints on them, would improve things? (Well if you agreed those would be improvements, then you've just cut the people-time and drama-level down by vast amounts, even throwing in right or two of appeal. And wouldn't those savings render much greater chance for acceptance & implementation? Your idea how to achieve fairness can't be argued against, but would die on practicalities especially in current environment. ) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  It seems to me that fairness is pretty much disregarded on Misplaced Pages, in effect, though not the fault of many good editors who do speak up and try to get to fairness sometimes. Overall there's a crisis of confidence that anything can be done fairly, and those who care about fairness are burnt out. Many RFC/U's themselves have been unfair, and I think that is partly because of lack of skill/training/cooperation of good people who could use the tool better. It would not help to eliminate the RFC/U process, preventing good people from teaming up and trying to do it better in a series of cases that could make a difference. Yes, perhaps starting with a list of about a dozen cases where there is great perception of unfairness going on, e.g. where experienced administrator(s), arbitrator(s), or other experienced editors appear to have been bullying some relative newbie or other relatively defenseless editor. I hope to enlist, or to join up with, a group of editors who'd like to make a difference about cases like that.

  About your questions on whether "one or two uninvolved/neutral admins as reviewers, without overwhelming time constraints on them, would improve things?", I don't understand what you are driving at. You don't have any real proposal there, do you? --doncram 10:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

  Not a proposal just a question. (The idea is 10–20 editors is too great an investment to find wings. But will 1–2 uninvolved/neutral admins produce results in the same positive direction as your 10–20 conception?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The vast majority of people agree that the current RfC/U is no more fit for purpose. Rather than just dropping it completely how about modifying it and limiting its scope. For example putting in a level of clerks/overseers to make sure that the requirements for an RfC are met before it proceeds. To go with the clerks/overseers, detailed requirements to make the process more likely to be used positively rather than to bludgeon an opponent:

• Is the content of the "Statement of Dispute" and the "Desired outcome" focused enough and within policy to be something that any reasonable editor would be willing to abide. -- Too often the "dispute" is defined using a shotgun approach of hitting multiple targets which makes the desired outcome to be too nebulous.
• Does the description given meet the requirements for a description section?
• Have to at least two user independent of the dispute in good faith tried and failed to resolve the dispute. At the moment some of the statements put forwards as "Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute" are lamentable, and often include statements put forward by "Users certifying the basis for this dispute".

-- PBS (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, let's fix a process that people describe as rigid and bureaucratic by adding another level of bureaucracy to make it even more rigid. Mr.Z-man 13:54, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

No need for replacement or reform

I disagree with any of the proposals to replace Request for Comments on User Conduct with anything else. First, the original purpose of the RFC/U has been obsolete for nearly a decade. The original purpose of the RFC/U was as a structured means of providing input to User:Jimbo Wales to request that he ban users. Since he no longer uses that reserved power, there is no need for a means of structured input. The evidence page for the ArbCom and the diffs at WP:ANI serve the same purpose for those venues to ban users. The ArbCom does not require an RFC/U as a preliminary step to taking up a case, even in cases of administrative abuse. The ArbCom has, within the past year, desysopped two administrators without first requiring an RFC/U. The heat that is surrounding a particular ArbCom request concerning alleged administrative abuse is mostly the result of the failed RFC/U, and the case could have been brought anyway. Second, there have been proposals to make RFC/U either more rigid or less rigid. Some sort of reform of RFC/U would only be needed if some sort of RFC/U procedure were needed. RFC/U is not RFA, another troublesome process. The English Misplaced Pages does need RFA, because it does need administrators. It does not need RFC/U, because other mechanisms exist for dealing with user misconduct. Making RFC/U more rigid would just make it more difficult and equally disruptive. Making it less rigid would just permit more disruptive RFC/U proceedings. Third, the suggestion has been made to use the dispute resolution noticeboard. That would defeat one of the strengths of that noticeboard, which is that it only handles content dispute, and rejects cases that involve conduct. Fourth, the suggestion has been made to create another noticeboard. That would have most of the disadvantages of RFC/U. Any replacement for RFC/U either would not work, or would have the same disadvantages as RFC/U. We should simply get rid of it. Its original purpose was to request that users be banned by Jimbo Wales. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Do think that WP:ANI is fit for purpose? -- PBS (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

+1. why get consensus to remove a process that we don't need anymore only to replace it with a slightly more streamlined process we don't need. Just send stuff to AN and AN/I, it's where most of it goes anyway. Protonk (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As no replacement has been proposed, the Rfc/U will likely remain. GoodDay (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason I want it abolished is because I want the process eliminated, so that we can reduce bureaucracy. Meaning, I have no desire for a "replacement", since no replacement will work. The concept is just too flawed. What you are saying hardly makes sense. RGloucester — ☎ 19:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not certain if those in charge will be willing to scrap Rfc/U, without it being replaced. They may prefer the current number of bureaucracy steps. GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• I o not know who those in charge might be, but the community has the absolute ability to remopve this process, and if the conclusion of the RfC is sufficiently strong , it will be removed. Changes like this are not one of the thing under the jurisdiction of arb com nor of the Foundation. There are csome things the community can and should do of its own responsibility, and this is one. DGG ( talk ) 11:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Except the community does not agree that this process should be removed. Everyone feels differently about it. Furthermore, if it is not replaced with something if for some odd reason it is removed, then we are just digging ourselves into a hole that we will never get out of.

Also, Protonk, "why get consensus" seems like another way of saying "why bother discussing". Are you insinuating that the opinions of those that disagree with removing RFC/U should just be ignored? Just because the original purpose of RFC/U is no longer needed now doesn't mean it can't be fixed up to be something better (or, you know, replaced by something similar but more functional) If we didn't decide things by consensus, Misplaced Pages would be overrun by whomever has the most time on their hands. We have to run this by the book, because this is a major decision that needs to be thoroughly discussed, and allow everyone and anyone who wishes to do so to be able to give their tuppence worth on the matter. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 03:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Tharthan, correctly reading consensus from a Misplaced Pages discussion comes from a lot of experience, usually from taking part in a lot of discussions and also having contributed significantly in areas that require sound judgement. Running 'by the book' means reasonably accurately gauging consensus, not glancing at a long discussion and simply 'thinking' what the majority wants. Closing a discussion like this can often take hours.

I share the opinion of those who based on their experiece of Misplaced Pages feel that RFC/U is no longer useful, and that it should be replaced with nothing - or at least nothing where trolls, foul-mouths, and the peanut gallery are allowed to participate. But it's probably best of all not to replace one piece of bureaucracy with another. I think we should preferably be looking at improving the functions of ANI and Arbcom and keeping some of the regulars away from them who only come along to disrupt the processes or simply take swipes at admins and arbs whoever they are. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I can tell by the opinions given here that the community is divided. I think that is relatively obvious. Or, are we going to get into one of those arguments?

I respect your opinion, but personally I think that this needs to either not be removed, or (if removed) replaced with some sort of better process and not just nixed completely with no replacement. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tharthan: I'm not sure what you mean. What I'm saying is why bother having an RfC like the above (which looks like it will end up eliminating RFC/U) only to replace it with a fundamentally similar process? It's possible that the discussion should be closed with a recommendation to create a replacement but IMO we don't need a replacement. RFC/U is not a high functioning process with some problems, it's a fundamentally broken process with few success stories (and plenty of alternative for DR). Protonk (talk) 20:03, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, first of all one never truly knows the outcome of this kind of discussion. Secondly, what do we do if the removal and lack of replacement of this process leads to bigger problems down the line? I agree that we should nip it in the bud and fix this problem, however fix does not necessarily mean destroy. No, instead, we should repair this broken system so that it functions the way it had ought to. Or, like I said before, alternatively, we create something new to replace RFC:U that does what RFC:U was supposed to do but better and more functionally. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No we don't know, but that's why the comment is basically conditional. If we decide to remove RFC, then there's no sense in replacing it with something fundamentally different. As for the rest, what RFC/U was supposed to do was be a precursor to sending someone before Jimbo. That hasn't been a mechanism for dealing with editor conduct issues for about a decade. In the meanwhile, what has RFC/U accomplished that we should fear deprecating it? What major function does it perform well that "repairing" it would further improve? As I said in my vote, the incentives behind the process are staggeringly broken, we don't actually see many RFC/Us and the majority of situations where we want a community discussion with an enforced outcome can happen elsewhere (and are happening right now). What's there to fix? Protonk (talk) 21:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Support replacement - I support this replacement, and only support abolishing WP:RFCU if there is a suitable replacement. Requiring users to go straight to WP:ANI may result in absolutely NOTHING being done about a problem. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Support replacement or revamping - I too support either a replacement or a revamp of the current system. Preferably a revamp, though a replacement would work too. There simply needs to be something aside from WP:ANI for this kind of stuff. Tharthandorf Aquanashi (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Support replacement or reform. The idea suggested by Jehochman is pretty good. Coretheapple (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Keep as is. Not broken and provides a useful filter to frivolous ArbCom cases. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposing DRN for user conduct issues

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.

Upon reading about the Misplaced Pages dispute resolution process, I have discovered that although there are many venues for resolving content issues (such as WP:3O, WP:DRN, etc.), there are not very many at all for resolving conduct issues, aside from WP:ANI, WP:RFCU, and WP:ARBCOM. There are issues with all of these:

• ANI is not suitable for persons seeking friendly, moderated dispute resolution, as it is largely ruled by mob.
• RFCU is about to be closed, because the latest DangerousPanda controversy has shown the process to be rather unhelpful.
• ArbCom is only for the most serious of disputes, and the majority of disputes do not reach the level of seriousness required to justify an ArbCom case.

Therefore, I propose that we create another noticeboard, similar to WP:DRN. However, this noticeboard would be for resolving user conduct issues. Like the current DRN, this noticeboard would be a moderated environment (attended to by volunteers) where users in a dispute involving conduct could discuss the issues at hand. If implemented, this noticeboard would serve as a "stepping stone" between the initial talk page discussion and ANI, which would (hopefully) reduce the amount of drama and mob rule that regularly occurs as of now.
Thanks in advance for your input. --Biblioworm 21:01, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• Kind of like WP:WQA? The community shut it down because it was "doing Misplaced Pages, and it's editors, more harm than good." The community seems to want less bureaucracy, it keeps shutting boards down, and I have to admit, it has been for the better. Let me add, I would probably be against ANYTHING unless the dust has settled with RFC/U gone. How do we know what void to fill until we've had time to look at the void? Like with WQA, we just *might* be better with NO replacement. Regardless, it seems early to be worrying about it. Dennis - 2¢ 21:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
• I agree with Dennis... why not wait until after the RfC/U discussion above has had a chance to settle, and then see where we are? As the number of editors and admins declines, it's only reasonable that the number of processes and noticeboards should decline as well, as there are fewer volunteers and less volunteer time available to help at each one. 28bytes (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I've made a suggestion above, a slight procedural change at ANI for cases that get too large. That alone should be sufficient to deal with the extra traffic, plus you don't have to "decide" if a case is ANI or more RFC-ish case when filing, it is allowed to grow and be dealt with in a more organic fashion. Unlike with RFC/U, it is a purely admin board, with tool use being an option. Dennis - 2¢ 16:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I oppose expanding DRN, as my experience there is that it is a toothless process similar to RfC/U, and suffers from a certain bureaucracy that just doesn't work. Our best processes are the free form ones at AN/I and AN, and I support Mr Brown's suggestion above that we reform AN and AN/I to better serve the interests of community. RGloucester — ☎ 19:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I understand you point about excessive bureaucracy and such, but is it possible to deny the fact that ANI is an uncivil battleground that is ruled by mob? If anything, AN and ANI need reform, like a couple of others above me have said. --Biblioworm 19:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
        • I agree that AN and AN/I need reform (as I said), but they work better than any other processes we have. AN/I often works. It can be uncivil, but that is not a problem particular to AN/I. It can be dramatic, but that is not a problem particular to AN/I. At the very least, AN/I allows grievances to be voiced in public, surrounded by "uninvolved" voices, and does not require the strict formatting requirements of RfC/Us or DRN. It is efficient. In cases when it is not efficient, the appropriate thing to do is head to ArbCom. RGloucester — ☎ 19:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
          • The mob is at Misplaced Pages, and will follow the drama. It doesn't matter the venue or the process. The mob will go to where it is called. --Jayron32 17:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
            • The primary reason the mob rules at AN/I and similar places is that the people represented by the "A" in the name allow it to rule. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
              • I think you have a complete misunderstanding of what the "A" people are empowered to do at Misplaced Pages. --Jayron32 12:32, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose creation of a new DRN. Let's review: Serious user conduct issues requiring admin intervention go to AN or ANI, issues the community is otherwise unable to resolve go to ArbCom. Non-serious user conduct issues that don't require admin intervention then have nowhere to go, which is a good thing because it forces users to either talk these things out or simply let them go, either of which is better than formal dispute processes which tend to escalate things and result in hurt feelings. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:12, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, not because I think it's a bad idea per se, but because AN/I tends to fulfill this purpose, although with frequent drama, but that comes with the nature of the requests. It is possible to have civil discourse there, but quite often hostility is brought over from whatever talk page the fighting is already happening on, and I don't see how any new or existing (or historical) process or noticeboard could deal with that drama more efficiently. And frequently, admin tools are required to implement the will of the community, so AN/I is a more appropriate venue anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: that's the same as WQA which was shut down. I didn't !vote at WQA, so I guess I can suggest the nom to try getting WQA back on with a new reform which would be something like he's proposing. Then again he has to watch for WP:SNOW. --lTopGunl (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• "ANI is not suitable for persons seeking friendly, moderated dispute resolution, as it is largely ruled by mob." - what makes you think any new forum would not be the same (or, at least, would not suffer the same failings, whatever they are)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:47, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm not really even watching this discussion anymore. However, the reason I think this would work is because the current DRN for content disputes has seemed to work out fairly well, because civility is required and enforced there. ANI, however, is the place where people go to seek revenge, turn discussions around people who bring up good-faith complaints, etc. All in all, it's just a terrible place to get any rational dispute resolution done, unless some people make themselves self-appointed ANI mediators (not a bad idea). --Biblioworm 14:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• Personally, I think most users are dissatisfied with the system as it exists after having had some experience with it, and there seems to be a significant push in recent months for changing procedures and processes. The fact is though that this is all happening a bit late, and should have occurred some years ago - but alas, it was rashness which led to procedures being enacted back then, and it's the same rashness which is now shutting them down (without first putting in effective systems in place). For this reason, I must applaud Biblioworm for at least recognising some part of this and making an effort propose some alternative to add to the extremely limited options available. That said, I fear Misplaced Pages history has shown that enacting this particular idea is likely to end up being no different to previous noticeboards (such as the sanctions noticeboard and WQA) which were subsequently shut down. A proposal which would lead to a mediation of conduct disputes - so that if mediation fails and the parties are simply unable to come to a resolution, then it proceeds further - might be worthwhile, but it again comes down to a lack of incentive by parties to participate in a meaningful way. It is a website after all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• The best venue for discussing user conduct is the user's own talk page. Go there, raise concerns politely and talk to them like a human. This usually works. No special noticeboards are needed. Taking a concern to a noticeboard is inherently hostile and almost always intensifies a dispute. Jehochman 15:26, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I Agree with Dennis Brown and partly with Jayron32. Let the dust settle over the closure of RFC/U but creating another venue to fill the void would be a big mistake. Start looking how ANI can be improved by turning it back into an Admin venue, disallowing comments from uninvolved newbs, admin wannabes, and general admin haters and others with an axe to grind who have been allowed to exercise their mob justice there for far too long; disallow NAC, and please, NO self-appointed moderators from the peanut gallery. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  Who, slow your roll bro... I agree with approximately zero percent of what you said there. Admins are not a special class of Misplaced Pages user with their own special playground where non-admins aren't welcome. No aspect of Misplaced Pages should ever be closed off to non admins. Having a few extra editing tools to protect the text of Misplaced Pages articles from vandalism and disruption does not grant admins special social rights at Misplaced Pages. The idea that the admin bit allows a small cadres of users to shut other users out of discussions at ANI or anywhere is abhorrent and I weep for your soul if you believe that. --Jayron32 02:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

  I was going to comment, but @Jayron32 said just about everything that I was going to. --Biblioworm 04:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Jayron32 (and I thought for a moment you were an admin), I'm surprised you didn't read what I said before launching into an almost 100% PA. You are fully aware that ANI is almost saturated by hardly relevant comments from the spectators' gallery. It resembles as much discipline as a Grade 6 classroom while the teacher is out of the room. If more admins (of the nice kind, naturally) were to risk having to duck the missiles and participate there more often, perhaps at least it could be turned into the decorum of a proper meeting and more judgement and less kangaroo justice would ensue. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I am an admin. I have been for six years. And you have confused "personal attack" with "calling you on an opinion I disagree with". People who say you are wrong are not personally attacking you. It is fundamentally wrong to "disallow comments" from anyone. It is not a personal attack to tell you that. Of course, when you use derogatory names like "newbs" and "wannabes" and "haters", that isn't a personal attack, but when I use zero derogatory names, and tell you that you are incorrect, I am personally attacking you? Again, I can find no reason to agree with you on that one. Perhaps you need to learn that personal attacks is what you did using the words you did. So I say again, slow your roll and learn that you didn't earn the right to call other people names when you became an admin, you did not become immune from criticism when you became an admin, and when you make overt statements which are exactly against Misplaced Pages's open community ethos, expect people to call you on that and tell you why you are wrong. --Jayron32 20:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support A little structure, like that used at DRN is exactly what is needed in (or apart from) ANi where currently anyone can post any unstructured unsubstantiated crap in total war against other editors on their personal enemy list. Legacypac (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose expansion of DRN to dealing with conduct issues. I created DRN some time ago, mostly for the perceived benefit of creating a many-to-many relationship between dispute participants and volunteers, working together to resolve disputes partially by mediating disputes, and partially by uninvolved editors giving their feedback on the issue. It has structure, which some perceive as bureaucracy, in an effort to control discussion to ensure the discussions stay productive. WQA had some structure but as it had no teeth (some may argue DRN needs teeth - my perspective is that DRN is a forum to resolve content disputes with the hopeful eventual result one all involved can live with, thus a binding decision is not necessary) and conduct disputes often end with one side getting "in trouble" - DRN and similar processes are not a suitable environment for these and this is the reason for my opposition. Steven Zhang 00:57, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose what we have is alright, for dealing with user conduct. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose While I have no opinion (at least at this juncture) about what additional processes, if any, might help with conduct issues, mixing conduct and content issues at DRN will merely complicate resolution of the content issues. We have a strict practice there of declining to discuss conduct and that forces people to focus in on what they're really arguing about not on the emotional issues which complicate that discussion. Indeed, all content DR processes — 3O, DRN, and MedCom — refuse to take on conduct issues for that very reason. Don't make things worse trying to make them better. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC) PS: My comments only reflect the concept of adding conduct issues to the existing DRN, not creating a new DRN for conduct issues, about which I have no fully-formed opinion. — TM 21:40, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I disagree with the early assertion that DRN is toothless or overly-bureaucratic. It's not perfect, but it's worth maintaining in its current state. It at least offers disputants the chance to work out their content concerns under impartial, competent supervision. But this is a format designed for content and substantive disputes, not personal conduct issues, and is not the proper infrastructure for resolving such conduct issues. —Theodore! (talk) (contribs) 01:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• ? I have no idea what RfC/U is. Please define abbreviations the first time they are used in a thread. To do so is standard practice in scholarly discourse. Kdammers (talk) 06:06, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: alternative to RfA: appointment of administrators

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

After much discussion on this page about the future of the RfA process, I'd like to propose a new alternative process for granting administrator status. This proposal is the product of discussion both on this page, and at the page I'll link in just a moment. It is proposed that the Misplaced Pages community create a body called the Administrative Standards Commission (ASC) to appoint administrators in parallel to the existing RfA process. The text of this proposal can be found at the link I've just provided. The talk page of that proposal is where it was discussed and drafted. Should we implement this proposal as specified at the proposal page? RGloucester — ☎ 00:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (alternative to RfA)

• I dont like the idea of creating more bureaucracy to deal with this. It seems to me that it just bureaucratizes the problem instead of solving it. What I like about the proposal is that the "bureau" also proposes desysopping, presumably with some weight so that it is actually acted upon. I think it would be a better idea to make the process more participatory, but less onerous. The problem is not broad participation in deciding who gets the tools. It is the bar that needs to be lowered. Nonetheless I am pretty much willing to try anything new at this point so I may end up supporting this proposal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand the reservations of bureaucracy creep, but, at the same time, creating some sort of board to deal with unforeseen circumstances as they arise could reduce the number of specific qualifications under unusual circumstances which would probably have to be itemized for a broader "automatic" proposal to pass. John Carter (talk) 01:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No, "broad participation" is the problem, because it turns administrators into politicians, a role they should not be playing. Administrators should be technocrats, carrying out tasks necessary for the maintenance of the encyclopaedia, in line with the principle of "no big deal". Technocrats cannot possibly carry out their duties to the extent necessary in a climate where they will be strung up in front of a mob. We don't want administrators who are of a lesser quality, merely we want administrators who can do their jobs appropriately. The present system patently discourages those who are best at doing these jobs from ever running for adminship. Removing the mob from the equation is the appropriate way to solve this problem. We need to put our trust in representatives, elected by the community. RGloucester — ☎ 02:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

If that is the reasoning then I cannot support this proposal. The "not politicians" argument makes no sense since you are exactly proposing a board of elected "politicians" to appoint dmins instead of just appointing them directly through election. That simply moves the problem by adding an additional level of bureaucracy. The reason admins get embroiled with "politics" is because by necessity they deal directly with users and exercise power. They can no more be "technocrats" than law enforcement officers can - they are in their very essence a political class. Your proposal solves none of the problems you or I see (which I clearly not the same) and it adds the problem of an other small clique of powerful users who make decisions on the behalf of others. Nothing could be further form the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Back to the drawing board. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That's the point, fellow. We must separate the politicians from the administrators, which is how government does it. Politicians appoint administrators on behalf of their electorate. This is because people that carry out technical work need to be able to do so without being taxed by political manoeuvring. Likewise, that's what we'd do here. Administrators are patently not politicians, nor should they be, neither is a constable a politician. Politicians are those that trade in discourse. Administrators should not trade in discourse, nor should constables. They should carry out the tasks needed to maintain the encyclopaedia, and to curtail disruption to editorial processes. They are trusted by the community to do this. They exercise their power on behalf of the community in this way. When a constable is forced to run for election, however, he becomes beholden to populism, to bargaining, and to politics. No longer will the quiet technocrat do the job well, but instead, the gregarious politician will do the job poorly. We need to return adiministration to its roots, here. Administrators began as technocrats, and they should remain as such. RfA has moved us away from that ideal. This proposal allows us to get back to our roots. It is anything but far from the "spirit of Misplaced Pages". In fact, it preserves the encylopaedia in away that RfA never can. Being an administrator should be "no big deal", and this proposal enshrines that principle. RGloucester — ☎ 02:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It does entirely the opposite. It makes it a requisite for admins to suck up to a small clique of powermongers. It is this kind of system that leads to Feguson and Ayotzinapa in the real world.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

No "power-mongers" are involved. Commissioners would be elected by the community, in the same manners as Arbitrators. They'd be trusted, for that reason, just as Arbitrators are. They would not have any power over anyone. The only power they'd have is to accept applications for administrative rights, and to vet candidates for adminship. RfA would continue exist as a venue, concurrently. Democracy is rarely the answer to any problems, not least technical ones. Populism is our a problem, this Commission is the solution. However, I fear you are merely standing on a soapbox, and haven't read the proposal, so I shan't respond to you further. RGloucester — ☎ 03:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've read it thanks for the confidence. "Democracy is rarely the answer to any problems" describes very well where you are coming from and why you and I will never see eye to eye. I honestly don't know why people with that outlook would even be evolved in this eminently democratic project. Certainly I will stand on a soapbox if that is what it takes to stop people with ideas like yours from removing the singlemost sane and reasonable aspect of this project.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't consider this project democratic. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, as we're oft told. Misplaced Pages is a compendium of knowledge, and I happen like writing a bit of prose here and there. We have stringent editorial guidelines, and fight we fight for quality, rather than quantity. As guardians of knowledge, we must discriminate. Regardless, democracy is rarely sane. It works as a check on the apparatus of power, but it is not capable of exercising that power on its own. People like to think, these days, that they're special, that they're an "individual" in the liberal sense. They fragment themselves from the totality of human reality, which causes an intense fragmentation of society. This is evident in every part of our contemporary society, and is evident here. People put their own "right to decide" over what's good for the project. This results in the disaster we now have at RfA, and elsewhere on this project. We must reform these processes to remove populism the equation, and focus on the collective interest of our fair encyclopaedia. This proposal does that. RGloucester — ☎ 04:45, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like cryptofascist "dark enlightenment" crap to me.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of either of those terms, but I do know that I am certainly not a fascist in any form. I'm a Marxist, if you will, and I believe that the interest of the collective is of greater importance than the interest of the individual. Working for the common good requires that we recognise our collectivity. That applies here as much as anywhere. In fact, the internet seems to give the individual outsize importance, as so many usual human urges to yield to the collective are suppressed by the computer screen's lack of humanity. However, I digress. RGloucester — ☎ 05:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Then substitute stalinism for the desired effect. The result is the same, a select ruling class of "technocrats" keeps the unruly masses in order for the sake of the greater good. Not something I would ever lend my voice or vote to.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The commissioners would be elected. They would not materialise out of thin air, or take control with swords and guns. I liked Mr Stradivarius's suggestion below, which is that one could run for election if one really has such concerns. Regardless, I don't think going on about the spectre of Stalinism is likely to be productive. RGloucester — ☎ 05:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Since this is a major proposal, we should find a way to widely publicize it. Perhaps we could add this proposal to MediaWiki:Watchlist-details? --Biblioworm 02:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that. I'm now demoralised by the misconceptions above, so forgive me whilst I vacate this forum and allow others to comment. RGloucester — ☎ 02:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to note that I've added this discussion to Template:Centralized discussion. --Biblioworm 03:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• What exactly would be the limits of this ASC? They'd obviously be able to appoint the administrative toolset. Would they be able to revoke access to the administrative toolset if an issue where to arise? What would be their limits in regards to the sets of tools such as crat, OS, CU, TE, etc? I understand there seems to be a rush to offer an alternative to RfA based on the slew of recent proposals and RfCs on the topic, but I want to make sure I have a firm understanding of exactly what such a new "committee" would have authority to do. I'd also like to understand better what the set of board members for such a committee might look like as in representatives for editors with various interests and abilities. — {{U|Technical 13}} 03:06, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please read the this section, which makes it clear as to what their duties would be. At first, if the establishment was approved, they'd only be able to appoint administrators, and also to search for candidates. The commission would be composed of both administrators and non-administrators, in line with this section. If you read the implementation section, it says that the powers of the Commission could be expanded to include review of administrative action at a later date. This would not be included in their initial duties. RGloucester — ☎ 03:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you, those links to specific sections was very useful. Couple more questions I didn't see addressed in those sections. What would the thresholds be for various things such as appointment to the committee, the threshold for which requests hold "merit", and threshold for agreement to appoint (or other final decisions). I'm thinking like the minimum 50% required for ArbCom appointment and the 70%ish support for the current RfA system. I'm also thinking the threshold for "merit" should be set relatively low to allow discussion. Would there be any any requirement for a potential grantee for the administrative tools have to accept the toolset (I know it may sound silly to some, but I think this question has merit based on the number of editors who have been given access to other user groups without requesting them and have never used the tools or have quit editing all together)? — {{U|Technical 13}} 03:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The elections are meant mimic ArbCom elections, as it says in the proposal. The threshold for merit would be decided by the commissioners, as part of their rules of order. The proposal provides for the idea that the first commissioners would establish rules of order, so that the commission could function. They'd be constrained by this framework, but they'd be free set-up their own workings. Of course, if someone didn't want the tools they wouldn't be made to take them. RGloucester — ☎ 04:00, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your candid answers to my questions about this proposal. That said, I'm unmoved by this proposal in either direction. I've recently started helping out at WP:ANRFC and have found that I really enjoy reading all of the arguments in both directions and closing discussions. That said, I'd be happy to contribute to the closing of this discussion when that time comes. — {{U|Technical 13}} 04:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• I sort of like the idea in theory but see a some issues with the setup. Here are my thoughts:
  1. One is that it solidifies the admin vs. non-admin thing with the make up of the board. While I realize I am probably in the minority here for the most part the admin bit is really no big deal even if we make it that way. By setting the makeup to be current admin vs. not an admin we would end up codify that perception. I would think a better metric would be to mostly consist of editors that have successfully nominated someone else for admin. I believe nominators don't necessarily have to be admins, so it still allows "outside" views, but it also would encourage people to nominate good candidates if they want to get on such a board. It also means that people deciding on the board have a better idea how potential members would evaluate successful admins.
  2. Another issue is that thirteen seems like a bit large a group, while an odd nunber is good if straight forward majority voting is used. But given that the group is intended to be an alternative to RfAs and that anyone that tries can still go through an RfA or possibly try again after a period of time, a veto system might work better. Say a much smaller board of 5 with all having veto power. This means that the board can quickly skip candidates as soon as someone vetos and also allows for deeper investigation as board members should be able to prove why someone makes a candidate or what concerns that have to another panelist. If the board deadlocks and fails to promote any candidates in X time a new board should be elected.
  3. I'd suggest such a system start small, with a limited rate of mop hand outs if it is formed so that the community can judge the effectiveness.
  4. I'd also split searching for candidates off from the duties of the board. The board should be able to appoint clerks who would do searches for potential candidates ( besides the self-submitted ones ) and would do some of the grunt work research on the candidates. This leaves a leaning central board that can focus on the issues while off-loading much of the grunt work to volunteers. PaleAqua (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions. I think it is essential that non-administrators have representation on this Commission, to enshrine the principle of "no big deal". Administrators and non-administrators must be considered equal, and this proposal makes that clear. I originally had a smaller group, seven, as the number of commissioners. However, we realised that a larger group is necessary, because there may be commissioners who resign, or are absent, which frequently happens on the Arbitration Committee. For these reasons, I think thirteen is a good number, because it ensures that the smooth functioning of the commission won't be hampered by a few absences. Searching for candidates was the original purpose of this Commission. That's one the benefits of having thirteen commissioners, I'd say. As it says in the proposal, they'll establish their own rules of order, and whatever. They may decide to delegate power to certain commissioners, or to hire clerks. That's for the commissioners to decide amongst themselves. RGloucester — ☎ 03:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps this is a little early, but I've gone ahead and created WP:MOPCOM. — Mr. Stradivarius 08:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
• Well, I have an idea that I'm kind of half-joking about; how about we just close WP:RFA, turn Misplaced Pages:Requests for permissions/Administrator into a requests page? I mean, the right can only be granted by bureaucrats, and as far as I can tell, one of the major aspects of becoming a bureaucrat is being a good judge of what makes an administrator. Seriously, when I saw this proposal first, that's what I thought if was for... Steel1943 (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this idea has merit. Debresser (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure what to make of this proposal. I do remember Jimbo once said that RfA was a "broken process" or something like that. A logical replacement would be desirable, but the idea of a committee has its ups and downs. The main issue with RfA is that it has become too daunting that even the supposed "best of editors" are afraid to go through the fiery hounds of hell, er, RfA. Putting the decision to give someone the mop to the community has the benefit in that the community is essentially the one that gets served by the sysops, not the other way around. Having a committee that separately appoints administrators, therefore, would seem very bureaucratic and a lot of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY would be hurled across the room, and the community will not be pleased if someone who had the tools capable of damaging the entire website was selected by a small group of people. On the other hand though, it would otherwise keep hater votes and votes cast by people that don't do a thorough check at bay, and I personally think it will reduce the amount of good editors that are scared off by RFA. --I am k6ka _{See what I have done} 19:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Has anyone asked the WMF if they would allow this process, in the past Philippe has said that an editor would need to pass an "RFA or RFA-identical process" (here) before being allowed to have access to deleted revisions so this proposals seems to be a non-starter from the get go. Unless WMF Legal change their mind, I can't see a reason not to close this discussion. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  This is roughly identical to RfA. Commissioners would be elected, and would represent the community's will. Their votes would be equivalent to the votes of those who voted for them, in line with the principle of the social contract. Your concerns are unfounded. RGloucester — ☎ 02:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  Your claim that the proposed process is "roughly identical to RfA" is preposterous. The WMF might deem it a satisfactory alternative, of course. Are you suggesting that there's no need to inquire? —David Levy 03:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  The only difference would be that commissioners would cast votes on candidates for adminship on behalf of the community. There is no difference, because the commissioners would be elected by that community. It is merely a form of delegation and representation. To be honest, I hardly think that it matters what they think. What's good governance is good governance, regardless RGloucester — ☎ 13:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  The only difference would be that commissioners would cast votes on candidates for adminship on behalf of the community.
  Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? (My apologies for not knowing a British equivalent.)
  It's a fundamental difference. That doesn't make it bad, but I'm taken aback by your continued assertion that it's inconsequential.
  And it isn't "the only difference". You advocate the creation of a representative democracy, wherein the community elects "commissioners" to actively recruit candidates and appoint administrators via simple majority votes. This is very different – in multiple key respects – from RfA, wherein the community engages in open discussion and the bureaucrats gauge consensus.
  There is no difference, because the commissioners would be elected by that community.
  Irrespective of which system is better, how can you possibly believe that "there is no difference"?
  To be honest, I hardly think that it matters what they think.
  It doesn't matter what the Wikimedia Foundation thinks about this? Is that actually what you're saying? —David Levy 08:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Support (alternative to RfA)

1. John Carter (talk) 01:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC) - This proposal has a lot of the strengths of one of the other proposals above regarding possible "automatic" appointment of admins while also having the one thing I think that proposal lacked, which is some sort of body to see that there is some sort of review of candidates.
2. It's time that we have some sort of change. Let's not be fooled into thinking that "there is no problem, after all" because of the recently successful RfAs. In fact, we lost a great vandal fighter as a result of RfA just a few days ago. --Biblioworm 01:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   Yes, we lost a prolific vandal fighter (at least temporarily) but that RfA is not a good example of the RfA process failing. The user's reaction to their RfA further underscores the concerns raised by the opposes. The user should not be an admin unless change occurs. We may occasionally lose editors due to failed RfAs like this but administrators lacking judgment and tact can ultimately do more harm to Misplaced Pages's reputation than their contributions are worth. It seems likely the user may have had already contributed to good faith editors leaving the project merely as an editor. So please, don't use that RfA as the process not working. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

3. Support as proposer – This proposal will allow RfA to continue. It will not, as they say, throw the baby out with the bathwater. It will allow the community to trial an alternative method of appointing administrators. It will remove the toxicity of RfA from the equation, allowing for candidates who are more technocratic, but less able to handle the political requirements of RfA. Commissioners will be representatives of the community who will work to solve the problems we face, least amongst them the problems of having good administrators. This proposal, as far as I can see, is flexible and worth a shot. We've seen this debate go on for years, and now we have a chance to do something about RfA reform. We need this Commission. RGloucester — ☎ 02:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   This proposal will not "remove the toxicity of RfA from the equation" - it will create new and unpleasant drama. If a user is unsuited to being elected via RfA, but is then elected by the committee, the committee which elected that user will face questions, some of which will be very hostile. This will happen. And it will be very unpleasant for all concerned. This is not a solution, it's the creation of a new (and possibly bigger) problem. If a user is so uncontroversial that nobody would question their appointment, then they would sail through a RfA, and so would not need a committee to elect them. SilkTork 18:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

   OK, but WHAT WOULD remove the toxicity of the RfA process? We can't change human nature or the personalities of the individuals in the WP community. Without an RfA alternative, how can any progress be made? --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

   Um, some very good contributors have not "sailed through RfA". In fact, some have had very difficult RfAs. The fact of the matter is that RfA is mob rule, and as the name implies, mobs are not very sensible. —Biblioworm 19:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

4. Support - I helped with drafting the proposal, BTW. We will have a lot more good administrators if all they have to do is ask. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support. This will allow good candidates to become admins without the stress and hostility of an RfA, and should result in many more good editors applying for the position, and in many more good admins. Bad candidates would still not get the position, and there would finally be a way to desysop existing admins without starting an ArbCom case. If editors are worried about the standards that ASC would apply, they can always run for the committee themselves. — Mr. Stradivarius 05:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Tentative support I like the concept, though I do have concerns with the details, but they can get fixed later. See my comments above for some detailed thoughts. For example, I do think that the community should have more of a say in the ground rules of such a board and worry that it will find itself bogged down on discussions of perfectly acceptable though less than perfect candidates. I feel a more vetted more streamlined process might better serve the project in the long term even if it rejects some okay would-be admins to the RfA process or a future attempt. PaleAqua (talk) 05:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Tentative support but only if this ASC isn't filled with the same old boys club who make RFA so toxic in the first place. Community choice should be an aspect but the community I feel is idiotic and holds absurd standards as who and who cannot be an admin and if anything I want to see that sort of self-selecting removed from the equation, I'm not sure if this new body would do that (and heck knows there'll be some bleating from those who make RFA a hellhole citing a denial of their opinions for objection) but enough with shoving people in front of a board of peers who already failed the candidate before they walked through the door.tutterMouse (talk) 09:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

8. As others have stated, mob rule does not work; it scuttles RfA, ANI, RFC/U (which is probably soon to be disbanded), and partly also Arbcom cases. Apart from the trolls, peanuts, and regular system detractors who participate on RfA, there is a huge number of one-off voters and I am curious to know what part of the Wiki woodwork they come out of to place a vote on RfA. I am fairly certain that on some RfA a certain amount of canvassing takes place. Anyone who wittingly allows such canvassing is probably not to be trusted to be an admin while anyone who actively canvasses for their RfA (even offline where don’t catch it) is corrupt from the start and should never be a sysop.

   Genuine candidates who have no skellies in their closets should not fear the current system and if they have kept their noses clean through their Wiki careers they will almost certainly pass, with little drama, and with flying colours. Whatever the section however, there are always silly votes that should not be counted. Comments such as “Seems OK to me’’ equate to: ‘’I don’t know the guy. I haven’t done any research, but his user name sound right.’’ I won’t go into providing examples of some of the utterly ridiculous oppose statements, but a completely drama-free RfA is an extremely rare occurrence indeed. Although WP:RFA2011 did not realise any physical reforms, it left behind an enormous legacy of research which clearly identified the main single problem with RfA. The individual regular ‘elements’ of that problem have got the message, and a couple of recent RfA have shown that the community is now going to be bold and do something active about unruly or inappropriate behaviour there.

   I therefore no longer believe RfA is the broken place I (and Jimbo Wales) claimed it to be 4 years ago. However, I see no reason why this current proposal should not be tested before the community, so I SUPPORT it in principle, with just a few minor tweaks to be made later (e.g. I year terms, No limit to the number of terms; the WMF will not allow non admins to view deleted content), and it’s now up to the broader community to voice their opinion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

9. Support Good candidates will get through in any case; but present-day RfAs generate a lot more heat than light, and draw us away from more useful work. Voters can always be characterised as a mob by the losing side, justified or not. It doesn't bother me now if User:Xaelrukfhpaw gets rollback rights without my say-so; well same goes for the remaining admin tools. (Please clarify re elections: 3+4=13??): Noyster (talk), 10:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   That was an error left over from an earlier draft. It has been fixed. RGloucester — ☎ 13:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

10. Support - The community has simply grown too large and impersonal to expect that any discussion involving 100+ people will be civil, rational, and drama-free. Delegating this task to a smaller, elected committee may increase some bureaucracy, but the resulting reduction in drama and incivility and making adminship even a slightly-less-big deal makes it a net positive IMO. Mr.Z-man 16:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
11. Support.—S Marshall T/C 16:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
12. There's room for discussion about the particulars of the committee's composition, but after the recent Andrevan fiasco, this proposal has serious merit. Townlake (talk) 16:33, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
13. Support Please don't oppose this over small details like the composition requirement, if you support the proposal otherwise. The details can be changed later. The added bureaucracy of this is a small price to pay for potentially fixing so much that is wrong with the current systems. And if it doesn't work out, I'll be right there with you getting it disbanded. It's absolutely worth a try. We can't keep doing the same thing and refusing to even try something different. Gigs (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results." -Albert Einstein --Biblioworm 18:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

14. Weak support - I had this in the neutral section, but on the balance I guess I support this. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, so comparisons to democratic models are basically irrelevant. However, to put this in a democratic frame, Administrators are effectively our police force, and it makes sense to me that they should be qualified rather than elected, and having an elected body evaluate qualifications makes sense in that democratic framework. I see strengths and weaknesses to this proposal. I would prefer if this process were to replace RfA, rather than run parallel, otherwise we will have two classes of admins, those appointed by Commissioners and those elected by the community, subject to different disciplinary processes, and that's bad. In order to work, all admins (even those who endured RfA) must be subject to reviews by ASC. And that's going to be controversial, but in general yeah, it's a good idea for admins to be subject to a common disciplinary process. I'd like to see more in the proposal about the election of Commissioners, in particular I'd like to see a process for the community to express loss of confidence in the Commission, which would trigger a new election. I won't support removing individual Commissioners - either the Commission works as a whole or it doesn't, and if it doesn't then it should be wholly replaced. I'm also concerned that this won't really solve the "no big deal" issue - adminship will be no big deal but we're just shifting the "big deal" onto election to the Commission. Then again, maybe that should be a big deal. This is a step in the right direction, anyway. Ivanvector (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    You are abusing the "not a democracy" policy with this argument. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, but our governance and core values are democratic. Specifically a form of deliberative democracy. So yes comparisons with democratic systems are absolutely relevant when someone is trying to highjack the system by turning it into technocratic authoritarianism. Also you seem not to have noticed that we are also not a bureaucracy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    You seem to have not noticed that we are a bureaucracy, in many ways. Some level of bureaucracy is necessary to administer and maintain a project of this magnitude. What makes Misplaced Pages somewhat unique is that all of our bureaucracy and administrative process has evolved from community consensus over time, and it continues to evolve. At times that looks like this or that form of existing system, because sometimes that's what's best to serve the community's purposes. Sometimes "consensus" means we come to a community decision that a certain subset of people are best equipped to deal with a particular problem. That looks like bureaucracy, and it is, but that's not inherently bad. We can't always leave every little routine task up to the will of a community of millions, and promotion/demotion of administrators should be much more routine than it is. Ivanvector (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

15. Cautious support, on a trial basis only. My initial reaction to seeing this proposal was to oppose strongly, but on thinking about it, I think it is worth a try, as a sort of experiment. I'm uncomfortable with taking the process out of direct community control, especially because the community may discover information about a candidate that a committee might have overlooked, but I also think that the community will have exerted as much control over the composition of the proposed committee as they currently do over ArbCom. I think we should implement it for one year only, and require a followup RfC to determine whether the community will agree to continuing it beyond that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Comment: If it isn't explicitly stated in the proposal already, I haven't checked, I think it would be a good idea if perhaps it had a sort of suggestion or pending period before confirmation built in, between the time of a potential candidate being suggested and the time of actual confirmation, which would allow other editors to contact the committee with their concerns, and possibly discuss them, publicly or privately, at some length if needed, the concerns raised. FWIW, and I think some kind of clear statement here might be useful, I myself hope that the committee winds up being one which in a sense is predisposed to approve pretty much all candidates who don't obviously disqualify. I know that would of course be dependent on the personalities of those who actually get on the committee, of course, but still think some clarification might be useful. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    Please read the full proposal, specifically the implementation section. This proposal is only for a trial period, to be followed by a new RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 22:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    Yes, I did read that. What I said goes a little further in terms of making it a trial only. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

16. Conditional Support only and only as a supplementary processes and not for replacing RFA in foreseeable future. Currently the lede states it's for supplementing or replacing it. If it is clearer that a later consensus would be needed to discuss a possible replacement and there's no implication of replacement without another discussion at a later stage, I would change to 'support'. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    Please read the implementation section. RGloucester — ☎ 23:24, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    Thanks... the lede confused me. --lTopGunl (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

17. Strong Support While the idea of additional bureaucracy is difficult, this would help address a number of backlog problems. I'd actually support this completely replacing the Admin election process. DocumentError (talk) 09:15, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
18. Support There needs to be an alternative to the bear-pit of RfA. Bazj (talk) 13:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
19. Weak support I don't think it's the best idea in the world but I'm up for trying something new. The proposed implementation plan makes it straightforward to revert to what we have now if it doesn't turn out well. WaggersTALK 13:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
20. Support There needs to be an alternative for the battleground we call RfA. --AmaryllisGardener 14:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
21. Support Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
22. Support - Based on my impression of the RfA process, that its often (but not always) a tedious, contentious, and often demoralizing process, I would welcome an alternative. Just from my observations and limited involvement with RfAs, the process comes across like some sort of U.S. Senate-style confirmation hearing where the subject is publicly pushed and/or scrutinized in every possible way and by every detail. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
23. Temporary Support: There are many subtleties and implications which daunt my imagination, so it is too hard to determine how this will work, let alone decide whether it is an improvement or not. Let's just try it for a reasonable period (3 months?) and see how well it works. If it doesn't, end it. If it works great, leave it alone. If it sort of works, decide in a month or so how it might be tweaked. —EncMstr (talk) 20:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
24. Strong Support:

    (a) RfA is seriously broken; (b) the only people who pass the process are those who've carefully never taken a stand, never uttered a cross word and have left no handles for anyone to grasp, and thus robs Misplaced Pages of many talented, able, passionate would-be admins; (c) RfA gives more weight to knee-jerk, thoughtless responses, because after all it only takes five seconds to type "Oppose: He's a deletionist who'll destroy Misplaced Pages" or "Support: Doesn't strike me as out to get the encyclopedia;" (d) RfA damages Misplaced Pages because it deters people from running and has provoked once-able editors to quit in anger over their treatment; and (e) RfA is the only area on Misplaced Pages where it's permissible to canvass against someone. RfA needs to be taken out of the community's hands.

    I wrote the foregoing six years ago, in a RfA review that like many other attempts at reform went nowhere. Things haven't changed, and it's one of the few areas of Misplaced Pages run by popularity contest head counts. With the current process, while I'd love to see a bureaucrat say "I don't care that she only got 55%, this is a worthy, talented, qualified candidate that got steamrolled by a bunch of nitpicking and irrelevancies," it isn't going to happen, and it never has happened. I'd support damn near any scheme to take this out of the community's hands, before the day comes where the admins are mostly gone. Ravenswing 22:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

    Couldn't have said it better myself. —Biblioworm 01:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

25. Support: I adore the idea of selection by experts. I've seen its efficiency in the form of the tenure committee. RfA allows everyone, including a recent signup, to ruin the nomination of a potentially good admin or give support to an otherwise unworthy candidate. This isn't fair. A well-known objection to election by majority is that it requires fame, not competence. WikiGnomes have no chance of succeeding in an RfA because success in RfA chiefly demands having a lot of good friends. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
26. Support: There is clearly a problem with the current process. Many good editors would step up if the process was not similar to an inquisition based on experiences with those that follow this side of Misplaced Pages (as mentioned above FAME). The problem is that being an admin is no big deal.....and for the most part only admins believe this. Thus the average voter at an RfA is more concerned with what might go wrong over the good that could come with give extra tools (that is all amdminship is more tools) to great editors. I have said this before as have others...just need to appoint admins with limited tools at first (levels of administration)....thus have a 3 or 4 levels of tools....as an admin gains experience and show they are mature enough to handle the new tools they will get more and more tools. -- Moxy (talk) 02:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
27. Tentative support per Kudupung. Jim Carter 12:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
28. Support; doing something to RfA is long overdue. If this works, great; if not we can always return to the broken process we have today. Let's just be bold and try it. Bjelleklang - talk 22:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
29. Support FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:19, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
30. Support It's been a long time since I was a regular voter at RfA, but I've kept tabs on it and feel that this alternative proposal has merits. I think a glaring negative of the RfA process is that it is subject to the whims of whoever shows up. If you look at any subset of RfA's from specific points in time, those adjacent to each other all have similar themes and points of emphasis driven by the active voters of the day. With a fixed commission, you'll still have trending patterns driven by the membership, but I think there would still be a greater degree of standardization and accountability in the process. Another point in favor of the commission is that it does not immediately seek to eliminate RfA, and I think it's worth having both paths to the mop open. The key here is that the goal is not to have a smaller pool of admins, but is in fact to grow the pool of admins. The more of us there are, the more open the project is. With a broader pool of trusted editors gaining access to the tool, the admin role regains (or finally gains?) the "no big deal" aspect that it was intended to carry all along. Whether you're someone who just likes to make cleanup edits, or a powerhouse creator of articles, you should be welcome to the extra functionality that admin rights provide so that you can help contribute in more ways, if it so interests you. Will the occasional less-than-constructive individual get through? Yes, but to echo Moxy's comments, the Orwellian fear of this hypothetical is one of many straw man obstacles that either derails RfA's, or that prevents many qualified editors from even bothering with requesting the tools in the first place. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
31. Support It is time to do something about the current RfA process, which is more about hazing and attacking than it is about getting worthy admins. Eeekster (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
32. Support on trial basis. RfAs may be stressful for some, even though this process shows community support. In order so that we don't elect unworthy admins, however, we should then only have bureaucrats or really experienced administrators on this Administrative Standards Commission. Epicgenius (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

    The proposal calls for six seats open to administrators, six seats open to non-administrators, and one seat open to either. —David Levy 05:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

    That means that 46% of those deciding who is an admin are admins. Does the community really want to give up its authority over who becomes and admin to a group of 13 people who are almost half admins? Being an admin is nothing special and it should not give them the power of a super vote or to appoint people they think will be good admins. Chillum 17:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

    I agree, and the same goes for not being an admin. The separation of admins and non-admins into distinct classes with separate "representation" is one of this proposal's many fundamental flaws. —David Levy 22:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

33. Support, essentially agree with statement by John Carter, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
34. Tentative support. Before I actually read the proposal I have to say that my hackles were raised. Another layer of bureaucracy. Never! But then I read the proposal it's not bad. Worth doing on a trial basis at least. I do think the provision on removing administrators needs to be fattened up substantially. Also the ASC's deliberations should be entirely transparent. Coretheapple (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
35. Support on a trial basis only - See also my struck out oppose below. After sleeping on the idea a bit and looking back at the proposal again, I think this could be worth trying out. I don't think it will ever be able to replace RFA, but I do think it has the potential to supplement it, and a trial is necessary here so the proposal can properly be tested. We'll never know how it works unless we try, and it has the potential to be a good alternative to RFA for those who wish to try it. demize (t · c) 00:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
36. Moral Support - it's not going to pass, but trying to do something to RfA is very important. I don't like the focus on technophilic users in the proposal -- they are underserved in RfA understandably, but not the only user types. WP needs more leadership and more boldness, so I like trying to try something new. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
37. Support - I wonder how many current admins would voluntarily go through the RfA process again. The vetting process is an absolutely horrible experience for tools which aren't supposed to be a huge deal. — BranStark (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
38. Supporting Appointment is fair. New England Cop (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
39. Support - If being an admin is no big deal, and if we would like to have more (or at least a sustainable number of) competent admins, then it seems like a bad idea to require them to be politicians as well. Ravenswing makes some good points above. I don't really see any harm this proposal could cause, since it is not immediately replacing the current system anyway. I'm not so sure about the idea of having a fixed number of admins and fixed number of non-admins.. but, on the other hand, I don't really have a better suggestion. I think this would be worth a try. Mark M (talk) 09:37, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

    • "... it seems like a bad idea to require them to be politicians as well." A telling turn of phrase, and one I wish I'd thought of years ago. While of course this effort is as doomed as all the other ones, it's worth saying. Ravenswing 14:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

40. Support - The current process is hopelessly broken in that an ever decreasing number of editors will subject themselves to the abuse. Even if I wanted to be an admin, I would never put myself, even if asked, thru the current process. VMS Mosaic (talk) 10:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
41. Support something like this, but not with these particular details, e.g., about how many seats are reserved for admins vs non-admins (in that example, I think the community should be able to elect whomever they want). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
42. Support. Protonk (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose (alternative to RfA)

1. The most extremely strong oppose anyone has ever opposed, which can never be over opposed by anyone ever The last thing we need is another clique of oligarchs, or commissaries or what ever you want to call them. What we need is more and better admins. And the realization that the tools are no big deal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Oppose as above. Yet another proposal which would foolishly put too much power into a small clique of officials, complete with even more of the bureaucracy everyone already hates. Seriously, take 30 seconds and ask yourself, honestly, what sort of person would seek to get elected to something called the "Administrative Standards Commission". Really, really think about it. Then, take 30 more seconds and consider whether giving more power to those people is a good idea. If you think that sounds just swell, congratulations, you're officially part of the problem. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:51, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   You would probably need to be crazy to want to run for ASC. But then, at the moment, the same thing could easily be said for RfA. We should be encouraging good editors to become admins, and the current system is having the opposite effect. — Mr. Stradivarius 05:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

3. Oppose. There isn't much to say here that hasn't already been said. Creating a middleman - regardless of whether it replaces RfA or not - sets a dangerous precedent. ProtossPylon 03:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   What "precedent" is that? They are not a "middle man". They would be a group of people elected by the community to carry out an important function for this project's survival. RGloucester — ☎ 04:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

4. Oppose Creating admins requires community approval, and as a community member I do not want to cede my approval to a commissioner. — xaosflux 04:15, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   Additionally, I oppose lowering the bar for creating and removing administrators to 54%. — xaosflux 04:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

5. Oppose per Andrew. RFA needs major overhauling, but replacement by a middleman would be worse. "Middleman": in this context, a group standing between the community and the admin-choosing process. Also known as "republic" versus the current "democracy". We've previously had a system with a republican setup, where regular editors chose people with the power to make decisions: see how we dealt with it by reading through Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Esperanza in depth. Nyttend (talk) 04:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   I think anyone who reads both this and the Esperanza page in depth would immediately realize the blatantly obvious differences. This would be more like the Arbitration Committee. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   I was bored this morning and wasted most of an hour reading through the Esperanza MFD, the deletion reviews, etc., and this looks very much like the depictions of the Advisory Council in the MFD that I linked. We need to remind bureaucrats to start doing like we administrators tend to do in discussions and ignore votes that conflict with policies (WP:DEAL, here), ignoring the people who object on grounds such as "Not enough FAs" that don't speak to whether the person is likely to abuse the tools. Nyttend (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   Exactly. One need only read RfA discussions from years ago (when the process functioned as intended) to see how these inexplicable demands have contributed to the toxic atmosphere. —David Levy 07:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   Lol. What on earth makes you believe that RfA was functioning as intended. It hasnt been functioning for the past 5 years at least.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   Perhaps you overlooked the words "from years ago". —David Levy 19:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   I've now taken the time to read all this Esperanza rubbish, and I can frankly say that it bears no relation to the ASC I've proposed. That body sounds like it was some kind of odd social organisation with a sprawling membership and a propensity for self-promotion. This body would not be like that. There would no membership, only commissioners. They'd would be like arbitrators, not like these so-called "Esperantos", or whatever they were called. Their only function would be to work on appointing administrators. No "social" elements would be involved. Your asking of bureaucrats to "ignore votes" seems like an acknowledgement that the overly democratic nature of RfA is the problem. Given this, rather than entering into subjective "ignoring" of people, why don't allow the community to elect the ASC to vet candidates in line with community-accepted principles? As I said below, the well is already poisoned. The genie is out of the bottle. There is no going back to how RfA may have been "years ago". The culture of Misplaced Pages simply won't allow us to go back in time, in such a way. We need to move forward, not backward. This proposal allows us to do that. RGloucester — ☎ 16:55, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   If the crats thought they had the freedom to ignore such votes, they'd be doing it already. RGloucester is right, that would basically turn them into what this ASC will be, except without the consent of the community. An overall worse idea than just approving this and going forward with people who are explicitly empowered by the community to have such latitude. Gigs (talk) 17:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   RfA is intended to function as a consensus-building discussion, not a simple majority vote. The bureaucrats are supposed to weigh the comments made, not tally the votes and call it a day. The problem is that we lack a clear set of criteria regarding which rationales are valid and invalid (which the bureaucrats don't feel empowered to invent). Yes, replacing RfA with the proposed ASC would effectively assign "such latitude" to those elected. In my view, that would be a very bad thing – and not "basically" what Nyttend described. No one here advocates that the bureaucrats substitute their personal judgement for that of the community, which is exactly the role that the proposed ASC would assume. Instead of bureaucrats examining a community evaluation and applying a defined set of standards to determine its outcome, an elite group of editors would decide on the community's behalf. You're entitled to prefer the latter, but please don't equate the two. —David Levy 19:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

6. Oppose forgive my vanity, but I prefer having a say (tiny as it is) in who becomes an administrator & who doesn't. GoodDay (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose. A bad idea with even worse execution. (No offense intended toward the editors behind it, by the way. I'm trying to word this as delicately as possible.) We have a process that worked well in the past, and it can work well again. To accomplish this, we need less bureaucracy, not more. —David Levy 07:12, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   I think we need to accept that the well has been poisoned. RGloucester — ☎ 13:46, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   Replacing RfC with the proposed ASC would be like dynamiting the old well and constructing a new one in exactly the same location. Until we eliminate the actual poison, it will continue to rise to the service.
   You propose that we replace toxic adminship requests with toxic "elections" to an elite body of editors in charge of selecting administrators on the community's behalf. I'm baffled as to how this is supposed to address the actual problem. If anything, it might even amplify it; because the ASC seats are guaranteed to be filled, the nonsense that currently leads to failed requests at RfC would instead skew the results of these "elections". The same pool of users currently denying trustworthy editors adminship would be responsible for voting in a group of editors with carte blanche (for a time, at least) to grant or deny adminship to whomever they please. —David Levy 19:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   The proposal is not to replace RfA, but to supplement it. Are ArbCom elections "toxic"? Does ArbCom exist as an "elite body of editors"? RGloucester — ☎ 20:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   Eh....yes and yes?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   I'm sorry you feel that way. There is an ArbCom election going right now, and I haven't seen any "toxicity" anywhere. I've never seen arbitrators acting as an "elite body of editors". They seem to relatively demure. I fear that such liberal views as yours are simply not reconcilable with reality. RGloucester — ☎ 20:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   I dont think you are in a position to make that judgment, it doesnt seem to me that "reality" is a place you frequent a lot.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   Manus, I don't like this proposal either, but the spirit you show of "attacking the person, not the problem" is 99% of the problem with RfA and every other part of Misplaced Pages that is broken. It discourages consensus, and disengages everyone but trolls and people who love a good fight. That spirit, by far, is what I LOATHE most about Misplaced Pages and is the reason why I left for several years; your comment above exemplifies it.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 04:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

   The proposal is not to replace RfA, but to supplement it.
   You've conveyed quite clearly that you want to replace RfA (and the proposal explicitly calls for consideration of this). But that's a tangential point, as I'm addressing the premise that the new process would somehow be immune to the "poison" affecting the old one.
   Are ArbCom elections "toxic"?
   Part of the problem is your apparent failure to recognize that material distinctions exist between the objective of RfA and that of an ArbCom election. I do believe that the latter is subject to some degree of toxicity, but the specific "poison" contaminating RfA isn't present there. Conversely, given that the ultimate goal (recruiting new administrators) would remain the same, I see no reason to believe that it wouldn't remain in force in the proposed ASC process. It would simply impact the election of "commissioners" instead of interfering with the promotion of administrators.
   Does ArbCom exist as an "elite body of editors"?
   In certain instances, its members have behaved as such. (That's a separate issue, of course.) But again, you're missing the point that the underlying functions differ materially. The ArbCom exists "primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve", not as a substitute for community decision-making. It's when they veer off course in that direction that they start to resemble "an elite body". —David Levy 22:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

8. Oppose The system we have works well. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:52, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
9. Oppose. Tweaking the existing RfA process would be a much better approach than creating a bureaucracy that would most likely represent the views of the community poorly. --Michig (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
10. Oppose An administrator should have the consent of the community, not some committee. What happens when we don't like how the committee is acting? This is just moving power around and diluting the communities direct authority over who is an admin. It is a shell game and like any shell game you cannot win. Chillum 16:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    These administrators would have the consent of the community, because the community would be entrusting the commission to appoint them through elections. That's how it works in the tangible world. No one is concerned about the "consent" of a state's populace when someone is appointed to work as functionary in the civil service. If you don't like how the commission behaves, elect different members. RGloucester — ☎ 17:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    You are talking about second hand consent. Once selected they can just choose whoever they want. Your analogy to the state does not fill me with confidence as they don't have a stellar track record. Chillum 17:19, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    Social contract? RGloucester — ☎ 17:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    With respect that is at best innocent of you and at worst naive. People are going to act like people. Chillum 17:28, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    Yes, and I believe that when people act like people, they act for the good of the collective. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    Acting 'for the good of the collective' is only done by idealised people; real people naturally act for their individual good. That is what 'acting like people' essentially boils down to, and it is common to other species as well because such an instinct is the most conducive to survival. Attempts to create a collective and to force people to act for its good rather than their own are often misguided and always flawed, as demonstrated by Ayn Rand novels and the Soviet Union. That is not to say that selfishness is the highest good and collectives are evil, but rather that one works and the other doesn't. ekips39 05:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

    I disagree. I also disagree with the idea that there is any such thing as "instinct". Sadly, I fear you are a rationalist, and I shan't engage in a diatribe that has little relevance to the topic at hand. RGloucester — ☎ 06:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

    Well clearly there is such a thing as instinct. If your position is based on the idea that humans do not act off of instinct and that instinct does not exist then I now see the flaw in your reasoning. For example describing an opposing point of view as a diatribe is often an instinctual response to your ideas being attacked.

    First denying instinct and then suggesting rationalism is somehow wrong does not leave much left. What is left after instinct and reason are removed? Chillum 18:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    Actually, he seems to have used 'diatribe' to refer to the comments he wasn't going to make, not to what I said. ekips39 04:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

11. Oppose - I think implementing this would just be 'moving the mess'. The root cause of problems with RfA are people - not all those people who contribute there, not even most, but enough to cause things to degenerate into madness far too often. We need more robust guidelines for contributing to an RfA (e.g. what sort of arguments are substantive and should 'count', clearer lines on what is and is not 'badgering', etc.) and stronger moderation of RfAs based on these. We do not need more process and indirection; Misplaced Pages is not Vogsphere. Reticulated Spline 18:29, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
12. Oppose, sorry. In my view, the last thing we need, with our article space dying due to lack of attention, is another layer of project-space bureaucracy, least of which a layer that will remove the direct say that editors have in the promotion of administrators. I also agree with Andrew Lenahan and GoodDay. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
13. Regretful oppose. Great idea, but I must oppose for the following obvious reason: Sometimes, an RFA can be derailed by one detailed "oppose" vote, and the same thing could very well happen if the editor "running for administrator" has interacted with someone from the proposed committee in a way that would cause them to vehemently oppose the candidate. Rather than having a pool of hundreds who could prove the opposer wrong, the "candidate" would be at the mercy of the other representatives on the committee agreeing or disagreeing with the opposing committee member's opinion, giving the "candidate" less of a chance to recover from the "oppose vote". Steel1943 (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

    Please note the implementation section, which people seem to not have read. This process would be a parallel to RfA, at the start. If someone has a problem with ASC, they can go to RfA, or vice-versa. RGloucester — ☎ 02:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

    If that is the case, then my worry would be that an RFA oppose vote would be "per the ASC discussion" or vice versa. Two forums that attempt to accomplish the same outcome almost always interfere with each other's purpose, even if that is not how it was intended to be designed. Steel1943 (talk) 05:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

    There's that too; but in any case, the prospect of having two forums for the same purpose does not negate the value of objections to one of them. ekips39 14:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

14. Oppose I'm not as intimately familiar with RFA as some of the people here undoubtedly are, but I have a reasonably clear notion of what the alleged problem is. I basically agree with Reticulated Spline: What we need is a more well-defined set of standards to judge candidates by, not a more limited set of people doing it. I believe that having the entire community decide who gets to be an admin helps to counter the risk of having a narrow, biased set of views on the subject. As I point out above, people naturally act in their own interest; with enough different people acting on enough different interests, that effect is more likely to be neutralised. Clear criteria for !votes (which I plan to elaborate on at some point) seems a better way to solve the problem of insubstantial arguments. ekips39 05:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
15. Oppose - Per all of above. Plus, I'll not cede my review process to a committee of six. Those sis may not even heard of me when I submit my review and then how on earth they can come to know about my editing character? Will they go through all my edits (For instance, if it Justin, with over 1.4 million edits) and then analyse my editing character? RfA should always be a community opinion, not just an opinion of six users. They may not select a person who would get 100+ supports in RfA, because enmity can have its probability for a committee at maximum, but minimum in public process. --The Herald 12:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

    @The Herald: Actually, the proposed number of the committee is 13: six admins, six non-admins, and one position for either an admin or non-admin. These numbers could be changed after further discussion. Also, there would likely be a space for non-committee members to submit evidence about admin candidates, so there would still be a place for community review, although the final decision would be taken by the committee. — Mr. Stradivarius 13:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

    If community review remains a component (and I agree that it should, so I'm not finding fault with the idea), the elimination of "drama" (on which some of the above support is based) is removed from the equation. What does that leave us with? Instead of a system in which the aforementioned community review is analyzed by one or more bureaucrats to gauge consensus, we'll have one in which thirteen "commissioners" receive essentially the same input ("drama" included) and are free to heed or disregard it and decide whatever they please. How, exactly, is that an improvement? —David Levy 13:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

    It would put the focus on facts, rather than on percentages. I'm thinking of a format similar to, e.g., ArbCom clarifications and amendments, where each user can comment in their own "Statement by UserX" section. The current RfA discussion structure has a tendency to make editors worried about the number of opposes, which leads to lots of heated comments (a.k.a. "badgering") in the oppose section as supporters try to win editors over. If we got rid of the support and oppose sections entirely, editors would no longer have a reason to try and argue with opposers who have already made up their minds. Editors would try and win over ASC members, of course, but assuming that members of the committee were rational people willing to look with an open mind at evidence both for and against a candidate, I would say that there would be a lot less potential for drama there. This format would have the added bonus of making it obvious that frivolous opposes (or supports) would be ignored by committee members. — Mr. Stradivarius 16:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

    It would put the focus on facts, rather than on percentages.
    The current system relies on a determination of community consensus. Under the proposed system, any request resulting in the support of seven commissioners (~54%) would pass automatically, regardless of the other six commissioners' concerns and those of the community. (Lest someone respond by pointing out that the number of commissioners is subject to change, I'm aware. This has no bearing on my point.)
    The current RfA discussion structure has a tendency to make editors worried about the number of opposes, which leads to lots of heated comments (a.k.a. "badgering") in the oppose section as supporters try to win editors over. If we got rid of the support and oppose sections entirely, editors would no longer have a reason to try and argue with opposers who have already made up their minds.
    Why not simply make such a change at RfA? (I've never cared for the separate "support" and "oppose" sections, even back when RfA functioned well.) I don't see why this requires throwing out the entire consensus-based approach and electing a new "commission" to make important decisions on the community's behalf via simple majority votes.
    Editors would try and win over ASC members, of course, but assuming that members of the committee were rational people willing to look with an open mind at evidence both for and against a candidate, I would say that there would be a lot less potential for drama there.
    Is there any reason to believe that the bureaucrats aren't "rational people willing to look with an open mind at evidence both for and against a candidate"?
    This format would have the added bonus of making it obvious that frivolous opposes (or supports) would be ignored by committee members.
    It's already obvious – from the plain wording of Misplaced Pages:Consensus – that the bureaucrats are to discount/disregard weak/invalid arguments made at RfA. The problem, as I noted previously, is that we lack a clear set of criteria regarding which rationales this describes. Instead of addressing said problem, this proposal calls for the election of a body whose members would be free to ignore any and all outside input and substitute their own judgement for that of the community at large. —David Levy 21:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

16. Oppose per all above. --Fauzan_{✉ mail} 13:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
17. Oppose Back during RFA2011 I thought the problems with RfA had been blown way out of proportion, nowadays when even Kudpung will say things aren't so bad it's strange to see the same vague rhetoric about "broken"-ness. On those grounds I see this as a solution in need of a problem and cannot spport. benmoore 16:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
18. Oppose. What we don't need is people electing elected officials who elect other elected officials. We don't need a group of Soviet Commissars for Administrative Affairs! not (talk/contribs) 16:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

    This is where you get it wrong. The commissioners would be elected, but administrators would be appointed. We need to separate the politicians from the civil servants, as I've said from the start. Politicians have never made good civil servants, and they never will do. Rubbish about "commissars" strikes me as quite mid-century American, and quite uncouth. RGloucester — ☎

    Well I apologise for my bad wording -- even if it does mock the proposed process. I also apologise for the other remark, but considering the strong political viewpoints that you have espoused on this page, I thought it might be good to put it in some form of half-ironic context. I'm not a McCarthyist by any stretch of the mile.

    Nevertheless, if we can't trust the community on this issue, then we can't trust nobody. We have to take the risk of appointing someone with little competence -- after all, we do have a revoke button if things go wrong. not (talk/contribs) 18:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

19. Oppose More committees ... more elections ... more titles .... more bureaucracy. RfA may have its problems, but this is not a good solution. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
20. No. "There must be no cabal, there must be no elites..." User:Jimbo Wales/Statement of principles. This is a slippery slope. And I'm unsure of the rationale behind having six non-admins in the committee. If someone is experienced and trusted enough to elect a user to be an admin, they should be an admin themselves, and if they are not interested in being an admin, why are they getting involved in admin work? Being an admin doesn't mean you acquire any responsibility to do anything at any time - you simply have access to some extra tools. Being on this committee puts you under responsibility and pressure greater than that of being an admin. If you don't want to be an admin, why would you want to be on this committee? Motives and/or judgement must be looked into. And the election process for getting into the committee for non-admins would surely be worse than that for becoming an admin. I understand that people are concerned about admin recruitment and the painful crucible of RfA, but this is not a solution. This is the creation of a new problem. SilkTork 17:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

    As I believe Jimbo established the Arbitration Committee, I'm fairly certain that he understood that certain matters are best dealt with in such a manner. You've got it all wrong. Some people don't want to be administrators because they don't want to play that role. These people, often vigorous content creators, are just as valuable to the project as administrators. All editors are equal on Misplaced Pages, and administrators need to understand that their tools are nothing more than tools. If only administrators are in charge of appointing new administrators, the result would be "old boys club" style nonsense. It would result in the creation of a cabal, exactly what you seem to rail against. A commission made up solely of administrators would be reluctant to review administrative actions, and would not be representative of a large part of the Misplaced Pages community. Non-administrators and administrators alike have an equal say in governance of the encyclopaedia, and, as such, they should have both have representation on the commission. RGloucester — ☎ 18:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

    I agree with the principle that "all editors are equal on Misplaced Pages" (in this context), but I regard your approach as antithetical to it. The creation of separate seats for administrators and non-administrators constitutes a formal declaration that they aren't the same (as does your statement that a group of administrators "would not be representative of a large part of the Misplaced Pages community").
    In response to your concern that "administrators would be reluctant to review administrative actions", I would expect non-administrators to be more reluctant, given that any aspirations of attaining adminship in the future would depend on support from a majority of a body comprising wither ~46% or ~54% administrators. (Conversely, admins might be reluctant to step on each other's toes, but they have less to lose in such a scenario.)
    However, I don't see why any of this is even relevant, unless you're concerned that the community might not be capable of electing thirteen editors who can be trusted to set aside their personal predilections and engage in an objective evaluation.
    Of course, neither of us advocates that the hypothetical commission consist solely of admins or solely of non-admins. I don't support the proposal, but were it to succeed, I would prefer that every seat be open to any editor (irrespective of whether he/she is an administrator). —David Levy 21:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

    No, my approach enshrines it. The cultural norms on Misplaced Pages, at present, give administrators a certain rank above everyday editors. That's a fact, whether we like it or not. As we've seen above, in SilkTork's comment, many people think that the only people who have an interest in governing Misplaced Pages either are administrators or should be administrators. This is a wrong-headed approach. We need to check these cultural norms, which are antithetical to the original conception of adminship. To do this, we must provide for non-administrator representation on this commission. I think that the community would struggle to elect non-administrators to this body if they were not reserved seats, and I think that that would be detrimental to both the encyclopaedia and the commission. This is seen in ArbCom now, where non-administrators are allowed to run for the position of arbitrator, but almost never attain it. The vast majority of editors have no desire to be an administrator. That doesn't mean that they should be excluded from the governance of the encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 01:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    No, my approach enshrines it.
    It enshrines the concept that being an admin is a "big deal".
    The cultural norms on Misplaced Pages, at present, give administrators a certain rank above everyday editors.
    To the extent that such an attitude exists, it's a problem in need of fixing, not a principle around which to structure policies and procedures. The former might not be easy, and it certainly won't happen overnight, but it's our only hope of setting things right.
    As we've seen above, in SilkTork's comment, many people think that the only people who have an interest in governing Misplaced Pages either are administrators or should be administrators.
    I think that you might have taken those comments the wrong way. Adminship is supposed to be "no big deal". Trustworthy editors who wish to participate in the sort of process proposed (not that I endorse its creation) should be administrators – not because only administrators should be eligible, but because we should have no qualms about granting eligible editors adminship (thereby enabling them to view deleted edits, which can be highly useful when evaluating an editor's behavior).
    Of course, I'm well aware that such a climate no longer exists. And that's exactly why we're having this discussion. You've structured your proposal in a manner that formalizes symptoms of the problem it's intended to solve.
    We need to check these cultural norms, which are antithetical to the original conception of adminship.
    We need to eliminate them, not accept them as the new normal and attempt to counterbalance them through bureaucratic measures.
    I think that the community would struggle to elect non-administrators to this body if they were not reserved seats, and I think that that would be detrimental to both the encyclopaedia and the commission.
    Think about what you're saying. You want to create a rule explicitly intended to mandate an outcome that you believe is likely to lack consensus. Worse still, it would "enshrine" in policy the concept that we must maintain a pool of trustworthy editors without adminship. If seven of the commissioners were administrators, we would be unable to grant adminship to an eighth without booting one of them from his/her seat – no matter how trustworthy and reliable they are. You want to establish a rule that requires us to consider rank (a concept that shouldn't even exist in this context) before merit. And with what goal in mind? To counter discrimination on the basis of the aforementioned "rank".
    This is seen in ArbCom now, where non-administrators are allowed to run for the position of arbitrator, but almost never attain it.
    Correlation does not imply causation. The roles of administrator and arbitrator both require the community's trust, so significant overlap is neither unexpected nor undesirable. (And as noted above, the ability to view deleted edits can be highly useful when evaluating an editor's conduct.)
    The vast majority of editors have no desire to be an administrator.
    ...or a "commissioner".
    That doesn't mean that they should be excluded from the governance of the encyclopaedia.
    Nor does it mean that we should ensure their inclusion through affirmative action instead of getting to the root of the original discrimination. —David Levy 02:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    No, you're wrong. My proposal makes it clear that administrators are dustmen with mops, and nothing more. Your insistence to the contrary is simply false. Technical workers, mechanics. RfA makes adminship a big deal because it requires users become political, as if they were vying for a position of leadership. This is antithetical to the role of dustman. One does not require that one run for election to be a dustman. A dustman does not need to run for election. He merely needs to do his job properly, in line with the policies and guidelines that the community relies on. I think that what is good for the encyclopaedia is "consensus", whether everyone agrees or not. That's how our policies work, and that's how this ought work too. The problem is not whether we should have any qualms about giving people adminship, but about whether they want it at all. Those that do not want it, the vast majority of editors, should have representation in the governance of this encyclopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 05:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    My proposal makes it clear that administrators are dustmen with mops, and nothing more.
    You just stated that "the cultural norms on Misplaced Pages, at present, give administrators a certain rank above everyday editors", and while you clearly don't approve of this, you've based your proposed system on the assumption that such a structure exists.
    I don't doubt that you want administrators to be thought of as "dustmen with mops" (and so do I). But your proposal doesn't reflect this.
    I think that what is good for the encyclopaedia is "consensus", whether everyone agrees or not. That's how our policies work, and that's how this ought work too.
    Under the proposed system, an adminship request would succeed or fail not on the basis of consensus, but through a simple majority vote.
    The problem is not whether we should have any qualms about giving people adminship, but about whether they want it at all.
    If someone doesn't want to be an admin, that's fine. Since first editing Misplaced Pages (initially without an account) almost ten years ago, I've been steadfast in my opposition to the treatment of administrators as members of a higher class. (This includes instances in which editors mistakenly believed that I was owed special deference, wherein I went out of my way to explain that I wasn't.)
    While I admire your intent, I strongly disagree with your approach (in which you seek to counter the practice of treating admins and non-admins differently by treating admins and non-admins differently – thereby reinforcing the concept and formally sanctioning it as a matter of policy).
    Those that do not want it, the vast majority of editors, should have representation in the governance of this encyclopaedia.
    Such statements imply that administrators are a separate group whose participation is disconnected from non-administrators' interests – that somehow, being given the sysop bit materially alters who they are and what they bring to the table (to the extent that they no longer "represent" the rest of the community). How is this consistent with the beliefs espoused above? Have you stopped to think this through?
    My position is that we're all Wikipedians. If a proposal such as yours were to succeed, I believe that Wikipedians should fill the seats. —David Levy 08:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    I'm British, and in the House of Commons, everything is decided by a simple majority vote. That's consensus. Do note that the commissioners would not just be "voting", they'd be doing extensive research into the candidate. They would have to provide a detailed rationale to community. Regardless, we must counteract the dangerous cultural norms with proactive policy. If we do not, we will continue in this downward spiral. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    I'm British, and in the House of Commons, everything is decided by a simple majority vote. That's consensus.
    This isn't the House of Commons. At Misplaced Pages, consensus explicitly is not determined via a simple majority vote. I find it more than a little troubling that you either lack familiarity with the relevant policy or seek to override it with your definition of "consensus".
    Do note that the commissioners would not just be "voting", they'd be doing extensive research into the candidate.
    ...and then voting. As noted above, any request resulting in the support of seven commissioners (~54%) would pass automatically, regardless of the other six commissioners' concerns and those of the community. However sensible you believe such a process to be, it certainly isn't consensus-based.
    They would have to provide a detailed rationale to community.
    And no matter what that rationale is, as long as six additional commissioners cast the same vote, their position prevails. No matter what rationales the commissioners in the minority provide, their position is overruled. Only the vote count matters.
    Regardless, we must counteract the dangerous cultural norms with proactive policy.
    I regard the aforementioned system as far more dangerous than any problem it purports to solve. —David Levy 18:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    It would be "consensus", because the consensus of the community would have implemented the commission. It would have granted them the power to make these decisions, much in the same it way ArbCom does. That represents the "consensus" of the community, because the community granted the power to the commission. Given that we have entrusted the commissioners to make these decisions, if we decide to implement the proposal, their vote represents our consensus. Adminship is no big deal, and shouldn't require a unanimous or two-thirds vote of commissioners. If there is a serious objection raised, I'm sure the other commissioners will take that into account, in line with common sense. RGloucester — ☎ 18:12, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    It would be "consensus", because the consensus of the community would have implemented the commission.
    By that logic, one could define any hypothetical decision-making process as "consensus". I'm attempting to discuss the nature of the specific one proposed. Whether consensus for its implementation is established has absolutely no bearing on this. Consensus to replace RfA with a coin toss-based system wouldn't make coin tossing a consensus-based method.
    Of course, none of this relates to your previous statement, in which you referred to "a simple majority vote" as "consensus".
    It would have granted them the power to make these decisions, much in the same it way ArbCom does.
    Again, the ArbCom exists "primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve" (or, as Philippe Beaudette wrote, to act "as a matter of last resort"). Conversely, you've proposed that the community cede a decision of the utmost importance – as a matter of course – to a 13-member commission, wherein a 7–6 majority would constitute "consensus" to elevate users to a "rank above everyday editors" (your words).
    The proposed Administrative Standards Commission would be an elected body tasked with making decisions, but its similarity to the Arbitration Committee begins and ends there. —David Levy 20:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

21. No. The problem of needing more admins is not so apparent to me as to justify establishing a power center which by its nature would have influence outside its remit. The community judgment is that the pace of admin-making should be slowed, and it's rendered a verdict, unfortunate in my view in some cases, on some people. That's the community's answer. That's to be respected, not evaded.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
22. Oppose - Nobody can be forced to be an admin. This proposals essentially would create a way how to promote some users to admins without the trust of the commmunity, and others who are inept, as long as they are friends with the appointing board. That is contrary to all basic principles of Misplaced Pages ("Community rules" and "Clue is required", especially). It would also increase the drama rate exponentially, for two reasons: Inept admins would make many wrong decisions which then have to be fixed, and then many of those admins would be subjected to recall, more drama. I think we can do without all that. Kraxler (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
23. Oppose I would support such a board if it existed solely for dealing with the removal of admins. However, I cannot support disenfranchising the community in the promotion of admins. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
24. Oppose. I like the idea in principle. RFA is the most horrible job interview you will go through in your life. It goes on forever and questions come in from a multitude of random people, often with an axe to grind irrelevant to the candidate. We need a less stressful way of promoting suitable candidates to adminship. However, I cannot support any proposal that has quotas for admins and non-admins. The community should be free to appoint who they like to the Commission. I also do not agree with the simple majority principle. An RFA that was opposed by 49% of participants would be a clear fail. If 49% of the Commission oppose someone (people who are supposedly picked for their ability to choose good admins) that should carry even more weight. SpinningSpark 20:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
25. Strong Oppose This proposal attempts to solve the problems of RFA by taking the power to promote admins away from the community and giving it to a small clique of elites. The proposal attempts to make this more palatable by requiring that the elite clique be elected, but this does not change the fact that users will be getting the mop without community approval. There’s also a risk that admins promoted without community consensus will be delegitimized, and any controversial decisions they make will be more subject to attack than if it was made by an RFA admin. At the end of the day admins should have the support and trust of the Misplaced Pages community, and attempts at RFA reform should not remove community consensus. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    Never heard of the social contract, eh? They would have community approval, as the commission would be elected. These would not be "elites", but representatives of the community. This fear of "elites" is juvenile. We already have a large clique of "elites" on Misplaced Pages, and they are not even subject to elections. These fellows would be elected by the community at large to carry out an important function. They'd be representatives of the community, checked through elections. "Community consensus" is not a liberal ideal whereby everyone must voice an opinion. That doesn't happen now, and even if it did, it would be a rubbish way to appoint dustmen. RGloucester — ☎ 06:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    To quote consensus policy: "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns". The proposal would only allow about a dozen editors to air their concerns while shutting out the general user base. While this group will be elected, it will serve to separate the admins from the userbase and prevent community consensus from occurring. You referenced the WMF to create precedence for the proposal, but that's not really a valid comparison. The WMF rarely gets involved in day to day editing unless there are legal issues or threats of lawsuits. Admins, on the other hand, have a massive impact on day to day editing. In light of this, I believe that admins should have the support of the general community. (Also, I get that most editors do not actually engage in RFAs in the present, but what matters is that they can if they have a strong opinion. Eliminating user participation in RFAs because many people do not participate would make about as much sense as canceling elections because many people do not vote). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

    Besides, any argument beginning with 'We already have a large clique of "elites" ...' is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ekips39 06:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

26. Strong Oppose. Creating an official cabal of elders to make the decisions on who gets to be an admin is probably the worst RfA reform idea that I have seen in ages. It will decrease transparency and credibility of adminship, and instead of decreasing the amount of drama will greatly increase it. Most problems with adminship have little to do with the RfA process itself but rather are caused by the continuing decline in the ability of WP to attract new regular editors and to retain existing ones. To the extent that the RfA process can affect the situation, what would be useful is a greater degree of unbundling of admin functions. The current system is based on the "all or nothing" approach: a user either has no admin rights at all (rollback really does not count) or gets all of them at once. Given that WP has grown rather big and complicated, such a system is no longer reasonable. For example, one can't really expect any user to have equally solid understanding of all the different aspects of the deletion policies, from CSD to images to user pages to DRV etc. Given the extremely wide array of tools that an admin gets access to and the vast amount of knowledge required to use these tools properly, it is actually pretty easy to trip any admin candidate by a few deftly chosen questions or to point out significant weaknesses that any candidate will necessarily have in some areas of admin responsibility. If the admin tools were unbundled and the stakes were not so high, it would be much easier to promote specific users to greater user rights in this or that narrow area, and their deficiencies in other areas would not matter as much. Farming out relatively low level admin tasks (e.g. blocking vandals and some forms of page protection) to a much wider group of users would allow "full admins" concentrate on more difficult tasks, such as deletion, dealing with ANI issues, etc. But the council of elders proposal is not the way to go. Nsk92 (talk) 02:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
27. Oppose – On principle. We've debated for years what to fix RFA since the Kurt Weber, ageism, etc debates of 2007–2009, and clearly the consensus has not changed since then either that we cannot find a solution and that the system works as is, as broken as it may appear. More bureaucracy does not create a solution, but adds fuel to the fire, something I've argued for years. Mitch32 02:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
28. Oppose creating more bureaucracy, more special positions. The proposal will reduce transparency and increase favoritism. The only solution, a hard one I admit, is to encourage more editors to stand for RfA, and to encourage better civility and respect at RfA. The RfA system is a good one if people apply more good faith. Jehochman 04:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
29. Strong oppose - Granted that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, per se, it's a fatal defect that this proposal fails to satisfy the concept that the problems of democracy can only be solved by more democracy. Frankly, I think it's an appalling idea, easily subject to co-option, and more likely to produce more "dramah" rather then less, as every admin created under this proposed system would be suspect. I will grant that there are problems with RfA, and I do believe that those problems do actual inhibit some potentially useful editors from seeking adminship, but putting that kind of power into the hands of a small number of people is, it seems to me, a very bad idea. BMK (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    I think that forcing dustmen to run for election is appalling. RGloucester — ☎ 05:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    I think you don't have a clear idea of what "apalling" means. I also think that your propensity for responding to "oppose" comments is counterproductive, and an indication that you're being far too personal about this. Let it go. BMK (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    I beg your pardon, sir. I didn't even want to put this proposal to an RfC. I only did so because there was an appetite for it, not because I have an interest in doing so. Given this, it is important that I put my energy into it, otherwise it would be a waste of time. I do have an idea of what "appalling" means. If you made everyone that wanted to become a dustman run for election, there would be very few dustmen. That'd be appalling. How would the everyday fellow manage all the rubbish building up outside his door? RGloucester — ☎ 20:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    Your continuing actions and personalization of the issue speak volumes, and contradict your claim to be simply a neutral party. I suggest if that is indeed the case that you stop responding to comments and allow the community the freedom to decide without your further contribution to the debate.

    As for "appalling", no, you clearly do not know what it means. Having a "dustman" be elected might be silly, it might be stupid, it might be inappropriate, it might be a waste of energy, it might be "bureacracy run wild", it might be a lot of things, but it most assuredly is not "appalling". BMK (talk) 23:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    I don't know what "personalisation" means. I have a self-declared density, in that way. I don't believe I claimed to be a "neutral party". I said I don't care what the outcome is. The world goes as it does, and if God wills it, something will happen. I believe that living in a house surrounded by accumulated rubbish is appalling. I'm sorry if you don't agree. I fear I wouldn't want to call on you, then. RGloucester — ☎ 02:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

    Well, what one person finds appalling doesn't necessarily hold true for everyone else, I suppose. I wouldn't say that's a misuse of the word. About dustmen, I'm not convinced it's an appropriate analogy to begin with. Dustmen collect rubbish, which by definition no one wants to keep around. Administrators, on the other hand, don't strictly collect rubbish. Some of the 'rubbish' they collect is valued by its creators, but no one else; some of it has been vigorously debated by a variety of editors, many of whom probably disagree with each other; and some of it is other editors themselves, whom it is offensive and dehumanising to liken to rubbish: while some 'editors' are not here to build an encyclopedia, often being here just to mess it up, others are genuinely trying to help, and many of these have been around for years and had a reasonable, even excellent track record before the time came for them to be dumped in the rubbish bin. Admittedly, different admins work in different areas, but 'rubbish' in the usual sense still isn't their sole focus by any stretch of the imagination. A better analogy would be policemen (though they are not elected either, so we are mostly back to square one). ekips39 04:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

    There is a reason why the symbol of the administrator is the mop. Their job is to clean up rubbish, and get rid of it. They remove vandals and vandalism, they delete rubbish pages, and they do what they can to keep rubbish out of articles. They are exactly dustmen, and I believe that we've got a lot of dust that's not being cleaned up. I know plenty of good and hardworking administrators. At the same time, I see intransigence across the administrator class. Many are reluctant to get involved in messes that are clearly detrimental to the encyclopaedia, even when they have tools like discretionary sanctions available to them. We must get past this intransigence. We must have dustmen that can remove rubbish, not dustmen that are afraid to do so. It is that simple. The first way to ensure that dustmen are capable of doing their job is by treating them like dustmen. Politics must be removed form the equation. RGloucester — ☎ 06:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

    That would be great. Unfortunately, the proposed system would introduce an additional layer of politics (campaigning for a seat on the Administrative Standards Commission) and simultaneously shift the existing politics to a less open, less transparent, more manipulable context. —David Levy 07:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

    No, it would allow dustmen to be dustmen, and allow politicians to politicians. Commissioners would be politicians, but administrators would be dustmen. This allows administrators to return to their original function, and removes their political role. This is similar to how Jimbo originally appointed administrators himself. That was a much better system, and if anyone cares to propose it, I'd support removing RfA and only allowing Jimbo to appoint administrators. RGloucester — ☎ 15:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

    No, it would allow dustmen to be dustmen, and allow politicians to politicians. Commissioners would be politicians, but administrators would be dustmen.
    Firstly, as I noted in my initial response to this proposal, we need less bureaucracy, not more. The way forward is to address the problem that's developed at RfA, not to "move the mess" (as Reticulated Spline described it) by making "elections" an official part of the adminship process. Secondly...
    This allows administrators to return to their original function, and removes their political role.
    If anything, it would have the opposite effect. Suddenly, the path to adminship would run through thirteen specific editors and their friends. Simply impress at least seven commissioners, and you're in.
    To be clear, I'm not referring to any sort of misconduct. I mean that the new form of "politicking" would be to behave in a manner most likely to be viewed in a favorable light by members of the commission (by participating in similar activities, expressing similar views, avoiding contentious areas, etc.). No longer would prospective administrators face torch- and pitchfork-wielding mobs, but we'd simply be trading that problem for a worse one.
    This is similar to how Jimbo originally appointed administrators himself. That was a much better system, and if anyone cares to propose it, I'd support removing RfA and only allowing Jimbo to appoint administrators.
    Wow. In an earlier reply, I nearly mentioned that option in jest (but decided that this was excessively hyperbolic). Your serious support is rather disconcerting. —David Levy 19:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

    And the other symbol of administrators is the banhammer. It's not often mentioned on Misplaced Pages, but one can think of the mop handle as serving that function, and in any case there is no denying its validity as a symbol. Reasoning of the form 'X is symbolised by Y, therefore Y is an accurate and full description of X' is fallacious because it confuses cause and effect. Finally, I'll reiterate that not all blocked editors are vandals, since apparently I was too long-winded the first time around and failed to make my point. How is any of this relevant? Because administrative tasks are not nearly so uncontroversial as to be merely collecting rubbish, and therefore we ought to take a good deal more care with administrators than with dustmen. The absurdity of electing dustmen has no bearing on whether to elect or appoint administrators. ekips39 20:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

    RGloucester's basic problem is that he has taken the symbols and analogies we use to help make clear what the role of a Misplaced Pages admin is and reified them into a hard-and-fast concrete concept which he takes to be the actual reality of that role. Thus, a "dustman" or a "janitor" can be helpful in understanding one aspect of an admin's job, and the mop can be emblematic of that role, but that doesn't mean that an admin is a dustman or that the janitorial role they perform is the only aspect of what they do. To RGloucester, however, an admin is a dustman, period, full stop, and therefore anything which applies to a dustman must apply to an admin. There's little need to point out the scope of this conceptual error, and the part it plays in his (clear and evident) advocacy of this terrible proposal. BMK (talk) 22:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

30. Oppose RfA is the best transparent way and I have no problems with the process. Those who think the process deters editors, need to understand that editors must have confidence in themselves before running for RfA. This alternative is doesn't feel good. Harsh (talk) 07:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
31. Very strong oppose There is nothing wrong with the RfA process. The perceived trouble is just a natural and unavoidable consequence of its open nature. The alternative, however, is to make the process less open and less democratic, for instance by having some commission in charge as proposed here. But this severely flawed. First, this proposal is far too underdeveloped to be taken seriously and should have been discussed in the Idea Lab first. Any serious replacement for RfA must be precise, e.g., how many commissioners, how are they elected, and so on. In fact, how would the election or appointment of commissioners be any less controversial than RfA itself? Plus, if there's a commission, it means fewer eyeballs scrutinizing candidates and that means a less thorough vetting process too. But the worst part of the idea is the extra layer of bureaucracy. This proposal would further erode the open nature of Misplaced Pages and it would probably cause more trouble than currently exists with RfA. Jason Quinn (talk) 14:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    The point is to make it less open and democratic. Democracy is the problem, and appointment is the solution. Being "open" and "democratic" is not always a good thing. Perhaps you didn't read the proposal page at WP:ASC, but all of that stuff is already written. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    I did miss that link so until I get to read it I'm striking my one concern above but changing the RfA process to be less open and less democratic is why I'm saying this proposal must fail. This comes bundled with a whole new set of troubles that I don't think are worth the effort, not the least of which is taking Misplaced Pages one bit further away from being the "encyclopedia any one can edit" by centralizing power. Otherwise your comment seems consistent with what I wrote. Jason Quinn (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

32. Oppose Half-baked with insufficient ground work done before the proposal ever saw the light of day. Proposal after proposal has died because people refuse to do any sort of problem identification and problem solving, and instead come up with a solution that will fix everything (though they don't know what the 'everything' is). I will not support this nor any other proposal that refuses to proceed in a horse before the cart fashion. Just because someone can come up with a solution doesn't mean it addresses any problems that truly exist. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    The problem is mob democracy, and the way RfA makes editors become politicians in order to become an administrator. They should be civil servants, and civil servants are not elected. My proposal renders them into their proper role. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    With respect, you don't really know. Lots of people have ideas about the problems of RFA but nobody has done a true analysis. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

    #Strong Oppose - I might support this as supplementary to RfA, but I doubt it. This essentially removes the ability of the community to decide who is or isn't worthy of being an administrator, which I find is quite important. Further, it removes the ability of the applicant to discuss the reasons why people oppose them; this is something that, as an admin hopeful, I feel I need. When I apply for adminship, part of the point will be to get that feedback on my conduct whether or not my request is successful. RfA may need improvements, but a committee to appoint administrators is not the solution. demize (t · c) 16:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Moved to support demize (t · c) 00:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

33. Oppose RFA needs a wide range of input across the community, people who have past knowledge of the candidate and those who can did into their past actions. I can't see how the ASC could get a broad enough range of views. What I would like to see is the bureaucrats playing a much more active part in moderating RfA to eliminate the nastier end of the comments.--Salix alba (talk): 19:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
34. Oppose I understand the urge to replace or supplement a process that is deemed "broken" (although it managed to make a lot of good users admins) but this proposal doesn't seem to be a step in the right direction. Those who claim that this proposal will remove the "democracy"-problem with RfA fail to see that it just shifts it to another level. Not the admin candidates would have to be politicians then but those who want to serve in the ASC. Also, the proposal as it currently stands would allow seven editors working together to appoint a large number of bad admins or to block a large number of good editors from becoming admins. I'm not completely opposed to concentrating power when it serves a valid purpose (e.g. with ArbCom to have an efficient dispute resolution process) but any concentration of power in the hands of a few editors should neither be the first nor the only resort (which is why ArbCom is the final step in the dispute resolution process for example). Regards SoWhy 21:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
35. Oppose - Misplaced Pages needs better, more neutral administrators, not more administrators. Guy1890 (talk) 21:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
36. In this case, it is incredibly naive to believe that a less transparent process would lead to a more desirable outcome. There is no assurance that this process will address the existing problems in RfA regarding low amount of applicants - instead all it does is shift the power from the community towards select individuals. Instead of demonstrating competency towards the community, they will instead need to campaign towards those individuals. It is a dangerous assertion to make that these individuals are more capable of making this decision than the community. Is it more likely that more people will be promoted through this process? Probably. Will the candidates be similarly vetted and tested for competency? Probably not. —Dark 04:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
37. Oppose I'm also concerned that the commission could easily tend towards cliquishness, that this proposal amounts to swapping democracy for oligarchy, and that it would be very difficult for a commission to really know all would-be administrators, especially without excessive politicking. --BDD (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
38. Oppose I do not want a competing process to RfA. I am not convinced that the problems described are serious enough to merit this drastic and shocking change. I would support the creation of a board to support the community in other ways, but I am not convinced that granting more userright flags is going to improve community health. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
39. Oppose I feel that community support for sysops is an essential requirement. Further, adminship through ASC would make the position truly special, a status that is already contested as being a "big deal" when it shouldn't be. Mkdw 00:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
40. Thank you, RGloucester, for your willingness to think critically about RFA and your courage in bringing this proposal forward despite the contention you must have known you'd get. The proposal has its merits, but I must oppose it. Democracy guarantees very little, except that we deserve the leaders we get. Misplaced Pages must always deserve its admins. Lagrange613 02:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
41. Oppose Not the right solution. wctaiwan (talk) 04:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
42. Oppose Reforming the RfA is a good idea, but a new committee is (mostly) a step in the wrong direction. I would much rather support putting a term limit on adminship (repeat adminship possible), and incorporating a review of user's recent admin/admin-like actions as a more explicit factor in the RfA process. Having admins appoint other admins seems to counter the crowdsourcing spirit of Misplaced Pages.Forbes72 (talk) 06:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
43. Oppose - RFA should be a community thing still - Yes we have far to many people and yes the RFA needs sorting but IMHO cutting all the community out isn't the answer, What happened if some admins thought "hmm yeah this persons perfect for the bit" when basically the entire community would've maybe thought otherwise ..... then all shit would hit the fan no doubt, It's a great idea but just don't think it'll work here for long sorry, –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
44. Oppose I don't at all like the idea of a few people deciding who should be admins when the admins are supposed to have the support of the community to enforce its consensus. Also given that the WMF has sad numerous times that they require an editor to be selected by an RFA or RFA-like process before being granted access to deleted content I don't see how this could work. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
45. Oppose per the previous opposes. I think each person in the community needs to be able to have a voice in deciding who becomes an administrator. I don't agree with the rationale that democratically-electing admins is the problem with RFA, or that making the process into a bureaucratic one involving a cabal that appoints admins would be an improvement over the current process. The way I see it, the problem with RFA isn't the fact that the community elects administrators - it's that there's a lack of guidelines for voting and so people, being people, will use their own guidelines and will make the process difficult. Although the RFA process needs to be improved, I don't think this proposal will improve it. Ca2james (talk) 17:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
46. Weak oppose: This idea might have potential—especially for desysopping—but its structure gives whoever's on the commission a great deal of power, and systems that concentrate power are generally not in Misplaced Pages's interest except as necessary evils (like ArbCom). RfA has its share of problems, but it at least reflects the idea of "community trust" as the baseline requirement of adminship. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 19:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
47. Oppose, reluctantly, since I think something on these lines would be useful; but the question asked is "Should we implement this proposal as specified," and I cannot support this as written. First, I disagree strongly with attempts to cast admins and non-admins as separate groups with conflicting aims who need constitutional protection from each other. Certainly, this body should not be admin-only, but I think it should be left to the electorate to choose the people best qualified for the work, and I hope the Commission would operate by discussion and generally by consensus, not dividing along party lines. People who believe that existing admins want to make appointing new ones difficult so as to cling onto their POWER (Mwahahaha!!) should consider that they are greatly outnumbered in the electorate, and so are unlikely to be able to dominate this Commission if they are generally distrusted. At most, reserve three seats each for admins and non-admins, to ensure they each have some representation. Even more, I disagree with appointment on a bare majority. We should not be aiming to lower the standard, just to make the selection process less stressful. The Commission should not appoint a candidate who six of them think unsuitable; I would want to see at least a 10 - 3 majority. Finally, I think the idea that this group should also be searching for candidates involves a degree of COI: they may be reluctant to criticise a candidate sponsored by one of their number. Searching and selection should be separated. JohnCD (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
48. Oppose. Editors have been having endless disussions about what's wrong with the RfA. This proposal is one result of the dissatisfaction and impatience with the current process. I respect the creator of the proposal and many of the support voters as well, but I, like many others, don't think this is the answer. We don't need another bureaucracy that somehow interrelates with bureaucrats and the community and ArbCom and god knows what else. I also see people complaining about this process if it were implemented. Although I am not opposed to fixing what is "wrong" with the current process, I think we may have to accept that no process is without flaws. Perhaps then our expectations will be more reasonable as to what can be done.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
49. Oppose TLDR: Adminship is not a big deal. Their selection process should reflect that.
    In reply to SilkTork (oppose #20), RGloucester said that "Some people don't want to be administrators because they don't want to play that role." Perhaps. But what role is that? Administrators are enabled to do a wide variety of things - and required to do none at all. There is no role for an admin. Being an admin just means that you are generally familiar with the encyclopedia and its policies, have shown that you can follow them, and have minimal good judgment.† And it means you get to help out occasionally when you see a problem. It is no big deal.
    Current admin selection tries to reflects that - it follows a procedure roughly comparable to that of deleting a page. There's a discussion, then a decision. And if not everyone quite agrees on what the guidelines for making that decision are, it's still done as a simple, routine process. Conversely, if this proposal is adopted - a special, globally elected commission dedicated to selecting admins - we will be saying that being an admin is not merely a big deal, but such a big deal that the community can't be trusted to make the selections on its own. That being an admin is such a huge deal that it takes a special commission on the level of ArbCom to select them. I shudder to think what that could do to the role of the admin. – Philosopher  01:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
    † Yes, I said minimal - and that's all that's needed for most admin purposes. Most of the truly complicated cases or cases that require more-than-minimal judgment are discussed by the community, reducing the admin to mere button-pusher. Similarly, while there are a few areas that require some particular expertise, that same minimal judgment will tell the admin to stay away until they've acquired that expertise. Which is why we don't grill all candidates on all areas of becoming an admin in every RfA. – Philosopher  01:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
50. Oppose Per the above. There are bad apples in the community, but thats a problem for the community to fix, and a reason to shift away from democrtically elected administrators. Haymaker (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
51. Oppose The system we have has worked for years now and per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
52. Oppose. The politicization of adminship — the afaik widely-acknowledged fact that those who want to help the project as admins can't edit controversial topics before seeking the vote, lest people oppose them for having the 'wrong' position on the topic — is a problem. But I don't think this proposal solves the problem: when US senators were elected by state legislators rather than directly by the people at large, they were not any less political / partisan. They were, however, less accountable / harder to hold to account. -sche (talk) 04:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
53. Oppose – Nothing wrong with the current system. – Smyth\ 11:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
54. Oppose. I don't like the way this moves adminship away from the community. Anyone should be free to present themselves as an admin candidate and find out what the community thinks about them. There have been people in the past who opposed all self-noms, or opposed candidates who hadn't worked on featured articles -- these shouldn't be the gatekeepers for whether an adminship request succeeds or not. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
55. Oppose - There is wrong with the RFA process. The problem is that there are many editors who are active, and in good standing, who really ought to be admins, but aren't. Having been an admin for a number of years, it really is "not a big deal". It is useful having the tools to be able to step in and deal with non-productive editors at the click of a mouse, rather than having to ask someone else to do so. It is also useful sometimes in being able to correct one's own errors! One fear I had when I decided to run for adminship was that it would cut down on my editing. This has generally not proved to be the case. As an admin, you don't have to get involved in any dispute or deal with any case should you chose not to. If you are eligible, please consider running, you never know, you might even succeed! Mjroots (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

    Or, if you don't succeed, you might become one of the people who are so disgusted by their colleagues that you quit editing (or cut back significantly). I don't honestly remember the last time I encouraged someone that I liked to undergo RFA; it's probably been several years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

56. Oppose - This proposal to make a substantial additional bureaucracy to run parallel to the current system and disenfranchise much of the community is not the appropriate change to make at this time. I agree with Jehochman that we must "encourage more editors to stand for RfA, and to encourage better civility and respect at RfA." - tucoxn\ 22:20, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
57. Oppose the creation of additional bureaucracy which would only serve to remove the community from adminship decisions and put the power in the hands of a shadowy cabal. Mihaister (talk) 23:21, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
58. Oppose Although I respectfully disagree with Chris troutman above, I think this would be a step in the wrong direction. Miniapolis 23:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
59. Oppose --Surturz (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
60. Oppose: To me, the most important thing to remember about being an admin is that IT'S NO BIG DEAL. AT ALL. With every step towards creating a more elite process, that fundamental truth gets lost. This process seems to not only "christen" certain chosen editors, but then add an ADDITIONAL level of even more prestige--the admin appointing oligarchs. Admins are just editors with extra tools, and the culture needs to swing towards reinforcing that notion and not creating a hierarchy. What makes Misplaced Pages one of the top 5 internet sites is not the police, but the law-abiding citizens, toiling away on making better content. And if the requirement to be able to add content is "Anyone can do it, unless you abuse the privilege," that should be the basic requirement for being an admin as well. Some bureaucracy is necessary, but it should be viewed as a necessary evil that we should be backing away from every chance we get—not expanding. Our energies need to be going almost 100% towards what will DISqualify you as an admin, not what will qualify you as one. I would just as soon give it to anyone who wants it, and only snatch it if and when they begin to abuse it. The fact that Misplaced Pages:Requests for de-adminship is underdeveloped is the core of the problem.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 04:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
61. Strong Oppose I didn't think it was even possible to create a more opaque bureaucratic system than the one WP already has, but I was clearly wrong. Word "Kafkaesque" readily comes to mind. Primaler (talk) 05:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
62. Oppose - more bureaucracy, more clique-e-ness, less accountability for admins, less community control? That's 0/4. WilyD 14:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
63. Oppose Especially the part giving the power to remove administrators--as I understand it, without the involvement of arb com or even an appeal to arb com. This would in effect create two arb coms, and we have trouble enough managing the associated bureaucracy of our single one. And if it does allow an appeal to arb com, essentially every removal will probably be appealed there, it's just adding an extra step and prolonging disputes. DGG ( talk ) 20:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
64. Oppose I agree that RfA needs to be improved, but I'm not convinced this process would make it less of a hell week. My own RfA was fairly stressful (mostly because I gave a bad initial answer to one of the questions), but most of the people arguing over my answer were pretty established editors anyway (including a few arbitrators). When your answers and editing history are being relentlessly picked over for mistakes, it doesn't matter if thirteen or a hundred-odd editors are doing it - and if most of the committee hasn't interacted with the candidate, that part might even get worse. TheCatalyst31 04:21, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
65. Oppose Super bad idea. Feels like bureaucrats are gradually stealing WP away from the community. – nafSadh did say 04:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
66. Oppose Too much process wonkery, potential for less oversight. Spencer 05:08, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
67. Oppose: After thinking on this for a long time, I'm coming down here. I think that having an appointments board would create a de facto two-tier ranking of admins – elected and appointed – which would be toxic and cause conflict, giving those who dislike an appointed admin a stick to beat them with. On desysoppings, we already have ArbCom and efforts should be on improving that system. Likewise, the recent run of successful RfAs shows it's not broken, we just need to encourage people who have been discouraged by the negative hype around it. BethNaught (talk) 17:27, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
68. Oppose Don't really see the problem with the current system, and especially no need for the creation of a bunch more special positions. IMO, a system that works by appointment is a very bad idea – we only have to look at the House of Lords to see what inevitably happens... Even more concerning is the part of the proposal re revoking admin rights – it's quite easy to piss a small group of people off (particularly if they have the same mindset), and I'm concerned this could lead to a few ANI-type witchhunts where decisions are made on spurious evidence in a short time period. Number 57 19:51, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
69. Oppose: I don't think this is a terrible suggestion, and do believe it's motivated by a sincere desire to improve the process of selecting admins. Nevertheless, I don't believe that adminship will be improved by electing commissioners who then nominate editors. While this proposed practice may increase the number of needed administrators, and obviate the requirement that editors be especially diplomatic, I believe that diplomacy and cool-headedness is one of the characteristics we rely most on in admins, even when many of their actions are simply bureaucratic. Furthermore, because of their substantial powers, I would rather that the entire wikipedia community participate in the selection process. As messy as this democratic process is, I believe it works far better than in most democratic examples to be found outside Misplaced Pages. -Darouet (talk) 21:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
70. Oppose on principle of not disenfranchising the community in this process. Per Mellowed Fillmore and others. Michael Barera (talk) 23:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
71. Oppose, while the current system has issues, the proposed system is not any better. Reading the opening line of the WP:ASC scream "Good old boy network. Jeepday (talk) 23:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
72. Oppose This will just bureaucratize the system. May be next time we need another committee to address the issues related to ASC and the procedure of committees being invented will continue! This is not what we should do. Admin is "One who administers, especially one who works as a manager in a business, government agency, or school 1" Mhhossein (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
73. Oppose. The solution to bureaucracy is not more bureaucracy, nor more special hats, nor more processes. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
74. Oppose - Creating more (or different) forms of bureaucracy goes against what "the Community" needs - which is as simple and efficient a means as possible to enable more established and competent users to undertake administrative tasks, ultimately in support of core purpose of creating and curating encyclopaedic content (while encouraging a mindshift to recognize that adminship should not be viewed as such a "big deal" that otherwise trusted and capable editors are discouraged by a toxic process from even attempting to obtain access to the necesssary admin tools). Azx2 23:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
75. Oppose reluctantly. It has always been my opinion that people should only be granted adminship if they have the confidence of the community and should only loose it if they don't, and creating a Commission is only going to move us further away from that principle. I'm open to some very serious reforms at RfA to streamline the process and encourage more candidates to step forward, but this is not the way to go. CT Cooper · talk 22:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutral (alternative to RfA)

Tentatively neutral extended comment moved to support Ivanvector (talk) 18:34, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

1. OpposeNeutral - I'm strongly in favor of a major reform to the process by which we appoint and remove users from the admin role. As I mentioned on the proposal talk page, I can not support this proposal as written. I agree with the idea of specifically allocating a minimum fixed number of seats to non-administrators. I disagree with specifically allocating a minimum fixed number of seats to administrators. Of course nothing would stop them from being elected to seats that are not allocated to non-administrators. I also have some concerns about transparency, but I'm open to persuasion on that issue.- MrX 17:14, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   As said above, the particulars of the implementation are open discussion. If you'd like to propose a change, please do so in the discussion section above. If you at least support the principle, I would ask for your voice of support, or even a voice of what one might call "neutrality". We have a very narrow window, here, and I'm willing to do whatever work needs to be done to try and get real reform through. RGloucester — ☎ 17:27, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   The RfC states "Should we implement this proposal as specified at the proposal page?" (emphasis added) That doesn't convince me that we're now voting on the idea and will vote on the specifics later. I am more or less neutral on the idea of an admin commission (if properly constituted). I support the idea of a major reform of some sort, mainly because I think we need a streamlined process for desysopping.- MrX 17:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   Nothing in our policy or processes is ever set in stone. That's especially true of a newly formed process. If this passes I'd fully expect a couple follow-up RfCs to sort out details. Gigs (talk) 17:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   That's true, but if this proposal passes, the commission would have seats specifically reserved for admins until such time that the community decides to change it, if it ever does. For that reason, I can't support this.- MrX 20:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

   Would you like to elaborate on your concerns? RGloucester — ☎ 04:55, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

2. Tentatively neutral - we'd be treating a symptom while ignoring the cause of the disease. Poorly written articles (undue weight, NPOV, OR, BLP, N, V, RS, etc.) are, for the most part, the cause which creates the need for ANIs and admins. But what if articles were reviewed in a close or similar manner to the way FAs are reviewed? I think a big part of the problems would disappear. Instead we are dealing with open editing from a variety of persuasions and perspectives, much of which are based on POV, and we end up with articles that are not worthy of inclusion because they are plagued by multiple guideline issues and/or policy violations. RGloucester wisely mentioned above that it should be about quality, not quantity. I see many problem areas that if eliminated, would help eliminate many of the disputes and disruptions on Misplaced Pages, possibly even this issue. Example: I've seen templates that were created under the guise of being a navigational aid for readers but more often than not, they are nothing more than contentious labels based on POV. There is no evidence that such templates actually aid a reader in navigating the encyclopedia, so what real benefit do they serve when we know they give rise to ongoing disputes? If removal resolves the disputes and disruption, why are we perpetuating the fight? By eliminating the root cause of the controversy and disruption, we are resolving many other problems as well. Another example of a problem area that can be resolved includes articles about religion, politics and a percentage of BLPs, all of which are known to be controversial. They are definitely topics we tend to avoid on a first date. Perhaps they could be reviewed like an FA using a qualified editorial committee (with teeth) comprised of neutral reviewers whose decision is final. We already have a Peer Review process, Misplaced Pages:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors, and Misplaced Pages:Cleanup that, if properly combined or united would eliminate a lot of the problems plaguing controversial articles. Attack the problem before it spreads rather than the reverse as we've been doing. Early detection is key to the cure. Atsme☯ 17:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Neutral I can't discount the significance of the issues with the RFA process anymore than I can discount the concerns raised regarding this particular proposal at this point in time. I will reconsider this again later. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
4. No opinion since I haven't read any of the text above and don't intend to. Proposals like this (whatever it is) have zero chance of ever going thru, so why waste time. I see that the vote currently is 27-34 against, but the exact numbers don't matter. To have a ghost of chance of going thru you would be wanting something along the lines of 40-20 in favor, at the very least -- and that, my friend, you are never going to get, and that applies to most any major proposal along these lines; the more people participate, the more the count tends to devolve to 50-50, which means no decision. The current RfA process is what we have and what we going to have going forward, for better or worse. It is what it is and I wouldn't waste too much time worrying about it. Herostratus (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Neutral I haven't read this entire section, but I kind of like the idea for such a commission. What I'm concerned about though is that it might create too much bureaucracy. The community at large should have a direct say as to who becomes an administrator. So, I'm going to stay neutral on this for the moment. Sam.gov (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Neutral. How about we give it a test run of a year as an advisory body? I.e. this body would issue recommendations on whether the community should support or reject a candidacy. It could become a helpful guide for some voters, and a test in how such a body would operate compared to the current system. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
7. Neutral - I'm not against reform of the RfA process; it is a bear pit of disfunction, However, I'm not sold on this as the answer. I'm also afraid that it would lead us further away from where we started, as a volunteer-run charity, and not in a good way. Bearian (talk) 01:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Use ASC for de-adminship only

I feel that the Administrative Standards Commission (ASC) could be a useful entity, but not as proposed. Instead, I would suggest that the group be formed solely for the purpose of handling cases concerning the removal of adminship. I note that this proposal received opposition partly because of its focus on bureaucrats. If the ASC was used for admin review, the benefit would be that the users reviewing such cases had been specifically selected for the job, whereas crats were not elected to handle de-adminship cases. Also, using the ASC in this manner would help to lighten the ArbCom workload, as suggested above. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 23:38, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (de-adminship)

Support (de-adminship)

1. Support if it takes the power to de-sysop away from ArbCom (which may still remain limited to other remedial measures such as bans / definite blocks against admin abuse as issues may overlap their scope). --lTopGunl (talk) 14:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Support with the proviso that it not necessarily remain an exclusive purpose in the long term, to relieve the burden on ArbCom. Placing too much work on the shoulders of too few creates problems both in the area of retaining those few in such roles and potentially in overburdening those few with too much work which could theoretically result in some mistakes on their part. John Carter (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Weak support, assuming it were structured properly. I'm not thinking specifically about desysopping, but about the broader context that it's tricky to seek review of admin actions. A committee with a narrow focus on good-faith review, with perhaps the option to desysop or force a confirmation RfA for serious or repeated issues, might be worthwhile. I'm imagining that the most common negative result that such a committee ought to produce would be admonishment, rather than tangible sanctions. I'm still concerned that committee membership could be a position of power—concentrations of power are not good for Misplaced Pages—but it might be a worthwhile tradeoff if it helped make adminship "no big deal" as it ought to be. {{Nihiltres|talk|edits}} 20:16, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Oppose (de-adminship)

1. Oppose. As discussed above, my objections to the original proposal go far beyond concerns regarding the hypothetical commission's specific role. I don't know whether I'm inclined to support any proposal to create a group "solely for the purpose of handling cases concerning the removal of adminship" (in part because we already have the ArbCom), but I know that I don't support this one. —David Levy 23:49, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

   There's a proposal to break ArbCom into smaller boards, this might seem consistent with that, should it get consensus. And, IMO, this should be a subsection of that discussion while remaining an independent proposal but relate to it. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

2. Oppose – Please don't use this proposal for your own purposes. This goes against the very purpose of the ASC. The original reason it was devised was to appoint admiistrators. Administrative review is secondary to that, and it would not even have that power initially. Make your own proposal. Please don't muck up this RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 00:58, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

   I agree that forking the ASC proposal was a bad idea, but please be mindful of WP:OWN. —David Levy 01:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

   I don't need to be "mindful" of anything. If someone one wants to make a proposal that bears no relation to WP:ASC, they should make that proposal separately. This RfC is about the WP:ASC, not about a hypothetical administrative review body. RGloucester — ☎ 01:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

   I borrowed your basic structural concept because I thought it was the best option. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but I'm not going to undo anything. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

   Again, I agree that forking the proposal was a bad idea. My response was simply a reminder that it isn't forbidden. —David Levy 02:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

   David is right. I don't know if this proposal was moved from a subsection of ASC discussion to here or it was actually created as a separate thread. If it was the latter, I'd say Mellowed did you a courtesy.. either way, it will have a separate consensus than the main ASC discussion so I am putting in a support because even if there is no consensus for ASC, this may have some chance. --lTopGunl (talk) 14:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

   I'm the one that made it a separate section. It was originally attached to the other proposal. RGloucester — ☎ 16:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

   I guess that makes it square. I do believe ArbCom should comprise independent committees such as ASC and ArbCom(s) should rather be a blanket name than a one in all committee. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

3. Oppose - it's not a bad idea in theory, but misplaced here. If we're going to create the ASC, it should have full power to conduct promotion and demotion of administrators, not merely one or the other. Ivanvector (talk) 18:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Oppose We have an arbcom, why make another committee? Chillum 18:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Oppose. If ArbCom needs reform, then reform ArbCom. Otherwise, don't fix what's not broke, and especially don't fix one cabal with another. Lagrange613 03:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
6. Oppose - Arbcom does this just fine I think... –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
7. Oppose A parallel ArbCom just for removing admins seems like a lot of extra work for very little (if any) benefit. – Philosopher  01:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
8. Oppose While not as monumentally terrible an idea as the main proposal, this one is still pretty pointless. It would essentially create a micro-ArbCom that can do one thing and one thing only. Exactly how that would be in any way beneficial is a mystery not even Columbo could solve. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
9. Oppose. ArbCom is not broken nor overwhelmed. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
10. Oppose – ArbCom isn't getting many cases these days and is capable of doing this job satisfactorily. If ArbCom is ever broken-up though, this should be re-considered. CT Cooper · talk 22:14, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Neutral (de-adminship)

1. Neutral - I'd like to Oppose this, but as a Non-Admin I do not feel qualified to vote. That said, I feel that if a governing body is empowered to remove Adminship, then it seemingly should be just as empowered, qualified, and experienced enough to grant it. --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

   Scalhotrod: As an admin, I don't think that being an admin has anything to do with whether you are qualified to vote here.  ;) That said, the sheer number of proposals that have been put forward at various times can be a bit off-putting. I know I haven't even begun to read them all. – Philosopher  01:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

   Philosopher: I will say that I aspire to be an Admin some day and as such I would hope that the the process would be "better" or at least less painful than my impression of RfA. Having a committee or process that was solely for the removal of Admins seems like it could get even more political than RfA is now, anything with that much power and authority should be allowed to "create" as well as "delete". Just my 2 cents... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

2. Neutral - As I'm not yet an admin, I can't properly say whether I support or oppose the use of a committee to determine whether a current administrator is still fit for adminship. I would be inclined to support if it worked similarly to ArbCom: if admins needed to be brought to the committee by the community and the community was allowed to express their concerns openly. As it stands, it seems rather like a cabal with secret meetings and as a non-admin I can't properly form an opinion on that yet. demize (t · c) 17:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Neutral learning towards oppose. Yet another arbcom? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Giant changes to RfA not likely to pass

It seems every week someone has invented the better mousetrap and it never passes, and this has been going on for years. There are 3 proposals on this page right now to radically redefine RfA now and probably over 50 in the archives. We are stuck in a loop and we need to take a different approach.

Instead of people constantly bringing proposal after proposal to radically change RfA why don't people suggest small, sensible incremental changes at WT:RfA? Simple things like the community defining the expected level of decorum at RfA would go a long ways to improving the current system.

Lets fix what we have, it works pretty well it just needs tuning. Chillum 17:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing sensible about tinkering with bits of archaic rubbish and hoping to make them work properly. To move forward, one must draw up something new. RGloucester — ☎ 17:07, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure RGloucester and myself have never agreed on anything in our lives. However, what he just said is spot-on, in my opinion. The baby is an adolescent with a driver's license now. This is one time we can safely throw out the bathwater. DocumentError (talk) 09:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

In agreement. Smaller scale proposals will have a better chance of passing. PS- Shouldn't this discussion take place on the talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I posting it here because this is where everyone proposes the constant stream of major change proposals for RfA. Yes the talk page is a better place for incremental improvements. Chillum 17:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

They may have a "better chance" of passing, but that doesn't mean they'll solve the problems we face. RGloucester — ☎ 17:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

This might sound ridiculous, I don't know, but for myself I could see maybe doing something like giving each proposed process that has some support and some possible benefits over the current system a "trial period" with some sort of administrative oversight option, maybe lasting a month or two each, or possibly as I indicated on Jimbo's talk page try to implement one or two in some of the foreign language wikipedias desperately lacking in administrators, and then waiting for a year or so and seeing the results of each process. I acknowledge that there would be questions about which good and bad candidates self-select which process, but those questions might not be so major as to be make the results discreditable. I honestly don't see it as being impossible to give each of the proposals some sort of "probationary oversighted" trial period of some sort somewhere in the WF. John Carter (talk) 19:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

There aren't usually so many RfA discussions. The earlier discussion proposing to just shut it down got everyone thinking about it, and now they are all throwing out their ideas. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 08:17, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, what "small, sensible, incremental changes" do you fancy would make a material difference, Chillum? Do you view banning "optional" questions (which of course are nothing but) as such a change? Would taking away the straight popularity contest head count be such a change? Would striking any Oppose vote that's a single-issue hobby horse be such a change?

  The problem is that the system is fundamentally flawed, and will keep on being so as long as the community gets to decide who's an admin or not based on trivialities such as how many XfD edits he has or whether she's ever edited as an IP. Ravenswing 22:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

• The community has recently been blocking and topic banning people who act disruptive at RfA. I suggest we look at what the community expects and try to document. The biggest problem with RfA I can see is tolerance of trolling. Back in 2006 if you acted like an ass at RfA you were shown the door very fast, now we put up with far too much for too long. Chillum 18:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if we get rid of the outright disruption and trolling, there's still the issue with standards creep making adminship more and more of a big deal. Years ago, when upwards of 10 people per month were passing RFA, the average edit count was around 10,000 and successful RFAs with fewer than 5,000 edits weren't uncommon. Now the average is somewhere around 40,000 and few pass with less than 10k. That's a reflection of how much work people are expected to do before they're considered good enough. And that's not even considering the length of time they're required to be active or how active they're required to be. We can make the process as civil as possible, but as long as the standards keep increasing, the pool of users who might actually qualify will keep decreasing. Mr.Z-man 03:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It is a good thing that we are all giving our ideas now. Because the present RFA process is a nuisance. I am afraid that Chillum's proposal, logical as it sounds, may not work, because the way RFA works presently is untenable, imho, and needs more than minor improvements here and there. Debresser (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Since the community has gotten sterner on behavior at RfA they have been far less of a shit fest. The last several candidates have passed. It is out of tune but it is not broken by design. Standards creep is a problem but an exaggerated one. The other problem is that all of the obvious good choices have been drafted already.

I would support an idea along the lines that if not enough admins in a given year are promote to offset attrition that those who failed but had the highest scores would be promoted. Perhaps lowering the bar from 75% to 65% out of necessity. I think we could try it for a single year and then decide to do it again or not based on the results.

The decrease in active admins is not due to a systemic failure, it is due to the easy picks already being picked. It is like gold mining, once all the nuggets are gone you have to search a lot harder to get the same amount. Chillum 12:14, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

"Standards creep is a problem but an exaggerated one ... all of the obvious good choices have been drafted already" - You don't really see the contradiction in that statement? If we were still using the same standards as 2007-2008, there would be a lot more obvious good choices. If we lower the passing bar I would be surprised if people didn't raise their standards to compensate. People who would have otherwise been neutral will oppose instead. A bunch of people have passed recently because we're all talking about RFA. It's an anomaly, and not even an especially large one. Even as recently as last year, 5 people passing in a month wasn't uncommon. We need to have an average of ~5-6 per month just to balance out losses from inactivity. We haven't actually done that since 2010. Mr.Z-man 14:08, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I do concede that recently there has been a lot of editcountitis and some strange thinking that an admin needs a lot of mainspace edits to be a good admin. This sort of standards creep does throw away good candidates. However the development of the communities insistence that a prospective admin have good auditable AfD experience is a good thing I think. Chillum 22:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• The standards are no higher than they have been since the watershed year of 2007 when it was common for a candidate to pass with only 20 or so support votes. What we have now is 100+ support votes being commonplace and a far greater turnout and a more representative opinion from the community of who should pass and who shouldn't. It's not without reason that many claim that the worst admins among our ranks were those elected before and up to 2007. There are in fact no standards being practiced - the standards are what the candidates bring with them; the voters being largely a transient pool of one-off visitors to RfA, set the actual criteria anew with each RfA. Clean up the voting and RfA will clean itself up - like it appears to have been doing over the past coupe of weeks.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Organizational inertia is a terrible disease that affects any old and large organization, and on the Internet, Misplaced Pages is both. I am afraid we will be stuck with a dysfunctional RfA for a long, long time, and if there's any hope, it may have to come through non-democratic (WMF) move, because the democratic community is and likely will forever be "stuck in a loop", as the op states. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, what are you, Gandalf? (Yes, I know there's some fellah running around this page who actually does call himself Gandalf). They'll pass if the community decides they'll pass.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

That made me laugh. It is just that I have seen these proposed for about 8 years now many many dozens of times and not one has come close to passing. It is the community who has spoken over and over and refused these without fail for years now. Rather than saying that they will not pass I suppose it is more accurate to say the are not realistically going to pass. Chillum 22:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• The need is not for administrators as such, but active administrators. As with other activities on WP , a small number of the available people do most of the work. There would be considerable improvement possible in encourage the relatively inactive ones to do a little more. Even a little more if done by enough people will improve the situation. DGG ( talk ) 09:45, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• • I was going to say I think there are active users who are not admins (who could or should be) as they are put off (even in part) by the fact they would have go through that RFA process - civil or otherwise. I don't see why proposals should be shut off altogether; the Community is quite capable of making a decision. The only real issue/flaw I see these proposals suffering from is that some more time should be taken in framing the proposals before they are put for comment here, and that includes reflecting on comments from previously failed proposals and taking into account the factors which the Community was in support of. But in essence, I simply seem to be in agreement with comments made by Mr.Z-man, Volunteer Marek, and DGG above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Restrict title blacklist override and no rate limit to account creation for account creators

The account creator usergroup was given title blacklist override (tboverride) in order to create accounts matching the title blacklist, but the userright allows to override the title blacklist everywhere, so also for moves, pages creations and editing of title blacklist protected pages (used for editnotices, TFAs, etc). A userright allowing override only for account creations (tboverride-account) was created a few years ago, but we didn't switch back then because there was some purpose in allowing selected non-admins to edit those. Now, we have the template editor usergroup, specifically designed for this purpose, so there is no longer any need for it. And account creator is granted increasingly easily to any user who claims to need it for an event or meetup, without regard to experience; this wouldn't be a problem in itself, but this creates a pointless security risk. So we should grant them tboverride-account instead of tboverride. The same goes for the userright bypassing rate limits (noratelimit), which allows to create more than six accounts per 24 hours but also makes page moves unlimited, etc. We could request switching to a userright allowing bypass only for account creations. Cenarium (talk) 13:48, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
PS : Restricting no rate limit will also allow us to give more rate limited rights to all autoconfirmed users without taking big risks, such as a rate limited move subpages userright. Cenarium (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see the point. If people abuse the right, then it should be removed. I think granting them the full lot is a net positive, as it allows them to carry out this work. Unless we are going to make another group to allow people to bypass the blacklist to create pages etc., why reduce the pool of people who can do this? --Mdann52talk to me! 14:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the blacklist bit, but not the rate limit. Reason why? If the bit is abused, it's removed. Since we already have an account specific flag, I see no reason not to use it. However, creating a flag creates some unnecessary technical work, depending on the mood of the devs. What I see more viable is adding a technical featuring that places a time limit on the bit, and automatically removes it after the time limit expires. That would definitely work for account creator bits.—cyberpower _Offline 14:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann We already have that other group now, template editor, which is why I'm suggesting it now. Account creators only use their rights for account creation.

@cyberpower This will also allow us to give more rate limited rights such as a rate limited move subpages feature without taking any additional risk. It's what prompted me to look into this, actually. Cenarium (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused. I understand tboverride, but I don't understand what tboverride-account is. Could you explain better? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

It allows to override the title blacklist when creating an account (some abusive account names are blacklisted), and only when creating an account. Cenarium (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Temporary granting

Since this is used by a lot of class supervisors and the like, it is technically feasible to grant it for a limited period? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Unlikely to be technically feasible anytime soon, see T12493. Cenarium (talk) 20:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Phase 1

I think we certainly can deal with this in a step-wise fashion, without having to have new permissions set built. We frequently run across short term account creator requests at WP:PERM (for workshops, etc) and usually issue them with strong warning to only use that permission for account creation and not to override the blacklist for other reasons, or else. — xaosflux 15:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Change proposed

CHANGE enwiki "Account creators" group permissions as follows:

REMOVE tboverride

ADD tboverride-account (c.f. mw:Extension:TitleBlacklist)

Support

1. As phase proposer, — xaosflux 15:50, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Per above. FYI, I had already filed the bug and was asked to start a discussion - T76050. Cenarium (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Yes. Yes yes yes. I've been wanting this for literally years. I was unaware this right now existed, or I'd have pushed for this a while ago. 01:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
4. Absolutely - This right is designated for creation of new accounts; we should only grant them the rights necessary to create these accounts. de>tboverride-account gives them as jkuch of the ability to do this task as tboverride does, but aloows them to do less other restrcted stuff, so ot's better for this group. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:24, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
5. Support Sounds like a great idea, wish we were aware of it in the previous discussions about the user group. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
6. Support Seems very reasonable to me. tboverride-account is what account creators require, not tboverride. Tony Tan · talk 15:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
7. Support. Very reasonable change. APerson (talk!) 05:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Comment

This is on phab, at phab:T76050. — Revi 06:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Phase 2

About the rate limits (maximum of page moves or other actions allowed per minute or some other duration). noratelimit allows to bypass all those rate limits, as well as the limit of 6 account creations per 24 hours period.

Change proposed

CREATE noratelimit-account enabling to bypass the limit on account creations only

CHANGE enwiki "Account creators" group permissions as follows:

REMOVE noratelimit

ADD noratelimit-account (c.f. mw:Manual:$wgAccountCreationThrottle)

Support

1. So that we can unbundle from sysop or create more rate-limited rights without taking unnecessary risks, such as a rate limited subpage moves. This right was initially given to all autoconfirmed users but had to be restricted to sysops because it didn't respect the rate limits so was massively abused for page move vandalism, I've proposed to modify it so that it does respect the rate limits, making it safe to give back to autoconfirmed users ... unless some of them can easily get assigned a noratelimit userright. Yes, we're restricting a bit here, but those users aren't supposed to use it outside account creations anyway, and it allows to open up elsewhere. Cenarium (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
2. Definitely, the proposed user right would give this group the full account-creating ability that noratelimit gives them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
3. Support this one two, all the group to do what it should be able to do. Then we can look into giving the right to other groups. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:29, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
4. Support as well, because this does not remove any account-creation abilities and account creators do not need to override all rate limits. Tony Tan · talk 15:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Comment

FYI, this need new phab bug, other than the one in Phase 1. (When creating new one, please CC "Revi" so I can tag it or do the patch.) — Revi 06:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Move excess content from redirects with excess content to talk subpages.

Here is a list of redirects with excess content - which is to say, redirects that have more on the page than the redirect target and relevant templates. In some cases, complete articles are sitting below the redirect containing issues that show up on various lists of errors needing repair. In some cases, these materials were left on the page by an editor intending to merge them into the target page at some later date. However, once the redirect is added to the top, the page content is bypassed and any issues are likely to go unobserved and unfixed. To avoid these issues, I propose that the underlying excess content of these pages be moved to talk subpages of the redirect target. Cheers! bd2412 T 04:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Just clicking a few of these, it looks like a lot of the excess content is simply categorization of redirect pages (see Constitution and Convention of the International Telecommunication Union, Constitution of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, Constitution of the Food and Agriculture Organization, etc. I don't think we want to add a bunch of talk pages to these categories, so if we do move them to relevant talk subpages, then a bot or a semi-autonomous process should run through there first and move all the category pages to the relevant redirect pages (I'm assuming here you want to do this as an autonomous process, not manually - if you want to do it manually, then obviously we can just, you know, not include the category portions when we move the content). 0x0077BE 05:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I was thinking more in terms of pages like The Steveson Museum, which contains substantive text and external links. bd2412 T 17:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Coul;d some one generate a list, which excludes categorizations in the page sizes, but is otherwise identical in definition? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The ones that contain categories should be left alone. The purpose of having this:

#REDIRECT ]
 ]

on Acne infantum is so that the synonym will be listed in Category:Acneiform eruptions for anyone who is trying to find out what that means. (Dermatology articles use this a lot; anything displayed in italics in a category is a redirect). WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The category part should be, but if someone places a whole article, complete with categories, on a redirect page - that's a problem. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:01, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The treatment of extra content (meaning hidden articles, not categories) on redirects page depends on the situation. In some cases, the redirect call should be replaced with a {{merge-to}} template. In others, the redirect call should just be deleted to reveal the article. Sometimes the article underneath should simply be deleted. Also, a lot of these are copy/paste moves that need history merges. The universal behind all of these issues is that moving the hidden article to the talk page or a subpage is never helpful to anyone. A human needs to look these over and make decisions. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The issue I have with that is that the redirect on the page makes it harder for a human to look at it (or know that it exists). For example, if a reader right now were to type "The Steveston Museum", they would be taken directly to "Steveston Museum" without actually seeing the redirect page. If an error like a disambiguation link or a broken reference tag exists on the redirect page, an editor looking for the error might not even realize that they have bypassed it, and might spend a few minutes searching the target "Steveston Museum" for the error before scratching their head and moving on to something else. bd2412 T 18:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Not really an issue, at least not for experienced editors. Most users will find page errors through categories, where all redirects appear in italics. So, they will see the italics and see that something weird is going on, and will know to hit the "redirected from" link. Anyways, if you're concerned about this, BD, go thru them and delete/merge/re-article them. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Responsive images

"Responsive web design" is based on CSS formatting that automatically resizes content based on the size of the viewport. It may be a good idea to implement responsive design for images only, so that we can display images in full size to fit the width of a container, be that the full page itself or a portion of it. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Cwobeel: This is probably better for Village pump technical, since I don't really understand your proposal at all. Talk to the techies instead. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: enable "Syntax highlighter" gadget by default for all editors

In my 10 years editing Misplaced Pages, no other tool has been as helpful in making editing more friendly than the Syntax highlighter gadget. I can think of no reason this shouldn't be enabled for everyone (with an option to turn it off for the few who will inevitably dislike it). I am also experienced in teaching newbies about Misplaced Pages - I have taught over a 100 student editors - and all them unanimously said they prefer editing with rather than without this gadget. Even if one dislikes it (and I can't really think why), I'd urge you to allow it to be the default add-on for the majority whose editing experience is going to be vastly improved as a result of turning this on. Ping creator, User:Remember the dot. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:39, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Known issues page for this tool says it does not work with Internet Explorer. I would oppose making it the default unless it some mechanism can detect the editor is using Internet Explorer and disable the Syntax highlighter for those editing sessions. Jc3s5h (talk) 02:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

While I see your point, the tool, as far as I can tell, causes no problems in IE - it just wouldn't change the default behavior of IE at all. I have tested IE a bit (a few student prefer it, and I observed them too) and nobody ever run into any issue. It would be great if the gadget could work with IE, but it not working with it doesn't affect anybody much. We should not deny this tool to Chrome/Firefox users because IE users would not benefit from it... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:59, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't tried it in IE; it would need to be tested before it becomes a default for IE users to determine that it at least does no harm. The developer(s) would have to commit to testing new releases in IE to insure they don't break anything. Jc3s5h (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I've revised mw:User:Remember the dot/Syntax highlighter#Known issues to clarify that the highlighter will not even attempt to execute if Internet Explorer is detected. This was a condition of making it a gadget in the first place. —Remember the dot 06:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Opposed for now as I'm more concerned with the technical implications and what conflicts it may have with other gadgets that are much more powerful and useful such as wikEd (even just wikEddiff). If we were going to make some tool a default, I would much prefer this much more powerful tool. I do have a couple minor concerns with that as well, I know it had issues coexisting with the code editor, but code editor seems to have disappeared. I'd like to see much more testing of either gadget before deciding it should be a default on gadget. This seems like a decent candidate for an Individual Engagement Grant to see what more new editors and readers who may edit anonymously on occasion might think. Please ping me with a link if a proposal is made there. — {{U|Technical 13}} 04:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  wikEd won't highlight syntax as you type it, and on Linux it disables the Ctrl+Shift+X shortcut for "Redo". The syntax highlighter also has the advantage of being much smaller and faster to download compared to wikEd. I'm ambivalent about turning the syntax highlighter on by default, but I definitely do not want wikEd on by default. Oh, and if you find a bug in the syntax highlighter, please report it to me. —Remember the dot 06:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Rtd, I think you're missing my point, which may be my fault if I poorly worded it. Let me "try" to clarify. While I appreciate your tool, and am happy to hear that new users working on small pages seem to benefit from it, I think the proposal here was poorly thought out and poorly excuted in a way that I believe will doom It to failure. What I propose is for Piotrus to officialy withdraw this proposal and you and them (and I'm willing to help in any way I can) thoroughly test this script in all environments (OS/browser/skin) available and make sure it works. While working on that, I'd love to see some research done by the WMF per a grant like I suggested above to see how beneficial it is to "non-regular" editors. Based on that data, and having a fully functional script, then take some time putting together a well thought-out and worded proposal for this again. Does that sound fair and reasonable? — {{U|Technical 13}} 21:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

    You're probably right that obtaining a research grant and concrete data is the only way that the community will accept this. I might be able to collaborate on such a grant, but I wouldn't want to spearhead it. As far as this proposal, I likewise doubt that it will succeed, but we might get some interesting comments if we leave it open. —Remember the dot 21:17, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

    • @Technical 13 and Remember the dot: I am afraid I have little experience (or time for) learning how IEG work, but I do think that it would be worthwile to have WMF examine this. Is any of you familiar with who in WMF may be interested in looking at this discussion? My WMF contacts are related to the Education Program, rather than UI development. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Opposed to turning anything like this on by default. I don't need or want this feature; if others do that's fine, but let them turn it on themselves. I don't want this or other similar add-ons suddenly appearing by surprise and disrupting my volunteer work here. Townlake (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• Opposed I used this for a while and it was problematically slow on very large pages which I deal with often. Chillum 18:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  The syntax highlighter automatically disables itself if it takes more than 100ms to execute, and that value is customizable. Maybe you'd like to suggest a lower default timeout? —Remember the dot 20:13, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• In my experience it causes up to 3 seconds of page freeze before it finishes disabling itself with a 100ms timer. Again, this is for very large pages. Chillum 22:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for the feedback. I just modified the code to detect earlier that it's going to time out, so hopefully you won't see delays up to 3 seconds anymore. —Remember the dot 04:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Chillum: Are you sure you are not confusing syntax highlighter with wikiEd? I tested both, and sh loads quickly on all pages, including long ones like this, whereas wikiEd gives me long - about 3s indeed - delays. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Yes I know what I was running. There are a lot of OS/browser combos on different hardware, it is going to vary in behavior. Javascript is far from predictable across browsers. Chillum 05:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Opposed I have no idea what this is, and am not helped by the first sentence on the linked page about it: "I've created a script that makes syntax stand out colorfully in the edit box". What on earth does that mean? Unitl a feature can be explained better than that, I see no point in it. HiLo48 (talk) 19:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  A picture tells a thousand words... —Remember the dot 20:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

No it doesn't. Are you serious? Put yourself in the position of someone who has no idea what it is, and seriously think if that picture explains anything. I still have no idea what it is and what use it would be to me. New systems are needed if there are problems with existing ones. This looks more like an incomprehensible, really crappy solution to a non-existent problem. HiLo48 (talk) 21:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

I've now added a link to Syntax highlighting at the beginning of the documentation so that anyone unfamiliar with the concept will be able to more easily familiarize themselves with it. —Remember the dot 23:02, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It would be better to try to explain it right there in clear, simple language. "...makes syntax stand out colorfully in the edit box" seems simple, but it's not clear. HiLo48 (talk) 21:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I sort of agree. A picture is worth something and undoubtedly HiLo is able to see from the image that what we're talking about here is the wiki markup of ref, infobox, wikilink etc. However, from Piotrus's opening statement I couldn't guess that--I thought he was talking about the syntax of English. Remember the dot, I am sure you can explain in a sentence or two what this tool does; doing so will help your case. For now, I'm totally with Chillum; even loading the Twinkle menu is already slowing me down to the point where I'm even more than normally irritated. Drmies (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: I am certainly conscious of loading speeds, which is why I wouldn't suggest to make wikiEd a default tool (it lags terribly for me). Syntax highligher, however, has (both for me and my students) been a lag-free add-on, it loads in much less than a second - I'd say instantly - on any edit page I've tried and observed (on a number of computers). Have you experienced any lagging caused by it? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@HiLo48: Is the current description page better formatted? If it is still inadequate, what further improvements would you suggest - and can you point to a gadget or feature that you think has a "best practices" description page? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose If we're still discussing things like reasonable default timeout values, then it's not ready to be turned on by default (and I'm actually concerned about the timeout anyway: will some editors experience seemingly random behavior where the feature sometimes works and sometimes doesn't depending on invisible factors that impact loading time?). I also have a more personal aesthetic objection: I prefer more traditional syntax highlighting where the tokens themselves are given a different style rather than changing the background. Changing text background introduces much more visual weight and clutter. I'm guessing this approach is due to a technical restriction, given that it is the only style option available. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

  It's not seemingly random; if you've ever had this happen to you, you will have noticed the message that appears to explain why syntax highlighting isn't available. And yes, the background-highlighting approach is because of technical restrictions. —Remember the dot 21:30, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose for now, generally on account of issues, possibly including performance, but I am open to reconsidering if a better case can be made. If seems very useful despite its warts then perhaps prominent suggestion can be made on how to enable it. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I would just like to say how much I enjoy using the syntax highlighter tool. I am a poor typist, and I find it invaluable in finding mismatched brackets, etc. If it can't be a default tool, perhaps there is a way to advertise it to new users, since it appears that there are some who don't know of its existence. If I were an IE user, this tool would be enough to make me switch.—Anne Delong (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  If you love it, maybe you can help others by explaining it in better words than "I've created a script that makes syntax stand out colorfully in the edit box". I'm still unclear on what it does and why it's useful. HiLo48 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  @HiLo48: It makes editing pages easier, because it's easier to find specific bits of markup that would normally be lost in a sea of text (this is what it feels like to me, anyway, particularly when editing larger articles). Using this gadget, markup gets highlighted in groups so you can differentiate between templates, wikilinks, formatting, HTML, and actual prose. I, JethroBT 23:28, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks. That's a lot clearer. HiLo48 (talk) 03:08, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  Don't believe him, HiLo--that's just what a bot would say. Skynet, anyone? Seriously, I'm still waiting, as are others, on a good sales pitch. Obvious syntax issues aren't problematic; it's the tricky ones that are bothersome, like the stupid syntax for tables. I remember it once took three editors and an hour or so to figure out that it was an errant hard return that fucked up an infobox. Does it spot that? Drmies (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  Although the more obvious syntax errors may not be as hard to find as the example you give, they occur much more frequently, and each one eats up a little time. The syntax highlighter makes it obvious, even to people like me with rather poor eyesight, when there are mismatched apostrophes, or when a square bracket has snuck in where a curly one was intended. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  Actually, that's a really good example (the brackets) of something that bothers me as well--old age. But I wouldn't want another piece of interface in between with, as I expect, a relatively low payoff. YMMV, of course. Drmies (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

  @HiLo48: For me, the major advantage for new editors is that it allows them to find editable prose text easily, without having to parse through code, which can be daunting for the newbies (particularly when it comes to references or tables). Advanced editors should also benefit from the ability to quickly distinguish code from prose due to the visible background changes. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  Anne, I think you have a good idea here: we need a good way to "advertise" gadgets and tools to editors, so that people can find the tools that they would benefit from (without having to go through dozens of items in prefs). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Couldn't the syntax highlighter be turned on and off by a toggle in the edit toolbar ? It would be off by default and the toggle wouldn't even be displayed in browsers where it couldn't work. If possible, it should remember if it's been turned on or off from one edit to the next (otherwise, add an option in preferences to turn it on by default, but it wouldn't be as handy). This way it wouldn't bother anyone not interested in it but would be readily accessible for anyone who may be interested. Cenarium (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• @Cenarium: That's a good idea, but it raises the wider question of why aren't (more) preferences accessible from one's toolbar? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• I really like this tool and used it for a while but turned it off because I do a lot of work where I open numerous pages at the same time (using multi-links) and when doing so using the Syntax highlighter the loading takes a really long time, and with it failing pretty much across the board.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't noticed this, but I haven't been opening many pages often. This does sound like a bug for User:Remember the dot to investigate further? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the feedback. I just modified the code to improve its load time, so hopefully it will fail less often now. Honestly though, I'm a bit surprised that so many people are now complaining of performance limitations because the script rarely times out on me, even on my phone. —Remember the dot 04:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

  I've also had very few timeout issues. I, JethroBT 04:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - I've never used the tool and sure as hell don't plan on using it any time soon. –Davey2010 • (talk) 04:50, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose it as a default. I sure wouldn't want a load of highlighting to interfere with the readability of an edit window, and I'm still unsure, after reading the posts above and looking at that picture, what the heck it's supposed to tell us. What 'syntax' is referred to - grammatical, programming or what? If it's to do with the grammar, no way. I'd be happy with a spellchecker that could lightly mark 'form' when it should be 'from' (and so on and so froth), but that's very unlikely to ever happen. I think we'd find that a lot of people would just ignore the highlighting because they wouldn't know what it was for. Or what to do about it. If it's to do with coding, even fewer will know what it means. It may be fine for those that want it, but don't try to force it like the WMF do so often. Peridon (talk) 18:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks like it is coding. Is it for 'geek level' coding, or 'page editing level' coding? Peridon (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Support: I've started to use the syntax highlighter for the first time since seeing this discussion: it's brilliant. I was editing an article where the original editor had put punctuation after refs instead of before: the highlighter coloured the refs so it was much easier to skip to the end of a group of two or three adjacent refs, spot the punctuation, move it to the right place. I'll be using it regularly now. It's timed out on me once so far, but produced an obvious, and comprehensible, notice to say so. I think it might well be helpful if it was a default: the colouring clearly indicates something, and by looking at it you can see what. Without the colour, a very new editor is much more likely to accidentally edit within a reference or otherwise get in a mess. I can't see that it would do any harm to anyone. Having started this message off as "Comment", I've talked myself into changing that to "Support". Failing that, as Anne says, we need a better mechanism for telling people about the useful gadgets, rather than expecting new editors to browse the "gadgets" tab in "preferences" and work out for themselves how useful something will be. PamD 18:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Shortcut templates

RfC: Simple easing of RfA

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Misplaced Pages proposals When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Various proposals for major RfA reform have failed. I propose a simple easing of existing guidelines. The RfA page currently says "Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. As a rule of thumb, most of those above 80% approval pass; most of those below 70% fail; the judgment of passing is subject to bureaucratic discretion (and in some cases further discussion)". I propose simply lowering the guidelines by 5%. This would not alter the fact that RfA's are closed primarily based upon the strength of rationales presented. This change would reflect the fact that we have plentiful votes to block inappropriate candidates, and it would encourage a slight easing of when a close should consider applying default-pass or default-fail. Alsee (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Discussion (easing RFA)

What fraction of past RfAs would fall into this newly-broadened range? How many RfAs – from, let's say, the last couple of years – would have landed in the new 65-70% window?

And of those, how many of those RfAs did not present legitimate concerns that might incline a 'crat to reject the candidate anyway? If the intent is to extend the window over which 'crats can exercise discretion (practically speaking, to allow 'crats to exercise significant discretion which they were strongly discouraged from doing before) how many candidates would actually have been 'saved'? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify how this would change anything? The current wording states that bureaucrats typically pass users with above 80% approval, not that they always approve candidates above 80.00% approval regardless of anything else. Changing this by 5% would appear to just be misrepresenting what actually happens. Sam Walton (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

This would hardly make any difference in numbers passing. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Support (easing RFA)

• Support as RfC author. Alsee (talk) 14:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This is probably the most straightforward way to increase the number of sysops. I have not noticed a particularly strong correlation between the level of support candidates receive and the quality of their subsequent performance. James500 (talk) 23:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Oppose (easing RFA)

• Oppose – Ideally, we'd move completely away from this idea of numerical approval numbers. These should be like any other Misplaced Pages discussion, not determined by percentage, but by the strength of what people say. The idea of "reducing the threshold" implies we should have a numerical threshold at all, and I'm opposed to that. RGloucester — ☎ 23:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per RGloucester. — {{U|Technical 13}} 23:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Samwalton9 and RGloucester. This proposal appears to be based on a misunderstanding of the numbers' significance (which the suggested change would promote). —David Levy 23:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose A rule of thumb should not be made authoritative which while not perhaps the intent of this proposal, would unfortunately be it's impact. I've seen an RfA with 69% go to bureaucratic discussion not that long ago, there is some flexibility in the system. PaleAqua (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per RGloucester. Steel1943 (talk) 03:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages proposals
• Pages automatically checked for accidental language links
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment